Aircraft Vs Super Thread VI

[Nied]

New name: F35 Cheerleader

Meh, I've been saying the F-35C was the best looking version since it's first flight a couple of months ago. The others just don't have the right proportions (F-35A's wings are too small, F-35B has a hump back).

[VF-19]

Interesting. I didn't know Canada was getting carriers again. Knowing my government, we'll get the F-35C with all the extra stuff it won't need. At least it'll hold up to abuse from students!

[Temjin]

Meh, I've been saying the F-35C was the best looking version since it's first flight a couple of months ago. The others just don't have the right proportions (F-35A's wings are too small, F-35B has a hump back).

Other versions are Ok, I don't have a strong opinion about them. I like the top lifting fan with all those little doors flip open on the prototype, looks like they change that on the production version.

[David Hingtgen]

Jolly Rogers Prandtl-Glauert effect:

Large version: http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/100724-N-4236E-764.jpg

[David Hingtgen]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593

Ark Royal decomm'd early, as will be the Harriers. Both QE class CV's to be built, but it seems one will be "hull only" or some such, and won't enter service.

Hmmn. Earlier loss of Harriers, and there was already going to be a gap between the Harrier and the JSF before this. So what, is the UK planning on having no aircraft for their carriers for a decade or so? Maybe you could lease some Super Hornets or Rafales...

[Noyhauser]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593

Ark Royal decomm'd early, as will be the Harriers. Both QE class CV's to be built, but it seems one will be "hull only" or some such, and won't enter service.

Hmmn. Earlier loss of Harriers, and there was already going to be a gap between the Harrier and the JSF before this. So what, is the UK planning on having no aircraft for their carriers for a decade or so? Maybe you could lease some Super Hornets or Rafales...

Thats actually not the shocking announcement. The big one is that they are ditching the STOVL design and building them both as Conventional carriers... and buying F-35Cs instead.This is from the original SDR.

•We will need to operate only one aircraft carrier. We cannot now foresee circumstances in

which the UK would require the scale of strike capability previously planned. We are unlikely

to face adversaries in large-scale air combat. We are far more likely to engage in precision

operations, which may need to overcome sophisticated air defence capabilities. The single carrier

will therefore routinely have 12 fast jets embarked for operations while retaining the capacity to

deploy up to the 36 previously planned, providing combat and intelligence capability much greater

than the existing Harriers. It will be able to carry a wide range of helicopters, including up to 12

Chinook or Merlin transports and eight Apache attack helicopters. The precise mix of aircraft

will depend on the mission, allowing the carrier to support a broad range of operations including

landing a Royal Marines Commando Group, or a Special Forces Squadron conducting a counter-

terrorism strike, assisting with humanitarian crises or the evacuation of UK nationals.

• A single carrier needs to be fully effective. As currently designed, the Queen Elizabeth will not

be fully interoperable with key allies, since their naval jets could not land on it. Pursuit of closer

partnership is a core strategic principle for the Strategic Defence and Security Review because it

is clear that the UK will in most circumstances act militarily as part of a wider coalition. We will

therefore install catapult and arrestor gear. This will delay the in-service date of the new carrier

from 2016 to around 2020. But it will allow greater interoperability with US and French carriers

and naval jets. It provides the basis for developing joint Maritime Task Groups in the future. This

should both ensure continuous carrier-strike availability, and reduce the overall carrier protection

requirements on the rest of the fleet, releasing ships for other naval tasks such as protection of

key sea-lanes, or conducting counter- piracy and narcotics operations.

• The strike needs to be made more capable. Installing the catapult and arrestor will allow the

UK to acquire the carrier-variant of Joint Strike Fighter ready to deploy on the converted carrier

instead of the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant. This version of the jet has a

longer range and greater payload: this, not large numbers of aircraft, is the critical requirement

for precision strike operations in the future. The UK plans to operate a single model of JSF,

instead of different land and naval variants. Overall, the carrier-variant of the JSF will be cheaper,

reducing through-life costs by around 25%.

That's all and good but how are you going to train naval aviators for your new ship? And has anybody explained to them that the French and americans use different catapult systems or there is a difference between the 35A and 35C?

Edited October 20, 2010 by Noyhauser

[David Hingtgen]

The F-35C will be in service even later than the A and B. Again---there's a gap to be filled.

[Lynx7725]

To be honest, a capacity of 36 aircraft seems to make this a baby carrier. I'm not sure if the American pilots can land on something that small...

Sounds like a committee decision -- hash of odd decisions mashed together into a half-baked pie.

I think most likely the carrier will embark with F/A-18s. That's actually fairly common across Commonwealth nations, IIRC. (Australia has F/A-18s, Canada does too, right? India straight out won't use this carrier, but since they have their own...)

[Noyhauser]

Lynx:

The QEs are intended to be large carriers, probably equal in size and capability to the old Essex refits compared to the Nimitz class.They just aren't going to carry much in the way of fighters because the UK doesn't have the money to fully equip them. Their total load is 50 planes, though I think its a bit conservative given the sheer size of the vessel.

The F-35C will be in service even later than the A and B. Again---there's a gap to be filled.

Hey, I don't disagree with you, except I think the problem is not a military/strategic one. Its not like the UK has a dire need for its carrier capabilities between now and 2020. The whole perspective behind this Strategic Defence Review is Austerity; UK is going to be broke for the next ten years anyway and won;t be doing much of anything at all. It would be a pretty dire crisis for it mount any type of operation... and the illustrious offers a pretty minimal capability with its aging hull. The SDR spares the Royal navy's expeditionary capability, with the retention of the HMS Ocean, while the EU battlegroups concept provides some ability to access French capabilities if the need arises.

My concerns stems from a training and force generation standpoint (and maybe yours does too?). Not is there a ten year gap in capabilities, but the FAA is adopting an entirely new technology they haven't used since the early 1970s. The pilots they will use for the QE class will all be fresh, unless they receive some sort of training from their coalition partners, which is tough to pull off. Even more difficult is how to establish flight operations with a deck crew, with no prior knowledge of these systems. The people who will carry this out haven't even left grade school yet... its likely not to go well at the start.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Noyhauser

[F-ZeroOne]

Well, at least we'll have one empty hull to convert to submersible transforming fighter attack carrier status when the need arises...

[Coota0]

My concerns stems from a training and force generation standpoint (and maybe yours does too?). Not is there a ten year gap in capabilities, but the FAA is adopting an entirely new technology they haven't used since the early 1970s. The pilots they will use for the QE class will all be fresh, unless they receive some sort of training from their coalition partners, which is tough to pull off. Even more difficult is how to establish flight operations with a deck crew, with no prior knowledge of these systems. The people who will carry this out haven't even left grade school yet... its likely not to go well at the start.

You'll probably be seeing a lot of FAA Personnel around US bases over the next ten years, as the Brits try to relearn something they invented. At the same time you could have FAA aviators learning the basics at the Joint Squadron at Tyndall, so that when the F-35Cs come online the pilots would then just need to learn carrier operations, or it could be continually trained in simulators until the F-35s come online.

Could the Brits alternativley lease F/A-18s from us in the interim?

Are the Brits planning on cross decking either with us or the Australians or Canadians to bolster the 12 aircraft airwing?

If there is ever a large flare up somewhere with a somewhat equal enemy those FAA pilots are going to be worn down real quick.

[Nied]

Hey, I don't disagree with you, except I think the problem is not a military/strategic one. Its not like the UK has a dire need for its carrier capabilities between now and 2020. The whole perspective behind this Strategic Defence Review is Austerity; UK is going to be broke for the next ten years anyway and won;t be doing much of anything at all. It would be a pretty dire crisis for it mount any type of operation... and the illustrious offers a pretty minimal capability with its aging hull. The SDR spares the Royal navy's expeditionary capability, with the retention of the HMS Ocean, while the EU battlegroups concept provides some ability to access French capabilities if the need arises.

My concerns stems from a training and force generation standpoint (and maybe yours does too?). Not is there a ten year gap in capabilities, but the FAA is adopting an entirely new technology they haven't used since the early 1970s. The pilots they will use for the QE class will all be fresh, unless they receive some sort of training from their coalition partners, which is tough to pull off. Even more difficult is how to establish flight operations with a deck crew, with no prior knowledge of these systems. The people who will carry this out haven't even left grade school yet... its likely not to go well at the start.

I think you might be overestimating the difficulties just a little here. The Aéronavale has already spent a good deal of time cross decking with the US Navy while the Charles De Gaulle was in refit, they made a conscious decision to move away from the old bridle catapults with the introduction of the Rafale and the CDG for precisely that reason. The only big problem is that the QE will be equipped with EMALs catapults vs the steam cats currently used by the Navy and Aéronavale but by the time the FAA has them in service those two will as well, and I don't know how much of a difference they would make from an operational training perspective in the first place.

The bigger question for me is what this means for the US Marines, as this leaves them as the only firm buyer of the F-35B. There are several nations who currently operate Harriers off small deck carriers that could be potential buyers (Italy, Spain, Thailand and India), a few that have seriously considered (re)joining the carrier game (Japan, Australia, Korea), and even a few who think the short/austere field performance of the STOVL version could come in handy (Israel). None of those are the firms orders the UK had though, and getting them on board at this point might be tough now that the unit price just shot up because of the lower production numbers.

All of this is further complicated because the SDSR is disappointingly vague on what exactly the UK is actually going to do. Are they buying all F-35Cs all around? Or is the C model only for the FAA while the RAF get's Bs. Or is the RAF getting out of the STOVL game all together and going for A model Lightnings? It's all damned confusing.

[Bri]

All of this is further complicated because the SDSR is disappointingly vague on what exactly the UK is actually going to do. Are they buying all F-35Cs all around? Or is the C model only for the FAA while the RAF get's Bs. Or is the RAF getting out of the STOVL game all together and going for A model Lightnings? It's all damned confusing.

Think it's going to be F-35Cs all around. The SDSR mentions only one type and initial reports from early october mentioned that the Cameron government was planning to cut the F35 order from 138 to 50 aircraft in total.

They also planned scrapping the entire fleet of 120 GR4 Tornados. The RAF seems to have managed to save the Tornado at the expense of the RAF harriers. The RN managed to keep the surface fleet intact and secure the future of the carrier. The RN harriers and the Ark Royal might have been a fairly small price to pay. I've also read that the harriers performance at close air support in Afganisatan was under critism. Maybe all remaining F35s will go to the RN?

Edited October 20, 2010 by Bri

[Noyhauser]

I think you might be overestimating the difficulties just a little here. The Aéronavale has already spent a good deal of time cross decking with the US Navy while the Charles De Gaulle was in refit, they made a conscious decision to move away from the old bridle catapults with the introduction of the Rafale and the CDG for precisely that reason. The only big problem is that the QE will be equipped with EMALs catapults vs the steam cats currently used by the Navy and Aéronavale but by the time the FAA has them in service those two will as well, and I don't know how much of a difference they would make from an operational training perspective in the first place.

Having a year or two year refit is one thing... the personnel problems aren't serious because you can keep a core group of individuals to bring to the new carrier and train them with your allies. Ten years is very different because almost none of the personnel will remain around. They are either promoted or in all likelihood out of the service all together (Because of budget cutbacks.)You're basically starting from scratch with everything; aircraft maintainers, deck crews, air control and the pilots themselves. Maybe upgrading from ski to catapult isn't that big an issue because its practically no different from starting with nothing for the Royal Navy.

Its also an issue because there will be a major cutback in the number of aircraft the UK will fly. All harriers will all be cut and there will be fewer Tornados available. So where will the FAA pilots get their flight time? I've dealt with regenerating a capability after a significant break on the army side and it was difficult there. Even within two years we saw a significant degradation of skills due to lack of training: beyond that it gets very sketchy. Considering the complexity of a modern carrier and its operations, that problem will be multiplied many times over. These issues aren't very apparent for a large military like the United States that can afford everything, but when you look at Canada, the UK, Australia, cutting capabilities is a dangerous proposition. Once you cut it, then its actually quite difficult to regenerate it because you're starting from scratch. For example one of the reasons why Canada purchased second hand British submarines was that they didn't want to lose the ability to operate submarines. Submarines weren't that required, but the Department was taking a long view and predicting they may need such a capability in two to three decades time.

The bigger question for me is what this means for the US Marines, as this leaves them as the only firm buyer of the F-35B. There are several nations who currently operate Harriers off small deck carriers that could be potential buyers (Italy, Spain, Thailand and India), a few that have seriously considered (re)joining the carrier game (Japan, Australia, Korea), and even a few who think the short/austere field performance of the STOVL version could come in handy (Israel). None of those are the firms orders the UK had though, and getting them on board at this point might be tough now that the unit price just shot up because of the lower production numbers.

Definitely its an issue... then again the Marines seem very good at getting their pieces of kit through no matter how small the order... MV-22 anyone?

All of this is further complicated because the SDSR is disappointingly vague on what exactly the UK is actually going to do. Are they buying all F-35Cs all around? Or is the C model only for the FAA while the RAF get's Bs. Or is the RAF getting out of the STOVL game all together and going for A model Lightnings? It's all damned confusing.

It looks like they are going with a single model... the F-35Cs. This isn't too surprising; the RAF and FAA have been sharing Harriers in a joint force arrangement over Afghanistan. Sharing one fighter now seems to be an extension of that. I suspect they've done the preliminary negotiations with LM and there shouldn't be much of an issue.

You'll probably be seeing a lot of FAA Personnel around US bases over the next ten years' date=' as the Brits try to relearn something they invented. At the same time you could have FAA aviators learning the basics at the Joint Squadron at Tyndall, so that when the F-35Cs come online the pilots would then just need to learn carrier operations, or it could be continually trained in simulators until the F-35s come online. [/quote']

Certainly, but its really a second rate option. To me this part of the plan just seems really poorly thought out and will likely turn out bad in practice.

Could the Brits alternativley lease F/A-18s from us in the interim?

Not according to this budget. The UK just slashed 128 Billion pounds from its budget... some departments lost 25% of their funding and 400' date='000 public sector jobs got slashed. I don't think they are going to be looking at any fighters for the next decade.

Are the Brits planning on cross decking either with us or the Australians or Canadians to bolster the 12 aircraft airwing?

I really doubt that would happen with Canada, maybe Australia. The F-35A is barely going to pass through as is, I doubt there is an appetite to add a carrier air wing to that. There might be some possibility for the Aussies with their amphib capabilities... but that would put significant strain on the Carrier's availability for operations in Europe where the brits have obligations as part of NATO and the ESDP.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Okay boys, I got some Tomcat questions:

1. Read that the F-14 IMI was planned to have the GAU-7/A cannon. My question is, was this going to be mounted internally, or in an external pod?
   
2. Secondly, I've heard the F-14 IMI proposal called the F-14ADC. If anything, I think the mockup looked cool(more range on an already long range fighter). What did ADC stand for?
   

[David Hingtgen]

It stands for Air Defense Command in the USAF. Dunno about the F-14's designation. Anyways:

Saudi Arabia just made a big order. Needs US approval first (but they always do). They want:

84 F-15SA Aircraft

170 APG-63(v)3 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets

193 F-110-GE-129 Improved Performance Engines

100 M61 Vulcan Cannons

100 Link-16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System/Low Volume Terminal (MIDS/LVT) and spares

193 LANTIRN Navigation Pods (3rd Generation-Tiger Eye)

338 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS)

462 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVGS)

300 AIM-9X SIDEWINDER Missiles

25 Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM-9X)

25 Special Air Training Missiles (NATM-9X)

500 AIM-120C/7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)

25 AIM-120 CATMs

1,000 Dual Mode Laser/Global Positioning System (GPS) Guided Munitions (500 lb)

1,000 Dual Mode Laser/GPS Guided Munitions (2000 lb)

1,100 GBU-24 PAVEWAY III Laser Guided Bombs (2000 lb)

1,000 GBU-31B V3 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) (2000 lb)

1,300 CBU-105D/B Sensor Fuzed Weapons (SFW)/Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD)

50 CBU-105 Inert

1,000 MK-82 500lb General Purpose Bombs

6,000 MK-82 500lb Inert Training Bombs

2,000 MK-84 2000lb General Purpose Bombs

2,000 MK-84 2000lb Inert Training Bombs

200,000 20mm Cartridges

400,000 20mm Target Practice Cartridges

400 AGM-84 Block II HARPOON Missiles

600 AGM-88B HARM Missiles

169 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS)

158 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Targeting Systems

169 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems

10 DB-110 Reconnaissance Pods

462 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System Helmets

40 Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receivers (ROVER)

80 Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation Pods

And some Apaches and Blackhawks.

[Vifam7]

It stands for Air Defense Command in the USAF. Dunno about the F-14's designation. Anyways:

Saudi Arabia just made a big order. Needs US approval first (but they always do). They want:

What's the chance of them getting the "OK" from Congress?

And why do they need so much military hardware?

[David Hingtgen]

As I said--they've always gotten approval before, so they'll probably get it this time too. The F-15s alone will keep the St Louis line open for a few more years, so Missouri will support it. I read elsewhere that they intend to upgrade their current F-15S's to Silent Eagle standards in the future, but this new batch will simply be "really really upgraded Strike Eagles".

[Bowen]

Will that IRST system be integrated like on the ol' Tomcat or is it located in a pod (IIRC that's what S-Korea's Slam Eagles have)?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Will that IRST system be integrated like on the ol' Tomcat or is it located in a pod (IIRC that's what S-Korea's Slam Eagles have)?

I think pod, the closest comparison that I've read to F-15SA is the Slam Eagle.

[F-ZeroOne]

Okay boys, I got some Tomcat questions:

1. Read that the F-14 IMI was planned to have the GAU-7/A cannon. My question is, was this going to be mounted internally, or in an external pod?
   
2. Secondly, I've heard the F-14 IMI proposal called the F-14ADC. If anything, I think the mockup looked cool(more range on an already long range fighter). What did ADC stand for?
   

There was a variant of the F-16A, the F-16A ADF (Air Defence Fighter) which was a variant with some upgrades for "home" defence of the USA, something along those lines perhaps?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

There was a variant of the F-16A, the F-16A ADF (Air Defence Fighter) which was a variant with some upgrades for "home" defence of the USA, something along those lines perhaps?

Yes but that was later IIRC, and meant primarily to kill off the chance that the USAF would ever get F-20's.

[HoveringCheesecake]

What's the chance of them getting the "OK" from Congress?

And why do they need so much military hardware?

Because the House of Saud are apostates according to Al Qaeda and other extremist groups. Remember back during Gulf War 1 when Bin Laden offered to have his fighters protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq, but they opted for the West instead? Yeah...

Or they'll just turn around and use it against us. Wouldn't be surprised.

Edited October 21, 2010 by HoveringCheesecake

[buddhafabio]

It stands for Air Defense Command in the USAF. Dunno about the F-14's designation. Anyways:

Saudi Arabia just made a big order. Needs US approval first (but they always do). They want:

84 F-15SA Aircraft

170 APG-63(v)3 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets

193 F-110-GE-129 Improved Performance Engines

100 M61 Vulcan Cannons

100 Link-16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System/Low Volume Terminal (MIDS/LVT) and spares

193 LANTIRN Navigation Pods (3rd Generation-Tiger Eye)

338 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS)

462 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVGS)

300 AIM-9X SIDEWINDER Missiles

25 Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM-9X)

25 Special Air Training Missiles (NATM-9X)

500 AIM-120C/7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)

25 AIM-120 CATMs

1,000 Dual Mode Laser/Global Positioning System (GPS) Guided Munitions (500 lb)

1,000 Dual Mode Laser/GPS Guided Munitions (2000 lb)

1,100 GBU-24 PAVEWAY III Laser Guided Bombs (2000 lb)

1,000 GBU-31B V3 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) (2000 lb)

1,300 CBU-105D/B Sensor Fuzed Weapons (SFW)/Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD)

50 CBU-105 Inert

1,000 MK-82 500lb General Purpose Bombs

6,000 MK-82 500lb Inert Training Bombs

2,000 MK-84 2000lb General Purpose Bombs

2,000 MK-84 2000lb Inert Training Bombs

200,000 20mm Cartridges

400,000 20mm Target Practice Cartridges

400 AGM-84 Block II HARPOON Missiles

600 AGM-88B HARM Missiles

169 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS)

158 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Targeting Systems

169 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems

10 DB-110 Reconnaissance Pods

462 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System Helmets

40 Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receivers (ROVER)

80 Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation Pods

And some Apaches and Blackhawks.

i dont think they will have the neato v stabs. because if i i recall, the v vertical stabs wont be on the se line for a bit.

[David Hingtgen]

And they're not SE's to start with. Thus, the SA designation.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

How does the SA compare to the SG? I am getting lost with all these F-15Exxxs

BTW, whats this I hear about HMS Astute running around?

Edited October 23, 2010 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[F-ZeroOne]

How does the SA compare to the SG? I am getting lost with all these F-15Exxxs

BTW, whats this I hear about HMS Astute running around?

Well, not technically an aircraft, but yes with a quite incredible sense of comic timing HMS Astute has managed to get stuck in an apparently notoriously shallow bit of water off the Scottish coast. Perhaps the Royal Navy was trying to see if it was possible to land aircraft on her instead...

Edited October 23, 2010 by F-ZeroOne

[Nied]

How does the SA compare to the SG? I am getting lost with all these F-15Exxxs

BTW, whats this I hear about HMS Astute running around?

The SA will be similar to the SG but definitely not the same. The SG has quite a bit of Israeli avionics in it, which the SA for obvious reasons will not have.

[Noyhauser]

David or someone else...

Can someone explain how the 787 is insulated from lightning strikes? I've heard about some use of metal inlays in the skin but nothing conclusive has come up.

[David Hingtgen]

Sorry, no idea. Read something once then promptly forgot about it. I know it's been zapped already and was fine. (it doesn't take very long flying around Seattle to find a thunderstorm)

[Nied]

Call me a cheerleader all you want, you can't tell me this doesn't look awesome!

[HoveringCheesecake]

It looks like it should see a doctor.

[Lynx7725]

It looks like it should see a doctor.

Looks a bit preggie, especially that bulge near the rear end...

It looks.. technically interesting. Beauty though, still prefer the Tomcat.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Lynx7725

[Shadow]

The F-35's underside just looks funky to me with all those bulges. The Rafael still wins the beauty contest for me.

[Noyhauser]

Thanks David, a friend of mine who works in defence aerospace was curious. He's curious about whether it will be the success that many are imagining. During a recent party two friends of mine who work in the airline industry (in a big way) made the comment the A380 wasn't nearly as profitable as had been hoped for... have you seen any figures to corroborate that?

Call me a cheerleader all you want, you can't tell me this doesn't look awesome!

It does... so much so that I'll pick up the Fujimi 1/72 version of it.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Noyhauser