Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[renegadeleader1]

Went to US Airforce museum today. That collection is mindblowing, there is stuff there I never thought I'd see in person(Bockscar, Memphis Belle, B-36 Peacemaker, XB-70 Valkyrie. Pics to follow!

[captain america]

They should throw-out the superbugs & replace them with updated Tomcats. Greater air-to-ground payload capability, range and speed. Plus, makes a great missile platform for upcoming VLRAAM weaponry. Also, they (should) be able to shoehorn the F-35's engines in there, so there would be engine commonality across the different services, while giving her a power-to-weight ratio of >1 to 1 even at MTOW.

[Vifam7]

27 minutes ago, captain america said:

They should throw-out the superbugs & replace them with updated Tomcats. Greater air-to-ground payload capability, range and speed. Plus, makes a great missile platform for upcoming VLRAAM weaponry. Also, they (should) be able to shoehorn the F-35's engines in there, so there would be engine commonality across the different services, while giving her a power-to-weight ratio of >1 to 1 even at MTOW.

Tomcats are obsolete. Big giant targets for stealth fighters like the ones that China is starting to develop. No need to bring back ancient machines with outdated aerodynamics.

[captain america]

1 hour ago, Vifam7 said:

Tomcats are obsolete. Big giant targets for stealth fighters like the ones that China is starting to develop. No need to bring back ancient machines with outdated aerodynamics.

Sorry, that's not an argument.

The F-15, which is probably THE biggest offender in terms of RCS due to its right-angle intakes and perfectly vertical tails, is still going strong. With the development of fighter-mounted directed energy weapon systems, F-14s & F-15s are prime candidates for that technology by virtue of their size and payload capacity. Also, it looks like there are no plans to mount DEWs onto low-observable fighters because the tech may interfere with their low RCS. "Stealth" planes also have to stay < Mach 2 to avoid delamination of their radar-absorbant coatings, which isn't an issue on the previous generation aircraft, so they do offfer some advantages. Russians are planning on having something ready by 2035. US is already starting testing: the future is here!

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by captain america

[Vifam7]

42 minutes ago, captain america said:

Sorry, that's not an argument.

The F-15, which is probably THE biggest offender in terms of RCS due to its right-angle intakes and perfectly vertical tails, is still going strong.

 

I don't know about that. Recent reports were suggesting that those 197? or so USAF F-15Cs will not be getting their EW equipment upgrade and thus the USAF is possibly already considering retirement of the whole F-15C fleet.

Edited October 27, 2018 by Vifam7

[AN/ALQ128]

The issue with bringing back the Tomcat is that the manufacturing lines were all stopped years ago, the tooling needs to be remade, workers need to be retrained because everyone who knew how to put together a Tomcat is retired. Subcontractors need to be hired to create new submanufacturing lines for all the components that the OEM can't make. The Hornet lines have been kept warmed up throughout the years, which is why it makes more sense for them to create updated Super Hornets than it is to create an updated Tomcat.

[captain america]

40 minutes ago, Vifam7 said:

I don't know about that. Recent reports were suggesting that those 197? or so USAF F-15Cs will not be getting their EW equipment upgrade and thus the USAF is possibly already considering retirement of the whole F-15C fleet.

I recall reading something along those lines. Wasn't there at least one incident of an F-15 having a structural failure mid-flight? They should still have a fair amount of serviceable Strike Eagles remaining, though.

AN/ALQ128: true enough. Granted, Grumman now has the combined ressources of Northrop-Grumman, not to mention several decades of improved know-how to get things done more efficiently. I realize it's mostly wish-fulfilment on my part, combined with a sense of dissatisfaction that comes from seeing the Navy make due with a successor that is, in most respects, inferior to the aircraft it replaced.

 

[AN/ALQ128]

3 hours ago, captain america said:

I recall reading something along those lines. Wasn't there at least one incident of an F-15 having a structural failure mid-flight? They should still have a fair amount of serviceable Strike Eagles remaining, though.

AN/ALQ128: true enough. Granted, Grumman now has the combined ressources of Northrop-Grumman, not to mention several decades of improved know-how to get things done more efficiently. I realize it's mostly wish-fulfilment on my part, combined with a sense of dissatisfaction that comes from seeing the Navy make due with a successor that is, in most respects, inferior to the aircraft it replaced.

 

Yeah, don't get me wrong, in my dream-fantasy world, the ASF-21 proposal would have been produced and we'd have Tomcats launching alongside F-35's right now.

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14x.htm

 

[Vifam7]

37 minutes ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

Yeah, don't get me wrong, in my dream-fantasy world, the ASF-21 proposal would have been produced and we'd have Tomcats launching alongside F-35's right now.

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14x.htm

 

If the F-14 (and F-15) wasn't so expensive in the first place, that might have been a possibility. 

 

[electric indigo]

Just make a stealthified 4.5 gen. Eagle

[anime52k8]

2 hours ago, electric indigo said:

Just make a stealthified 4.5 gen. Eagle

You rang?

[Shadow]

I'd rather  the Navy focus on developing 6th generation heavy fighter that takes alot of inspiration from the proposed ASF-14 that can formally replace the Super Bug down the line while offering longer range, speed and stealth.

[F-ZeroOne]

Boeing have been shopping round a "Silent Eagle" concept for a while now. No-ones bit. As awesome as the Tomcat was, its not coming back [1], anymore than the RAF will be getting modernised TSR2s.

[1] Except, possibly as a "Tomcat II" which would be a clean-sheet design that just inherited the name, like the Lightning II.

Edited October 28, 2018 by F-ZeroOne

[electric indigo]

...and after 15 years of development and a gazillion dollars, the Tomcat II will look like a featureless flying saucer.

[captain america]

1 minute ago, electric indigo said:

...and after 15 years of development and a gazillion dollars, the Tomcat II will look like a featureless flying saucer.

Or a Pak-Fa with swing-wings, more powerful engines and tweaked for lower RCS. 

[505thAirborne]

2 hours ago, anime52k8 said:

You rang?

Love that scene with those Stealthy F-15's. 

[Dobber]

What is that from?

Chris

[Shadow]

1 hour ago, Dobber said:

What is that from?

Chris

Patlabor 2: the movie.

Quote

Or a Pak-Fa with swing-wings, more powerful engines and tweaked for lower RCS. 

So a Navalized carbon copy of the YF-23.

[sketchley]

5 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Patlabor 2: the movie.

That fighter's another great Kawamori-san design. :)

[kalvasflam]

4 hours ago, F-ZeroOne said:

Boeing have been shopping round a "Silent Eagle" concept for a while now. No-ones bit. As awesome as the Tomcat was, its not coming back [1], anymore than the RAF will be getting modernised TSR2s.

[1] Except, possibly as a "Tomcat II" which would be a clean-sheet design that just inherited the name, like the Lightning II.

Given how well the F-35 has worked out, not sure likening the concept of Lightning II to a Tomcat II would necessarily be a good idea.  Also, Hasn't the Israelis looked at the Silent Eagle as a potential option.  Overall, this current state of affairs can be blamed on Gates and his action that shut down the F-22 line.  Yes, I feel that blame needs to go where it is deserved.

[Vifam7]

1 hour ago, kalvasflam said:

Given how well the F-35 has worked out, not sure likening the concept of Lightning II to a Tomcat II would necessarily be a good idea.  Also, Hasn't the Israelis looked at the Silent Eagle as a potential option. 

The F-35 will work out just fine. It's starting to turn the corner. The original Tomcat wasn't perfect out the door either.  Afterall, for much of its service life it had to make do with the "interim" TF30 engines. 

The Israelis chose the F-35 over the F-15SE. However they recently showed interest in buying more F-15s - not the SEs, but new build F-15s that have the latest advances (perhaps incorporating features that Boeing recently proposed in the F-15X) ~ not as an alternative to the F-35 but to replace their aging F-15A/B/C/D Baz fleet.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Vifam7

[kalvasflam]

I have to say, it is utter stupidity that the USAF is not buying additional F-15s.  Because the damned things are still decent missile trucks and still deadly against most gen 4 fighters.  The fact of the matter is, they need an air superiority fighter, if they can't buy the F-22, then just go buy the thing from the line that is still open.   

As for the F-35, well, the thing is it would depend on the production line being open as long as the F-16 line was/is open and having literally thousands of those roll out.  The plane itself has a lot to be desired, short legs for one.  The USAF isn't so badly off since the unit is designed to replace F-16s.  But the USN is screwed, the range is slightly better than the F-18 E/F but nowhere near what was lost when the Navy retired its last A-6.  So, it isn't the best strike aircraft in the world until they get the Stingrays up and  running, and hope they can double the range of the -Cs.

[F-ZeroOne]

I really want to see the manufacturer that tries to sell a swing-wing design these days. I'm not saying it can't happen, but as one aviation book I read once put it, aviation has its fashion periods sometimes as well and swing-wings are kind of the flared trousers of aviation - they're always about to make a comeback...

[F-ZeroOne]

Name inheritance can work in either direction. "My" nations air force uses the Typhoon, which namechecks a design that had its own fair share of early service woes (one newspaper letter I read at the time the name was announced for what was then the "EF2000" was written by someone who obviously had some wartime experience with the early "Tiffys", some of it tragic, and they were not complimentary).

[F-ZeroOne]

Now I think of it, the P-38 itself had its fair share of development issues - and it wasn't a stellar performer in Europe; it just happened that its particular characteristics proved to be incredibly well matched to the operating environment of the Pacific theatre.

[kalvasflam]

10 minutes ago, F-ZeroOne said:

Now I think of it, the P-38 itself had its fair share of development issues - and it wasn't a stellar performer in Europe; it just happened that its particular characteristics proved to be incredibly well matched to the operating environment of the Pacific theatre.

The P-38's claim to fame is really that it killed Yamamoto.  It's a nice looking plane, and did a great job in the Pacific, but if it's one thing that particular plane is known for, it is whacking Isoroku.   You know what the funny thing is?  The P-38 had better combat range than the F-35.  Imagine that.  

[F-ZeroOne]

Its not exactly a fair comparison, is it? The P-38 weighed 12,800lbs empty, topped out at 414mph and detected targets with something called an eyeball. The F-35 weighs 29,000lb empty, tops out at Mach 1.6 and detects targets with a range of different sensors and can (in theory) shoot down a target from over 70km away. To kill Yamamoto, the P-38 had to physically fly to where he was, carrying all the fuel itself, and get close enough to actually see the aircraft he was in. How much easier would the P-38s job have been if it could have refueled from a tanker, and fire a missile at the target from a distance? How much more of a "pure" dogfighter would the P-38 have been if it had had a single engine and didn't carry all that fuel, like a Spitfire? How long would a P-38 last in a modern, SAM-populated, radar-directed world?

The two are different aircraft from two widely separated periods of time and technological advancement and - a point often forgotten in this sort of comparison - different design goals. The F-35 was not designed as a Tomcat replacement - politics and economics have arguably "forced" it into that role. If the US wished to do so, it could design a "true" Tomcat replacement, if its willing to spend the time and money to do so. And for better or worse, modern combat aircraft don't exist in an "isolated" support environment anymore - Yamamoto saw his death coming, but he might not even have known he was under attack at all from an AWACs directed shot...  

Edited October 29, 2018 by F-ZeroOne

[kalvasflam]

5 minutes ago, F-ZeroOne said:

Its not exactly a fair comparison, is it? The P-38 weighed 12,800lbs empty, topped out at 414mph and detected targets with something called an eyeball. The F-35 weighs 29,000lb empty, tops out at Mach 1.6 and detects targets with a range of different sensors and can (in theory) shoot down a target from over 70km away. To kill Yamamoto, the P-38 had to physically fly to where he was, carrying all the fuel itself, and get close enough to actually see the aircraft he was in. How much easier would the P-38s job have been if it could have refueled from a tanker, and fire a missile at the target from a distance? How much more of a "pure" dogfighter would the P-38 have been if it had had a single engine and didn't carry all that fuel, like a Spitfire? How long would a P-38 last in a modern, SAM-populated, radar-directed world?

The two are different aircraft from two widely separated periods of time and technological advancement and - a point often forgotten in this sort of comparison - different design goals. The F-35 was not designed as a Tomcat replacement - politics and economics have arguably "forced" it into that role. If the US wished to do so, it could design a "true" Tomcat replacement, if its willing to spend the time and money to do so. And for better or worse, modern combat aircraft don't exist in an "isolated" support environment anymore - Yamamoto saw his death coming, but he might not even have known he was under attack at all from an AWACs directed shot...  

 

The comparison was obviously made in jest.  But you know, quantity has a quality all on its own, so said a crazed Georgian once.  I think they built quite a few P-38, I wonder if they'll get up to a fraction of that number with the F-35.  And in response to your comment about the F-35 killing targets BVR.  That is true, as long as they can reach the target.  Yes, you're of course correct, in combat these days, everything is chained together, the US showed that years ago.  This is the real reason no one wants to play against the USAF or the USN, there are just too many assets that has the ability to amplify what even a weaker aircraft could do.

[F-ZeroOne]

Okay, sorry, as usual its sometimes difficult to detect the intent of a comment in text (and I've seen so many "F-35 can't dogfight a Sopwith Camel, which is the only aircraft in the world that can strafe properly!" threads it just set off a twitch). They did build quite a few P-38s, but then the loss rate of P-38s (and most other World War aircraft) was also significantly higher - as one historian put it, its not often recognised these days just how much of a risk World War II wartime leaders took when they undertook long flights in aircraft of the era (and leaving aside the degree of training required - pilots were a bottleneck then in some cases just as they are now). And those numbers were achieved under wartime conditions and utilising a significant proportion of the available production capacity; compare the numbers of aircraft fielded by what would become the Allied nations in peacetime. Of course, and again its a different era, such a production ramp-up would be much more difficult just due to the increased complexity of modern fighters, but thats how the argument goes - they need that sophistication to give them the qualitative edge (I'm aware of the arguments either way, thats just how its usually presented).

Also, and to use another historians argument, the P-38 was the F-35 of its day (as were the Spitfire, Me109, and P-51) - expensive, cutting edge machines on the verge of what was technologically possible and designed to be on a par or better than the rest of the worlds designs.  And like the F-35, there were people who didn't always appreciate their value. After all, the RAF nearly fought the Battle of Britain with Boulton Paul Defiants...

[David Hingtgen]

Eh, not quite IMHO.  The F-35 is supposed to be a cut-down F-22 ('90% as good for half the cost'----only the final result was backwards), and/or a "jack of all trades" replacement for everything from the F-117 to the A-10.  The P-38, was designed to be the fastest, ultimate interceptor of its day.  No compromises, no other mission.  

The P-38 is more comparable to the F-22 in that regard.  Really dedicated to a single specific role, to do it extremely well.  Vs "well, what's the best we can do across A, B, and C, for X dollars?" 

[kalvasflam]

1 hour ago, F-ZeroOne said:

Okay, sorry, as usual its sometimes difficult to detect the intent of a comment in text (and I've seen so many "F-35 can't dogfight a Sopwith Camel, which is the only aircraft in the world that can strafe properly!" threads it just set off a twitch). They did build quite a few P-38s, but then the loss rate of P-38s (and most other World War aircraft) was also significantly higher - as one historian put it, its not often recognised these days just how much of a risk World War II wartime leaders took when they undertook long flights in aircraft of the era (and leaving aside the degree of training required - pilots were a bottleneck then in some cases just as they are now). And those numbers were achieved under wartime conditions and utilising a significant proportion of the available production capacity; compare the numbers of aircraft fielded by what would become the Allied nations in peacetime. Of course, and again its a different era, such a production ramp-up would be much more difficult just due to the increased complexity of modern fighters, but thats how the argument goes - they need that sophistication to give them the qualitative edge (I'm aware of the arguments either way, thats just how its usually presented).

Also, and to use another historians argument, the P-38 was the F-35 of its day (as were the Spitfire, Me109, and P-51) - expensive, cutting edge machines on the verge of what was technologically possible and designed to be on a par or better than the rest of the worlds designs.  And like the F-35, there were people who didn't always appreciate their value. After all, the RAF nearly fought the Battle of Britain with Boulton Paul Defiants...

I would agree with David to a large extent.  While the F-35 is a good aircraft for the most part, and it would've been an awesome F-16 replacement, and just as good an F-18 replacement, it just got stuck with too many roles.   Not to say that the F-35 isn't a capable aircraft, but Lockheed really bilked the USAF and the government for a ton of money.  I think if nothing else, the advocates of the F-35 and certainly Robert Gates should shoulder the blame for the travails suffered by this program, and they should be castigated for not continuing the F-22 line, because the learning on that line would've continued to carry over and reduce the cost of new aircraft, and certainly, I think one could've made a case for something like the equivalent of a Strike Eagle in the F-22 package.   At the point of termination, the F-22 was a proven design, while the F-35 for its superficial similarities was still a new design.

I wonder what lessons might be learned from programs like the P-8 which was both effective and within budget.  Sadly, it isn't the manufacturer that is the difference considering how screwed up the KC-46 program is.  And of course, still no AWACS replacement.

[Sildani]

3 hours ago, F-ZeroOne said:

I really want to see the manufacturer that tries to sell a swing-wing design these days. I'm not saying it can't happen, but as one aviation book I read once put it, aviation has its fashion periods sometimes as well and swing-wings are kind of the flared trousers of aviation - they're always about to make a comeback...

I’ve always wondered if maybe a lot of the weight penalty from VG wings might be spared if the wings could both pivot from one central fulcrum. There has always been two pivot posts, thus two points that need to be strengthened, longer control runs/hydraulic lines/etc, and so on. A single fulcrum might ease all that. 

Also, modern materials would help too!

[Vifam7]

1 hour ago, Sildani said:

I’ve always wondered if maybe a lot of the weight penalty from VG wings might be spared if the wings could both pivot from one central fulcrum. There has always been two pivot posts, thus two points that need to be strengthened, longer control runs/hydraulic lines/etc, and so on. A single fulcrum might ease all that. 

Also, modern materials would help too!

The thing is, modern wing design, materials, and engine power have pretty much made VG wings unnecessary and obsolete. 

That said, if VG wings is coming back into fashion, maybe we can also bring back twin-booms (a la P-38/Sea Vixen/Vampire)?   Like these:

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Vifam7

[Chronocidal]

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 1:12 PM, Shadow said:

I'd rather  the Navy focus on developing 6th generation heavy fighter that takes alot of inspiration from the proposed ASF-14 that can formally replace the Super Bug down the line while offering longer range, speed and stealth.

Given how many F-35Cs the Navy is actually purchasing, I'm pretty sure that's already where they're headed.  The F-35 is getting there, but it's not what the Navy really wants.  Funny actually, as the C-model has the largest payload capacity, and longest range of the entire F-35 fleet.  

One of the big things that keeps the F-15s going at this point is the utter simplicity of the design, compared with the F-14.  Swing wings are an amazingly versatile feature, but they also add exponential levels of complexity to the airframe, and all the man-hours of maintenance that go along with all those extra moving parts.

I do wish the services would recover some semblance of balance between multi-role and single-role fighters though.  If there's one thing that both the F-14 and F-15 proved, it's that the design aspects that make an effective interceptor or fleet defense fighter also translate very well to carrying a truckload of ordnance a really long way.  I don't know how practical it is, but in my mind, it seems beneficial to design aircraft for those roles, and just let other roles deal with the fallout performance.  Obviously, lay the groundwork in the hardware and software for those roles.. but don't let development get hung up on making sure it can do everything.

[kalvasflam]

There is an argument to be made about multi-role and single role type aircraft.  The best versions of so called multi-role aircraft in my opinion started out with a single role, and then expanded, I'm of course talking about the F-15.  One could argue all of the other 4th generation fighters and bombers were single role aircraft to start with.   The F-16 is a light attack, same for the F-18, and the F-14 was an all around interceptor specific to the Navy.  The extensions on the F-16 and the F-18 mainly ended up in foreign markets (super hornets notwithstanding) where the need became multi-role.  After all, the operators of the F-16 and F-18 had dual roles for both types.  The F-22 was also a single role aircraft.   And I don't think I would be too far off to suggest that had the production continued, they could've evolved a version of the -22 to a Strike Raptor.  

The F-35 was a disaster of a multi-role aircraft, one could in fact argue that if the services went with just three separate designs, they would've been better off.  The A variants would have been the light attack replacement for the F-16s.  The B variant would have been a  close support type for the Marines, and the C variant would've been dedicated attack variant for the Navy.  The F-35 became primarily an air force aircraft (owing to the economics involved) and the marine variant came off as a little brother, while the navy version became an unwanted stepchild.  The only reason the -C has longer legs and better structural frames is because of the need to land the plane on a carrier.

It's a bit sad that the US naval aviation has been reduced to such a sad state, in the days of the Soviet Union, each carrier air wing had 90 plus aircraft, now they barely field 60.  There is no more long range attack (A-6), no dedicated sub hunters (S-3), no dedicated interceptors per se (F-14), only two specific airframes that are dedicated to multiple roles, F-18 for tanker, EW, light attack, interceptor, none of which are performed especially well compared to their single role counterparts.  Then there is the F-35 for (I guess light attack) whatever role that it gets slotted for.  Hopefully, with the 6th generation and the advent of UCAS, the USN will get back to more of its roots on the carriers.