David Hingtgen Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Well, when you think of how small and sleek the basic F-5 frame is, combined with more power than the best of the F-8s, combined with aerodynamic tweaks from the YF-17 team...
Ghost Train Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 I have always wondered about the alternate history in which the F-20 was deployed and went through the same evolution the F-16 had gone over the years. I once did a play-through of AC(4?) completely on a tigershark .
F-ZeroOne Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Chuck Yeager liked the F-20. However, I've read that one problem is that it wouldn't have been as capable of the same upgrades as the F-16, as the airframe would have run out of space for toys sooner. How true that is, I'm not sure...
Vifam7 Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Chuck Yeager liked the F-20. However, I've read that one problem is that it wouldn't have been as capable of the same upgrades as the F-16, as the airframe would have run out of space for toys sooner. How true that is, I'm not sure... I'm sure it would've been possible to upgrade the F-20 as needed if it had entered service. But the F-20 was never meant for front-line USAF or USN service anyways. It's sales targets were USAF/USN adversary squadrons and foreign air forces that wanted an upgrade/replacement for their F-5E Tigers.
F-ZeroOne Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 The F-20 was mooted for the air defence role in the US, a role which was eventually given to modified F-16As. And it was also competing in the same international market as the F-16...
David Hingtgen Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 The F-16ADF only exists as a counter to the F-20. Inferior in every aspect---yet they picked it anyways.
David Hingtgen Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 Oh yeah, was just reminded of something that I myself always forget. For all Sukhois: It's Su. As in, Sue, or Soo. Not Ess-You. MiG is "mig"---not "emm aye gee". Same for Su. F-15 is "eff fif-teen", but Su-27 is properly "sue twenty-seven". Of course, what does that mean for An-72 and Tu-95?
F-ZeroOne Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 The F-16ADF only exists as a counter to the F-20. Inferior in every aspect---yet they picked it anyways. I suspect the supply chain factor might also have played a part; why introduce a totally new type (even if superior) when you're already building something that can do the job effectively? (also, probably politics... )
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 (edited) Well, when you think of how small and sleek the basic F-5 frame is, combined with more power than the best of the F-8s, combined with aerodynamic tweaks from the YF-17 team... I remember when I was a kid (early 80s). There was this defence mag I was reading and they had an advert from Northrup on the F-20 (this was when they were trying to market it to the RSAF, I am from Singapore) and most of the advert space was a graph like thingy showing how the F-20 is fastest in the world to 60000ft or something like that. (cant remember the exact stats) One thing about the F-16 which definitely gives it an advantage over the F-20 is the slightly higher mounted wing and landing gear arrangement. Having to stick with the basic F-5E/G roots, the F-20 didn't have the ability to carry much bulky ordnance like fat bombs for the air-to-ground role. I think even sticking an M-61 in the F-20 to replace the twin M39s would be quite a project. Not sure if the airframe can take engines bigger than a F-404 as well, so it may not be able to accept the current 14-15KN class engines being stuffed into the F-16. Edited November 21, 2009 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
David Hingtgen Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 The F-20 was not intended as a heavy bomber, it is the fastest-scrambling interceptor ever. Even the F-22 could not beat it in the first 5 (or even 10) minutes. (If Ace Combat scenarios were real, every air force would be scrambling over themselves to get some) Also, the F-20 can still carry most any typical bomb, and Mavericks for precision strikes. Just not a whole bunch of them. The "lowest-hanging" arrangement on an F-16 (or just about anything) is a triple-rail Maverick. Most weapons don't need that much clearance. And with even the A-10 not usually carrying Mavericks that way, it's kinda pointless. As for engines---the F414 would fit. 1.4:1 combat ratio with that.
F-ZeroOne Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 I guess we're just going to have to put the F-20 squadrons in our dream Air Force along with the wing of F-23s and the XB-70 bomber fleet...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 (edited) I guess we're just going to have to put the F-20 squadrons in our dream Air Force along with the wing of F-23s and the XB-70 bomber fleet... Don't forget the F12B to go intercept the incoming hordes of Backfires and Blackjacks. Someone is probably going to come along and rant about the Tomcat-21 soon. Edited November 21, 2009 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
Ghost Train Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 My fictitious Army also has a few squadron of Comanches.
Bowen Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 (edited) Possibility of Thrust Vectoring for future Typhoons? http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/...or-typhoon.html Sounds pretty cool, especially the fact that they're thinking it'll help in areas other than aerial combat as well Edited November 22, 2009 by Bowen
F-ZeroOne Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 Hmm, if only there was a rich export customer that likes advanced technology and is in the market for a new fighter to replace its ageing Phantoms...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 Hmm, if only there was a rich export customer that likes advanced technology and is in the market for a new fighter to replace its ageing Phantoms... And who couldn't get their first choice airframe?
F-ZeroOne Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 Japan makes Ace Combat. They know Typhoons look better in black than F-22s.
Vifam7 Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 (edited) Japan makes Ace Combat. They know Typhoons look better in black than F-22s. If you're going to reference Ace Combat, then I think Japan wants their fighters to look more like this. Edited November 23, 2009 by Vifam7
the white drew carey Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 If you're going to reference Ace Combat, then I think Japan wants their fighters to look more like this. Now that is shock an awe. Make me think of Izzard's 1st Battalion Transvestite Brigade.
Ghost Train Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 Ultimate low-vis JP paint scheme concept:
F-ZeroOne Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 (edited) It seems that the anime-emblazoned Typhoon will have to join the Macross World Fantasy Air Force; some recent reports are stating that Japanese military sources are indicating that the F-35 will be their choice. Edited November 23, 2009 by F-ZeroOne
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 As if getting shot down wasn't bad enough, getting shot down by THAT would really add insult to injury!
David Hingtgen Posted December 1, 2009 Posted December 1, 2009 Best Space Shuttle landing footage ever---you rarely get to actually see it "fly". http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=835_1259341193
David Hingtgen Posted December 1, 2009 Posted December 1, 2009 787 passed its 100% static load test. However, several airliners have failed their initial 150% load test, so that remains to be seen. 787 and 747-800 still looking possible to have simultaneous first flights Dec 22.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted December 1, 2009 Posted December 1, 2009 Hmm....imagine if the F-20 made it into service with avionics upgrades enabling it to carry AMRAAMS, HMS, and AIM-9X.
David Hingtgen Posted December 1, 2009 Posted December 1, 2009 The F-20 would certainly have been able to use the same dual-AMRAAM and dual-Sidewinder launchers as the Hornet. It's actually compatible with nearly all Hornet racks/rails.
Sulendil Ang Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 Any news on the F-35? When will the plane finally be officially put into service?
Shadow Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 The Air Force's F-35A is supposed to enter service by 2013 while the STOVL F-35B is intended for 2012 I believe. Not sure when the C model is due.
David Hingtgen Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 Ehh, more like 2013/2014, and don't be surprised for 2015. (I think the current UK and Australian armed forces plans are expecting 2015)
HoveringCheesecake Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 I assume you guys have heard about the new UAV spotted in Afghanistan? The landing gear looks pretty heavy duty - carrier based? Know anything about it, David? http://gizmodo.com/5419363/usaf-confirms-n...t-stealth-plane
Ghost Train Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 As a life-long video game player I sort of like the idea of unmanned warfare in general. In fact, I think all future wars should be fought via proxy RC war machines... and after the fighting is done, we can all go the the UN.org's PVP forum and flame each other out.
David Hingtgen Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 People who are even better at landing gear identificatio than I say the wheels look like an F-14's. (the idea is that they used as many existing parts as possible to get it up and running quickly, much like the YF-23 and X-29) Also, 787 first flight moved up. Keeps changing, 14-18-22-15. But sometime around 2 weeks from now.
Apollo Leader Posted December 7, 2009 Author Posted December 7, 2009 I assume you guys have heard about the new UAV spotted in Afghanistan? The landing gear looks pretty heavy duty - carrier based? Know anything about it, David? http://gizmodo.com/5419363/usaf-confirms-n...t-stealth-plane I see that it's confirmed to be a Lockheed Martin design. Without a doubt it's an operational descendant of Lockheed's Polecat from a few years ago. In a totally unrelated matter, back in late July/early August I was interviewed for a position at Offutt AFB involving the RC-135 flight simulators. In the end I didn't get the job, but I think I came close. Still looking for a job after 8 months of unemployment.
F-ZeroOne Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 (edited) So, who is going to sue Richard Branson first, Paramount Pictures or the US Navy? Nice to see it has proper "nose" art, though! Edited December 9, 2009 by F-ZeroOne
Recommended Posts