Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[AN/ALQ128]

On 9/1/2017 at 10:39 PM, grigolosi said:

The F-35 isn't in the same size class as an F-16. The plane is huge compared to an F-16. I got to look at one up close back in 11' before I retired from AD. But in comparison yes it is supposed to take over the F-16's role in the AF. As I was looking at the picture of the new Russian toy. I noticed a couple of things. First of all no notching on the inboard edge next to the LEF's, F-22's have this to deter this sizable radar return surface ( I also noticed this on the Chinese monstrosity of a fighter). Second I noticed the Russians as in typical fashion only dog toothed certain panels, i.E. the landing gear doors. The rest of the surface has noticeable straight edge panel lines across the surface. If it has a negligible RCS I am curious as to how they did it without either coating the surface or panel lines with RAM or angling edges.  Been away awhile, was changing employers. Also here is a video shot this week by the IQAF MOD and posted to their FB page. Showing a walk around and launch of one of their F-16 training missions.......

 

I've also noticed they've kept with the standard IRST bulb pimple, and haven't dogtoothed the thrust nozzles. No S-ducts either, so I'm quite skeptical that the Su-57 will be able to match the stealthiness of the F-22, or even the F-35.

[Chronocidal]

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 10:39 PM, grigolosi said:

The F-35 isn't in the same size class as an F-16. The plane is huge compared to an F-16. I got to look at one up close back in 11' before I retired from AD. But in comparison yes it is supposed to take over the F-16's role in the AF.

Actually, they really are pretty close in overall dimensions, at least between the F-35A and the F-16.  Think they're both nearly dead on 50 feet in length.  The big difference is in weight, and thrust, since the F-35 is just a ton bulkier all around.

[David Hingtgen]

[AN/ALQ128]

2 hours ago, David Hingtgen said:

Mmmmmm, delicious landing gear mechanisms.

Gotta say, the F-35 has been growing on me. It won't match the beauty of an Eagle or Raptor, but its got a certain charm to it.

[slide]

3 hours ago, David Hingtgen said:

anyone know if the weapon bays are half-open for effect or necessity? if the latter, why? airflow funneling effect? hot/cold buffer zone?

[Sildani]

And there's my new phone wallpaper. Thanks David!

[Dobber]

It's a Variable fighter mid-transformation.

Chris

[Shadow]

Now just bring the F-23 back redesigned as a fighter/bomber and you've got all your 5th generation angles covered.

The F-35 has grown on me especially after learning more about its real capabilities. I still think a redesigned twin-engined version for the Navy would have been a better route for the F-35C. The F-35A is fine as a single engined.

Also..

[David Hingtgen]

I was wondering why the weapons bays were open too.  

[Knight26]

4 hours ago, David Hingtgen said:

I was wondering why the weapons bays were open too.  

They are open for cooling purposes...

[mickyg]

^^^^

I've read it's due to some scares they had with a fire and the way the F-35 uses fuel to cool basically everything from electronics to the engine.  In hotter climates, the problem is a lot more likely to happen so they open some of the panels up to allow more air to circulate in hot spots.

[David Hingtgen]

3 hours ago, Knight26 said:

They are open for cooling purposes...

They should just go all-out and pop the canopy and radome while they're at it.  

[AN/ALQ128]

8 hours ago, Shadow said:

Now just bring the F-23 back redesigned as a fighter/bomber and you've got all your 5th generation angles covered.

The F-35 has grown on me especially after learning more about its real capabilities. I still think a redesigned twin-engined version for the Navy would have been a better route for the F-35C. The F-35A is fine as a single engined.

Also..

I'm not so sure a twin engine F-35 would provide much benefit for the Navy. The benefits of a smaller footprint on a space prohibitive environment like a carrier would probably outweigh any redundancy/reliability concerns surrounding single engined aircraft.

[AN/ALQ128]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq5eRBCeqXM

BAE showing off their fancy Striker II helmet. I found the comment on how the future cockpit designs might do away with physical displays all together, and just project everything into your HMD particularly interesting.

[Dobber]

On 9/11/2017 at 11:14 AM, Shadow said:

Now just bring the F-23 back redesigned as a fighter/bomber and you've got all your 5th generation angles covered.

The F-35 has grown on me especially after learning more about its real capabilities. I still think a redesigned twin-engined version for the Navy would have been a better route for the F-35C. The F-35A is fine as a single engined.

Also..

As someone who really doesn't like the way the F-35 looks....particularly the B model......I'll say that is a very flattering angle and a pretty cool pic.

Chris

[Valkyrie Driver]

I actually like the F-35 and the way it looks. Despite my criticisms of the platform. To this day, I remain unconvinced that the F-35 will be able to replace any of the previous generation aircraft (Especially the A-10, considering it and the B-52 are the only aircraft in the inventory that have an indefinite lifespan). I still say that the bulk of the US Military's air power should not be outright gen 5 stealth fighters (but, rather, gen 4.5 aircraft with low observable design considerations). I also say that the A-10 should remain in service until parts run out. 

My main criticisms of the F-35 are the fact that it costs way too much to base air forces around it, and that purpose built aircraft (Though versatile) will always outperform a fighter that was designed to meet multiple missions. Design considerations for a CAS platform will be different than those for a fighter, or a bomber, it's just that simple. A dedicated multi-role fighter is a patchwork of compromises that will adversely affect the final performance of the aircraft. 

Also, there are a few things that bug me about the F-35. The B/C models both have a missionized gun pod, which is supposed to be very accurate and quite good. It also has a larger ammo supply than the internal gun on the A model. If I had been in charge of procuring aircraft, I'd have told the USAF to skip the internal gun, take the gun pod, and write an SOP which outlines that unless the gun is deemed inappropriate for the mission, it shall always be a considered part of the aircraft. 

That is, unless there's something I'm missing.

[Shadow]

I really hope they're finding ways to keep the weight down on these new HMD helmets. Hate to start reading reports about pilots having neck problems.

Also a good read on the Super Hornet pilots account who shot down a Syrian Su-22 back in June. Was hearing alot about the AIM-9X being decoyed by the Fitter but from the pilots account, it seems the Sidewinder simply malfunctioned.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14344/heres-the-definitive-account-of-the-syrian-su-22-shoot-down-from-the-pilots-themselves

[Vifam7]

3 hours ago, Valkyrie Driver said:

I actually like the F-35 and the way it looks. Despite my criticisms of the platform. To this day, I remain unconvinced that the F-35 will be able to replace any of the previous generation aircraft (Especially the A-10, considering it and the B-52 are the only aircraft in the inventory that have an indefinite lifespan). I still say that the bulk of the US Military's air power should not be outright gen 5 stealth fighters (but, rather, gen 4.5 aircraft with low observable design considerations). I also say that the A-10 should remain in service until parts run out. 

My main criticisms of the F-35 are the fact that it costs way too much to base air forces around it, and that purpose built aircraft (Though versatile) will always outperform a fighter that was designed to meet multiple missions. Design considerations for a CAS platform will be different than those for a fighter, or a bomber, it's just that simple. A dedicated multi-role fighter is a patchwork of compromises that will adversely affect the final performance of the aircraft. 

Also, there are a few things that bug me about the F-35. The B/C models both have a missionized gun pod, which is supposed to be very accurate and quite good. It also has a larger ammo supply than the internal gun on the A model. If I had been in charge of procuring aircraft, I'd have told the USAF to skip the internal gun, take the gun pod, and write an SOP which outlines that unless the gun is deemed inappropriate for the mission, it shall always be a considered part of the aircraft. 

That is, unless there's something I'm missing.

 

IMPO, the US military should always be ahead of the technology curve. Relying on previous generation technology or pasted on improvements to old tech, sounds like a way of putting US airmen&soldiers in danger when it could be avoided.

It would indeed be ideal to have purpose built aircraft for every mission. However, with the Cold War over and defense budgets continually being a target for cuts, it makes sense that the US military wants the most amount of utility from its fighter aircraft. Also, the problem with purpose built aircraft is that, you just don't know what kind of aircraft is needed in a future conflict.  A purpose built aircraft means that it has the potential of being useless in certain scenarios (thus depleting the assets that can be used).

The cost of the F-35 will come down as more and more are purchased (economy of scale). Every fighter has had its developmental problems. The problems will eventually be ironed out. Hopefully most of it gone before it goes to war.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Vifam7

[Valkyrie Driver]

8 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

IMPO, the US military should always be ahead of the technology curve. Relying on previous generation technology or pasted on improvements to old tech, sounds like a way of putting US airmen&soldiers in danger when it could be avoided.

Ahead of the curve sure. But you cannot, and should not try to build combat aviation around stealth. Aside from the prohibitive cost to produce, the maintenance costs are huge as well. Also, the trade off for stealth is diminished capability. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have stealth fighters, merely that they shouldn't be the primary focus. I'm also not saying that we recycle 1970's tech. Simply that we build conventional aircraft with low observable construction (limited application of RAM, the use of dogtooth panels, and other techniques designed to deflect radar), we go high tech where we can (avionics) and use tried methods for reducing radar cross section without going whole hog in order to keep costs down. 

No amount of new technology is going to make soldiers safer in combat. Superior training and skill is what will bring them home. For the record I said nothing about us resting on our laurels, nor about pasting improvements onto old tech. Anything we purchase should be entirely new, but conventional materials can still be used and be relevant.

9 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

It would indeed be ideal to have purpose built aircraft for every mission. However, with the Cold War over and defense budgets continually being a target for cuts, it makes sense that the US military wants the most amount of utility from its fighter aircraft. Also, the problem with purpose built aircraft is that, you just don't know what kind of aircraft is needed in a future conflict.  A purpose built aircraft means that it has the potential of being useless in certain scenarios (thus depleting the assets that can be used).

Which is why I advocate a strategy of spending smarter. I'm also not saying that we can't have multi-role fighters. The F-16 is a great example of a successful Multi-role fighter. Thing is, with the F-16, it's a better fighter than it is anything else. It's still a very good platform for air interdiction and CAS, but not as good as say, and F-15E or A-10. The F-15E is an outstanding air interdiction platform, it's better than the F-16 at CAS, and it's ok as a fighter. The A-10 does CAS at the exclusion of all else, and is deadly to anything that makes it's home on the ground. What I'm getting at is not how the end user uses the aircraft (because that's what defines true multi-role) but rather the primary considerations in the aircraft's design. What is the design best suited for? In the case of the F-15E, it was adapted from an excellent fighter, to be a better bomber, and that's what we use it for mostly. 

Also, if we don't prepare for future conflicts (and I'm just going to say it, history repeats in cycles. If we over specialize in this 4th generation of warfare, we won't be prepared when we see another large conventional war), we will get left behind. Not every future conflict is assured to be a guerrilla war.

9 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

The cost of the F-35 will come down as more and more are purchased (economy of scale). Every fighter has had its developmental problems. The problems will eventually be ironed out. Hopefully most of it gone before it goes to war.

 Except it won't. Unless something has changed, We've purchased all we're going to. Now we are just waiting to take delivery. The cost is the cost. Yes evey fighter has had developmental problems, and I'm not saying the F-35 won't be a very capable platform, I just don't believe that it will be as good a fighter as the F-16 it's supposed to replace, or as good a CAS platform as the A-10 that it was supposed to replace. In fact, the A-10 and F-16 aren't going anywhere for quite some time, because we will end up with more pilots than we have aircraft for them to fly. Then what, we put them in drones? Drones are not a viable long term solution, since Actual eyes on target will see things that cameras will not.

[AN/ALQ128]

20 minutes ago, Valkyrie Driver said:

Except it won't. Unless something has changed, We've purchased all we're going to. Now we are just waiting to take delivery. The cost is the cost. Yes evey fighter has had developmental problems, and I'm not saying the F-35 won't be a very capable platform, I just don't believe that it will be as good a fighter as the F-16 it's supposed to replace, or as good a CAS platform as the A-10 that it was supposed to replace. In fact, the A-10 and F-16 aren't going anywhere for quite some time, because we will end up with more pilots than we have aircraft for them to fly. Then what, we put them in drones? Drones are not a viable long term solution, since Actual eyes on target will see things that cameras will not.

The per-unit cost is roughly equivalent to 4.5th gen contemporaries of the F-35, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale. Something like $95mil, if I recall. For that, you get an extremely stealthy, datalinked super computer with wings, with a superior flight radius compared to the Super Hornet (if we're taking internal fuel tanks only). Plus, there's all the sales to foreign allies to take into consideration, such as the UK, Japan, Australia, and (maybe) Canada, which will also help in driving costs down. From all I've read and heard, pilots who've flown the F-35 seem to love the plane. Its apparently far easier to fly than the Harrier as well, another airframe that the F-35 is replacing.

 

 

[Shadow]

All the problems of cost make me glad we are working on finding a dedicated light attack aircraft (OA-X) to help support the A-10. I think we missed an opportunity shelving the T-50A for a Light fighter though.

[Valkyrie Driver]

22 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

The per-unit cost is roughly equivalent to 4.5th gen contemporaries of the F-35, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale. Something like $95mil, if I recall. For that, you get an extremely stealthy, datalinked super computer with wings, with a superior flight radius compared to the Super Hornet (if we're taking internal fuel tanks only). Plus, there's all the sales to foreign allies to take into consideration, such as the UK, Japan, Australia, and (maybe) Canada, which will also help in driving costs down. From all I've read and heard, pilots who've flown the F-35 seem to love the plane. Its apparently far easier to fly than the Harrier as well, another airframe that the F-35 is replacing.

That might be the case, and as I said, I like the jet in spite of my criticism. I think the F-35 is an important step forward, but that step might just not be sure footing. The US needs a more solid foundation for its air forces, and that's going to mean more fighters (and stealth fighters just are not going to cut it price wise). I think a doctrinal shift is also necessary, a straight up replacement for the A-10 and F-16 in the ANG is probably warranted, in order to shift our F-16's and A-10's back to regular and reserve component units. 

I've always maintained that drones are not a good step forward in the future of combat aviation, and I want to see more pilots, and that means aircraft for them to fly. We need to provide that as inexpensively as we can.

[dizman]

On 9/16/2017 at 10:42 AM, Shadow said:

All the problems of cost make me glad we are working on finding a dedicated light attack aircraft (OA-X) to help support the A-10. I think we missed an opportunity shelving the T-50A for a Light fighter though.

Has the testing started yet, I remember hearing about the planes selected but haven't heard a thing since? I'm almost worried it's too good of an idea so the program will be scrapped. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by dizman
?

[Nazareno2012]

On 9/16/2017 at 10:42 PM, Shadow said:

I think we missed an opportunity shelving the T-50A for a Light fighter though.

There is a light fighter variant of the T-50A, the F/A-50, which is in service in the Philippine Air Force.

 

[Valkyrie Driver]

The OA-X program looks like its got a ton of good contenders, many of which are already in service around the world. Honestly though I think the Best contender is the Textron Scorpion. 

As for the T-50A, I see a lot of F-16 design influence in it (since Lockheed Martin helped develop the aircraft that's not surprising), and that's not a bad thing. Only issue I see with the T-50A is the lack of payload compared to our current light fighter. The T-50A's performance numbers are similar to the f-16, but it has 2 less weapon stations, roughly 4000lbs less payload and from what I can tell it's only available as a 2 seat fighter. The T-50A is interesting, and would be a great light fighter for the ANG. 

It would make a heck of a trainer, but then it might be cheaper to just adopt the T-45 Goshawk around all the services. 

[Shadow]

I know of the F/A-50. The T-50A is more in the F-5 Tiger II class of light fighter. It looks like what the F-20 Tigershark could have been. I agree, it would have been great for the ANG and even Reserves.

There hasn't been much word on the OA-X program unfortunately. I actually like the A-29 Super Tucano but worry about lack of speed even if it's meant for pure COIN missions. In that regard, the Scorpion may be the best contender.

Also, this is going to be interesting.

http://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2017/09/18/fate-of-a-10-f-15-to-be-decided-this-fall/?platform=hootsuite

[Vifam7]

My feeling is that the USAF would never accept a turboprop like the A-29. Nor would they accept Textron Scorpion. They would likely reject both and cite lack of speed for rejecting them.

The better contender might be the winner of the T-X program - with T-50 and the Boeing submission perhaps being the strongest choices.  Both are powered by the GE F404 so there is good amount of thrust there, as well as familiarity.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Vifam7

[Valkyrie Driver]

1 hour ago, Vifam7 said:

My feeling is that the USAF would never accept a turboprop like the A-29. Nor would they accept Textron Scorpion. They would likely reject both and cite lack of speed for rejecting them.

Except that both the A-29 and the Textron Scorpion are in contention for the OA-X program. Now, I've seen some information that this has morphed into the AT-X program, as it's reduced from a 100 aircraft production requirement to a 15 aircraft production requirement with a focus on training. 

The OA-X program was originally intended to find a Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance aircraft to supplement the A-10C in COIN operations, where the big gun and massive payload would not be as necessary, but still required the ability to loiter and provide fire support. A Turbo prop aircraft would be perfectly fine in such an application. An effective ground attack aircraft does not need speed.

Look at the two most effective Ground attack platforms in current service, the A-10C and the SU-25. Neither are supersonic, both use 30mm cannons, both have 11 hardpoints to maximize payload efficiency. The A-10 can carry 16,000lbs of ordnance to the Su-25K's 9,700lbs, while the Su-25 is faster at 527 knots to the A-10C's 381 (that's max speed not cruise). The A-10C is heavier and carries more gun ammo, and the A-10C's combat radius is around 250nmi to the Su-25's 405nmi. There are several other differences, but the primary gist is that they're both slow (compared to fighters, which typically cruise at 350-500kts), they can spread their payload out (actually carrying more ordnance), and they can accurately deliver their payload. Now the primary difference is that the A-10C was intended to remain in the area to support ground troops while the Su-25 is more along the lines of the A-4, A-6, and A-7 in that they were intended to be part of a strike package, rather than continued support. 

1 hour ago, Vifam7 said:

The better contender might be the winner of the T-X program - with T-50 and the Boeing submission perhaps being the strongest choices.  Both are powered by the GE F404 so there is good amount of thrust there, as well as familiarity.

The T-50 is interesting, but I feel it's a step backwards, since the F-16 has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio and higher payload (so that means more missiles for air combat, and more bombs for air interdiction/CAS). Now, if we were to use the T-50A as a second line fighter/light attack aircraft for the ANG (for reduced operating costs, less combat focused mission) and trainer for AD that would be fine. I would definitely advocate replacing the F-16's in the ANG with FA-50A's, and replacing the ANG's A-10C's with Textron Scorpions, then shifting the F-16C/D's and A-10C's back to the RegAF, allowing us to maintain more pilots.

For that matter I'd like to shift F-15C/D's from the ANG back to the RegAF, and Replace those in the ANG with a similarly capable, low cost airframe. Concerning the ANG, it might be smart to keep the squadrons on the coasts equipped with frontline fighters, and equip other units with the second line fighters. Still, I think we should maximize our forces by going "cheap" where we can afford to, and that's the ANG. 

[Shadow]

The A-10 and Su-25 also benefit from basically being flying tanks. Although I don't know if they intend to send the OA-X anywhere they could face anti-aircraft fire beyond small arms. The A-29 is being used by the Iraqi Air Force to much success I've been reading.

The T-50A would be nice, cost-effective compliment to the F-16C and F-35, and replace some Viper ANG squadrons. The F404 provides ample thrust for such a light airframe, and there will always be the option to upgrade to the F414.

Finding a replacement for the F-15C is another bear in itself as the only effective alternative had its production cut short and the chance of that being changed is almost zero now it seems. I imagine they'll try to fill the void with upgraded F-16s, F-35s or drones until the 6th generation fighter comes along.

[Valkyrie Driver]

4 hours ago, Shadow said:

The A-10 and Su-25 also benefit from basically being flying tanks. Although I don't know if they intend to send the OA-X anywhere they could face anti-aircraft fire beyond small arms. The A-29 is being used by the Iraqi Air Force to much success I've been reading.

Well, yes the A-10C and Su-25K do both have that benefit. Any LA/AR aircraft would by necessity be vulnerable to anything more than small arms, it's not as much an issue. Since the LA/AR aircraft would be supplementing the A-10, it would be used to provide support to small unit actions (orbiting a foot patrol mission area), there to spot enemy movements and provide immediate support. The likely result of the OA-X would be a two seat aircraft, with the back seat being for a spotter/sensor operator, basically taking over the mission for which the OA-10B(two seater) was intended to fill. 

5 hours ago, Shadow said:

The T-50A would be nice, cost-effective compliment to the F-16C and F-35, and replace some Viper ANG squadrons. The F404 provides ample thrust for such a light airframe, and there will always be the option to upgrade to the F414.

Agreed. The whole intent though was to shift most ANG aircraft back to the regular AF, giving us more aircraft for our pilots to fly (which would mean training more pilots). I'm not doubting the T(FA)-50A's ability with the current engine. I simply think it should be a second line aircraft used by the Guard, and give the more capable aircraft to the Regulars (including Active Guard/Reserve squadrons). Basically if the unit has a full time flying mission, it should have frontline combat aircraft, if not, then secondline (secondline does not mean second rate) equipment will suffice.

As for engine upgrades, provided the engine will fit, and it won't overstress the airframe...

5 hours ago, Shadow said:

Finding a replacement for the F-15C is another bear in itself as the only effective alternative had its production cut short and the chance of that being changed is almost zero now it seems. I imagine they'll try to fill the void with upgraded F-16s, F-35s or drones until the 6th generation fighter comes along.

I think you're right. Though, so few ANG squadrons fly the F-15C/D that it almost doesn't matter. I hardly see the F-22A as being a replacement for the F-15C/D, as we have so few F-22A's. 

[Graham]

On 9/15/2017 at 11:57 AM, AN/ALQ128 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq5eRBCeqXM

BAE showing off their fancy Striker II helmet. I found the comment on how the future cockpit designs might do away with physical displays all together, and just project everything into your HMD particularly interesting.

I can't see that ever happening to be honest for reasons of system redundancy.

If your HMD craps out for whatever reason and you have no physical cockpit displays you are up shit creek.

[Shadow]

I'll leave this here.

 

[derex3592]

very cool...

[Valkyrie Driver]

So I thought I might go back to the F-35 for a moment.

Compared to the 187 operational F-22A's in service as of now (and that's all there are ever going to be), there are currently something like 216 operation F-35's with the planned procurement being 1,763 planned for purchase over the program's lifespan. 

That's enough aircraft to equip 98 ish squadrons across three branches.

The A-10C and the F-15E will likely remain in service until 2040, alongside the F-22A's and F-35's, with the USN probably continuing to operate the F/A-18E/F for quite some time to come as well. 

Obviously I'm a huge proponent of maintaining a large military (independent of force multipliers like drones), because I feel that it puts us in a strong position for international relations (I belong to the realist school, where the balance of power is a huge concern). So bear in mind I'm looking at how to expand our military for the most efficient price tag.

*Edit*: This whole thing was posted as a correction to one of my earlier posts, I was working under some assumptions that proved wrong, so THis is me making a retraction.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Valkyrie Driver
Added a retraction

[Shadow]

Oh hi there YF-23, fancy seeing you at Skunk Works' concepts.