VF-19 Posted August 19, 2007 Posted August 19, 2007 Excellent shots of the F-14 Valkyrie Hunter D! Just one question to F-14 Gurus... Can the variable intake ramps close that much (with exception of the Orange FOD cover), or is that a modification done on the aircraft to keep people from crawling up the intakes?
F-ZeroOne Posted August 19, 2007 Posted August 19, 2007 Red Baron movie coming, trailer sure looks fun: http://www.pixomondo.com/web/showreel/index.htm That does look like fun, like a video game made into a film.
F-ZeroOne Posted August 19, 2007 Posted August 19, 2007 I've thought for years that they come up with the acronyms first and then try to fit words into it. "Thing with wings there - five rounds rapid."
David Hingtgen Posted August 19, 2007 Posted August 19, 2007 The bottom ramp looks almost unhinged. It's too low. Not excessively, but it is too low. Here's a B I photographed:
Valkyrie Hunter D Posted August 21, 2007 Posted August 21, 2007 Excellent shots of the F-14 Valkyrie Hunter D! Just one question to F-14 Gurus... Can the variable intake ramps close that much (with exception of the Orange FOD cover), or is that a modification done on the aircraft to keep people from crawling up the intakes? Thanks, though I'm not sure about the intake ramps. I wouldn't be able to get too close anyways since a couple of hornets flew out of it.
Nied Posted August 21, 2007 Posted August 21, 2007 Thanks, though I'm not sure about the intake ramps. I wouldn't be able to get too close anyways since a couple of hornets flew out of it. Hornets nesting in a Tomcat intake... I'm sure there's a metaphor there.
Apollo Leader Posted August 22, 2007 Author Posted August 22, 2007 RAF Eurofighters intercept Russian bomber. If I'm right, this is the first intercept/escort picture I've ever seen of a Eurofighter/Typhoon with a Tu-95 Bear. The Cold War has returned!
David Hingtgen Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 Latest Typhoon spec calls for 55 rounds of ammo in the gun. Better not miss...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 Latest Typhoon spec calls for 55 rounds of ammo in the gun. Better not miss... Whats the reason for that?
David Hingtgen Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 Because there's currently no money nor provisions for ammo procurement. Just what's leftover from the retired F3 Tornados (as the IDS Tornados still need theirs for strafing). History of the Typhoon gun: 1. Gun designed and produced. 2. Gun cancelled. 3. Find out there's balance problems with the gun removed--software can't cope. 4. Ballast designed to replace gun's weight. (apparently easier than rewriting software) 5. Find out that the ballast will cost as much to design and produce as the guns do. (WTF? It's a simple block of lead or something) 6. So the already produced guns are put in AS ballast and nothing more. Non-operational. 7. They realize--hey, since we've got the guns, why not use them anyways? But then realize that with the gun program being cancelled, there's no ammo for them...
Lynx7725 Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 Because there's currently no money nor provisions for ammo procurement. Just what's leftover from the retired F3 Tornados (as the IDS Tornados still need theirs for strafing). History of the Typhoon gun: 1. Gun designed and produced. 2. Gun cancelled. 3. Find out there's balance problems with the gun removed--software can't cope. 4. Ballast designed to replace gun's weight. (apparently easier than rewriting software) 5. Find out that the ballast will cost as much to design and produce as the guns do. (WTF? It's a simple block of lead or something) 6. So the already produced guns are put in AS ballast and nothing more. Non-operational. 7. They realize--hey, since we've got the guns, why not use them anyways? But then realize that with the gun program being cancelled, there's no ammo for them... Ah, the joys of military thinking... Seriously speaking though, what's so special about the gun? USN and USAF planes do tend to get economics of scale in production because they use standard equipment, and this is a huge advantage in logistic, so it's a bit strange to see a RAF fighter with this problem.
David Hingtgen Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 There's nothing wrong with it. The MoD just can't make up their mind about using/funding it, so it keeps getting things cancelled, started again, cancelled, started again----and important bits (like ammo, and training how to use it) keep getting forgotten in the mess. And I'm sure they've spent more money cancelling and restarting it than if they'd just fully funded and kept it in the first place. It's just a linkless-ammo version of the Tornado's gun. But it can apparently use the linked Tornado's ammo. Or maybe they had to retrofit the gun to accept Tornado ammo and that's causing a problem. Either way, "lack of ammo since it was cancelled back when" wasn't realized until recently when they re-re-re-decided to make it operational. I think the linkless-ammo version is also going to be used in at least some versions of the JSF. I still can't find a definitive answer for if the Gripen has the linked or linkless version--I suspect linked. It's pretty common modern gun.
joseph Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 MAKS 2007 Photos: http://maks.sukhoi.ru/maks2007.htm KS-172:
kalvasflam Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 Hi-res of the Typhoon escorting the bomber. Ah, the cold war may be starting up again. Good.... they need to buy another 300 F-22 anyway, that might bring down the unit cost of the fighter. Although I wonder what the next stage of development is after the F-22; they better get started soon I think. And the F-35 doesn't really qualify... to me, that's just a bastardized F-22.
Apollo Leader Posted August 23, 2007 Author Posted August 23, 2007 Hi-res of the Typhoon escorting the bomber. Awesome! That's my new desktop.
eugimon Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 David, What's the current thinking on why there wouldn't be a gun? Is it back to the whole: with missiles, guns are useless, rhetoric? I thought vietnam and the six day war pretty much proved guns were still usefull even with missiles?
Loner Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 Ah, the cold war may be starting up again. Good.... they need to buy another 300 F-22 anyway, that might bring down the unit cost of the fighter. Although I wonder what the next stage of development is after the F-22; they better get started soon I think. And the F-35 doesn't really qualify... to me, that's just a bastardized F-22. And the navy is going to need a new long-range intercept fighter. Guess that means it's time for some Super Tomcat 21 or naval version YF-23.
David Hingtgen Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 Real issue is money. Guns cost money to maintain. It costs money to train the people to maintain them. Ammo costs money. Eliminating the gun saves money in several ways. Plus the argument of the AIM-9X, ASRAAM, Meteor, and AMRAAM actually being what they wanted in Vietnam (and Desert Storm)--a missile with a good chance of getting a hit. I've always thought the F-22 occupied two opposite ends of the spectrum: It's a long range high-speed-cruise interceptor stealthy max-range missile kill assassin, or It's a close-in super-agile gun-killer. If it was THAT good at the first one (which it supposedly is), why does it even need the second one?
Graham Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 While it's true missiles are much better now than in the Vietnam War era, there are still things that missiles can't do that only guns can. While of course dedicated ground attack munitions are better for ground targets than guns, you might find yourself all out of bombs but with a ground target that urgently needs taking out, i.e. a truck full of enemy troops racing to capture a downed allied airman...etc. Need to fire a warning shot at a suspected terrorist plane, drug smuggler etc. Good luck trying that with missiles. And while missile-only proponents make a big thing about the ability to take out targets beyond visual range, that is completely irrelvant if your rules of engagement require you to close to visual range and get a visual ID on your target with your mark one eyeball before opening fire. I say keep guns. While they are seldom used, they do get used and it's far better to have them and not need them, than need them and not have them. Graham
kalvasflam Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 I say keep guns. While they are seldom used, they do get used and it's far better to have them and not need them, than need them and not have them. Yep, at least until direct energy weapons become available.... another reason I really don't like the F-35.... too much sci-fi... Guns are definitely still needed, if nothing else, the day may come when an F-22 is called on a gun run, it's awfully sad that the F-35 carries so little ammo, for the number of rounds it's supposed to carry, why even bother. The plane is supposed to be ground attack... it's strange that a ground attack plane carries so little ammo, and basically doesn't even carry that much ground attack ordinance. Stealth I think is becoming highly overrated, after all, there are still good reasons to have B-52s around even though they're not stealthy. They fulfill a needed role when air defenses are suitably suppressed.
Nied Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 Modern guns deal a fair amount of damage to the aircraft that fire them these days too. I remember reading on F-16.net that they try to limit the gun use to a few short bursts during training sorties while in peacetime. The reason being that the vibration and recoil can reduce the airframe life by quite a large amount. One of the more legitimate knocks against all models of the Hornet is that it mounts its gun literally around the radar, and the vibration from firing can cause some serious problems. I think the UK thought that even if they used the gun itself as ballast but never fired it they'd still save themselves millions of pounds a year in maintenance costs, and keep their shiny new Typhoons flying for years longer than they otherwise would have. The thing that really made them change their minds was several instances where guns have come in handy saving the Royal Army and Marines during CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan (and several instances where guns would have come in handy but weren't mounted).
Nied Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 The Royal what now...? Uh oh. Did I screw up an organization name again?
F-ZeroOne Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 I'm afraid you have - although elements of the British Army have "Royal" suffixes, like the Royal Engineers, the Army as a whole is just "the Army". This is apparently because it originated from a number of separate units that formed a land force, rather than being a generally coherent organisation from the off. Its an easy mistake to make though - after all, you did mention the Marines, which are the Royal Marines...
Fatalist Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 Saw THIS on gizmodo just now. Thought ya'll would find it interesting.
Cruel Angel's Thesis Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 A couple of interesting articles about a UCAV stealth bomber the Russians are working on. http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_unv...bomber_999.html http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1885488/posts Cruel Angel's Thesis
eugimon Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 fun, looks like the cold war all over again with a new arms race. hopefully we never get to see which aircraft is more efficient, the b2 or the skat.
Mislovrit Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 fun, looks like the cold war all over again with a new arms race. hopefully we never get to see which aircraft is more efficient, the b2 or the skat.The Cold War never really ended it just the Russians didn't had the money until now to continue the flights.
Mislovrit Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 Guns are definitely still needed, if nothing else, the day may come when an F-22 is called on a gun run, it's awfully sad that the F-35 carries so little ammo, for the number of rounds it's supposed to carry, why even bother. The plane is supposed to be ground attack... it's strange that a ground attack plane carries so little ammo, and basically doesn't even carry that much ground attack ordinance.The day will come pretty soon as just about everything else the USN and USAF have done CAS missions one time or another. Stealth I think is becoming highly overrated, after all, there are still good reasons to have B-52s around even though they're not stealthy. They fulfill a needed role when air defenses are suitably suppressed.Iirc the single biggest reason the USAF can still use the B-52s today and the immediate future is because of the near total air superiority covering them. Soon as the air superiority become seriously contested DoD and Congress will start making useless noises on fielding a new bomber.
electric indigo Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 A couple of interesting articles about a UCAV stealth bomber the Russians are working on. http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_unv...bomber_999.html http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1885488/posts Cruel Angel's Thesis That thing is stunningly ugly, but it is speculated that it's just a decoy mockup. Sukhoi seems to work on a UCAV, too, so there's still hope to see something interesting one day.
Apollo Leader Posted August 26, 2007 Author Posted August 26, 2007 A couple of interesting articles about a UCAV stealth bomber the Russians are working on. http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_unv...bomber_999.html http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1885488/posts Cruel Angel's Thesis For the most part, the Skat looks a bit primitive. In particular the shape and location of the air intake I would think be it's biggest RCS feature. Compare this to the B-2 and both the Boeing and Northrop Grumman UCAVs. The air intakes are located far back from the leading edge and their shapes are clearly much more advanced, even the nearly 20 year old B-2! Not to mention that our flying wing stealth aircraft have a thick belly, thus making it easier to hide the engines. But at the same time, one has to wonder how much of the Skate is made possible because of the technology gleaned from the F-117 shot down over Kosovo?
Apollo Leader Posted August 26, 2007 Author Posted August 26, 2007 Soon as the air superiority become seriously contested DoD and Congress will start making useless noises on fielding a new bomber. And as soon as an actual complete aircraft takes to the air, Congress will get cold feet and either axe the production run significantly (ie. B-2) or all together (ie. B-70 or B-1A). Billions down the drain for nothing.
Recommended Posts