Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[electric indigo]

That's what you get for neglecting stealth...

[Vifam7]

18 hours ago, sketchley said:

I think that's only part of it.

Some of the more recent fighters have extremely high manoeuvrability (calling it superior may be a bit of a stretch), and the Soviets/Russian designs have always had a higher level of ruggedness to them (E.g.: able to takeoff or land in a farmers field).

So, they have quality, it's just measured on a different scale.

Funny thing is, despite being less sophisticated, Soviet/Russian aircraft have never been known for reliability (particularly the engines). Just look at the troubles that India had with their MiG-29Ks and Su-30MKIs

[spanner]

I think the strengths in the Soviet / Russian fighters was their fuselage durability over anything else. They could keep flying for years with less worry about fatigue issues. I remember reading what a pilot said.. the structural maintenance was so minimal, all you did was fill and fly and repeat. Maybe in the more modern era with more sophisticated systems they became more prone to problems as they were still learning.. but that is a guess.

Edited February 26, 2017 by spanner

[kalvasflam]

There is a price to pay for sophistication.

[Sildani]

And another price to pay for the lack of sophistication. Every aircraft is a compromise. 

[Shadow]

Shot of the F-35B firing it's gunpod for the first time.

[dizman]

Pretty neat, I guess the dumb question would be if it can be fired while hovering?

[GMK]

1 hour ago, dizman said:

Pretty neat, I guess the dumb question would be if it can be fired while hovering?

Not without shooting off the nose landing gear....

[dizman]

Bah who needs to land, it's the open landing gear doors that are important.

[electric indigo]

10 hours ago, GMK said:

Not without shooting off the nose landing gear....

Once this little design flaw is corrected, it can start to replace the aging fleet of AH-64s...

[Shadow]

5 hours ago, electric indigo said:

Once this little design flaw is corrected, it can start to replace the aging fleet of AH-64s...

Trying to imagine an F-35 carrying racks of Hellfire or Brimstone AGMs.

[F-ZeroOne]

The latter is probably reasonably likely once it gets into RAF/Fleet Air Arm service, providing as ever with us we can find the required spare change down the back of the sofa [1]...

[1] Pardon me, I mean couch...

[Vifam7]

11 hours ago, electric indigo said:

Once this little design flaw is corrected, it can start to replace the aging fleet of AH-64s...

Aging? They recently purchased a bunch of new build Apache Guardians (AH-64E models) didn't they?

[Shadow]

17 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

Aging? They recently purchased a bunch of new build Apache Guardians (AH-64E models) didn't they?

I think he was being sarcastic.

Interesting article talking about the likelihood that Israel has already used its F-35s in combat.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8146/has-israel-actually-sent-the-f-35-into-combat-already

Buzzing the Syrian presidential palace while knocking out an S-300 battery seems out there but destroying a warehouse housing SA-22s seems much more plausible.

[Valkyrie Hunter D]

Just wanted to share this interesting read on why a USN F-16 did not happen. 

[David Hingtgen]

On March 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Shadow said:

Trying to imagine an F-35 carrying racks of Hellfire or Brimstone AGMs.

I've always thought a Tornado with a zillion Brimstones looked really neat. 

[electric indigo]

Works on Harriers, too

[David Hingtgen]

I think Graham is a fan of the EE Lightning, so here's a neat pic of one:

[Shadow]

Another nice interceptor from that era.

[Devil 505]

21 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Another nice interceptor from that era.

I didn't realize Sweden had variable fighters of their own. /s

[Vifam7]

5 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

I didn't realize Sweden had variable fighters of their own. /s

They've always had them.

 

[kalvasflam]

The Harrier with Brimestone pictures reminds me of the following pictures.  I was at Moffett back in 1999 when they had an air show there, and got to talk to a couple of F-18 pilots, and asked them about the ability of the F-18s to take 10 AMRRAMs, the guy laughed and told me that if they did that, the existing inventory of AMRAAMs would probably fit less than a squadron of Hornets.

[David Hingtgen]

You should be able to put 12 on a Super Hornet, but I couldn't find any pics showing it's been done. 

[kalvasflam]

you mean onto the wing tips?  Probably.  I also remember the naval aviator I was chatting with telling me that with this kind of a load, they aren't going to stay in the air for very long if they take off from a carrier.  It would be pretty much, take off, get up to altitude, get gas,  then mission.

I think back then, they were putting these on -18C and -18Ds, so the super hornets might be able to carry the same load, and actually do missions after getting off the deck.  By the late 90s, the Soviet threat was pretty much gone, and with it, the need for Tomcats to intercept Backfires coming in to blow up the carriers, but just in case, they showcased the Hornet as being able to take the place of the F-14s.

But then, this is a good argument for the F-35 right?  See, F-35 needs a missile truck, here comes the Superhornets.  Glorified missile trucks.

Edited March 14, 2017 by kalvasflam

[Graham]

On 2/27/2017 at 0:04 AM, electric indigo said:

That's what you get for neglecting stealth...

Was that pic taken by a traffic camera? 

[Graham]

On 3/12/2017 at 0:08 AM, David Hingtgen said:

I think Graham is a fan of the EE Lightning, so here's a neat pic of one:

Yep I love the EE Lightning, but your pic is not showing up 

[Shadow]

I remember seeing those Hornet/AMRAAM pics way back.

It makes me wonder if the under mounts on the F-14 could have been configured to carry dual-AIM-120s, allowing it to carry 8 underneath. Another fun what-if scenario had the F-14D been given the software upgrade to carry AMRAAMs. 2x Phoenix's, 2x AIM-9s and 8x AIM-120B or Cs would have been a formidable A-A loadout.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Shadow

[F-ZeroOne]

I'm currently reading a book about the naval battles at Guadalcanal, and in one of the accounts it had this cool story that I hadn't heard before; apparently a Wildcat trying to intercept a "Betty" bomber at low altitude ran out of ammunition, so the pilot of the Wildcat used a bit of lateral thinking, lowered his landing gear, and literally bounced the bomber into the sea!

I don't know how accurate this account is, a quick search doesn't seem to bring up any other references but if true its got to be one of the more unusual aircraft kills of all time...

 

[David Hingtgen]

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 2:30 AM, Graham said:

Yep I love the EE Lightning, but your pic is not showing up 

Yeah, it seemed to last about 36 hours before it went down.   Let's try another source:

 

[Sildani]

Let's hear it for ejection seats!

[spanner]

Yes indeed! 

54 minutes ago, Sildani said:

Let's hear it for ejection seats!

But poor Lightning.. 

[kalvasflam]

I'm going to do a minor rant here, saw the following article in Flight global, the planners at the USAF must have completely lost their minds.  Letting F-16s take place of F-15s is just pure stupidity.  

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-calls-plans-to-retire-f-15s-pre-decisional-435480/

It's really odd how the USAF is managing to put all of its air assets into just the F-35 basket.  If someone took a look at the litany of military aircraft lines shut down since the 90s; it is no wonder America's manufacturing capacity is going to heck.  

Let's see:

- No more A-10 (Company bought)

- No more F-14 (Company bought)

- No more B-2 (Company have not built new aircraft for years)

- No more B-1 (Company bought)

- No more F-117 (Company focused on F-35)

- No more F-22 (Company focused on F-35)

- Nearly end of the line F-18

- Nearly end of the line F-15

- Nearly end of the line F-16

It's kind of crazy.  But hey, don't worry, we have a magical cure all bullet called the F-35.  

end of rant.

[Vifam7]

Unfortunately, when there's less money to go around, things are going to be dropped. Frankly, the services are lucky they're actually going to get the F-35 (at least for now). Had the F-35 been cancelled like some wanted, the situation would be even worse.

 

[David Hingtgen]

If the F-35 had been cancelled, we could have afforded more F-22's or a butt-load of Super Hornets...

Or, just replace all the Block 30 F-16's with Block 60's...

Or even better---replace the F-15E with F-16XL's... 

[Vifam7]

1 hour ago, David Hingtgen said:

If the F-35 had been cancelled, we could have afforded more F-22's or a butt-load of Super Hornets...

Or, just replace all the Block 30 F-16's with Block 60's...

Or even better---replace the F-15E with F-16XL's... 

More F-22s? That would've been nice. Unfortunately it's own high cost already had the bean-counters on its 6 even before the difficulties with the F-35.

I approve of replacing the F-15E with F-16XLs. Better yet, navalize the F-16XL and replace the aerodynamically flawed Super Hornets.