Knight26 Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 If you want the latest news on the Pak-Fa, unclassified, go onto the keypublishing forums. As for the visible actuator pumps on most of the fifth gen fighters, that's thin wing syndrome. The electric actuators for supersonic fighters are massive compared to old hydraulics and cables. The YF-23 had a thicker wing and store more fuel there then most of the other 5th gens. As a result you don't see the actuator bumps, which did help make it stealthier. Quote
miles316 Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Are there any articles that are newer? If you can find some that'd be good. If not, why are you complaining if that's all we have? Russia Today is a Russian news service They have a number of Videos on T-50/SU-27 on their web sight and You tube channel Some are in English and some are in Russian. Quote
Noyhauser Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Another place to see stuff is F-16.net. They've been pretty good about banning pro-russian trolling, so you see pretty good exchange of views on the PAK-FA, F-35, F-22 and, of course, the F-16. This thread is pretty long, but its got a lot of technical debate. The people to look for is Hornetfinn and Neurotech who have aerospace design backgrounds http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=21808 Quote
David Hingtgen Posted February 26, 2014 Author Posted February 26, 2014 If you want the latest news on the Pak-Fa, unclassified, go onto the keypublishing forums. As for the visible actuator pumps on most of the fifth gen fighters, that's thin wing syndrome. The electric actuators for supersonic fighters are massive compared to old hydraulics and cables. The YF-23 had a thicker wing and store more fuel there then most of the other 5th gens. As a result you don't see the actuator bumps, which did help make it stealthier. They've been going with thin wings? That seems pointless, considering thicker supercritical profiles for trans-sonic supercruise and fuel capacity. Quote
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 So is it more of a '5th gen thinner wings' thing or that the new fangled electrical actuators are bulkier? I would have thought that vintage interceptors like F-104 and Mig-25 wings are as thin as you would get and those had no bumps. Was the YF-23 even using electric actuators? Or it had hydraulics? I don't even remember the YF-22 having the 'bumps'. Was it on hydraulics too? Quote
David Hingtgen Posted February 26, 2014 Author Posted February 26, 2014 I'm guessing they moved to electric ones to save weight, like the 787 does. Hydraulic lines, pumps, and the gallons of fluid itself, all add up, weight-wise. Quote
Dobber Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 Anyone know what's going on with the Tarangus 1/48 Viggen kit? Chris Quote
Noyhauser Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) I'm guessing they moved to electric ones to save weight, like the 787 does. Hydraulic lines, pumps, and the gallons of fluid itself, all add up, weight-wise. Its also to do with maintenence. Hydraulics are large, multi-system assembles that inevitably have issues. Electrohydrostatic components generally are one piece, self contained affairs: they are easy to check, fix, and replace. That saves a lot of time on the flightline. Edited February 26, 2014 by Noyhauser Quote
LOW_ALT Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/25/mysterious-bae-replica/ Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) This is a little off-topic, but theres a new Liam Neeson movie coming out called "Non-Stop", which features an airliner in trouble. In the trailer, its shown being escorted by a pair of Eurofighter Typhoons, which makes a nice change from F-35s with guns in the wrong place... Edited February 27, 2014 by F-ZeroOne Quote
Falcon Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Thanks for the links guys! Will look into them Quote
Model-Junkie Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 missing. Outcome is not looking too great. Was hoping the wife would not see the news as we are flying at the end of March and she hates flying Quote
David Hingtgen Posted March 12, 2014 Author Posted March 12, 2014 That's the current plan for 2015-2018. I was looking at the numbers and thinking "dang, that's a LOT of A-10's"----then I read some more---yup, that's ALL the A-10's gone. But don't worry, they just delivered the first F-35 to Luke AFB! Surely that will make up for it. Quote
skullmilitia Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 We're still fighting for the A-10. If we lose that wing, it's going to be a huge hit on the economy and may even Signal the future loss of Davis Monthan. A lot of people will lose their jobs here if that bases closes. It'll be a economic killer. Quote
electric indigo Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Do I read this right that also all remaining U2s will be retired? Quote
David Hingtgen Posted March 12, 2014 Author Posted March 12, 2014 Does anyone other than Beale have any? I think every U-2 is technically "on detachment from Beale" if not at Beale. Quote
Shadow Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) If the target is to save money in defense, why not look at reducing the B-1 fleet over the A-10? It's been sort of a problem child since the beginning even with the B-1B. The B-52 is slated to remain in service for another 25 years and the B-2 probably longer. Is there a larger shot of that chart Dave? It reminds that I tried to join the AF Reserves at the wrong time. Was going for Navigator for C-130s and had the door shut on me with several bases due to fleet reduction and or bases moving to the C-130Js. Edited March 12, 2014 by Shadow Quote
Knight26 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 There is a lot of push back to keep the A-10 flying until after the F-35A is actually online to serve as its replacement. Losing the A-10 will not kil Davis Monathon though, with AMARC there the AF has to keep that base open, they will shift resources around and move another aircraft there. Worst case they will turn DM into an Air Reserve Base and probably have the AZ ANG move over there from the airport. Also, yes the U-2/TR-1 is finally going to go away. The RQ-4 will be its replacement, as it should ahve been years ago, and now that it is being retired it is hastening RQ-4 upgrades and sensor development. Quote
skullmilitia Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 There is a lot of push back to keep the A-10 flying until after the F-35A is actually online to serve as its replacement. Losing the A-10 will not kil Davis Monathon though, with AMARC there the AF has to keep that base open, they will shift resources around and move another aircraft there. Worst case they will turn DM into an Air Reserve Base and probably have the AZ ANG move over there from the airport. Also, yes the U-2/TR-1 is finally going to go away. The RQ-4 will be its replacement, as it should ahve been years ago, and now that it is being retired it is hastening RQ-4 upgrades and sensor development. It'll never be the same even if they keep the base. My whole life was spent under the sound of Hog's flying. It's a beautiful sound. Quote
Knight26 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I know I used to live in Tucson, watching A-10s flying over was a great part of my day, everyday. I still remember when I first moved to Tucson that the A-7s were still flying out of TIA with the AZANG. My Dad would complain because of how low they came in and that runway damn near comes to the street, so he would be at the stoplight and the ungodly noise of an A-7 roaring over would almost split his eardrums. The A-7 was one of the loudest birds ever, now we have the F-35. Quote
505thAirborne Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Sad to see the A-10 go and what sounds like for good this time. Besides F-16's & Blackhawks, we get a lot of Warthogs flying over here too, love that engine sound it never gets boring!! Whats even sadder is that the Airforce/Government has been trying to do away with this aircraft for a long ass time, The Gulf War proved how valuable it is, then they wanted to scrap it again with the promises of the F-35. Back again with Iraq & Afghanistan, All these years later the A-10 in terms of maintenance & upgrades costs shes one of the cheapest birds flying. So getting rid of this plane for budget cuts is BS, its just bad politics. For every modern technological advance the F-35 offers, the A-10 can withstand massive AA fire and damage and still land, the same will never be said for the Lightning II. Just my 2 cents. Quote
Shadow Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I lived under the flight-line of a Reserve station for C-130s for 2/3 of my life. I'll never forget the sound of an Allison turboprop. They never bothered me either. Occasionally you'd have NG choppers come in and I couldn't stand the Chinooks since they'd actually make the windows rattle. Quote
dizman Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Bah lets get rid of that crummy old A-10, if it can't even go mach 1 what good is it!? Stupid joking aside, I'll miss the A-10 if they do actually go through with getting rid of it. They use to fly over where I worked almost everyday, always a fun sight to see them flying along the river at 500ft. Quote
skullmilitia Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I think the whole idea is to sacrifice the working birds, in order to save face of the F-35 project that has been plagued with issues. It's very political here locally, even getting the D and R's working side by side in order to save the A-10's. The county has even offered to have the A-10's become part of the reserve. Then also countered with they'd be happy with the next flight group lol. One of our state representatives will be having a meeting with the top brass who made the decision and will be allowed to grill them on why the A-10, with it's cheap servicing, and close air support, it's always going to be needed. I don't think an F-35 can fly home on one wing, and a missing engine.... Quote
505thAirborne Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I think the whole idea is to sacrifice the working birds, in order to save face of the F-35 project that has been plagued with issues. It's very political here locally, even getting the D and R's working side by side in order to save the A-10's. The county has even offered to have the A-10's become part of the reserve. Then also countered with they'd be happy with the next flight group lol. One of our state representatives will be having a meeting with the top brass who made the decision and will be allowed to grill them on why the A-10, with it's cheap servicing, and close air support, it's always going to be needed. I don't think an F-35 can fly home on one wing, and a missing engine.... "I know an F-35 can't fly home on one wing, and a missing engine...." Fixed! Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/25/mysterious-bae-replica/ "What do you mean, I went too far, sir?"... Quote
skullmilitia Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 "I know an F-35 can't fly home on one wing, and a missing engine...." Fixed! I was being a little sarcastic lol. Ok so is the F-35A the cannon fodder or what? lol Quote
David Hingtgen Posted March 12, 2014 Author Posted March 12, 2014 I tried, but that was the biggest version of the chart I can find. It's just barely readable. You can assume that almost everything listed is a "minus", the only "plus" ones are drones and a couple F-16's. Quote
Shadow Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Thank you. I had my issues with Gates over the F-22 but Hagel and some of the higher brass backing him are even bigger tools it seems. Feel bad for these Guard and Reserve units getting hit. I hope there is reconsideration on the A-10s retirement date. Quote
Ghost Train Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 This is a bit old, but worth posting. Pierre Sprey, co-designer of both the F-16 and A-10, shares his less than rosy thoughts on the F-35. Quote
hutch Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 So, what is this, the 10th or 15th retirement for the U-2? Quote
electric indigo Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 The F-35 is cursed! Even Hasegawa managed to mess up the profile on their new kit. http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10262266a5/20/5 Quote
Dobber Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) All performance issues aside, I think the F-35 is one of the ugliest planes ever.....and not ugly but awesome like the A-10. Just don't get why so many people love it. Chris Edited March 13, 2014 by Dobber Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.