Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[Thom]

On 12/5/2022 at 11:05 PM, kajnrig said:

In other news, not sure if this was already mentioned or not, but the NTSB recently released an initial report on the Dallas airshow midair collision. I'll be honest, I didn't look too deeply into the initial incident, and seeing raw footage of it like you'll do here was a bit... jarring. Forewarned.

 

 

I'd be interested in knowing if any of the pilots, and not just those on the subject aircraft, commented on the lack of vertical separation. The switch-over from 500 to 1000 feet from the show line was bad enough, but that height difference would have meant those crews walking away from their aircraft instead of what did happen.

[M'Kyuun]

15 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/12/5/bell-tiltrotor-wins-billion-dollar-helo-contract

Blackhawk replacement got chosen. Defiant-X was apparently running into a lot more teething issues than the Valour.

Cool; I was rooting for Bell and their tiltrotor technology.  It's a sleeker, lovelier, and I daresay more futuristic looking design.  Can't wait to see one of these at an airshow- in about seven years. I can wait.

[AN/ALQ128]

3 minutes ago, M'Kyuun said:

Cool; I was rooting for Bell and their tiltrotor technology.  It's a sleeker, lovelier, and I daresay more futuristic looking design.  Can't wait to see one of these at an airshow- in about seven years. I can wait.

Visually looks like a Blackhawk with tilt rotor nacelles, very nice looking aircraft I agree.

[kalvasflam]

On 12/5/2022 at 8:00 PM, Knight26 said:

The problem with turning a 747 into a bomb/cruise missile truck is that you have now turned every airliner out there into a potential threat in an enemies eyes.  That was one of the reasons why the concept was ultimately killed.  Boeing and the Navy even had long discussions about that with the P-8, which is a sub hunting 737.  In that case however, since it is considered a "defensive" aircraft the decision was made to move forward, and its operational profile does not look like an airliner.  The Cruise Missile Carrying 747 would have been a purely offensive aircraft and its operational envelope would have made it disappear into typical air traffic, which was the point, but doing so paints a giant target on every airliner out there.

Ok, let's back up a second, P-8 is equipped with Harpoons, last time I checked, that's an offensive weapon system. 

And yep, the whole idea is that the 747 would make a good bomb truck on approach, because why do you need stealth when you can just paint a United coloring scheme or a Lufthansa one on top of it.  Put some tick figures in the window, and doctor the electronic signature, who would know the difference.  But in reality, that is not really needed, because if you have 1000 mile range on the ALCM (and I think there was at least a couple of variants that had even longer range), you'd just stand off and lob missiles from far away.  Interceptors just aren't going to be flying out that far.  I would say use the B-52s, except the problem there is that, those are even older air frames.

Besides, if you're not down with the 747, we can always use the 777 or the 787.  I heard the 787 is supposed to be very eco friendly with its lower fuel burn, but the 777 does have the advantage of larger cargo capacity.  And more of them are in service as airlines.  I know it's very cynical, but the people who gets to argue about this sort of stuff are usually the ones who won the war in the first place.

On 12/5/2022 at 3:37 PM, Thom said:

Well, there was talk a while ago about turning the B-1 into a into a bomb truck, B-1R. Love the acronym, Boner.

The B-1R concept sounded a little bit out there, I remember that it involved adding AESA radars and AMRAAMs, and my first thought was... what????   B-1B to be fair is already a bomb truck, I wonder what more it would take to make it able to carry more weapons.  I wouldn't be surprised if its bomb bays can already carry most of the munitions in inventory.

[Thom]

2 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

...

The B-1R concept sounded a little bit out there, I remember that it involved adding AESA radars and AMRAAMs, and my first thought was... what????   B-1B to be fair is already a bomb truck, I wonder what more it would take to make it able to carry more weapons.  I wouldn't be surprised if its bomb bays can already carry most of the munitions in inventory.

It was supposed to also hang missiles under the wings and be re-engined. Have to say, I would loved to have seen that. Instead, the B-1 is now on the way out.

[Knight26]

3 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Ok, let's back up a second, P-8 is equipped with Harpoons, last time I checked, that's an offensive weapon system. 

And yep, the whole idea is that the 747 would make a good bomb truck on approach, because why do you need stealth when you can just paint a United coloring scheme or a Lufthansa one on top of it.  Put some tick figures in the window, and doctor the electronic signature, who would know the difference.  But in reality, that is not really needed, because if you have 1000 mile range on the ALCM (and I think there was at least a couple of variants that had even longer range), you'd just stand off and lob missiles from far away.  Interceptors just aren't going to be flying out that far.  I would say use the B-52s, except the problem there is that, those are even older air frames.

Besides, if you're not down with the 747, we can always use the 777 or the 787.  I heard the 787 is supposed to be very eco friendly with its lower fuel burn, but the 777 does have the advantage of larger cargo capacity.  And more of them are in service as airlines.  I know it's very cynical, but the people who gets to argue about this sort of stuff are usually the ones who won the war in the first place.

The B-1R concept sounded a little bit out there, I remember that it involved adding AESA radars and AMRAAMs, and my first thought was... what????   B-1B to be fair is already a bomb truck, I wonder what more it would take to make it able to carry more weapons.  I wouldn't be surprised if its bomb bays can already carry most of the munitions in inventory.

Yes, the P-8 carries Harpoons, but the primary role is that of a subhunter, and the operational flight profile would not be easily mistaken for that of an airliner, espeically since it primarily operates off the coast or in close proximity to battlegroups.  An ALCM carrying 747/777/787 would, and utilizing them in such an offensive posture, paints a target on every other airliner out there, even if you are launching at 1000mile plus range.  That is, again, due to the operational flight profile of the P-8 that is not the case there.

The B-21 might seem underwhelming but we do not know much about it at this point, and it has been optimized for its new operational profile and 6th gen systems integration.  Time will tell just what it can/will do.

 

[M'Kyuun]

4 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Ok, let's back up a second, P-8 is equipped with Harpoons, last time I checked, that's an offensive weapon system. 

And yep, the whole idea is that the 747 would make a good bomb truck on approach, because why do you need stealth when you can just paint a United coloring scheme or a Lufthansa one on top of it.  Put some tick figures in the window, and doctor the electronic signature, who would know the difference.  But in reality, that is not really needed, because if you have 1000 mile range on the ALCM (and I think there was at least a couple of variants that had even longer range), you'd just stand off and lob missiles from far away.  Interceptors just aren't going to be flying out that far.  I would say use the B-52s, except the problem there is that, those are even older air frames.

Besides, if you're not down with the 747, we can always use the 777 or the 787.  I heard the 787 is supposed to be very eco friendly with its lower fuel burn, but the 777 does have the advantage of larger cargo capacity.  And more of them are in service as airlines.  I know it's very cynical, but the people who gets to argue about this sort of stuff are usually the ones who won the war in the first place.

The B-1R concept sounded a little bit out there, I remember that it involved adding AESA radars and AMRAAMs, and my first thought was... what????   B-1B to be fair is already a bomb truck, I wonder what more it would take to make it able to carry more weapons.  I wouldn't be surprised if its bomb bays can already carry most of the munitions in inventory.

I believe it can. It was initially only conceived to carry nukes- that was the impetus of its creation back in the 70s, a purely Cold War machine with a low-level fast strike capability and a projected 50% survivability rate. Anyone tasked with flying that mission had it come (thank goodness it didn't) would have knowingly been going on what was essentially a one-way trip. In the 90's once the USSR collapsed and the Cold War was ostensibly over, it was painstakingly converted over to accommodate conventional weapons. However, as a condition of the old START Treaty, we negotiated away the B-1B's capability to carry six external stores mounted to the fuselage. With the old START Treaty null and void, efforts have once again been affected to use its external capabilities. She's an old workhorse, but still learning new tricks.

 

[M'Kyuun]

1 hour ago, Knight26 said:

The B-21 might seem underwhelming but we do not know much about it at this point, and it has been optimized for its new operational profile and 6th gen systems integration.  Time will tell just what it can/will do.

Well, for starters, Northrop-Grumman have about 40 years of technology evolution to bring to bear, as well as lessons learned from the shoot-down of the F-117 in Serbia, B-2 crashes, and years of B-2 operations to look at informing this new aircraft. Computer tech is leaps and bounds over what they had in the 80s, as well as sensor and materials technology, not to mention secret technologies that have been developed that the general public won't know about for years if not decades. Regarding my 'underwhelming' comment towards the B-21, the subsonic nature of the craft was my chief complaint. I was very much hoping and expecting the next-gen bomber to be something incredibly fast, sleek, and beautiful. The B-21, by its natural evolution from the B-2 is itself a lovely aircraft, but simply not in the way that something like the SR-71 is beautiful, if that makes sense. Anyway, chock my comments up to a more personal disappointment than any objectable flaw with the actual aircraft. Unfortunately, we won't know what she's capable of in real world scenario for some time. I hope when that time comes, she's not already an anachronism for the pace of technology these days.

Edited December 8, 2022 by M'Kyuun

[electric indigo]

16 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

Visually looks like a Blackhawk with tilt rotor nacelles, very nice looking aircraft I agree.

Interestingly, the overall sleek shape looks totally non-military IMO.

Let's wait til they add all those sensors and external stores to turn this nice Jet Ranger into a Kiowa.

[derex3592]

I can't wait to see one of these decked out in a cool dark paint scheme or camo/low vis scheme with a sh*t-ton of guns and missiles hanging off of it! 

[captain america]

21 hours ago, Knight26 said:

The B-21 might seem underwhelming but we do not know much about it at this point, and it has been optimized for its new operational profile and 6th gen systems integration.  Time will tell just what it can/will do.

 

Be prepared for the possibility that it will have no control surfaces. 😎

[M'Kyuun]

2 hours ago, captain america said:

Be prepared for the possibility that it will have no control surfaces. 😎

That would definitely be very interesting, although I'm dubious that the Air Force Brass would concede to something so unconventional. Unconventional design was one of the reasons why they turned down the YF-23 in lieu of the boxier, far more conventional YF-22.  Something so far afield as a lack of external moving surfaces may be too much of a stretch. I'll bet it'd make life easier for maintenance, though. I worked hydraulics during my service, which involved all manner of flight control surfaces. The lack thereof would make life easier on the next generation of bubblechasers.

[F-ZeroOne]

Our PM has officially announced a Marvel team-up... I mean, an international collaboration involving the UK, Japan and Italy to develop the Tempest fighter:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63908284

Whether this means we're skipping fifth-gen to go directly to sixth (not counting the F-35B, but thats not really our baby) I'm not sure. Apparently it will use Artificial Intelligence to aid the pilot, which could lead to the pilot getting messages from the aircraft like: "CHK DGR, LFT. ALSO, MORE TEA?".  And given that both the UK and Japan are two of the more geeky countries out that there when it comes to naming military equipment, one wonders what the A.I. will end up being called. The F-35 has already taken "Dave" in UK service, so my guesses might be "Kryten" or "Mickey" (not after the mouse, but a robot from the 80s UK childrens T.V. series "Metal Mickey")... 🙂

Edited December 9, 2022 by F-ZeroOne

[AN/ALQ128]

On 12/8/2022 at 4:55 PM, M'Kyuun said:

That would definitely be very interesting, although I'm dubious that the Air Force Brass would concede to something so unconventional. Unconventional design was one of the reasons why they turned down the YF-23 in lieu of the boxier, far more conventional YF-22.  Something so far afield as a lack of external moving surfaces may be too much of a stretch. I'll bet it'd make life easier for maintenance, though. I worked hydraulics during my service, which involved all manner of flight control surfaces. The lack thereof would make life easier on the next generation of bubblechasers.

The YF-22 decision was also made in the 90s, when it was clear the USSR was on its way out and the need for unconventional aircraft was no longer apparent. Geopolitical situation has taken a different turn in the 30 yrs since

[kalvasflam]

On 12/10/2022 at 11:51 AM, AN/ALQ128 said:

The YF-22 decision was also made in the 90s, when it was clear the USSR was on its way out and the need for unconventional aircraft was no longer apparent. Geopolitical situation has taken a different turn in the 30 yrs since

Just wait until NGAD is tested and ready to fly, and then all of a sudden, the world hugs it out, the defense budget is slashed again, and the US ends up with 59 of those planes...

After all, a lot can change in a few years.  Nobody in 1988 could've foreseen the Last Supper coming or the Soviet Union falling after just a few years later. 

[Knight26]

On 12/8/2022 at 3:26 PM, captain america said:

Be prepared for the possibility that it will have no control surfaces. 😎

*twiddles thumbs and whistles*  Not saying I know people on the program who have said things, but...  Not saying that I don't.

[hutch]

On 12/9/2022 at 9:14 AM, F-ZeroOne said:

Our PM has officially announced a Marvel team-up... I mean, an international collaboration involving the UK, Japan and Italy to develop the Tempest fighter:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63908284

Whether this means we're skipping fifth-gen to go directly to sixth (not counting the F-35B, but thats not really our baby) I'm not sure. Apparently it will use Artificial Intelligence to aid the pilot, which could lead to the pilot getting messages from the aircraft like: "CHK DGR, LFT. ALSO, MORE TEA?".  And given that both the UK and Japan are two of the more geeky countries out that there when it comes to naming military equipment, one wonders what the A.I. will end up being called. The F-35 has already taken "Dave" in UK service, so my guesses might be "Kryten" or "Mickey" (not after the mouse, but a robot from the 80s UK childrens T.V. series "Metal Mickey")... 🙂

JARVIS

[F-ZeroOne]

Hah, good choice!

[AN/ALQ128]

Speaking of unconventional...

https://www.aurora.aero/2022/12/12/latest-award-moves-auroras-crane-x-plane-closer-to-flight/

 

[captain america]

7 hours ago, Knight26 said:

*twiddles thumbs and whistles*  Not saying I know people on the program who have said things, but...  Not saying that I don't.

Active flow control for the win!

[kajnrig]

10 hours ago, Knight26 said:

*twiddles thumbs and whistles*  Not saying I know people on the program who have said things, but...  Not saying that I don't.

As long as you don't leak CLASSIFIED SCHEMATICS LIKE A PSYCHOTIC WAR THUNDER FAN we're good.

[electric indigo]

We got this VTOL stuff covered... pretty much.

 

[hutch]

That’s scary.  Looks like it hurt too

[Bolt]

The things they can do with these old jets..

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CmKHF5GPCzU/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
 

[Thom]

It looks extremely real, but I'ma call bogus on that.

[Bolt]

Could be.. The moving camera angle is also exaggerating the maneuver, if you watch the clip. 
You may be right @Thom , the angle shift of the jet has a funny look for half a second. 

Edited December 31, 2022 by Bolt

[hutch]

Totally fake looking 

[Knight26]

From a game or RC simulator, even more obvious in other clips.

 

[Thom]

Yeah, I only saw it on that small clip, and definitely doing moves an F-14 can't do.

[Chronocidal]

4 hours ago, Thom said:

Yeah, I only saw it on that small clip, and definitely doing moves an F-14 can't do.

I don't actually think it's something it couldn't do, the uprated engines in the B did have that kind of power, and I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't an AI extrapolation of a real photo, or short video clip.  Once you get closer, it starts looking more like a DCS video.

[Bolt]

Another example. https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cmo1Q6ZBiYh/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
 

[Thom]

6 hours ago, Chronocidal said:

I don't actually think it's something it couldn't do, the uprated engines in the B did have that kind of power, and I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't an AI extrapolation of a real photo, or short video clip.  Once you get closer, it starts looking more like a DCS video.

There's also that jerky motion when it rolls and snaps over.

[M'Kyuun]

7 hours ago, Thom said:

There's also that jerky motion when it rolls and snaps over.

Between that and the camera motion, it looks generated rather than real, likely from a sim game.

[Chronocidal]

4 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

Between that and the camera motion, it looks generated rather than real, likely from a sim game.

I was thinking the scenery looks like video, but could probably be MSFS, since it is fairly close to photo-real at this point.  The cloud distribution and motion definitely give it away though.  I was thinking it could be video with a CGI overlaid aircraft, but the clouds look very simulated.

Edited January 1, 2023 by Chronocidal

[pengbuzz]

It definitely looks CGI; Tomcats don't move that way. Also, I recognize that paint scheme: it's VX-4 Evaluators. Someone probably thought that either the color would look cool, or could claim "it's experimental, so they could do that!"

In any event, here's the most I think an F-14 could do ; note in this pic the horizon is a bit tilted, so when straightened, the Tomcat isn't even climbing completely vertical:

More to the point: with all the rolling and whatnot that plane was doing in the footage, it would stall out and enter a flat spin (the thing that took down Maverick's plane in Top Gun).

Doing a little more research, I found this on Youtube:

 

So, with selectable skins and whatnot, I think we found our culprit.

(When I was in my late teens, I wanted to go into the Navy and become a "cat-driver"; however, damage to my hearing by some jerk with an air horn right in back of my head  at a pep rally in my junior year ended that dream. Up until then, I had studied the F-14 inside and out and devoured everything I could find out about it, including available specs and other technical stuff. Heaven only knows how many models I built of it! ).