Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[Shadow]

A very impressive F-35 shot.

 

[captain america]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGBVgsjd2S8

Famous last words: "Oh God, no." 

[F-ZeroOne]

Wow, I didn't know they'd actually started on HMS Queen Elizabeth yet! (the huge "cricket score" display panel on the island structure was the giveaway!).

[F-ZeroOne]

After inviting proposals for a successor to the F2, Japan has rejected them all (upgraded F-15, F-22 with F-35 avionics and Typhoon) and has decided to develop its own fighter, though possibly in collaboration with international partners - this could be good news for the UKs recently unveiled "Team Tempest" project. 

[Sildani]

Again? They just tried this with the F-X and it was cancelled due to cost... then they wanted the F-35 and I thought that was it... now they’re trying again? Source please?

[F-ZeroOne]

My original source was The Mainichi Daily News:

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20181004/p2a/00m/0na/001000c

[F-ZeroOne]

Oh, yes... "F-35 can't land on carrier because it will melt the deck"...

[captain america]

On 10/5/2018 at 3:09 PM, F-ZeroOne said:

My original source was The Mainichi Daily News:

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20181004/p2a/00m/0na/001000c

There's also this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP1w29kxs20

[F-ZeroOne]

Much as I love the YF-23, I somehow doubt that the Japanese are going to go for a resurrected one either.

[AN/ALQ128]

https://www.janes.com/article/83527/us-navy-to-award-large-area-display-contract-for-super-hornets-and-growlers

Super Hornets/Growlers are getting larger displays as part of the Block 3 upgrades.

 

[Sildani]

Cool. Wonder who’ll be the first to figure out how to get Netflix on that. 

[Shadow]

Larger displays but they won't upgrade to the F414 EPE engines with an additional 4000 Ibs of thrust each over the standard F414.

[David Hingtgen]

So is everybody BUT the US getting the better engines at this point? 

[F-ZeroOne]

"Oops."

https://jalopnik.com/technician-accidentally-sets-off-an-f-16-cannon-blows-1829732241

[M'Kyuun]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/downtime/tui-pilot-absolutely-nails-sideways-landing-in-40-knot-crosswinds-at-bristol-airport/vi-BBOlQLn?ocid=spartanntp

In twenty years of working in aviation, I've never seen a landing like this. The Air Force tends to be very, very safety conscious, so winds of this velocity most likely would have meant a diversion to another location. Watching the vid, I get the sense that this is routine at Bristol. Pretty amazing.

[captain america]

8 hours ago, F-ZeroOne said:

"Oops."

https://jalopnik.com/technician-accidentally-sets-off-an-f-16-cannon-blows-1829732241

 

Edited October 14, 2018 by captain america

[electric indigo]

The comment section of the F-16 article is pretty hilarious.

Also, I wonder if the TUI bird from M'Kyuun's post will be in need of a new landing gear?

[Dobber]

Beautiful!

 

[David Hingtgen]

I didn't think any airliner was certified/tested for 40kt crosswinds, 35's the highest I think I can recall hearing about. 

[David Hingtgen]

3 minutes ago, Dobber said:

Beautiful!

 

Just from the teaser pic, that doesn't look like a B model, based on the antennas (lack of) under the glove and ahead of the vanes.  Not a D either, for similar reasons.  I'll have to look to see if any early-build B's looked like that, but that looks like a "final" scheme of VF-102. 

::edit::  At least the fuselage nibs look right, a far more important part. 

[slide]

Just now, David Hingtgen said:

Just from the teaser pic, that doesn't look like a B model, based on the antennas (lack of) under the glove and ahead of the vanes.  Not a D either, for similar reasons.  I'll have to look to see if any early-build B's looked like that, but that looks like a "final" scheme of VF-102. 

::edit::  At least the fuselage nibs look right, a far more important part. 

We're getting the '14A [not the A+...] and an early '14B iirc

so two airframes in one package.

Edited October 14, 2018 by slide

[M'Kyuun]

1 hour ago, electric indigo said:

The comment section of the F-16 article is pretty hilarious.

Also, I wonder if the TUI bird from M'Kyuun's post will be in need of a new landing gear?

I doubt it; those struts can take some punishment, and I didn't see him blow any tires. If he'd blown a strut, there'd be a sizeable puddle of hydraulic fluid and the plane would list slightly. Honestly, that was a relatively soft landing, considering the situation. If anything, there may have been some excessive torsion upon touchdown which would potentially cause deformation of the scissors. Given how smoothly he continued to taxi, I'm guessing it held together alright.

[electric indigo]

Yeah, I was concerned about the torsion. The touchdown didn't look bad.

12 hours ago, David Hingtgen said:

Just from the teaser pic, that doesn't look like a B model, based on the antennas (lack of) under the glove and ahead of the vanes.  Not a D either, for similar reasons.  I'll have to look to see if any early-build B's looked like that, but that looks like a "final" scheme of VF-102. 

::edit::  At least the fuselage nibs look right, a far more important part. 

The fuselage looks weird, on the real plane, there's only a minimal height difference between the RIO's and the pilot's seat. In the pic, it looks almost like a SU-30.

[Shadow]

18 hours ago, David Hingtgen said:

Just from the teaser pic, that doesn't look like a B model, based on the antennas (lack of) under the glove and ahead of the vanes.  Not a D either, for similar reasons.  I'll have to look to see if any early-build B's looked like that, but that looks like a "final" scheme of VF-102. 

::edit::  At least the fuselage nibs look right, a far more important part. 

Been following this module development. The developers acknowledged that it's still a WIP. The cockpit in the trailer was from an A model as they're still working on the cockpit for the B which would have the ALR-67 RWR and the updated gauges at the lower left handside. It's supposed to be a mid to late 90s spec F-14B with the LANTIRN pod so no Sparrowhawk HUD.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Shadow

[captain america]

18 hours ago, David Hingtgen said:

Just from the teaser pic, that doesn't look like a B model, based on the antennas (lack of) under the glove and ahead of the vanes.  Not a D either, for similar reasons.  I'll have to look to see if any early-build B's looked like that, but that looks like a "final" scheme of VF-102. 

::edit::  At least the fuselage nibs look right, a far more important part. 

It's supposed to be a Bravo model just based on the engines, but has an Alpha cockpit. Definitely missing the B armpit blisters, and I'm pretty sure they all had them from the outset.

Edited October 15, 2018 by captain america

[F-ZeroOne]

23 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/downtime/tui-pilot-absolutely-nails-sideways-landing-in-40-knot-crosswinds-at-bristol-airport/vi-BBOlQLn?ocid=spartanntp

In twenty years of working in aviation, I've never seen a landing like this. The Air Force tends to be very, very safety conscious, so winds of this velocity most likely would have meant a diversion to another location. Watching the vid, I get the sense that this is routine at Bristol. Pretty amazing.

I read a book by an airline pilot who answers public questions and apparently it looks much more dramatic from the outside than it does from the cockpit. We'll have to take his word for it though! Also "landing" in the news this week, arrestor hooks just aren't cricket, old chap:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-45863698/navy-f-35-jet-trials-rolling-landing-on-aircraft-carrier

 

[David Hingtgen]

7 hours ago, Shadow said:

Been following this module development. The developers acknowledged that it's still a WIP. The cockpit in the trailer was from an A model as they're still working on the cockpit for the B which would have the ALR-67 RWR and the updated gauges at the lower left handside. It's supposed to be a mid to late 90s spec F-14B with the LANTIRN pod so no Sparrowhawk HUD.

I'll give them points for the TPS camo, that Jolly Rogers one has the best replication of the actual colors/pattern I've seen in a LONG time, including otherwise very-well-done model kits. 

[captain america]

Not sure if this was posted when it was first released, but it sounds interesting. I was thinking that they would make the direct leap to directed energy weapons, but perhaps those are better suited to shorter range targets.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15692/the-pentagon-is-quietly-developing-an-next-generation-long-range-air-to-air-missile

[dizman]

4 hours ago, captain america said:

Not sure if this was posted when it was first released, but it sounds interesting. I was thinking that they would make the direct leap to directed energy weapons, but perhaps those are better suited to shorter range targets.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15692/the-pentagon-is-quietly-developing-an-next-generation-long-range-air-to-air-missile

We are probably a few years out from fighter sized energy weapons that you can mount to any airframe, I like the idea of a two stage A-A missile and like the article said it plays into the every aircraft is connected strategy the Air Force is going towards. 

[kalvasflam]

For direct energy weapons, there are a few considerations, such as range, and the amount of power needed. to do sufficient damage.  You can technically buy laser diodes that runs in the hundreds of Watts, stack a bunch of them together, and you can get up to  tens of kW range pretty easily.  A potential reference point would be  the AN/SEQ-3, it is estimated to be running at 15 kW to 50 kW, my guess is that this is really a pulsed laser.  Now, it's a big sucker since its mounted on a ship, but in theory, you could mount that onto an F-35, and it could be powered by the engine on that particular plane without any problems.  But then you'd have to propagate enough of that energy through the air to physically do damage to an air frame, or may be detonate something like ordinance or fuel.   The physics of it becomes a problem, the real airborne testbeds thus far have been mounted on the 747, the YAL.  Then for fighters, you have to somehow mount the weapon on, and be able to steer the beam physically onto a target.  Which is technically something that has already been worked out given the availability of laser jammers that can target missiles.  

However, even though this might be technically feasible, the practical reality is that the laser probably can't be just mounted to a fighter for air to air combat.  My guess is that the laser above probably has range under 10 miles, but that assumes the power can be scaled up.  This is great as long as your target is within visual light of sight.  But in any type of aerial engagement, the fight is supposed to be BVR (beyond visual range), this usually means air to air missiles.  If you get too close, the whole point of stealth start to become irrelevant because the other side might see you.   And if you have directed energy weapons, so might they.  

My guess is that lasers might be good to take down relatively undefended targets like tankers or transports and such, but any type of counter air would still require lots and lots of AAMs.  That said, I would guess that it might actually be possible for lasers to take down incoming AAMs, it would be a pretty small window for engagement, but definitely possible as long as the laser is oriented in the right direction.

 

 

[dizman]

Yeah you pretty much nailed it with that explanation, if a fighter were to have an energy weapon today it would probably have to be built around the laser but that just wouldn't be worth the cost. Maybe in 15 years they will have a system that is powerful enough and portable enough to mount on any fighter then energy weapons could see a bigger place in combat roles. 

[AN/ALQ128]

More images of Dassault's NGF concept released at EURONAVAL 2018.

 

[Sildani]

Looks like a YF-23 mated with a Frenchist. Nice. 

Edited October 24, 2018 by Sildani

[Nightbat]

On 10/14/2018 at 2:27 PM, F-ZeroOne said:

"Oops."

https://jalopnik.com/technician-accidentally-sets-off-an-f-16-cannon-blows-1829732241

Love the top comment in that article

 

On 10/15/2018 at 12:00 AM, David Hingtgen said:

I didn't think any airliner was certified/tested for 40kt crosswinds, 35's the highest I think I can recall hearing about. 

"This is tower to TUI Airways Boeing 757-200: Too much crosswind to land, we suggest you divert to the nearest alternative"

"Tower, this is TUI Airways Boeing 757-200: Challenge accepted! Navigator: Hold my beer!"

 

[Shadow]

Going back to the F-14. Here is some neat footage from the early 80s.

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Shadow