Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[Sildani]

XL needs 2 engines. 

[Shadow]

A wide range of poor decisions (capping the F-22 at 187 still a big one) is coming back to bite hard. The old solution to the F-22 cost would have been to offer sale to close allies like Japan and possibly a limited number to Israel. I think we're lucky to be moving along with upgrading the Raptor to the Block 30 by 2020.

There also ruling out the Lockheed T-50 as a new light attack aircraft. Going with nothing but Super Hornets and F-35Cs is going to limit the reach of Naval air operations. Would love to see a new generation fleet defender fill that gap. F-24 Bearcat II

[kalvasflam]

The entire idea of keeping the F-22 for US use only was stupid, as was the decision to give a sole source for the JSF.  One of the things that I've heard was that the Boeing aircraft was actually similar in terms of performance, but one of the selling points against Boeing was the fact that it's plane looked like a pregnant version of the A-7.

The F-22 technology would have been developed elsewhere eventually, sharing that technology would've actually enabled Lockheed to sell the plane out to countries like Japan and Israel.   It would have forced the US aerospace companies to be more innovative, fortunately, innovation hasn't died, it just shifted over to the commercial space.  

I wonder if there would be any chance to reverse the industry consolidation that happened in the 90s, although that is highly doubtful.  Boeing has done a piss poor job on the defense side, not really any new products on the defense side, everything "new" had been some form of upgrades from acquisitions (F-15, F-18, AH-64), and changes from civilian models (P-8, KC-46), and did I mention, no more C-17s (now people have to count on Lockheed for military airlift, at least they won't close down the C-130 line).

 

 

[Chronocidal]

I want to say that there's a photo of a superhornet loaded for bear with 12 AIM-120s on the box of Janes F/A-18 sim, but I'll have to dig it out.  The internet's being entirely unhelpful there.

I cringe at the thought of seeing that many outward-canted pylons on an E/F at once though.. it's bad enough with just the tanks.

Far as the F-22 is concerned though, I did read somewhere that Lockheed kept all the tooling intact, and precisely documented the production processes.  Not like there's the money (or assembly line space) to do it right now, but they could theoretically restart production.

[kalvasflam]

The tooling and the procedures are one thing, but it'll be very difficult to restart the process, the people have all been shifted away over the last ten years.  (read very expensive - Thanks Bob Gates)  So as much as I would like to see it happen, it is highly doubtful.  I wonder what happened to the days when the USAF said that they could commit to just 729 F-15s over the life time of the program and ended up with I think 800+ units, not including the 200+ F-15Es.  

I wonder if the F-35 will ever get into the thousand plus as originally projected.

[Shadow]

May have been more controversial but Saudi Arabia and the UAE also could have been potential F-22 customers.

I don't know how someone can think the F-16 (even the Block 60) can supplant the F-15C in its role. There is a growing desire within the Air Force command and politicians to restart the F-22 production line despite how difficult it would be. I'd support it wholeheartedly but I don't think it's likely to happen. 

[F-ZeroOne]

Apparently Japan and the UK are looking into a joint project to develop a new fighter aircraft for the 2030s timeframe. Well, we are both fond of tea...

[kalvasflam]

dumb question, does the brits even have a real aerospace company any more that does everything end to end?

oh wait, the article said study... well, at least Japan has real production capabilities thanks to Mitsubishi

[Falcon]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/28/politics/us-air-force-f-15-eagles-retire/index.html

Love the F-16 (without those fugly conformal tanks) but not sure that's a great idea.

Then again, I'm a little strange as I like the idea of new Gen 4.5 planes (something the US don't really do other than update older fighters) to complement Gen 5 stealth ones.

Thoughts?

[dizman]

As much as I love them I could see replacing the F-15 C and D with an upgraded F-16 to keep costs down and make way for the F-35. The real outcome will probably be that the C and D will end up in the same death spiral that the A-10 and B-52 always seem to be in. I thought they were already working on upgrading the older models? That said I'm not surprised they aren't even talking about phasing out the Strike Eagle, it's pretty much perfect. 

[Shadow]

Unfortunately, we're still too far away from even getting a glimpse at a 6th generation fighter. I still think despite the pain it would cause to the pocket book, building an additional 40-50 modern spec F-22s would be worth every penny.

Felt this quote to be the most telling from this article. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/26/did-the-air-force-dash-its-hopes-for-building-more-f-22s.html

Quote

"By the end of the first week, everybody realized we need about 30 more F-22s in the lane because as soon as the F-22s leave, people start to die in the air-to-air fight."

 

[Devil 505]

19 hours ago, F-ZeroOne said:

Apparently Japan and the UK are looking into a joint project to develop a new fighter aircraft for the 2030s timeframe. Well, we are both fond of tea...

This sounds a lot like the fictional ASF-X Shinden II, a joint Anglo-Japanese design from the Ace Combat games.

[F-ZeroOne]

19 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

dumb question, does the brits even have a real aerospace company any more that does everything end to end?

oh wait, the article said study... well, at least Japan has real production capabilities thanks to Mitsubishi

 

BAE Systems is one of the largest ar - defence manufacturers in the world. I don't know if it would be possible to produce an aircraft "end to end", but even projects like the  F-35 tend to be at least a bit international these days...

We could call the aircraft Yukikhazi [1]...

[1] "Khazi" is a British slang term for a toilet. It is pronounced largely the same as "kaze"...

Edited March 29, 2017 by F-ZeroOne

[slide]

1 hour ago, Shadow said:

Unfortunately, we're still too far away from even getting a glimpse at a 6th generation fighter. I still think despite the pain it would cause to the pocket book, building an additional 40-50 modern spec F-22s would be worth every penny.

Felt this quote to be the most telling from this article. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/26/did-the-air-force-dash-its-hopes-for-building-more-f-22s.html

 

Could have sold Canada and other allies a bunch then it wouldn't be a problem... but the US Gov decided to keep it for themselves, and now they're in a pickle, and trying to stick everyone with F-35... which is fine if your requirement reads "Multirole Ordinance-Delivery platform" not "Fighter"

[kalvasflam]

It's actually Multirole Oordiance Delivery platform (and in very small print, two at a time if you don't want to compromise Stealth).

But then there was another interesting tidbit today on flight global:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/air-combat-commander-hints-at-rapid-acquisition-for-435696/

This could be a way to think about the return of F-22.  Or it'll be another major disaster for USAF acquisition.

 

[electric indigo]

18 hours ago, F-ZeroOne said:

We could call the aircraft Yukikhazi [1]...

Good idea, I heard you have a lot of JAM around...

[Shadow]

9 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

It's actually Multirole Oordiance Delivery platform (and in very small print, two at a time if you don't want to compromise Stealth).

But then there was another interesting tidbit today on flight global:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/air-combat-commander-hints-at-rapid-acquisition-for-435696/

This could be a way to think about the return of F-22.  Or it'll be another major disaster for USAF acquisition.

 

Well, we may already have a good platform in the YF-23 which may be better for this than the F-22 given the difference in internal bay configurations. It's a dream though as I believe Northrop tried reviving the F-23 as a fighter-bomber back in the early 2000s and that didn't get far.

It's definitely a better acquisition plan than the 22 and 35 for sure.

[F-ZeroOne]

4 hours ago, electric indigo said:

Good idea, I heard you have a lot of JAM around...

LOL! Can't believe I didn't make that connection myself earlier!

 

[kalvasflam]

I would love to see the F-23 make a come back.  It would get another aerospace company to do air frames.  I don't think NGC is currently putting together any airframes, are they?

 

unfortunately, at this point, the F-23 would be like a new development.

[renegadeleader1]

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 11:52 AM, kalvasflam said:

The entire idea of keeping the F-22 for US use only was stupid, as was the decision to give a sole source for the JSF.  One of the things that I've heard was that the Boeing aircraft was actually similar in terms of performance, but one of the selling points against Boeing was the fact that it's plane looked like a pregnant version of the A-7.

The F-22 technology would have been developed elsewhere eventually, sharing that technology would've actually enabled Lockheed to sell the plane out to countries like Japan and Israel.   It would have forced the US aerospace companies to be more innovative, fortunately, innovation hasn't died, it just shifted over to the commercial space.  

I wonder if there would be any chance to reverse the industry consolidation that happened in the 90s, although that is highly doubtful.  Boeing has done a piss poor job on the defense side, not really any new products on the defense side, everything "new" had been some form of upgrades from acquisitions (F-15, F-18, AH-64), and changes from civilian models (P-8, KC-46), and did I mention, no more C-17s (now people have to count on Lockheed for military airlift, at least they won't close down the C-130 line).

 

 

The thing that killed Boeing and the X-32 was the plane was incomplete and the company just wasn't ready for the competition against the Lockheed X-35. The plane had to swap parts to make either supercruise or vtol, the special stealth material they wanted to use for the body wasn't ready yet, and they wasted time debating up to the last moment wether it would have a conventional tailplane, pelikan tail, or go full delta. The fact that the plane had a gaping intake that could compromise stealth capability and prove vulnerable to ground fire is the least of their worries.

 

That pretty much sums up the X-plane competition. Lockheed put out a relatively conventional design with some bells and whistles that worked, and boeing just made a bunch of promises and tripped over themselves..

[Sildani]

And the complex composite skin for the prototypes was laid by hand and, on the second prototype, didn't cure properly. No, Boeing & Co. righteously shot themselves in the foot with the X-32. 

In my opinion what really harmed the 35 was all the stuff they dreamed up for it after the fact, which is partially why it has all the bulges it has. If it had been allowed to stay a stealthy version of the F-16, as was kinda talked about back in the day, it would probably have had a far smoother gestation. 

[Shadow]

Lockheed Martin. The Intel of defense aerospace companies. If Northrop had to bring the F-23 back, it would certainly have to be a modified design and I doubt it would get the variable cycle F120 engines either which really brought out the potential in the YF-23s design.

[reddsun1]

Holy sheep, this could be bad for morale--in the services and for the general public...

Navy instructor pilots effectively "on strike"

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/navy-instructor-pilots-refusing-to-fly-over-safety-concerns-pences-son-affected/ar-BBzmi4z?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15

[slide]

The Goshawks have been grounded

[Dobber]

Didn't the F-22 have a similar problem too? I wonder why oxygen system contamination is becoming such a problem with aircraft now......though it's not like T-45's and legacy Hornets are new aircraft.

Chris

[Shadow]

Boeing presents the Block III Super Hornet with alot of new tech goodies. I thought F-16 had become a bloated jet from its original concept but I wouldn't be surprised if Super Hornet is knocking on the Tomcat's doorstep in terms of weight at some point.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2017-04-05/boeing-pitches-super-hornet-block-iii-navy-league-event

Quote

An F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block III would sustain the U.S. Navy’s carrier air wings at full strength and complement the F-35C Lightning II fighter into the 2030s, Boeing says. The manufacturer is proposing a network-enabled upgrade of the fourth generation fighter that could also be feathered into a planned service life extension of Block II Super Hornets.

Super Hornet Block III differs from the earlier proposed Advanced Super Hornet in that Boeing is no longer focused on improving the fighter’s stealth capability relative to the F-35's, said Dan Gillian, F/A-18 and EA-18 program manager. Rather, it proposes to integrate networking components that along with other improvements would make the Super Hornet an equal partner with the F-35 in future strike formations.

“I think a huge and significant change from the 2013 Advanced Super Hornet to the 2016-2017 Block III Super Hornet is the need for the Super Hornet to be a ‘smart node’ on the Navy’s NIFC-CA [Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air] network,” Gillian told reporters April 4 at the Navy League Sea Air Space conference. “In the past, we talked about maybe the Super Hornet could be just a ‘dumb shooter’ out there, with information passed to it. But with all the information available, being a contributing part of the NIFC-CA network is really important.”

Boeing would enable the Block III fighter by installing a Distributed Targeting Processor-Networked (DTP-N) computer and tactical targeting network technology (TTNT) Internet-protocol-based, high-speed datalink, both program-of-record upgrades for the Super Hornet’s EA-18G Growler electronic warfare variant, Gillian said. It would have an advanced cockpit with a 10-by-19 inch Elbit Systems large area display as the pilot interface, similar to what Boeing has installed in the F-15 and the clean-sheet jet it developed for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X advanced jet trainer requirement. In terms of cost, “the delta between a Block 2 and a Block 3 is a couple million dollars,” Gillian said.

Not included in the offering is the F414-GE-400 engine upgrade GE Aviation and the Navy have been developing. “Obviously every pilot wants more thrust; we think there’s a compelling business case based on the fuel efficiency,” Gillian said. “We continue to work with GE and the Navy to fund the enhanced engine. We think there’s a great story there; it’s just not part of the Block III package today.”

The networking system upgrade, matched with the already approved Lockheed Martin AN/ASG-34 long-range infrared search and track (IRST) sensor pod and evolutions of the Raytheon APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and Harris AN/ALQ-214 integrated defensive electronic countermeasures (IDECM) self-protection system, prepare the Super Hornet for the future threat environment, Boeing contends. As with the Advanced Super Hornet, the Block III Super Hornet would come with shoulder-mounted conformal fuel tanks containing 3,500 gallons of fuel, increasing the fighter’s range by about 120 nm and/or time on station by about 20 to 30 minutes depending on its mission payload, Gillian said.

The IRST pod is especially a differentiator, he argued. “That’s something Super Hornet brings to the air wing that nobody else has—then you leverage it with things like the conformal fuel tanks and the DTP-N and TTNT and now your networked carrier air wing is much more effective,” Gillian said. The F-35’s integrated electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) infrared search and track sensor represents “medium range air-to-ground versus long range air-to-air” capability, he asserted.

[In a separate briefing at the Navy League conference, Jack Crisler, Lockheed Martin vice president of F-35 business development and strategy, said the Lightning II will incorporate IRST capability in a Block 4 configuration. Lockheed Martin is also advertising a weapons-laden “beast mode” F-35 capable of carrying 13,000 additional pounds of weapons externally. However, Crisler did not have numbers available to compare its range with a Super Hornet's.]

Boeing expects to secure a first contract from the Navy early next year to begin a service life modernization program that will extend the service life of Block II fighters from 6,000 to 9,000 hours. New build Block III Super Hornets would already be 9,000-hour fighters, which Boeing could start delivering in the early 2020s; Block II fighters could be retrofitted through the service life modification “a little later than that,” Gillian said.

With the Navy burning through the service hours it needs to fly Super Hornets into the next two decades, and with President Donald Trump questioning the cost of the F-35 program and hinting at a major new F/A-18 order, Boeing has ramped up promotion of the Super Hornet Block III.

“Both platforms are going to be flying in the carrier air wings through the twenties and thirties,” Gillian said of the Super Hornet and F-35. “You need the right attributes at the carrier air wing level to deal with the future threats that are out there. The long-range, air-to-air, infrared search and track sensor is a unique attribute that Super Hornet brings. Magazine depth—being able to carry a large number of missiles at range—is a unique thing that Super Hornet brings. Complementary capabilities like conformal fuel tanks put a Super Hornet and an F-35 in a strike package at a comparable range. Being able to do data fusion and move data around—all next generation fighters have to have that.”

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by Shadow

[F-ZeroOne]

Lockheed-Martin clearly entering early production on "Iron Eagle V: Rise of the Machines":

https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/10/air-force-tests-air-to-ground-strikes-with-an-autonomous-f-16-wi/

I know what you're thinking:

1) Wow, the F-16 VISTA is still flying?

and

2) Wait, they made a fourth film?!!

[Valkyrie Hunter D]

Coaxial rotors and pusher props on future choppers, courtesy of Boeing and Sikorsky:

 

[Sildani]

Ha. What's old is new again. Look up Advancing Blade Concept. 

[slide]

Reminds me of the AH-56 Cheyenne concept, but with counter-rotational mains

[David Hingtgen]

More identification chart fun:

 

(Falcon's tailplanes are wrong though)

[David Hingtgen]

4 hours ago, slide said:

Reminds me of the AH-56 Cheyenne concept, but with counter-rotational mains

Googling that lead me to this:

 

Now THAT's a helicopter! 

[spanner]

3 hours ago, David Hingtgen said:

More identification chart fun:

 

(Falcon's tailplanes are wrong though)

love the Blackbird one! 

3 hours ago, David Hingtgen said:

Googling that lead me to this:

 

Now THAT's a helicopter! 

and what the hell is that supposed to be!?!? looks like Dr Frankenstein put that together from pieces found in a boneyard! 

[dizman]

After a little bit of searching I found some info, pretty interesting aircraft and a good read if you have some time. I love the ejection system, reminds me of the Ka-50.  http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/S-72 (RSRA).php

It was later developed into an X-wing http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/X-WING.php 

Edited April 17, 2017 by dizman
Forgot about star wars....

[Chronocidal]

See, I wonder how long it will be until someone develops a nozzle that can effectively distribute thrust over a wider area, and... well, basically let you make a turbofan-powered Osprey, without needing 3 or more engines for a stable platform.  Or, barring that, just make a three-engined Osprey that looks like the Cobra Rattler.  

The F-35B can sort of do that, but it still needs ducted compressor air for steering and attitude control, as well as whatever diffuser the lift fan uses.