Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[Devil 505]

I had thought there existed two variants on the propulsion concept. One was contained and boiled water the old fashioned way to create turbine energy which powered electric motors to drive the props.

The other created hot radioactive air which was blown out of ducts acting as engines and would be largely responsible for destroying the Earth in lieu of actual nuclear strikes.

I could be remembering it wrong, It has been a few years since looking at the source material during my time with General Dynamics.

There was Project Pluto, the nuclear ramjet-powered cruise missile.

As for the Nuclear-powered bomber, there was the direct-cycle engine, which also left radioactive exhaust, and the indirect cycle engine, which uses the heat from the reactor.

Either way, you would still be dealing with spent nuclear waste sooner or later.

[SchizophrenicMC]

By the way, I found a shot from the F-14 variable sweep trials:

[Nekko Basara]

By the way, I found a shot from the F-14 variable sweep trials:

Sadly, the picture isn't working for me

I read on the Wikipedia page that as part of that testing, they did a carrier trap with the wings in asymetric sweep. That must have gotten the test pilot a lot of free drinks!

[SchizophrenicMC]

I recall reading that the pilot wanted to land in that configuration, but the higher-ups administering the test decided against it and had him land in the normal configuration, though it is true that the Navy performed full-sweep landing tests. I don't know whether or not they actually performed asymmetric-sweep landing trials or not- stuff like that hasn't made itself forthcoming.

I will say, regardless, they probably didn't need to coax the test pilot with drinks. Based on the few I've met, and the many more my grandfather met in his long career in the USN, Navy fighter pilots are all basically Isamu with slightly better manners toward their superiors. I guess they'd have to be, to try stunts like those.

[Nekko Basara]

Haha, I meant folks were probably happy to buy him a drink after the fact, in exchange for the story - but I'm sure a few drinks beforehand couldn't have hurt!

The Wikipedia article did include a reference to the F-14 association website for the claim that they had successfully test-landed with asymmetric sweep, but unfortunately the link is now a dead page. If you want to hunt further, check out reference 32 here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat

[Knight26]

Just saw a Eurofighter in the pattern here at Edwards, cool to see, especially on the wing of an F-22. Wish I have my camera on me.

[F-ZeroOne]

Well, anytime else an F-22 needs an escort, just give us a call across the pond...

[Shadow]

A Rafale would look better on an F-22s wing.

[F-ZeroOne]

No problem, the Tiffy can escort both...

[Model-Junkie]

Japan rolls out the Mitsubishi Regional Jet

[Shadow]

Nice looking bird. Welcome back to the aerospace world Mitsubishi.

Some old school appreciation. I believe it's an A-4C.

[SchizophrenicMC]

So this guy got into an argument with me about how the F-35 was superior to every other plane because of its HMD system. At one point he said "it's so advanced, the pilot looks down and all he sees is sky instead of his knees, because there's 6 cameras on the bottom that make up a panorama!"

This guy has been playing too much Ace Combat.

[Vifam7]

So this guy got into an argument with me about how the F-35 was superior to every other plane because of its HMD system. At one point he said "it's so advanced, the pilot looks down and all he sees is sky instead of his knees, because there's 6 cameras on the bottom that make up a panorama!"

This guy has been playing too much Ace Combat.

Actually, he's sort of correct.

https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/helmet

Edited October 20, 2014 by Vifam7

[SchizophrenicMC]

It gives target tracking and vital information that is typically on the HUD, superimposed over the pilot's vision. It's not the sort of COFFIN system like this guy was describing. You couldn't get that good a panoramic view around the whole plane with only 6 cameras anyway. The amount of wide-angle distortion you'd get is ridiculous. Not to mention places where the airframe interferes with the view.

[derex3592]

That's pretty f'n cool!!!

[Vifam7]

It gives target tracking and vital information that is typically on the HUD, superimposed over the pilot's vision. It's not the sort of COFFIN system like this guy was describing. You couldn't get that good a panoramic view around the whole plane with only 6 cameras anyway. The amount of wide-angle distortion you'd get is ridiculous. Not to mention places where the airframe interferes with the view.

But it states that it gives "real-time imagery" (not just data) via infrared cameras.

The F-35’s Distributed Aperture System (DAS), developed by Northrop Grumman, is the only 360-degree, spherical situational awareness system. The DAS sends high resolution real-time imagery to the pilot’s helmet from six infrared cameras mounted around the aircraft, allowing pilots to see the environment around them – day or night – without loss of quality or clarity. With the ability to detect and track approaching aircraft from any angle, the DAS also greatly reduces the potential for mid-air collisions and virtually eliminates surprises.

https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/missionsystems

Unless I'm reading wrong, it does suggest that the pilot can literally "see through the floor".

Found this:

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/sitecore/content/Data/News/2014_Cal_Year/GS/FY14GSNR44-F35.aspx

The HMDS displays the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) imagery from Northrop Grumman, which gives pilots the ability to see through the structure of the aircraft for a 360-degree view as well as a direct picture of the ground beneath them.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Vifam7

[SchizophrenicMC]

With all that being said, is there any reason any of that would be inherently unique to the F-35 anyway? It's not something radical to the airframe- you could put that in any plane. And you'd probably actually reach production in another aircraft.

[Nekko Basara]

With all that being said, is there any reason any of that would be inherently unique to the F-35 anyway? It's not something radical to the airframe- you could put that in any plane. And you'd probably actually reach production in another aircraft.

The F-35 is already in low-rate initial production, FYI.

[SchizophrenicMC]

The F-35 is in production in the same way that the highways around D/FW are under construction. Technically, yes, but we still don't really have anything to show for it.

[Nekko Basara]

The F-35 is in production in the same way that the highways around D/FW are under construction. Technically, yes, but we still don't really have anything to show for it.

It appears we have over a hundred flightworthy examples to show for it, and counting:

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/09/the-current-status-of-the-f-35-in-three-charts/

I'm not trying to start a fight, but I think we're past the point where the F-35 could be considered a stillborn failure. It may not be a great aircraft (time will tell), but it is the aircraft the US is getting.

[SchizophrenicMC]

By the same token, a lot of the foreign powers who pledged to buy it are having second thoughts.

[Nekko Basara]

That's all well and good, but there aren't a lot of alternatives in the 5th gen multirole fighter market, unless they'd like to pin their hopes on Chinese or Russian aircraft that are even further from operational status.

It's a bit late to start a new indigenous project, and even then there's no guarantee that it might not run into cost over-runs that make the F-35 look sensible by comparison (see the Typhoon II or Mitsubishi F2, for example).

[SchizophrenicMC]

With the F-16 and F/A-18 still in production and receiving updates, is a 5th-gen fighter strictly necessary? Especially considering who the actual intended buyers are. We keep talking about an "aging fleet" but really, what does it matter?

[Nekko Basara]

I think that's a valid question. I wonder at the utility of 5th gen fighters generally, given the asymmetric nature of modern wars. The thing is, that same argument has held true since the 60s, but it hasn't stopped the development and acquisition of generation after generation of fighters. As best I can figure it, the only roughly equal fights that have taken place between contemporary fighters since Korea have been in the middle east conflicts and India-Pakistan. So, either Western Europe and the once-Soviet states have been deluding themselves for half a century (certainly possible), or maintaining parity of modern air fleets has actually contributed to not "needing" them.

The question is whether countries will opt to risk their security on last century's fighters.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Given that much of the improvements added in the fifth-gen fighters thus far have been electronics, I'd say this is an evolutionary period, rather than a revolutionary one. The F-22 and PAK-FA are fairly revolutionary, but they're also exclusive to their home nations. The F-35 offers multi-aspect stealth on top of its electronics, but then so does the F-15SE, through clever use of the CT mounts and a change in the v-stab cant. The Block III F/A-18F has much of the same HMD capabilities that the F-35 is promising, in an aircraft that's more aerodynamically capable, and cheaper. The fact is, the JSF only fits into the G5 fighter program because of when it entered development. The modern versions of "last century's fighters" are all upgrades designed firmly in the 21st century, and often used on new-build airframes. The F-18C/D and F/A-18E/F are very dissimilar aircraft.

And are we going to say that a brand-new F-15SE is last-century's aircraft, when the "21st Century" F-22 entered development in the early 1990s?

[David Hingtgen]

Sad but true--what I call the "Ace Combat effect" is proving true. That is---the aircraft itself matters little, it's all about the sensors/weapons it uses.

Most current modern European F-16A's, are the F-16A MLU now. They are much better planes than an initial F-16C.

The F/A-18A+ is better than all but the very latest F/A-18C's.

None of these are airframe differences really, purely avionics and weapons upgrade.

So why are you paying a zillion dollars for an ASRAAM-carrying F-35 w/AESA radar, when you can pay a whole lot less for a Super Hornet that does the same, and is faster and more agile? That's what the RAAF did.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Exactly my point.

[Shadow]

I'm still under the belief that there was too much ambition placed on the F-35. A single airframe trying to fulfill the roles of 4 different aircraft for the 5th generation. This may open some doors also for the Gripen E.

I sometimes wondered years back if something similar to what happened between the F-16 and YF-17 could occur in the JSF program with the F-35 going to the Air Force and Navy and the Marine Corps adopting the X-32.

[Vifam7]

Everytime a new combat aircraft is being developed, there is always controversy. Cost always being the number one subject. Followed by performance deficiency and technological difficulties.

The F-111 had a lot of development difficulty and cost overruns too, but it did eventually become a very good aircraft.

As for upgrading 4th gen aircraft vs. buying 5th gen aircraft, Gen. Michael Hostage of ACC says this:

If you gave me all the money I needed to refurbish the F-15 and the F-16 fleets, they would still become tactically obsolete by the middle of the next decade. Our adversaries are building fleets that will overmatch our legacy fleet, no matter what I do, by the middle of the next decade.

I have to provide an Air Force that in the middle of the next decade has sufficient fifth-generation capability that whatever residual fourth-generation capability I still have is viable and tactically useful. I am willing to trade the refurbishment of the fourth gen to ensure that I continue to get that fifth-gen capability.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140202/NEWS04/302020005/Air-Combat-Command-s-challenge-Buy-new-modernize-older-aircraft

Edited October 21, 2014 by Vifam7

[chyll2]

i know it should be function fist over form, But I really wish that future combat aircraft would look cool as well.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Except I'm not convinced the PAK-FA or J20 are as good as anybody says, and they're even further from being viable airfleets than our own 5th-gen fighters. And can we stop using "adversaries" to describe Russia and China? We get it, you're still afraid of communism and Putin (though to be fair, the latter does have some Hitler-istic qualities about him) but come on. If you're going to address them as potential enemies, at least have the balls as a military commander to do it by name. Because we all know who you're talking about.

I'm also not convinced that the fifth generation is a revolutionary step up like the fourth generation was. The jump from the F-4 to the F-14 and F-15 was pretty big. Every single aspect of the fighter was improved. Range, maneuverability, payload capacity, top speed, radar, avionics. The F-16 and F-18 aren't fifth-gen fighters, even though they added fly-by-wire, advanced composites, more payload, and even more range, because those improvements were incremental upgrades that could be applied to the current generation of fighters. So why is the F-35 a G5 fighter? Considering that its only airframe-specific quality (passive stealth) is roughly in-line with a tarted up F-15, and that it actually underperforms a lot of current aircraft, and everything else it brings to the table is a set of incremental upgrades that could be performed to pretty much anything on the market today, I'm not convinced. And the whole STOVL thing is basically dead in the water, let's agree there. Basically all of the orders are for the A and C models, which are CTOL and naval variants, with a few for the B variant, because it should have better ground attack capabilities because 0 is a low stall speed indeed.

The F-22 adds a lot of stuff you couldn't rig up to an F-15 or F/A-18 and call it done. Its multi-aspect stealth is more complete, thanks to fewer design compromises in the much more expensive airframe. It uses thrust vectoring and internal weapons bays to much greater effect. The aircraft has a highly aerodynamically unstable design that can only be made flyable through the use of FBW, and has maneuverability great enough to necessitate the use of control limiters, to prevent over-G. Its range is phenomenal due to advancements in engine technology, and it has highly advanced tracking ability. A few of these could be implemented in earlier aircraft, but a lot of it is just radical and separates the plane into G5. The F-35 doesn't really do any of that. It just kind of plays second fiddle to its big brother.

I think a lot of what's hurt the F-35 is it was designed to fit too many roles, and in an obligatory way. It's supposed to be every plane you need, and they had to make it look like a baby F-22. All of that has caused complications, because what makes a fighter good doesn't necessarily improve an attacker or a light bomber, and trying to cram the F-22's brand of stealth into a single-engine airframe that's trying to be the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, and Gripen C isn't really conducive to a working airplane.

[Nekko Basara]

Everytime a new combat aircraft is being developed, there is always controversy. Cost always being the number one subject. Followed by performance deficiency and technological difficulties.

The F-111 had a lot of development difficulty and cost overruns too, but it did eventually become a very good aircraft.

I'm totally on board with you, Vifam. It seems like most, if not all, modern combat aircraft were called lemons by at least a vocal minority before they entered service. The F-22 faced many of the same criticisms, particularly on cost grounds, but you don't hear much of that now (perhaps because Russia and China are developing comparable platforms, or maybe because the Typhoon II ended up costing nearly as much).

To bring it back to Mr. Sprey, he and the "fighter mafia" made the same claims about the F-15 before it entered service. And - unbelievably - he's still repeating them today, in the face of its fantastic international service record.

Time and service are the test of any weapon system. Plenty of high-profile, potentially effective aircraft have died in the womb - the TSR-2, B-70, and RAH-66 come to mind. Bringing an advanced aircraft into service is a trying process. But relatively few - at least in the west - have made it into service only to prove unworkable failures.

[Nekko Basara]

SchizophrenicMC, I'm confused by some of your stealth claims. You seem to be suggesting in one breath that a "tarted up F-15," the SE, can be a capable alternative to true 5th-gen fighters, and in the next breath claiming that unspecified design compromises in the F-35 have rendered it a significantly less capable all-aspect stealth design than the F-22.

Do you have a source for your claim that the F-15SE's stealth is on par with the F-35's? Or that the F-35's is so compromised? And, if so, can you clarify whether stealth of this level is competitive or inadequate? Because you seem to want it both ways, depending on which aircraft you are discussing.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Nekko Basara

[SchizophrenicMC]

Boeing claims the F-15SE is the maximum level of stealthiness allowed for export. The F-35 is also the maximum level of stealthiness allowed for export. It's hard to get raw numbers on something like that, but if you were a military, you'd probably have access to that kind of data, so Boeing isn't likely to market something they can't stand behind.

As for compromises, the F-22 is a twin-engine aircraft with plenty of room along the bottom of the aiframe for weapons storage, and carries a sharper profile with less lost to cost-savings. The single-engine F-35 has a rounder profile and less room for internal weapons bays, meaning it has to carry unstealthy external weapons to achieve anything approaching the same payload capacity. There's even less space in the F-35B's airframe, what with the lift fan and stabilizer jets. The F-22 is designed to reduce signature at all aspects, such to the point where certain aspects are described as having the radar signature "of a steel marble." The F-35, by comparison, is not an all-aspect stealth aircraft, but a multi-aspect craft, where some aspects present nearly the full radar signature. As well, while the F-22's design makes it stealthy across nearly all bands of radar tracking in practical use, critics say the F-35's design and materials are aimed specifically at the bands of radar that are used by Russian fighter and SAM sites, but it neglects other bands, as would be used for commercial flight tracking. I recall hearing one person say the F-35 can be seen on weather radar, though I don't know the veracity of that statement.

The F-22 is a very, very expensive bird. Because of that, there's a lot more flexibility in what it can achieve. The F-35 is not as expensive, and has to make a profit from a smaller price. There must be compromises. It'll do many of the same things, but not as well. And then there are the F-35 competitors, which are based on airframes that have already recouped their initial development costs, and so can be sold for even cheaper, with similar levels of compromise, according to claims from the manufacturers. Boeing claims the F-15SE is as stealthy as the F-35 when properly equipped, and that the F/A-18F Block III has the same level of avionics and greater multirole capability, for a lower price. Moreover, both are available today, whereas the F-35 hasn't entered full production yet, and is still having bugs worked out.

Ultimately we can dance around this topic just short of calling each other stupid all we want, but the fact is, militaries are beginning to consider alternatives to the beleaguered JSF program, and some have already made purchases.

[Vifam7]

Ultimately we can dance around this topic just short of calling each other stupid all we want, but the fact is, militaries are beginning to consider alternatives to the beleaguered JSF program, and some have already made purchases.

Of the 9 participating countries, Canada and Denmark seem to be the only ones that might buy an alternative. But it's still up in the air and personally I don't think it's likely to happen. To my knowledge, Australia only recently purchased the Super Hornet as a bridge to the F-35.

South Korea changed their mind on purchasing the F-15SE and it seems they're aiming to get the F-35. Japan too rejected the F-15SE and selected the F-35 as their choice.

Though personally, just on anime fanboy basis, I would've loved to see both countries select the F-15SE and develop it into the "Eagle Plus". You know, this:

Edited October 21, 2014 by Vifam7