Aircraft Vs Thread 4

[Ratchet]

Raytheon Selected by Boeing for F-15e Radar Modernization Program

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Nov. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon's (NYSE: RTN)

revolutionary active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar has been

selected by The Boeing Company to supply next-generation capabilities to

the U.S. Air Force for the F-15E Strike Eagle.

The source selection award covers AESA radar development, the

production of test assets for the system design and development program and

production options for retrofit of the 224 F-15Es in the U.S. Air Force

fleet.

"Raytheon is extremely proud to build on its more than 35-year legacy

on the F-15E and F-15C, working hand in glove with our Boeing and Air Force

customers to ensure our technology continues to make a critical difference

to the aviators we support," said Jon Jones, president of Raytheon Space

and Airborne Systems, which developed the radar. "We're confident this

revolutionary radar will perform well beyond expectations."

Jones noted that Raytheon's AESA technology would take the F-15E to a

new operational level of simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground

capabilities that will keep the aircraft a critical part of the U.S. Air

Force's force structure through 2035.

"The superior situational awareness, tactical flexibility, and greater

target, track and detection ranges will bring a new dimension to this

already formidable fighter," said Dr. Tom Kennedy, vice president for the

Tactical Airborne Systems group of SAS. "Additionally, we have built in

capabilities for future enhancements such as radar common data link."

The development program is expected to start in 2008 and will run

parallel with the United States Air Force and Air National Guard F-15C AESA

program already in progress.

Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems is a leading provider of sensor

systems giving military forces the most accurate and timely actionable

intelligence available for the network-centric battlefield. With 2006

revenues of $4.3 billion and 12,000 employees, SAS is headquartered in El

Segundo, Calif. Additional facilities are in Goleta, Calif.; Forest, Miss.;

Dallas, McKinney and Plano, Texas; and several international locations.

Raytheon Company, with 2006 sales of $20.3 billion, is a technology

leader specializing in defense, homeland security and other government

markets throughout the world. With a history of innovation spanning 85

years, Raytheon provides state-of-the-art electronics, mission systems

integration and other capabilities in the areas of sensing; effects; and

command, control, communications and intelligence systems, as well as a

broad range of mission support services. With headquarters in Waltham,

Mass., Raytheon employs 73,000 people worldwide.

Contact:

Faith Jennings

310 334 2553 office

310 977 1963 mobile

faith_jennings@raytheon.com

SOURCE Raytheon Company

[kalvasflam]

Uh oh... it's starting to look a lot more like Airbus

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...-of-747-8f.html

It's time to go down hill.... yeah, I know, they have a good excuse... didn't Airbus also have one?

We'll see how this plays out over the next year.

Edited November 9, 2007 by kalvasflam

[David Hingtgen]

I've got to undo alot of work I did on the wing root of the leading edge... Apparently there is a gap there that I thought was a model error.

That's probably the remnants of the inboard leading edge flap--technically the LEX vent. It physically still exists, just immobile. You can see it deployed on early models though.

As for the vents on the upper rear fuselage---exhaust for the environmental systems.

Here's an early F-18E with the LEX vent deployed--it goes down further than the LE flaps. Its main purpose is actually to dump the air and allow it to flow THROUGH the LEX at high alpha--basically the LEX can work TOO well in some conditions. Production models use the spoilers only, so they're apparently sufficient. But the LEX vent flap is still 100% there on production models, just unused. Easily visible when the LE flaps are down. I have plenty of pics of the production version's "remnants" if you want.

As for the gear door edges--they're perfectly done from the factory, and the actual extreme "edge" of the door isn't red---but that only lasts until the first touch-up. Then it's pretty haphhazardly applied. The "actual" intended painted area is is the border area of the inside face--about 1 or 2 inches in. I do have pics, but no good ones, and most are of "atypical" situations so wouldn't be very helpful. Just paint the edges of the doors on the inside surface. Many people just use a red Sharpie marker.

[Beltane70]

That F-18E picture looks like it just may have been taken at Lakehurst. I live only 20 minutes from there, but have yet to see any F-18s flying around.

[the white drew carey]

Someone on www.artwanted.com posted this photo that I thought was pretty cool:

Here's the actual page: http://www.artwanted.com/imageview.cfm?id=...SaveComment=Yes

Edited November 10, 2007 by the white drew carey

[Fatalist]

Are those the tails of S3's? If so, the shamrock ones (don't remember the real name of the squadron) are based out of San Diego.

[Warmaker]

I think they are S-3's, especially with the squadron designations starting in "VS-"

Are they phasing out S-3's? Does the Navy have any CV-deployable ASW aircraft slated to replace them? Subs are the "next big thing" for Navies around the world for the past couple years.

Edited November 11, 2007 by Warmaker

[Fatalist]

Not to derail the topic, but I saw that article on how a chinese sub popped up in the middle of some Naval exercises.

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates...uring-exercise/

[yellowlightman]

Not to derail the topic, but I saw that article on how a chinese sub popped up in the middle of some Naval exercises.

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates...uring-exercise/

If you look at the blog post (surely a great source for news) your link refers to, it's two sources are a Daily Mail news story from the other day and a CBS News story from November 2006. The Daily Mail is a British tabloid, and the story they posted was an exaggeration of an event that happened LAST November.

Here's a story about it from an actual (reputable) news source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6146520.stm

Just goes to show how it important it is to question sources.

[eugimon]

Not to derail the topic, but I saw that article on how a chinese sub popped up in the middle of some Naval exercises.

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates...uring-exercise/

good, it's about time the western powers woke up and realized china isn't just some country full of dumb farmers and slave labour. They were the dominant force in half the world for 4 thousand years and sooner or later they're going to make a move to be it again.

[buddhafabio]

I think they are S-3's, especially with the squadron designations starting in "VS-"

Are they phasing out S-3's? Does the Navy have any CV-deployable ASW aircraft slated to replace them? Subs are the "next big thing" for Navies around the world for the past couple years.

nope the navy is getting a boeing bigbird one of the 757 or 767 airframe land based plane to replace the s-3 and the p-3 orion.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

They were the dominant force in half the world for 4 thousand years and sooner or later they're going to make a move to be it again.

Not commenting on China's future potential (if you must know, I think militarily they are still far, far off from catching up with the US. All those Pentagon 'warnings' remind me of the 'Bomber Gap' again).

As for your above comment, well, that could roughly apply to Persia, Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Mongolia, England and even Spain! (if you discount the 4000 years. I don't think even China dominated for 4000 years. They weren't even united until about 200BC)

[Noyhauser]

Uh oh... it's starting to look a lot more like Airbus

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...-of-747-8f.html

It's time to go down hill.... yeah, I know, they have a good excuse... didn't Airbus also have one?

We'll see how this plays out over the next year.

More "like uh oh, starting to look alot more like Boeing." Anybody who thinks that Boeing is some model of efficiency that so much better than Airbus or other companies are deluding themselves. Its a good company, does great work, but it is also all too failable.

Here is an really interesting article from the NYT from the next generation reconnaissance satelite that Boeing messed up on. Five billion dollars down the drain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/washingt...agewanted=print

[kalvasflam]

More "like uh oh, starting to look alot more like Boeing." Anybody who thinks that Boeing is some model of efficiency that so much better than Airbus or other companies are deluding themselves. Its a good company, does great work, but it is also all too failable.

Here is an really interesting article from the NYT from the next generation reconnaissance satelite that Boeing messed up on. Five billion dollars down the drain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/washingt...agewanted=print

You got the point exactly, a lot of people have been buying into the 787, and people have for the most part tended to forget that Boeing was in a lot of trouble during the early 2000s. Just have to keep in mind that not everything is roses like Boeing keeps putting out to everyone. And the 787 especially can be a real disaster if things continue to not go well.

[David Hingtgen]

nope the navy is getting a boeing bigbird one of the 757 or 767 airframe land based plane to replace the s-3 and the p-3 orion.

737-800. Will be the P-8 Poseidon. World's only missile-firing 737.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/p8a/index.html

http://www.navair.navy.mil/mma/

[buddhafabio]

737-800. Will be the P-8 Poseidon. World's only missile-firing 737.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/p8a/index.html

http://www.navair.navy.mil/mma/

i knew it was a 7-7 series plane just couldnt remember which one. and i thought Boeing closed the 737 line already

[David Hingtgen]

Nope, but the 757 line is closed. 767 barely struggles along---it's only open because they're hoping for the tanker contract, otherwise it just pumps out like a freighter a month (because the MD-11F is gone, and the 777F is still "in the future

) Rumor is the 797 will be the 737 replacement, but that's a ways off.

[the white drew carey]

Nope, but the 757 line is closed. 767 barely struggles along---it's only open because they're hoping for the tanker contract, otherwise it just pumps out like a freighter a month (because the MD-11F is gone, and the 777F is still "in the future

) Rumor is the 797 will be the 737 replacement, but that's a ways off.

OK, I'm tard when it compared to people like David, but I would expect that the S-3/P-3 replacement would be something a little more rugged. Don't those planes get subjected to a lot of bumps and bangs when/if they're working at low altitude for extended periods? I just can't see an the 737 doing this.

[Warmaker]

None of the mentioned planes are carrier deployable, something the S-3 was able to do. The P-3 covered great range from shores to conduct patrol & ASW missions. But the S-3 and fulfilled a multitude of roles outside of ASW also. The SH-60's are being used for ASW also, but they lack the range of the S-3's.

[kalvasflam]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/airb...D04B5BE46B51%7D

No surprise, I wonder how much of this is really because of Boeing's delays and the woes with the 787. Sure, it doesn't take anything off the customers they have now, it's the future customers they have to worry about. But on the other hand Emirates seem to be ballooning a little too fast, wonder when that will come back and bite them.

[David Hingtgen]

Just remember the P-3 was a converted airliner also.

[Noyhauser]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/airb...D04B5BE46B51%7D

No surprise, I wonder how much of this is really because of Boeing's delays and the woes with the 787. Sure, it doesn't take anything off the customers they have now, it's the future customers they have to worry about. But on the other hand Emirates seem to be ballooning a little too fast, wonder when that will come back and bite them.

and here is your answer

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1/f0f356c2-9101-11...00779fd2ac.html

(crap... just realized its in the pay section of FT.)

here is the good bits

Capacity growth on this scale dwarfs expected demand. Passenger traffic volume has grown on average by 7.5 per cent a year globally since 2003, according to IATA, and is expected to slow to 6.8 per cent a year until 2011. Morgan Stanley expects European and Middle East capacity to grow by 6 per cent this year and 4 per cent next, but it will increase sharply after 2008.

The airline industry as a whole has been lossmaking for the past six years, although IATA expects it to move into a small net profit this year. Middle Eastern airlines were in the black to the tune of just $200m in 2006. It is not just their own profitability that will be eroded as the mismatch between capacity and demand worsens. All long-haul carriers will feel the squeeze.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Noyhauser

[kalvasflam]

and here is your answer

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1/f0f356c2-9101-11...00779fd2ac.html

(crap... just realized its in the pay section of FT.)

here is the good bits

very interesting, there is some economy to be gained with 787 and A350s, but the funny thing is all these foreign carriers are going crazy, and if a large downturn hits the world economy, those airlines will be canceling a lot of their orders. The scary thing about Emirates is that much of their capacity would be new, and not replacements like BA.

[Warmaker]

nope the navy is getting a boeing bigbird one of the 757 or 767 airframe land based plane to replace the s-3 and the p-3 orion.

Interesting about the complete retirement with no replacement of the S-3. I understand the change for the shore based P-3.

I know the SH-60s can load Torpedoes, but they're not long ranged.

So I guess the Super Hornet is supposed to drop Torpedoes also?

[kalvasflam]

Interesting about the complete retirement with no replacement of the S-3. I understand the change for the shore based P-3.

I know the SH-60s can load Torpedoes, but they're not long ranged.

So I guess the Super Hornet is supposed to drop Torpedoes also?

You mean in an anti-ship role? Ha ha ha ha, now that would be funny.

[David Hingtgen]

Torpedoes were carried on planes many years prior to any helicopter doing so. It just hasn't been done for a while, with planes preferring anti-ship missiles.

[kalvasflam]

Torpedoes were carried on planes many years prior to any helicopter doing so. It just hasn't been done for a while, with planes preferring anti-ship missiles.

No dammit, I demand the days of the Devastators and Avengers; except with jets, and hopefully the torpedoes are rocket powered. Well, the truth is, S-3 was a jet, and it did carry torpedoes. But I want good old torpedo planes for anti-ship roles.

Remember, you can survive a missile hit, but not a torpedo hit, after all, the best way to sink a ship is to put a hole in it and let water in.

Funny thing though, if you could somehow fit a modern torpedo on a WWII torpedo plan, it would still be just as effective a merchie killer as any jet armed with missiles (as long as you could get to the target on time)

[Warmaker]

You mean in an anti-ship role? Ha ha ha ha, now that would be funny.

You know torpedoes can be used against subs, right?...

A but of "edumacation" (I'll use FAS references)

S-3B Viking (or the dreaded wiki entry)

Mk-50 Torpedo

Mk-48 Torpedo

Mk-46 Torpedo

Naval Warfare isn't my biggest field of knowledge, but I have dabbled in reading enough on the subjects.

The S-3B is capable of the Anti-Ship role. Take a look at the armaments (cut & paste action from the FAS link):

"Up to 3,958 pounds (1,781 kg)

AGM-84 Harpoon

AGM-65 Maverick missiles

torpedoes, mines, rockets and bombs."

If you think torpedoes are merely like their WWII sakes, completely with TBF Avengers dropping them on torpedo runs, you're wrong. They have long ranges (several km worth) and self-guided. Torpedoes are as much a danger to a submarine as they are to surface ships.

I was wondering what the USN was going to do for a longer reaching ASW role. Helos are short ranged. I have yet to see or even hear of ANY Hornet variant (A thru F) even equip and use a torpedo or some other ASW weapon (FAS again, specifically the armaments section).

I know Anti-Submarine Warfare isn't "sexy" or cool and all, but it's a damn important role with more countries opting for submarines for the last couple of years.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Warmaker

[kalvasflam]

I know Anti-Submarine Warfare isn't "sexy" or cool and all, but it's a damn important role with more countries opting for submarines for the last couple of years.

You realize I was being a little sarcastic right?

That said, you're dead wrong, I know nothing sexier than an air dropped torpedo that turns a billion dollar boomer into a sinking wreck. Nor is there anything sexier than pouncing on a fast attack that's about to pop a couple of merchies carrying heavy armor bound for Europe... oops, too old, how about pouncing on a damn diesel that's about to turn a tanker into a nice little ball o fire....

The idea of Hornets for ASW is a bit silly though. Anyone who knows about ASW realize that the Hornet just doesn't have the capacity to do the job, there is not enough room for personnel for one thing, nor does it have the necessary payload capacity to carry 40 sonobouys, nor is it likely to be able to add a MAD stinger on its airframe.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Funny thing though, if you could somehow fit a modern torpedo on a WWII torpedo plan, it would still be just as effective a merchie killer as any jet armed with missiles (as long as you could get to the target on time)

Same can be said of virtually all weapons. The vehicle is just a carrier for the weapon.

You McGuyver an AMRAAM onto a P-40 and it'll take out a Tu-95 just the same.

Stick a modern 120mm gun onto a PzIV chassis and it'll take out a modern tank.

[kalvasflam]

Same can be said of virtually all weapons. The vehicle is just a carrier for the weapon.

You McGuyver an AMRAAM onto a P-40 and it'll take out a Tu-95 just the same.

Stick a modern 120mm gun onto a PzIV chassis and it'll take out a modern tank.

The degree of effectiveness is different though. Merchies are defenseless, modern tanks are not, a PzIV without the fire and control system of a modern MBT has no chance in a combat situation. TU-95s, I guess you can make an argument for the Bears, because you would need a radar to let you know where the TU-95 is, otherwise, cannons on a P-40 will be just as effective.

[VF-19]

A better choice would be a Sidewinder. You could just forgoe the whole radar problem and just point the missile at the Bear. But yes, taking down Tu-95s with 50 cals would be VERY satisfying. Despite the fact the P-40 wouldn't be able to catch up to it though... A Saber or a Mustang would be a better choice.

[Warmaker]

Speaking of old platforms, I've seen here and there the idea of using turboprop aircraft for COIN (Counterinsurgency) operations.

Propped aircraft are nowhere near as expensive. They also can have long loitering times, a big deal in COIN since you're really looking around for the baddies and / cheapF/A-18's (not the Superbugs) are considered cheap but did cost about $34 million. or just waiting for a call for support. They're also easier to maintain.

I've seen some guys talk about the Pro / Con of using such aircraft for COIN ops. There are only 2 reall big Con's that I hear brought up. Vulnerability to AAA fire due to slower speed. Vulnerability to MANPADs (Man Portable Air Defense, i.e. Stingers). I'm figuring MANPADs can be dealt with by higher altitude or chaff / flare. Higher performance missiles would be larger, less mobile systems that tend to be found. But AAA fire like 20mm / 23mm, well, that's another story I believe.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

... A Saber or a Mustang would be a better choice.

I don't think a Mustang can catch a Tu-95.

IIRC, the Tu-95 can outrun even an Me-262.

Sabre probably could, but the pilot still has to give it some effort.

Edited November 15, 2007 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Phyrox]

A better choice would be a Sidewinder. You could just forgoe the whole radar problem and just point the missile at the Bear. But yes, taking down Tu-95s with 50 cals would be VERY satisfying. Despite the fact the P-40 wouldn't be able to catch up to it though... A Saber or a Mustang would be a better choice.

A Tu-95 derivative is the fastest production propeller driven AC in the world. Chances are the sleeker bomber version are just as, if not faster.

Mustang is gonna have almost no chance (it's like 100mph slower)

The bear is pretty sturdily built...I'm not sure I'd want to go at it with anything less than cannons.

damn, didn't read the above message, RHTT beat me to it

Edited November 15, 2007 by Phyrox