F-ZeroOne Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 https://www.defensie.nl/onderwerpen/f-35-en-f-16-oefenen-samen/inhoud/blog-gevechtsvlieger You'll perhaps see why I didn't post a link... However, a translation is available in this thread on another forum: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27850 Quote
grigolosi Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) That helmet display is awesome. I was able to read the article thanks to the translation program on windows. I was reading a post on facebook the other day. Someone was ranting how the lack of a HUD is going to be a shortcoming. They were quoting Pierre Sprey while talking about it. I don't think he actually keeps up on tech advances in the fighter world. The F-15 and F-16 both use JHMCS for targeting and the pilots really like it. Now I do believe we have spent way too much on the program and we should not be rushing to get rid of aircraft but it has brought some very practical and high tech advancements to fighter aircraft. Being able to see through the aircraft would be one of a fighter pilots greatest assets in a fight. I know not having to wear the night goggles is also a plus. It cuts down on more crap being brought into the cockpit and makes the helmet less cumbersome. Edited September 4, 2015 by grigolosi Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 As I understand it, Sprey has something of a... reputation. He probably had a point once, and some of those points were adopted and became the F-16 but as you say, hes probably rather out of touch these days (leaving aside the fact that military procurement - at least the big ticket items that get all the publicity - is rather borked [1], which is why the USAFs new bomber programme is being managed the way it is). Fighter aircraft have always been on the cutting edge of technology, and the most successful ones have almost always been the ones that made the best use of the technology available at the time; now I know that MiG-17s in 'Nam are going to be bought up at this point but using Spreys own arguments, they should have been using MiG-3s instead of -17s,right? [1] I'm currently reading a book about the development of battleships, all the way back to the 1860s and... lets just say the more things change... Quote
grigolosi Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) The new tanker program is suddenly running into issues now also. I was reading there are some "major" issues with the KC-46. What they are was not revealed in the article. All these programs are being run by people with something to gain in the long run.This was a lesson learned from the generation of officers who were involved in the systems and weapons development for the AF during Vietnam. All those officers retired into the program or companies that developed the systems and haven't left yet. You can spot them on the test bases. At Eglin they are the old 60 yr old men driving a brand new Corvette ever year. Funny when I applied for jobs with Lockheed on the F-35, one item you had to answer was whether you were ever part of contracting with them while in the AF or if you were related to anyone who was in a position that would lead to a "conflict of interest". Too much money being thrown around with no real oversight anymore. But then on the other end you have guys like Sprey who believe we should be fighting in jets the way we did in Korea, inertial gunsights and machine guns/cannons. There doesn't seem to be anyone with the sense to establish a good median in all this new tech/ new tech. Edited September 5, 2015 by grigolosi Quote
electric indigo Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 For the camouflage fans: Hasegawa has announced a kit of the Eurofighter with the Battle of Britain markings: http://www.hasegawa-model.co.jp/product/02173/ Quote
spanner Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 the Typhoon looks crazy good in the classic colors! Quote
Sildani Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 I'll buy it and have someone paint it for me. Too cool! Quote
505thAirborne Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/a-new-angle-on-this-shadowy-stealth-f-a-18-hornet-conce-1727910676 Hi all, not sure if this is old news but it's news to me. Never knew there was any attempt at a Stealth F/A-18. Interesting article. Quote
spanner Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/a-new-angle-on-this-shadowy-stealth-f-a-18-hornet-conce-1727910676 Hi all, not sure if this is old news but it's news to me. Never knew there was any attempt at a Stealth F/A-18. Interesting article. hehe! The F/A-18 (Super Hornet anyways) still has some development potential and improvements to further reduce its RCS but not to the extent that this thing looks to be..This thing looks more like a mock up / hack job for some crappy sci-fi movie / tv series or what have you.. then wrapped up to preserve it for future takes. There is no way they would invest the amount of money to re-design the Hornet to this extent for only marginal returns in improvements. It definitely looks to have been partially dismantled. It may have even been for static testing or a minor damaged plane which still has a good main air frame they are keeping as a spare?? who knows.. Edited September 6, 2015 by spanner76 Quote
505thAirborne Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Wouldn't that be funny to think an old Air Frame used for a Scifi flick is just sitting in the bone yard, next time we some Aircraft in a Syfy channel movie, we'll know where it came from. Quote
spanner Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Wouldn't that be funny to think an old Air Frame used for a Scifi flick is just sitting in the bone yard, next time we some Aircraft in a Syfy channel movie, we'll know where it came from. well it was only a silly suggestion but who knows maybe this aircraft did indeed have some important military significance!? Doubt it though.. Quote
grigolosi Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 It looks like they were testing some form of stealth drone tech using an old hornet. I think that is the nose we are looking at. It isn't unusual for these companies to use existing frames to test newer frame concepts. For example the F-35 inlet was originally tested on an F-16 at Edwards back in 01-02. I wouldn't doubt they used it for wind tunnel testing of some form and used the frame for engine inlet/exhaust testing on the ground. Quote
Knight26 Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/a-new-angle-on-this-shadowy-stealth-f-a-18-hornet-conce-1727910676 Hi all, not sure if this is old news but it's news to me. Never knew there was any attempt at a Stealth F/A-18. Interesting article. Frag me sideways people, I have seen even the most intelligent people I know posting this crap. It is not a stealth hornet. It is a hornet that has had its wing and forward fuselage removed and then was fully plastic wrapped. AMARG used to do that a lot more as a means to save space. However the time need to wrap and unwrap became too costly so they do the simpler wraps we are used to. They still experiment with larger scale wraps and that is all this is!!! Quote
Thom Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 However that leads us to the Advanced Super Hornet program... https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/navy-pleased-with-quotadvancedquot-super-hornet-tests-wants-more-397927/ Have to say that I love the Hornet. (Second to the old Tomcat) And I hope they're able to keep it around for along while to come! Quote
grigolosi Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) Oh lord our ignorance has inflamed someone. I am sorry I have never seen this article before nor am I an expert in wrapping aircraft for AMRG storage. A simple explanation would have sufficed without a condescending tone. Edited September 6, 2015 by grigolosi Quote
electric indigo Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Don't be fooled! That's clearly an X-9 under the wrap! Quote
David Hingtgen Posted September 7, 2015 Author Posted September 7, 2015 Lockheed Upbeat Despite F-35 Losing Dogfight To Red Baron Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/08/f-35-loses-dogfight-to-red-baron/#ixzz3l25Hnm7G Quote
SchizophrenicMC Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 Well let's be honest: it never stood a chance. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 Funny aside... there was at least one scheme to equip a Hawker Hurricane with a jettisonable upper biplane wing, though that was more as an aid for take-off and to carry additional fuel than agility... Quote
spanner Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 For the camouflage fans: Hasegawa has announced a kit of the Eurofighter with the Battle of Britain markings: http://www.hasegawa-model.co.jp/product/02173/ Love this Hornet in the same paint scheme! Quote
grigolosi Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 The Hornet looks good, but I prefer the flatter tone on the Typhoon. Quote
electric indigo Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 LM should paint a splinter camo on the F-35 and everybody will love the plane... Quote
spanner Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 The Hornet looks good, but I prefer the flatter tone on the Typhoon. You're right there! The Typhoon colors are better but the Hornet still looks great! Quote
grigolosi Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 A camo pattern on the F-35 would be wasted due to the nature of the Have Glass paint and radar absorbent materials. They soak up grease and oil like a sponge. The Block 60 F-16's look like horrible blackish grey airplanes now. You can barely tell there is a camo pattern. Quote
mickyg Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Horrible? Bite your tongue, man! Have Glass is an awesomely dirty, beautiful thing! You're right though, I don't think paint of any type would preserve the stealthiness of the coating. I do wonder how they tinted it for the Vipers, given the look when new. Quote
grigolosi Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) This what it looked like when the paint was new. I don't know myself how they kept it toned down. But now between the absorbency of the paint, the intense heat from the desert here and the combination of both engine/ECS exhaust heat the paint is peeling in certain areas like pieces of leather. Amazingly though even with all the grease and oil on it the paint still works very in reducing the RCS. Edited September 9, 2015 by grigolosi Quote
electric indigo Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Love those packed Block 60s. Here are some shots of my 1/72 Hase kit: Quote
spanner Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Love those packed Block 60s. Here are some shots of my 1/72 Hase kit: that looks awesome! Very nice kit and build! I never thought much of those conformal tanks they fit to the F-16's as I always felt they took away the planes svelte and graceful figure but of late they have started to appeal to me! The photos of this kit just re-enforce that feeling! Quote
SchizophrenicMC Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 I've always been torn on the Block 60 conformal tanks. Sometimes they look good and sometimes they make the ballerina look chunky. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 I think its the angles. From slightly above, they give a "muscular" appearance. From the sides, though,... its like F-16 remoras... 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.