Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[Nekko Basara]

Now you know I'm crazy, because I always liked the X-32. To my eyes, it was the A-7 "SLUF" reborn for the 21st century.

[Chronocidal]

I've actually talked to a few pilots of F-18s, and yeah, they hate the JSF having such a gimpy gun. They love having the gun just for strafing targets of opportunity during close air support scenarios.

I'm kinda wondering if the F-35 is going to wind up similar to the F-111. Honestly, the entire program may as well be one giant technology demonstrator. The thing is so crammed full of leading edge tech, a lot of it has probably never seen the light of day on a testbed, let alone being put in a production aircraft.

Which makes me really look forward to whatever the next plane they come up with is, because it'll get to benefit from all the lessons learned on the F-35.

[electric indigo]

Which makes me really look forward to whatever the next plane they come up with is, because it'll get to benefit from all the lessons learned on the F-35.

Most likely a swarm of drones

[F-ZeroOne]

To operate F-14s, the RN would've needed a supercarrier. Something they never had. Perhaps if they still had the Ark Royal, the Gannet AEW, and F-4Ks, things might've been different during the Falklands War? Hard to say.

True - though IIRC the RAF at least looked at the F-14 for the air defence requirement that eventually went to the Tornado ADV.

[Shadow]

Had the RAF considered purchasing the A-10 ever?

Still love the F-111 and it's shame a true successor never really came to pass unless that ends up being the F-35. The closest aircraft still in service that are in the Aardvarks class are the Su-24 and 34.

[Devil 505]

Had the RAF considered purchasing the A-10 ever?

Still love the F-111 and it's shame a true successor never really came to pass unless that ends up being the F-35. The closest aircraft still in service that are in the Aardvarks class are the Su-24 and 34.

Don't forget the Tornado GR4.

[Vifam7]

Don't forget the Tornado GR4.

And the F-15E Strike Eagle.

[Shadow]

Forgot about the GR4. I always thought the F-15E was more in line with the Su-30 as a multirole strike aircraft rather than a deep interdiction craft granted it did replace the F-111.

Speaking of the Vark though.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Shadow

[Coota0]

Now you know I'm crazy, because I always liked the X-32. To my eyes, it was the A-7 "SLUF" reborn for the 21st century.

If i recall correctly the X-32 out performed the X-35 in the STOVL role and was preferred by test pilots for that role. Unfortunately there could only be one. I think trying to come up with a fighter to be used on the carriers and one for the USAF would have worked, look at the A-1, F-4, or A-7. (Although all were originally Navy birds) Adding in the V/STOVL requirement for the USMC was a bridge too far, just too much specialization required.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Coota0

[Devil 505]

If i recall correctly the X-32 out performed the X-35 in the STOVL role and was preferred by test pilots for that role. Unfortunately there could only be one. I think trying to come up with a fighter to be used on the carriers and one for the USAF would have worked, look at the A-1, F-4, or A-7. (Although all were originally Navy birds) Adding in the V/STOVL requirement for the USMC was a bridge too far, just too much specialization required.

From what I've seen, the X-32's intake was part of its downfall when it came to vertical landings.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Devil 505

[Nekko Basara]

From what I've seen, the X-32's intake was part of its downfall when it came to vertical landings.

I wonder if that had anything to do with the later reconfiguarion of the chin intake. Although I though that was related to high-speed airflow.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Nekko Basara

[Gakken85]

F-15D Eagle fighter jet going vertical. Photographer: USAF SSgt. Jeffrey Allen

[Dobber]

Now you know I'm crazy, because I always liked the X-32. To my eyes, it was the A-7 "SLUF" reborn for the 21st century.

Glad I'm not the only person that preferred the X-32. Most people seem to hate it and like the 35. I personally HATE how the 35 looks. It is one of the ugliest airplanes I've ever seen, and not in the cool way that most people use for the A-10 or A-6, just plain ugly. Never understood why people call the A-10 ugly.

Chris

[SchizophrenicMC]

The X32 is ugly because it looks like a sea bird with a swollen gullet. It's not sleek like we imagine a next-generation fighter should be.

The A-10 is ugly because it was designed for function over form, where function dictates a very large gun and a slow-flying plane built around the gun. Other aircraft are also designed for function over form, but most aircraft have a function that creates striking, swooping design. That's why the F-14 is so pretty: its function was to be a muscle car that carried a bunch of this big, crazy missile.

[Dobber]

When I see the f-35, I can't help but think of old GI Joe toys or the original Kenner Starwars vehicle toys with the over sized/wide canopies so figures could be placed in them. From what I heard it doesn't even give the pilot better viability either.

Still don't see the A-10 as ugly. Looks like a mean mother@** to me. If not being sleek = ugly then that makes sense, but, things don't need to be sleek to be cool looking IMO.

Chris

[Nekko Basara]

When I see the f-35, I can't help but think of old GI Joe toys or the original Kenner Starwars vehicle toys with the over sized/wide canopies so figures could be placed in them. From what I heard it doesn't even give the pilot better viability either.

Oh, you hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. I always thought the F-35 looked like an F-22 minus any and all grace, but your description is spot on. It's the GI Joe version of the F-22; the lines are approximately right, but the proportions, especially the canopy, are totally out of whack. And, yeah, you can tell at a glance that its rearward visibility can't be much good.

As far as the X-32 goes, I'm not calling it beautiful. It was the sort of pretty, to me, that comes from an aircraft built to do a job from start to finish. In its case, that job was to fly like a Harrier, be stealthy like an F-117, and take up a minimum of space like an A-4. Which is why the end result looked like the ungainly mix of all of those. Ungainly, but pretty in its way.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Nekko Basara

[SchizophrenicMC]

Ultimately they picked the X-35. That big old chin intake was giving them problems with hot air ingestion, which the cheek-intake X-35 avoided, like the Harrier, as I recall. Of course the general VL system of the F-35 is more convoluted than the X-32, and the plane in general has been hit with more and more delays, setbacks, and budget overages.

And to be fair, a lot of why it was picked probably had to do with the fact that it does look like the F-22 mini. Of course, I'm also in the party that isn't convinced the F-22 was a better plane than the YF-23. They probably imagined it'd be cheaper and quicker to bring to production. If that was true, then I'd hate to see where in development hell the F-23 would be today.

All in all, I'm just not sure about the fifth-generation jet fighter. The whole program seems like a waste, when billions upon billions have been spent over decades, with nothing to show, all while fourth-generation fighters have had more and more added to them to make up. The F/A-18 Super Hornet keeps getting revisions that put its technological capability on par with the F-35's promises, and it's more maneuverable, with greater payload, range, and maximum speed, at lower overall and operating costs. And I hate the F-18, as the plane that killed the F-14 through lower cost.

And it's not just the Super Hornet that's had its share of upgrades. The F-15 and F-16 have been constantly improved and remain above and beyond what is available to adversarial forces. We don't need a plane to compete with the Typhoon- I doubt France plans on going to war with us. And if we did want a hyper-maneuverability fighter that can't fly without its computers running, F-15S/MTD.

And at this point, I'm starting to have my doubts about all-aspect stealth. Considering that whatever stealth you had is compromised when you fire missiles, or even carry them on external hardpoints, I'm not convinced of the combat viability of the claims.

All in all, if I was a prospective military customer for the fifth-generation fighter, I'd buy the latest competitor, in greater numbers, for less money. Which is ultimately what the RAAF did.

[Dobber]

Ultimately they picked the X-35. That big old chin intake was giving them problems with hot air ingestion, which the cheek-intake X-35 avoided, like the Harrier, as I recall. Of course the general VL system of the F-35 is more convoluted than the X-32, and the plane in general has been hit with more and more delays, setbacks, and budget overages.

And to be fair, a lot of why it was picked probably had to do with the fact that it does look like the F-22 mini. Of course, I'm also in the party that isn't convinced the F-22 was a better plane than the YF-23. They probably imagined it'd be cheaper and quicker to bring to production. If that was true, then I'd hate to see where in development hell the F-23 would be today.

All in all, I'm just not sure about the fifth-generation jet fighter. The whole program seems like a waste, when billions upon billions have been spent over decades, with nothing to show, all while fourth-generation fighters have had more and more added to them to make up. The F/A-18 Super Hornet keeps getting revisions that put its technological capability on par with the F-35's promises, and it's more maneuverable, with greater payload, range, and maximum speed, at lower overall and operating costs. And I hate the F-18, as the plane that killed the F-14 through lower cost.

And it's not just the Super Hornet that's had its share of upgrades. The F-15 and F-16 have been constantly improved and remain above and beyond what is available to adversarial forces. We don't need a plane to compete with the Typhoon- I doubt France plans on going to war with us. And if we did want a hyper-maneuverability fighter that can't fly without its computers running, F-15S/MTD.

And at this point, I'm starting to have my doubts about all-aspect stealth. Considering that whatever stealth you had is compromised when you fire missiles, or even carry them on external hardpoints, I'm not convinced of the combat viability of the claims.

All in all, if I was a prospective military customer for the fifth-generation fighter, I'd buy the latest competitor, in greater numbers, for less money. Which is ultimately what the RAAF did.

Agreed. Also, isn't the F-16 Block 60 the first time the U.S. has sold a foreign power a better version of an aircraft that we (the U.S.) use!?

Chris

Edited October 5, 2014 by Dobber

[danbickell]

Agreed. Also, isn't the F-16 Block 60 the first time the U.S. has sold a foreign power a better version of an aircraft that we (the U.S.) use!?

Chris

Well, the UAE funded development of the block 60 F-16 in lieu of F-35. The US isn't interested in updated F-16s when we are deeply invested in F-35 to replace them. UAE seems to be quite happy investing in a proven platform, and will get paid royalties if the block 60s are sold to any other countries.

There are plenty of other examples of similar scenarios. F-15SA is also better than US F-15s in many ways, in lieu of F-22, also utilizing the newer GE F110-132 engines that the Block 60 F-16s use. Singapore and Israel also have block 50/52 + F-16s that are more advanced than the F-16s in US inventory.

Boeing and LockMart are busy marketing updated versions of the aircraft that that have been superseded in the US to foreign allies as cheaper alternatives to the newer designs that they either aren't allowed to buy or can't afford. F-15 Silent Eagle is the epitome of that, but nobody has sprung for it yet, so they have been dumbing it down (no conformal weapons bays and such) to make it more affordable.

[David Hingtgen]

Yup, almost everbody has a better version of our own stuff nowadays. F-16 Block 60, F-15K, and Australian Super Hornets. (their F's are designed to be turned into G's in the future, and already have the very best radar and ASRAAMs, and I believe the uprated engine that is to power the Super Gripen)

[SchizophrenicMC]

I maintain the F-14 could have been good, had it gotten another airframe revision.

[David Hingtgen]

"Maintain"---probably the #1 killer of the F-14's service life. Maintenance time/expenses is one of THE biggest things taken into consideration nowadays. Can easily outrank raw initial cost, weapons, and sheer performance/capability.

(SAAB excels at this, SAABs have always given very good performance with easy maintenance)

[SchizophrenicMC]

The heavy maintenance was primarily due to the heavy chassis. The plane was big, and was made of pretty radical alloys that didn't subtract as much weight as strength. So, combined with salt corrosion and multi-g maneuvering, the airframe incurred lots of damage. Landing gear were really big and prone to rapid wear from landing a heavy cat on a rocking boat. And then there were silly problems like the harmonic frequency of one of the titanium hydraulic lines on the F-14A matching the engine frequency at military cruise, the TF-30 issues galore, the only slightly impressive thrust of the delayed early F110 (at least for such a fat bird), and we all remember the glove vane issues.

I think the plane could have lasted longer if modern metallurgy was available back then. Probably would have used a lot less boron in the steel alloys the main fuselage and wing stubs were made of. Not to mention the F110-132 makes nearly 20% more thrust than the early 110-400 used in the B and D models. Even at the weight it was, those engines would have given it a >1 TWR.

Was the Navy wrong to pick the Super Hornet over the Tomcat? Probably not, no, but the F-15's up to its ears in airframe revisions, whereas the F-14 only got 2, and only one of them made meaningful changes.

[Devil 505]

The heavy maintenance was primarily due to the heavy chassis. The plane was big, and was made of pretty radical alloys that didn't subtract as much weight as strength. So, combined with salt corrosion and multi-g maneuvering, the airframe incurred lots of damage. Landing gear were really big and prone to rapid wear from landing a heavy cat on a rocking boat. And then there were silly problems like the harmonic frequency of one of the titanium hydraulic lines on the F-14A matching the engine frequency at military cruise, the TF-30 issues galore, the only slightly impressive thrust of the delayed early F110 (at least for such a fat bird), and we all remember the glove vane issues.

I think the plane could have lasted longer if modern metallurgy was available back then. Probably would have used a lot less boron in the steel alloys the main fuselage and wing stubs were made of. Not to mention the F110-132 makes nearly 20% more thrust than the early 110-400 used in the B and D models. Even at the weight it was, those engines would have given it a >1 TWR.

Was the Navy wrong to pick the Super Hornet over the Tomcat? Probably not, no, but the F-15's up to its ears in airframe revisions, whereas the F-14 only got 2, and only one of them made meaningful changes.

It makes you wonder how Iran still has its Tomcats in service.

[Knight26]

Iran's tomcats are flying primarily because they have nice long runways to land on, so softer landings and takeoffs, also they are canabilzing most of them to keep just a few of them flying.

Also when it comes to naval aircraft, you have two numbers to calculate service life, flight hours and trap life. Back in the late 90's, early 2000's the navy had actually upgraded its old A+B hornets with C+D level avionics and pushed them back into the fleet, pushing the C+Ds to the reserves. The A+Bs had more flight hours, but lower trap life, making them safer and more useful to the fleet. What ultimately kills most naval planes are the stresses endured during take offs and landings.

Also love the quote, trying to remember what that was in reference too.

It makes you wonder how Iran still has its Tomcats in service.

[SchizophrenicMC]

The F-14, being as it weighed so very much, had a markedly low trap life. Lots of maintenance and overhauls performed on the airframes simply due to the stresses of landing that much weight on an aircraft carrier over and over. Given that Iran lacks aircraft carriers, its land-based F-14s have it a lot easier. In fact, while many land-based fighters are equipped with tail hooks for emergency landings on damaged runways, they typically are not rated for any kind of carrier landing. The landing gear and airframe just wouldn't take the stress all that well. And on top of that, there's the stresses incurred during catapult launches, which yank all that plane from 0 to flying in around 2 seconds, via the skinny stick that holds the front of the machine up.

Iran's F-14s don't have to do any of this. With that said, they received something like 78 F-14As, and the number of flying Tomcats is likely nowhere near that, due to cannibalizing many units to keep what they can, flying, since the manufacture of parts in the US was banned and all US F-14s were scrapped.

It doesn't hurt that Iran is very arid, while US F-14s had to spend all their time in salty air.

[Devil 505]

Also love the quote, trying to remember what that was in reference too.

The Robotech/Voltron crossover.

The F-14, being as it weighed so very much, had a markedly low trap life. Lots of maintenance and overhauls performed on the airframes simply due to the stresses of landing that much weight on an aircraft carrier over and over. Given that Iran lacks aircraft carriers, its land-based F-14s have it a lot easier. In fact, while many land-based fighters are equipped with tail hooks for emergency landings on damaged runways, they typically are not rated for any kind of carrier landing. The landing gear and airframe just wouldn't take the stress all that well. And on top of that, there's the stresses incurred during catapult launches, which yank all that plane from 0 to flying in around 2 seconds, via the skinny stick that holds the front of the machine up.

Iran's F-14s don't have to do any of this. With that said, they received something like 78 F-14As, and the number of flying Tomcats is likely nowhere near that, due to cannibalizing many units to keep what they can, flying, since the manufacture of parts in the US was banned and all US F-14s were scrapped.

It doesn't hurt that Iran is very arid, while US F-14s had to spend all their time in salty air.

I guess that's also why the AMARC boneyard is in Arizona. The dry desert air keeps all the spare planes and parts well-preserved.

[Gerli]

If the Royal Navy had been operating F-14s - big, heavy, complex - though, would they have even tried...?

Yes, because:

-The Military Goverment were a bunch of (drunk) idiots. and...

-The Super Etendart and Mirage pilots had the balls to do it.

[Shadow]

An interesting "What if" for the F-14 if development had continued for the D model and beyond.

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

[electric indigo]

Doesn't go far enough. Look at this:

Somebody had the brilliant idea to combine YF-23 and F-14.

[Vifam7]

An interesting "What if" for the F-14 if development had continued for the D model and beyond.

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

Love that website. However, the idea that the ASF-14 would've been cheaper than the Super Hornet is highly optimistic. Also, variable-geometry wings are pretty much now obsolete.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Vifam7

[miles316]

Any one watch CNN this evening with Miles O'Brian talking about a new theory of the crashed of the Malaysia airlines 777 that their is a avionics compartment with a remote override for the flight controls that is accessible inflight.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Doesn't go far enough. Look at this:

That's pretty sexy.

Though, the ASF14 was a fun concept as well.

[Falcon]

Love that website. However, the idea that the ASF-14 would've been cheaper than the Super Hornet is highly optimistic. Also, variable-geometry wings are pretty much now obsolete.

Just out of curiosity, why is this? Is it because of thrust vectoring engines or that the idea of variable geometry wings are too cumbersome and heavy to make it worthwhile?

[wm cheng]

Doesn't go far enough. Look at this:

Gorgeous!