Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[Graham]

On 1/12/2019 at 5:32 AM, F-ZeroOne said:

David! That must be a F-22, we all know the F-35 can't  climb/turn/dive/fly!

damn, the built-in anti-grav drive looks to be working very well :P

[grigolosi]

On 1/21/2019 at 11:00 PM, Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 said:

I read that Boeing is offering the F-15X to the USAF as replacements for their aging C models. The X is like the QA but single seat. I'm guessing CFT's would be carried as standard.

Are the QA/X's engines enough to counter the added drag and weight of the CFT's? I do remember hearing the Beagle wasn't anywhere near as good in DACM compared to the C model(on F-16.net, a Viper Driver didn't think much of the Beagle). However I also remember reading that the Slam Eagle, SG, SA and QA models would have higher thrust from newer models of the F100 engine.

The Newest Eagles are either equipped with the PW 229 or GE 129, depending on the contract and what the customer prefers. The USAF has kept its Eagles restricted to PW 220's and 229's. The 229 being in the 29-30k thrust rating. 

In a conversation I had with my pilot when I was stationed in Japan. He told me that when engaged at visual range by F-16's the Eagles would go completely DACM. They would try to run for altitude since the Eagle operates far better at higher altitudes than the Viper. These were the Charlie and Delta models he was referring too.

I would say that the munitions dropped were SDB's most likely (GBU-53's) The newest version uses a tri seeker system for targeting giving the pilot more options in attacking their targets. It is also capable of carrying 8 of them internally. Not too sure about the targeting. I would ask some of the guys I know but that would  be stepping into the realm of classified info more than likely. With  the use of IDM systems in the aircraft now I would say it was target info passed from other aircraft to him.

[AN/ALQ128]

https://theaviationist.com/2019/01/29/u-s-navys-last-operational-f-a-18c-hornet-to-be-retired-on-feb-1-2019/

Say goodbye to those old Bugs.

 

[Vifam7]

3 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

https://theaviationist.com/2019/01/29/u-s-navys-last-operational-f-a-18c-hornet-to-be-retired-on-feb-1-2019/

Say goodbye to those old Bugs.

 

Meanwhile in Canada...

Apologies to my Canadian friends.

[David Hingtgen]

Le Hornette will last forever!  CF-188A+++ in 2040!   Or maybe buy some F-16A MLU's from somebody by then...

[kalvasflam]

Geez, that's just evil.  Although part of me wonders why pretty boy isn't trying to get older machines from the USN or USMC.  I suppose they might be even more worn than the stuff from down under.

[sketchley]

12 hours ago, David Hingtgen said:

Le Hornette will last forever!  CF-188A+++ in 2040!   Or maybe buy some F-16A MLU's from somebody by then...

Le Hornet.

They went with the English name as-is.  (Also, with the feminine form, wouldn't it be La Hornette?  )

 

(Je suis Canadien.  Je regrette de ne pouvoir parler qu'un peu.)

Edited January 30, 2019 by sketchley

[Knight26]

Pretty much all the foreign hornets (legacy) will have much longer lives.  They are relatively low hours and have pretty much zero trap life.  That is ultimately killed the USN Legacy Hornets, and what will kill any and all Navy birds eventually.

[Shadow]

5 hours ago, Knight26 said:

Pretty much all the foreign hornets (legacy) will have much longer lives.  They are relatively low hours and have pretty much zero trap life.  That is ultimately killed the USN Legacy Hornets, and what will kill any and all Navy birds eventually.

It will be interesting to see the differences in physical wear in 10 years between the F-35C and the A model.

[AN/ALQ128]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/199630/airbus%2C-dassault-jointly-awarded-two_year-scaf-%C2%A7-fcas-architecture-study.html

France and Germany are moving on their Next Generation Weapon System program.

[Shadow]

A good read on the incoming F-15X.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26305/f-15x-will-come-in-two-variants-and-no-it-wont-cost-100m-per-copy

Edited February 5, 2019 by Shadow

[Dobber]

I’m usually not a fan of U.S.A.F anniversary/commemorative schemes but I’m liking this one. 75th Anniversary of D-Day.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by Dobber

[renegadeleader1]

Best retro camo I've seen in person was the Canadian Airforce Battle of Britain anniversary scheme.

 

 

[captain america]

11 hours ago, Shadow said:

A good read on the incoming F-15X.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26305/f-15x-will-come-in-two-variants-and-no-it-wont-cost-100m-per-copy

I will only accept these if they paint them in Transformer Seeker schemes, complete with faction symbols.

[renegadeleader1]

A couple months ago I took a cross country trip with my brother and along the way we stopped at the USAF Museum in Dayton and the South Dakota Air & Space Museum in Box Elder. I promised pics and I've finally got them uploaded to my flickr account if you guys still want to see them. There's also some older pics in there from the New England Air Museum and some tanks from the American Heritage Museum, Wright WWII Museum, and the defunct Danbury CT tank museum if that's your thing. Also Battleship Cove too. Let me know what you think.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/94560635@N04/

[electric indigo]

Impressive lineup, thanks for the pics!

[kalvasflam]

Nice, WPAFB, shame, they didn't have the YF-23 when I was there.  But it was an amazing collection.

[AN/ALQ128]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-47137790

The end is in sight for Panavia Tornados in RAF service.

[kalvasflam]

Do you remember when the Lightnings went out of service?  How about the Phantoms? 

The RAF has better tech for sure, but its is a farcry from the late 80s in terms of mass and just overall readiness.  I think if the Falklands happened today, the RN and RAF will not be in any better shape than it was in 1982.  But then, the same can be said about most of the western armed forces.

These Tornadoes are the attack versions I believe, the air defense variants has been phased out for a while, is that right?

 

 

[Dobber]

USAF concept for 747 airborne aircraft carriers with “micro” fighters. 

 

[Thom]

Crazy. As in crazy awesome!! They never want to do the really fun stuff!

[Dobber]

I know right! I love how those “micro” fighters look too. Their stowage made me think of SB Yamato 

Chris

[slide]

they look like tail-less J-10s

 

This idea is so Stupid I LOVE IT! shoulda been funded!

[captain america]

8 hours ago, Dobber said:

USAF concept for 747 airborne aircraft carriers with “micro” fighters. 

 

It's like something right out of GI Joe, but WAY COOLER!!! 

[derex3592]

that was super freakin cool! Was anyone else thinking a lot of "Macross" ideas while watching that? Lil Drakkens on wingtips etc, etc....

[Knight26]

The 747 Carrier plane was an interesting case study, but practicality would have always been limited.  Like the video said, better in air refueling eliminated the need for such an aircraft.

[kalvasflam]

20 hours ago, Dobber said:

USAF concept for 747 airborne aircraft carriers with “micro” fighters. 

 

Amen, now, that's a defense project I can get behind.  Except, now it can be more realistic, we don't need pilots, we have drones.  It would be cool.

In fact, I have an even better alternative here.  Use the A380, it has a larger carrying capacity, and this needs to be a European project to save the line before it is permanently killed.  

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-to-axe-a380-programme-after-emirates-order-re-455756/

In fact, they don't even have to wait for a process, someone could use their discretionary budget, to buy the two A380 from Dr Peters on the cheap, then retrofit and test.  

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by kalvasflam

[F-ZeroOne]

A flying aircraft carrier? Where have I heard that idea before...

DUNDUN-DUN-DUNDUN-DUN!

[electric indigo]

You can land that Boeing on my deck

[Vifam7]

The mothership idea is nothing new. It's been around since the age of biplanes and dirigibles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akron-class_airship

Edited February 14, 2019 by Vifam7

[kalvasflam]

11 minutes ago, Vifam7 said:

The mothership idea is nothing new. It's been around since the age of biplanes and dirigibles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akron-class_airship

That's true, and there is always the danger of the mothership coming under attack.  The practical question becomes what is the best advantage conferred by the mothership.  One would assume it has something to do with operational range, and the fact that it is mobile.  But if you have to start considering the degree of logistical support for the carried aircraft and defensive capabilities, suddenly you need something a lot larger and a lot more robust than a converted 747...

 

[anime52k8]

3 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

That's true, and there is always the danger of the mothership coming under attack.  The practical question becomes what is the best advantage conferred by the mothership.  One would assume it has something to do with operational range, and the fact that it is mobile.  But if you have to start considering the degree of logistical support for the carried aircraft and defensive capabilities, suddenly you need something a lot larger and a lot more robust than a converted 747...

 

A lot larger you say?

[Chronocidal]

The question then becomes how you can physically maintain such a gargantuan monstrosity while in mid-flight, because if you don't have quadruple redundancy on pretty much everything, it's not going to stay in the air very long.

At least that last one has the sense that you could land it on water, but I think the Yukikaze designs were never meant to land once launched.

Not to mention.. the idea that those tankers are refueling that thing is hilarious.  Unless they're carrying some kind of incredibly efficient and high energy-to-volume fuel source, those tankers would probably fit inside the carrier's fuel tanks.  They might be better off landing the tankers and offloading the fuel manually so they'd at least save the gas the tanker would spend while flying.  

Edited February 15, 2019 by Chronocidal

[kalvasflam]

1 hour ago, anime52k8 said:

A lot larger you say?

COBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

[AN/ALQ128]

3 hours ago, Chronocidal said:

The question then becomes how you can physically maintain such a gargantuan monstrosity while in mid-flight, because if you don't have quadruple redundancy on pretty much everything, it's not going to stay in the air very long.

At least that last one has the sense that you could land it on water, but I think the Yukikaze designs were never meant to land once launched.

Not to mention.. the idea that those tankers are refueling that thing is hilarious.  Unless they're carrying some kind of incredibly efficient and high energy-to-volume fuel source, those tankers would probably fit inside the carrier's fuel tanks.  They might be better off landing the tankers and offloading the fuel manually so they'd at least save the gas the tanker would spend while flying.  

IIRC the Banshees in Yukikaze had a nuclear reactor powering it.