Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[kalvasflam]

6 hours ago, ahiachris said:

Original Top Gun was a very low budget movie. You can see missiles launching at the same hard point again and again.

It depends I think on what you consider low budget.  The movie itself got access to two aircraft carriers as well as a ton of technical assistance.  All for free, in exchange for the rights by the Navy to edit, and turned out the Navy didn't edit a single thing.  So, you're right, it was low budget considering that they didn't have to pay for a few days of carrier ops while they filmed.  

[David Hingtgen]

I believe that was part of it---the Navy allowed ONE real missile launch to be done for the film.  So they had to make the most of it.  Nowadays a movie could have 50 unique missile launches in the furball to end all furballs, but they'd all be CGI.  While Top Gun did use some radio-control models, there's a TON of real F-14 footage, and a REAL missile launch.  We're unlikely to see anything like that again.  "Straight and level, or gentle turns"---that'll be the real Hornet.  Everything else---CG. 

[kalvasflam]

44 minutes ago, David Hingtgen said:

I believe that was part of it---the Navy allowed ONE real missile launch to be done for the film.  So they had to make the most of it.  Nowadays a movie could have 50 unique missile launches in the furball to end all furballs, but they'd all be CGI.  While Top Gun did use some radio-control models, there's a TON of real F-14 footage, and a REAL missile launch.  We're unlikely to see anything like that again.  "Straight and level, or gentle turns"---that'll be the real Hornet.  Everything else---CG. 

Yep, if anyone considers what the Navy did for Top Gun to be low budget, they have another thing coming.  It would be interesting as heck if the Navy did it again for the next Top Gun movie, but then the current CinC might demand a portion of the proceeds.  Although it would be interesting as heck to see if the next Top Gun can get Tom Cruise and company on an actual carrier.  I'd imagine the captains and admirals in charge of the fleet might have been college school kids when the first Top Gun came out.

[David Hingtgen]

That gives me an idea---let's have a B-52 movie...

[Thom]

1 hour ago, David Hingtgen said:

That gives me an idea---let's have a B-52 movie...

Flight of the Old Dog!!

[slide]

2 hours ago, David Hingtgen said:

I believe that was part of it---the Navy allowed ONE real missile launch to be done for the film.  So they had to make the most of it.  Nowadays a movie could have 50 unique missile launches in the furball to end all furballs, but they'd all be CGI.  While Top Gun did use some radio-control models, there's a TON of real F-14 footage, and a REAL missile launch.  We're unlikely to see anything like that again.  "Straight and level, or gentle turns"---that'll be the real Hornet.  Everything else---CG. 

How much of "Behind enemy Lines" was real Rhino vs CGI?

They might allow a Rhino to do a little more than gentle turns... flares and a 5G-Pull...

 

EDIT:

3 minutes ago, Thom said:

Flight of the Old Dog!!

"Flight of the BUFF"

Edited November 20, 2018 by slide

[kalvasflam]

3 hours ago, Thom said:

Flight of the Old Dog!!

I'd watch that one, especially if they get a tricked out BUFF that can go supersonic, armed with 100 AMRAAMS and can shoot lasers from its rear turret.  The first mission would be an offensive fighter sweep. 

But if you're looking for an original crew, they might be all grandfathers by now, actually, that's the idea, do another Space Cowboys kind of a thing, except they crew a tricked out BUFF, going up against dozens of Mig-28s.  Heck, they can even use the same cast from Space Cowboys, it'll be perfect,  They'll need to cast a bad guy though... hmmmm, how about Dolph Lundgren (he is youngish, and can set up a believable generation vs generation type of deal where experience and good old American grit wins out in the end) as a Russian mercenary/advisor who is aiding the evil *insert your 3rd world authoritarian regime here* fighting against our heroes. 

Edited November 20, 2018 by kalvasflam

[AN/ALQ128]

7 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Although it would be interesting as heck to see if the next Top Gun can get Tom Cruise and company on an actual carrier.  I'd imagine the captains and admirals in charge of the fleet might have been college school kids when the first Top Gun came out.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/virginia/articles/2018-08-22/top-gun-sequel-filming-on-norfolk-based-carrier-navy-says

[Sildani]

10 hours ago, David Hingtgen said:

That gives me an idea---let's have a B-52 movie...

By Dawn’s Early Light. 

[electric indigo]

Oh wait...

[Vifam7]

19 hours ago, David Hingtgen said:

That gives me an idea---let's have a B-52 movie...

There actually was one. Back when the B-52s were brand new!

Starring Natalie Wood and Karl Malden

[derex3592]

8 hours ago, Sildani said:

By Dawn’s Early Light. 

I remember that being a cool movie when I was a kid, I need to track it down and watch it again.

[Dobber]

12 hours ago, Sildani said:

By Dawn’s Early Light. 

Beat me to it..

Chris

[AN/ALQ128]

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2018-11-19

DARPA tested CODE (Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment) equipped unmanned aircraft in their ability to respond to threats in A2AD environments.

[David Hingtgen]

14 hours ago, Sildani said:

By Dawn’s Early Light. 

Haven't seen it in years, but I remember liking it. 

[AN/ALQ128]

Another report on the sorry state of the RCAF.

The government mandated that the RCAF increase the number of fighter aircraft available for operations by 23 percent. At a time when the force was (and still is) facing a shortage of trained and experienced flight crew and maintainers, along with the still operational fighters nearing 30 years of age and with no plan to upgrade combat ability.

Despite National Defence telling the government that its plan to acquire 18 Super Hornets would do nothing to make up for this gap in its capabilities. Now the govt is planning on buying second hand Hornets from Australia, of roughly the same age and capability as the current CF-18 fleet. All in all, 3 billion CAD for a stopgap patch that will do nothing to address the issues facing the RCAF.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201811_03_e_43201.html

[kalvasflam]

heh, well, pretty boy doesn't like the Super Hornets because of Boeing/Bombardier, and the RCAF doesn't like it because it's only a stop gap that doesn't really make up for the shortfall.  Guess the F-18 is just unloved.  I'm honestly surprised that none of the CF-18s were ever upgraded over time, even if they are old, it doesn't make them useless.  I'd suggest buying F-15s, but unfortunately that's just another Boeing product... old and Boeing.  Heh heh.

[Shadow]

Seems all the more likely Canada could give the Gripen NG or Typhoon more serious looks.

[GMK]

6 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Seems all the more likely Canada could give the Gripen NG or Typhoon more serious looks.

With cost being a major driver, I can see Gripen NG getting a look in. Typhoon now has a higher unit price than the F-35A, reportedly. 

[kalvasflam]

1 hour ago, GMK said:

With cost being a major driver, I can see Gripen NG getting a look in. Typhoon now has a higher unit price than the F-35A, reportedly. 

Ouch, how is that even possible?  Oh well, that report paints a sad picture for the RCAF.  But commonality will be a big theme here, that and the proximity of the support base.  Those might end up giving the US offerings more of an edge. 

I wonder how far Pretty Boy will go to try to push for a manufacturing base for aeronautics inside Canada.  This is what everyone else is trying to do.  Indians with their fighter program, the Chinese with their commercial programs, and on and on.

Edited November 21, 2018 by kalvasflam

[slide]

4 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Ouch, how is that even possible?  Oh well, that report paints a sad picture for the RCAF.  But commonality will be a big theme here, that and the proximity of the support base.  Those might end up giving the US offerings more of an edge. 

I wonder how far Pretty Boy will go to try to push for a manufacturing base for aeronautics inside Canada.  This is what everyone else is trying to do.  Indians with their fighter program, the Chinese with their commercial programs, and on and on.

JT is a moron and will not bring any economic benefit to Canada, so don't waste the brain-power on that one... even I'VE given up on it...

 

as far as the cost comparrison, according to Wiki:

EF-2000: Unit cost €90 million  [114,959,082.17 USD, converted today]

F-35: 

Unit cost	F-35A: $89.2M (low rate initial production lot 11 (LRIP 11) including F135 engine, cost in 2020 to be $80M)[8]  F-35B: US$115.5M (LRIP 11 including engine)[8]  F-35C: US$107.7M (LRIP 11 including engine)[8]

 

...... damn... well, for Canada that throws the Tyhpoon out of the running, doesn't it?

Edited November 21, 2018 by slide

[kalvasflam]

I do wonder though if countries should be really looking at themselves as part of an integrate whole rather than a stand alone when it comes to their military budgets.  For example, if you were the Benelux countries, what would be the most effective bang for the buck, and then given the context that the countries are part of NATO.  The calculus changes of course if there was no NATO or no nearby allies that can provide immediate support.

If we take a more distant example, Australia, you can kind of see their rationale for the type of planes they've picked.   F-35 for the more advanced air to air role, superhornets to act either as missile trucks or in an anti surface role once anti-air assets are cleared out, Growlers to support in EW role as needed, given their country's proximity to potential enemies, P-8s to provide maritime coverage, and tankers to extend range.  This works very well with their geography and the relative lack of immediate allies nearby unless there happens to be US carriers in the vicinity.  But the scarcity of potential adversaries helps as well, the closest potential problem would be Indonesia, and that's not a real issue.   China would not be going that far anyway.  So, a limited number of -35 with perhaps more super hornets could make sense for the next fifteen to twenty years.

So, apply that thought to the Canadians, and may be they could be thinking about a different air to air mix.   For example, given the larger territory, wouldn't it be better to have fighters with longer legs, extra tanker support (not necessarily rely on the US for that), and more maritime capabilities.  The likelihood of facing off against enemies with 5th generation fighters are low.  So, at least from that view, the -35 might not be the very best option.  

[AN/ALQ128]

9 minutes ago, kalvasflam said:

So, apply that thought to the Canadians, and may be they could be thinking about a different air to air mix.   For example, given the larger territory, wouldn't it be better to have fighters with longer legs, extra tanker support (not necessarily rely on the US for that), and more maritime capabilities.  The likelihood of facing off against enemies with 5th generation fighters are low.  So, at least from that view, the -35 might not be the very best option.  

The Israelis are looking into external drop tanks for the F-35, perhaps the RCAF could go for that same option. Of course, I doubt the Liberal party will get to any meaningful decision before the election. Wouldn't do for them to look stupid by going for the plane they trashed in the last election.

[GMK]

45 minutes ago, kalvasflam said:

I do wonder though if countries should be really looking at themselves as part of an integrate whole rather than a stand alone when it comes to their military budgets.  For example, if you were the Benelux countries, what would be the most effective bang for the buck, and then given the context that the countries are part of NATO.  The calculus changes of course if there was no NATO or no nearby allies that can provide immediate support.

If we take a more distant example, Australia, you can kind of see their rationale for the type of planes they've picked.   F-35 for the more advanced air to air role, superhornets to act either as missile trucks or in an anti surface role once anti-air assets are cleared out, Growlers to support in EW role as needed, given their country's proximity to potential enemies, P-8s to provide maritime coverage, and tankers to extend range.  This works very well with their geography and the relative lack of immediate allies nearby unless there happens to be US carriers in the vicinity.  But the scarcity of potential adversaries helps as well, the closest potential problem would be Indonesia, and that's not a real issue.   China would not be going that far anyway.  So, a limited number of -35 with perhaps more super hornets could make sense for the next fifteen to twenty years.

So, apply that thought to the Canadians, and may be they could be thinking about a different air to air mix.   For example, given the larger territory, wouldn't it be better to have fighters with longer legs, extra tanker support (not necessarily rely on the US for that), and more maritime capabilities.  The likelihood of facing off against enemies with 5th generation fighters are low.  So, at least from that view, the -35 might not be the very best option.  

Good points & rationally argued. That said, the rationale underpinning your point doesn’t seem to take into consideration expeditionary operations as part of a coalition, or to meet alliance commitments that occur outside domestic or near-domestic airspace. 

[kalvasflam]

2 hours ago, GMK said:

Good points & rationally argued. That said, the rationale underpinning your point doesn’t seem to take into consideration expeditionary operations as part of a coalition, or to meet alliance commitments that occur outside domestic or near-domestic airspace. 

Well, I did think about that.  But let's play a game here of thinking about the missions, and what might be a role for a country like Canada.  I think we can agree that Canada won't take an expedition on its own.  So what are the missions.  The ones I could think of right off the bat.

1. Cooperate with the US to defend North American air space and control of nearby sea lanes.

2. Engage in support missions as a part of an expeditionary force, i.e. defend Europe against the Russians, support the Japan and So. Korea against an ultra aggressive China, support peacekeeping missions.

3. Patrol and control its maritime borders.

Ok, so from that perspective, what can we expect, for missions 1 and 3, there is no need for stealth fighters.  Canada would need maritime patrol aircraft, and aircraft that can support extended range missions, especially up north (probably in support of USAF in Alaska) and its own regions near the Arctic circle.  Then there is the swaths of Atlantic that it borders.  So, for maritime patrol, P-8s and Global Hawks would be perfect, probably supported by tankers, whether they are KC-46 of the A330 derivatives doesn't matter.   It would be useful to have a few of their own AEW aircrafts, but that can be covered by the US to some extent, but half a dozen E767 variants like those from Japan or even E-2Ds wouldn't hurt. 

For defense of North American airspace, we think about what could be threatening.  You can class those into two categories, cruise missiles, and bombers.   (not thinking about ballistic missiles, because in that case, the world is hosed anyway)  So, we're talking Bears, Backfires (are there still any left?) and Blackjacks.  Forget about Russian fighters, they don't have the legs anyway, if they did, it would require massive tanker support which is likely not practical.  There are wartime situations, or peace time, where you're intercepting bombers, for that, you need fighters with legs and lots of missiles, stealth characteristics are unimportant.  You don't need an F-35 to sneak up on a Bear or a Blackjack, you need a fighter that can detect the target, go fast, and show off its AAMs, and with a big radar to boot to light up somebody's threat detectors.  None of those characteristics come anywhere to resembling an F-35.   The fighter that most resemble that requirement is the F-15.  Something fast, loaded for bear, and has a big fat radar.

Now, onto the final point, expeditionary activities, any expedition will be conducted jointly with the US.  That's just the reality.  In that case, you're talking about an integrated air force going in.  All sorts of assets from partners  like F-22s and 4.5th generation fighters to do counter air.  Specialty aircraft to do SEAD.  Then, lots of bomb trucks to do air support.  There, you can see perhaps Canadians needing a few F-35s in highly defended air space to support counter air and SEAD, and may be highly specialized anti-ground missions requiring stealth.  Everything else is literally pointless.

Given limited budgets, the best thing might be a formation of like sixty to seventy F-15s, and a couple of squadrons of F-35s.  The current generation of -15s sold for exports are good both for countering 4.5th gen fighters and as ground support.   Those same -15s supported by tankers would be perfect for control of North American airspace.  The rationale is simple, unless Canada decided to get aggressive and start picking fights by itself, they aren't likely to encounter J-20s or Su-57s in the foreseeable future.   By the time fighters of potential opposition get the legs to reach all the way to Canada from Russia or Asia (at least another half a century), the Canadians would've long since deployed 6th generation fighters to face those.  (And if somehow the US became the enemy, well, there is no real defense against that anyway)

[Sildani]

It’s funny, but the aircraft that seems to best meet those requirements is the Su-35. 

[Vifam7]

2 minutes ago, Sildani said:

It’s funny, but the aircraft that seems to best meet those requirements is the Su-35. 

No, it would still be the F-15. The latest variants of the F-15 come with the APG-82 AESA radar which is far superior to the Su-35's Irbis-E PESA radar. Plus the recent F-15X concept promises a bear loadout of up to 22 missiles.  F-15s are far more reliable too.  And that's before we get into the whole compatibility issue with the Sukhoi plane.

 

[F-ZeroOne]

Fast, big radar, lots of missiles... so a Typhoon then?

[David Hingtgen]

I'm especially surprised CF-18's were never upgraded considering the existence and success of the F-18A+ program.   

[slide]

2 hours ago, Sildani said:

It’s funny, but the aircraft that seems to best meet those requirements is the Su-35. 

Doesn't it just, eh?

I've been saying for years that Canada can extend an olive-branch to Russia by saying: "We like your fighter... here's money to license-build the airframes, and we're going to shove-in our own engines and equipment..."

the only obstacle to that plan was the US wouldn't like it... but with Trumpy-Bear in power................................................ and having the back-end of buying all the gear to fill/sling-under from the US anyway... seems like we could swing that [politically anyway]

but other than the Flanker's unquestionable post-stall maneuverability, it's not the best option for us, as there are purpose-built platforms that completely meet our needs like F-15 that are already stuffed with NATO-inter-operable gear

 

14 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Well, I did think about that.  But let's play a game here of thinking about the missions, and what might be a role for a country like Canada.  I think we can agree that Canada won't take an expedition on its own.  So what are the missions.  The ones I could think of right off the bat.

1. Cooperate with the US to defend North American air space and control of nearby sea lanes.

2. Engage in support missions as a part of an expeditionary force, i.e. defend Europe against the Russians, support the Japan and So. Korea against an ultra aggressive China, support peacekeeping missions.

3. Patrol and control its maritime borders.

Ok, so from that perspective, what can we expect, for missions 1 and 3, there is no need for stealth fighters.  Canada would need maritime patrol aircraft, and aircraft that can support extended range missions, especially up north (probably in support of USAF in Alaska) and its own regions near the Arctic circle.  Then there is the swaths of Atlantic that it borders.  So, for maritime patrol, P-8s and Global Hawks would be perfect, probably supported by tankers, whether they are KC-46 of the A330 derivatives doesn't matter.   It would be useful to have a few of their own AEW aircrafts, but that can be covered by the US to some extent, but half a dozen E767 variants like those from Japan or even E-2Ds wouldn't hurt. 

For defense of North American airspace, we think about what could be threatening.  You can class those into two categories, cruise missiles, and bombers.   (not thinking about ballistic missiles, because in that case, the world is hosed anyway)  So, we're talking Bears, Backfires (are there still any left?) and Blackjacks.  Forget about Russian fighters, they don't have the legs anyway, if they did, it would require massive tanker support which is likely not practical.  There are wartime situations, or peace time, where you're intercepting bombers, for that, you need fighters with legs and lots of missiles, stealth characteristics are unimportant.  You don't need an F-35 to sneak up on a Bear or a Blackjack, you need a fighter that can detect the target, go fast, and show off its AAMs, and with a big radar to boot to light up somebody's threat detectors.  None of those characteristics come anywhere to resembling an F-35.   The fighter that most resemble that requirement is the F-15.  Something fast, loaded for bear, and has a big fat radar.

Now, onto the final point, expeditionary activities, any expedition will be conducted jointly with the US.  That's just the reality.  In that case, you're talking about an integrated air force going in.  All sorts of assets from partners  like F-22s and 4.5th generation fighters to do counter air.  Specialty aircraft to do SEAD.  Then, lots of bomb trucks to do air support.  There, you can see perhaps Canadians needing a few F-35s in highly defended air space to support counter air and SEAD, and may be highly specialized anti-ground missions requiring stealth.  Everything else is literally pointless.

Given limited budgets, the best thing might be a formation of like sixty to seventy F-15s, and a couple of squadrons of F-35s.  The current generation of -15s sold for exports are good both for countering 4.5th gen fighters and as ground support.   Those same -15s supported by tankers would be perfect for control of North American airspace.  The rationale is simple, unless Canada decided to get aggressive and start picking fights by itself, they aren't likely to encounter J-20s or Su-57s in the foreseeable future.   By the time fighters of potential opposition get the legs to reach all the way to Canada from Russia or Asia (at least another half a century), the Canadians would've long since deployed 6th generation fighters to face those.  (And if somehow the US became the enemy, well, there is no real defense against that anyway)

100% agree

 

Our biggest issue with fighter procurement re range is that we own probe-and-drogue refueling aircraft... so we'd also need new ones if we went with a flying-boom-style fighter [like f-15]

 

 

Canada does not have the money, will [Political/Public], or personnel to be expeditious unless it's in-support of Uncle Sam.

 

I think it's been [being] underestimated the damage that deploying to A-stan [et-all of the last 17 years] has done to our armed forces...

Recruitment is down across all services, retention is abysmal, and the current gov't is only exacerbating those issues [ex: by shorting the Forces $2.5Billion last fiscal year...] 

We need new EVERYTHING from uniforms and Rifles to Fighters, 2 replacement Naval fleets and a Brand-New third one for the arctic...

 

*RANT* I'm LITERALLY running into service personnel in-uniform that are more ratty/threadbare than my paintball crew's surplus gear!

I feel embarrassed FOR them.... *RANT ends*

 

we need to rebuild our forces and capabilities and in-so-doing bring ourselves into a state of inter-operability with the USA... bugger the rest of NATO, their almost literally not our problem anymore...

Trudeau's grand-and-glorious deployment of a helicopter squadron to the UN mission in Mali is a National joke [you should hear what actual Forces personnel have said to me]...

 

old Canadian Joke:

"You know why they write 'UN' on the side of their vehicles, eh?

because they don't have the space to write 'Totally UN-F***ING Prepared for Battle' on their WHITE APC"

 

 

On 11/20/2018 at 10:43 PM, kalvasflam said:

heh, well, pretty boy doesn't like the Super Hornets because of Boeing/Bombardier, and the RCAF doesn't like it because it's only a stop gap that doesn't really make up for the shortfall.  Guess the F-18 is just unloved.  I'm honestly surprised that none of the CF-18s were ever upgraded over time, even if they are old, it doesn't make them useless.  I'd suggest buying F-15s, but unfortunately that's just another Boeing product... old and Boeing.  Heh heh.

Our CF-188's [I know, our designations are dumb] were MLU'd once to modernize them from F/A-18A standard to F/A-18C standard.

Then they supposedly had a longevity MLU after that.

we're going to have to get over the fact that Boeing is the best and we want their stuff...

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by slide

[kalvasflam]

You know, there should be a sommelier (like the one from John Wick) for the combat aircraft.

Sommelier: "General, what can I interest you in today?"

General: "I need something big and bold, makes a statement on a tank column."

Sommelier: "Big, Bold, tank column...  Might I suggest the A-10 Thunderbolt II.  GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon, shots 30 mm depleted uranium rounds, total capacity of 1,174 rounds.  goes through armor like paper, infra-red sensor for low visibility environments, eleven hardpoints on the wings carrying any combination of Maverick missiles, Paveway laser guided bombs, JDAMs for stand off requirements, and cluster bombs for those wide area targets.  Two GE TF34 turbofan engines mounted on the aircraft, stall speed of 138 mph when you need to perform more accurate gun runs.  Cockpit encased in a titanium tub, capable of withstanding 23 mm rounds, just in case you run into those pesky mobile anti-aircraft artillery platform.  An American classic."

[slide]

2 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

You know, there should be a sommelier (like the one from John Wick) for the combat aircraft.

Sommelier: "General, what can I interest you in today?"

General: "I need something big and bold, makes a statement on a tank column."

Sommelier: "Big, Bold, tank column...  Might I suggest the A-10 Thunderbolt II.  GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon, shots 30 mm depleted uranium rounds, total capacity of 1,174 rounds.  goes through armor like paper, infra-red sensor for low visibility environments, eleven hardpoints on the wings carrying any combination of Maverick missiles, Paveway laser guided bombs, JDAMs for stand off requirements, and cluster bombs for those wide area targets.  Two GE TF34 turbofan engines mounted on the aircraft, stall speed of 138 mph when you need to perform more accurate gun runs.  Cockpit encased in a titanium tub, capable of withstanding 23 mm rounds, just in case you run into those pesky mobile anti-aircraft artillery platform.  An American classic."

How do I get THAT job?!?!

Do I have to do nefarious things? 'Cause I will!!

[AN/ALQ128]

First flight for ion-drive aircraft.

Been going around the news for the past two days.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07477-9

[electric indigo]

The Twin Ion Engine is just around the corner...

[David Hingtgen]

The entire world will be disappointed if it doesn't have a "roaring howl" sound though, and just goes more like "buzzzzzzzzz".