Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[Axelay]

Iranian homemade "stealth fighter?"

I know there has been a significant amount of skepticism over this... "project," so I'm curious now if anyone has any new insight. I don't believe for one second that this thing is flightworthy.

[Thom]

Huh, I forgot all about that. Which is probably why they towed it out and pushed it down an incline...

[Chronocidal]

I still can't figure out how they can fit a fully grown human being in that thing.  They can't have any kind of radar in it, because his feet must be sticking clear into the nosecone.

[Knight26]

I would be quite surprised if that thing could even make it off the ground, and if it could, it clearly is subsonic, and I doubt it could carry any weaponry aside from maybe a sidewinder or two.  It looks smaller than an F-5/T-38 and the area forward of the "cockpit" is too small for any significant radar.  The camera turret underneath looks like something off the shelf.  Notice that they didn't show the cockpit this time, the one with a car stereo system installed.

[Shadow]

Wonder if I can find it hidden in a box of Corn Flakes. That's a surprise to see it make the F-5 look big by comparison and the F-16 even larger.

[F-ZeroOne]

On 17/04/2017 at 7:41 PM, dizman said:

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 

I remember seeing those in a "Janes All The Worlds Aircraft" back in the late 80s. Its kind of amusing to me that the real-life "X-Wing" was borne from a concept by an English person, I only found out the other day that Lukes "Red Leader" came from a  town just a few miles up the road from me... 

[Devil 505]

2 hours ago, F-ZeroOne said:

I remember seeing those in a "Janes All The Worlds Aircraft" back in the late 80s. Its kind of amusing to me that the real-life "X-Wing" was borne from a concept by an English person, I only found out the other day that Lukes "Red Leader" came from a  town just a few miles up the road from me... 

Speaking of Sikorsky, they've really been promoting their entry for the Future Vertical Lift program lately.

 

Edited April 18, 2017 by Devil 505

[electric indigo]

What happened to all the stealthy angles of the MH-X?

[Sildani]

Dunno if stealth is a requirement for this design, and stealth is expensive. Like triple the cost. 

[Devil 505]

12 minutes ago, Sildani said:

Dunno if stealth is a requirement for this design, and stealth is expensive. Like triple the cost. 

It's one of the reasons why the RAH-66 Comanche was cancelled.

[Shadow]

Checked out the airshow in Pittsburgh this year. First one I've been to in years, especially with the number aircraft on display. The F-22 was impressive and a loud sucker to boot. There was an F-35 on display but just for static. Along with another guy, chatted with the F-35 pilot for a few who had transitioned from the A-10 which made for some interesting conversation. Plenty else to see too from EA-18Gs to a Buff.

They had a Sea Harrier FA2 there as well but I got there at the tail end of his display. Also a pristine Mig-17F. Airshows always make feel like a kid again.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by Shadow

[derex3592]

 man, i really miss going to air shows! I need to go soon! 

[David Hingtgen]

That would be *the* flyable Sea Harrier. 

[Shadow]

Some extra shots. This experience convinced me that I need to get a proper SLR. Using a phone camera and a 10+ year old Nikon isn't ideal.

 

[Mazinger]

16 hours ago, Shadow said:

Along with another guy, chatted with the F-35 pilot for a few who had transitioned from the A-10 which made for some interesting conversation.

Do tell!

Seems like the current discourse is that the A-10 is an unloved but proven workhorse and that the F-35 is a costly boondoggle.

Did he echo those sentiments?

[Shadow]

7 hours ago, Mazinger said:

Do tell!

Seems like the current discourse is that the A-10 is an unloved but proven workhorse and that the F-35 is a costly boondoggle.

Did he echo those sentiments?

His sentiment was that he loved the Hog and that the A-10 can't be beat in the troop support and CAS role. The F-35 brings some very unique capabilities to the fight that no one else can. The subject of moving the T-birds to the F-35 even came up to which the pilot expressed that they should stick with the F-16 for as long as possible or move to the new trainer coming soon.

[Valkyrie Driver]

16 hours ago, Shadow said:

His sentiment was that he loved the Hog and that the A-10 can't be beat in the troop support and CAS role. The F-35 brings some very unique capabilities to the fight that no one else can. The subject of moving the T-birds to the F-35 even came up to which the pilot expressed that they should stick with the F-16 for as long as possible or move to the new trainer coming soon.

Well, yeah. The A-10 has 11 hardpoints and 16,000lbs capacity with which to carry anything in the US fighter weapons arsenal (save radar guided missiles). The A-10 is a dedicated CAS platform, and dedicated platforms are always superior to multi-role platforms (The F-16 was designed as a fighter, sold as a fighter, but was discovered to be good at other stuff). What I don't get is why the US is trying to replace the F-16 with a jet that costs more than the jet the F-16 was supposed to supplement. 

The F-16 was supposed to be a lower cost supplement to what would become the F-15. What is needed is a straight-up replacement for the aging fighter fleet, I wouldn't mind seeing a contract version of the Eurofighter Typhoon enter the US arsenal. 

[Shadow]

4 hours ago, Valkyrie Driver said:

Well, yeah. The A-10 has 11 hardpoints and 16,000lbs capacity with which to carry anything in the US fighter weapons arsenal (save radar guided missiles). The A-10 is a dedicated CAS platform, and dedicated platforms are always superior to multi-role platforms (The F-16 was designed as a fighter, sold as a fighter, but was discovered to be good at other stuff). What I don't get is why the US is trying to replace the F-16 with a jet that costs more than the jet the F-16 was supposed to supplement. 

The F-16 was supposed to be a lower cost supplement to what would become the F-15. What is needed is a straight-up replacement for the aging fighter fleet, I wouldn't mind seeing a contract version of the Eurofighter Typhoon enter the US arsenal. 

Can't see the DoD ever going the route of adopting a foreign-made fighter to play such as a big role. The time that they could have changed anything has long past we just have to swallow the bitter pill that the F-35 has become. I'd still like to see us upgrade the F-16 fleet to the V model to extend its lifespan out. The Navy seems to have it the worst as the Legacy Hornet fleet is falling apart and the F-35 is not an ideal Navy jet platform being that has only one engine where the Navy has long preferred dual engine platforms.

[Valkyrie Driver]

26 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Can't see the DoD ever going the route of adopting a foreign-made fighter to play such as a big role. The time that they could have changed anything has long past we just have to swallow the bitter pill that the F-35 has become. I'd still like to see us upgrade the F-16 fleet to the V model to extend its lifespan out. The Navy seems to have it the worst as the Legacy Hornet fleet is falling apart and the F-35 is not an ideal Navy jet platform being that has only one engine where the Navy has long preferred dual engine platforms.

I mean, you're not wrong. There is precedent though, the AV-8B was a foreign aircraft. I mean a lockheed or boeing made Typhoon wouldn't be bad, nor would it be unwelcome. The Navy and Marines both have it bad with their aging fighter fleets. More F-16's would definitely be the best answer for the USAF, and More F-18C/D's and AV-8B's would be best for the USN and USMC. 

Actually, what's probably more fiscally feasible that the Air Guard would end up rotating most of their F-15's, F-16's, and A-10's back to the RegAF, and replaced with airframes like the Textron Scorpion and possibly a revamped Northrop F-20. 

[Shadow]

2 hours ago, Valkyrie Driver said:

I mean, you're not wrong. There is precedent though, the AV-8B was a foreign aircraft. I mean a lockheed or boeing made Typhoon wouldn't be bad, nor would it be unwelcome. The Navy and Marines both have it bad with their aging fighter fleets. More F-16's would definitely be the best answer for the USAF, and More F-18C/D's and AV-8B's would be best for the USN and USMC. 

Actually, what's probably more fiscally feasible that the Air Guard would end up rotating most of their F-15's, F-16's, and A-10's back to the RegAF, and replaced with airframes like the Textron Scorpion and possibly a revamped Northrop F-20. 

Beating a dead horse with this as it's been brought up so many times. I'd rather take the hit to the wallet and see the USAF get an extra 50 F-22s than take back aging F-15s and Block 30/40 F-16s. The Navy is caught between a rock and hard place I think as retiring the F-14 has left a very noticeable gap that short to medium range multirole aircraft can't fill. The F-20 is long dead like the YF-23 sadly.

[Valkyrie Driver]

37 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Beating a dead horse with this as it's been brought up so many times. I'd rather take the hit to the wallet and see the USAF get an extra 50 F-22s than take back aging F-15s and Block 30/40 F-16s. The Navy is caught between a rock and hard place I think as retiring the F-14 has left a very noticeable gap that short to medium range multirole aircraft can't fill. The F-20 is long dead like the YF-23 sadly.

I mean I'm not arguing for the F-20 specifically, but something in the same vein of concept. I mean, sure, given the choice, enough F-35's to replace the F-16C/D and F/A-18C/D's would be preferable, and enough F-22A's to replace the F-15C/D's would obviously be the best solution.  Sure the F-14's retirement has left a gap, one which thee F/A-18E/F should be more than able to fill. I'm not a huge fan of trying to build multirole aircraft, I'd rather have a few aircraft that can do a couple things okay, but one thing really well. Obviously I want our Forces to progress in technology, I just think that we should do so with careful consideration for the budget. Air Forces (that includes the USAF, USN, and USMC) built on stealth aircraft are not sustainable. 

[Sildani]

Well the F-35 was supposed to be a cheap  stealth striker that could do air-to-air if it had to. Then the Cold War ended, production targets were slashed, and they hung all kinds of new requirements onto the project to keep it alive. So costs ballooned, complexity skyrocketed, and bumps and bulges appeared everywhere on the airframe. 

 

[Shadow]

It would be nice to take the Lockheed T-50A, fit it with weapon avionics and a radar (maybe even the F414 engine), and you basically have your light fighter/attack aircraft for the USAF and Air Guard. It would be a spiritual successor to the F-20.

[Vifam7]

4 minutes ago, Shadow said:

It would be nice to take the Lockheed T-50A, fit it with weapon avionics and a radar (maybe even the F414 engine), and you basically have your light fighter/attack aircraft for the USAF and Air Guard. It would be a spiritual successor to the F-20.

The problem with that idea is that - inevitably there's going to be mission-creep to the airframe. Which means it'll eventually be asked to do everything - just like the F-16 - and the T-50 airframe would be found to be too small.

 

[Shadow]

8 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

The problem with that idea is that - inevitably there's going to be mission-creep to the airframe. Which means it'll eventually be asked to do everything - just like the F-16 - and the T-50 airframe would be found to be too small.

 

Unless there is a catastrophic halt to the program, I'd imagine the F-35 is going to be the "do everything" aircraft. Mission creep hit the F-16 so hard because there was no other real modular platform to cover for the A-7, F-111 and F-117 after they were put to pasture. The F-35 gives them that platform to do more heavy lifting and clears space for a dedicated light fighter in my opinion with the F-22 covering the obvious air superiority role.

[505thAirborne]

On 5/14/2017 at 8:36 PM, derex3592 said:

 man, i really miss going to air shows! I need to go soon! 

This! I used to go to the Van Nuys, Port Hueneme and a few times to Edwards AFB shows.... I think once to El Toro. Nothing better when the pilots can go full afterburner! 

[spanner]

 

[hal9000]

Looks like were soon to have another P-38 flying.

 

[Chronocidal]

One of the big tricks to the new trainer deal, be it the T-50 or otherwise, is that it's going to get sucked into the F-35 development tornado as well.  The Air Force intends it to be the training platform for the F-35, so it will likely be getting very similar avionics and hardware in the cockpit, including the touch screen display, and helmet-mounted HUD. 

I seriously wish Northop hadn't already bowed out of the running.  Their trainer prototype looked to be entirely what I've been wishing for all along: just make an updated T-38.

[reddsun1]

Not sure if it goes here, but...

 

 

WHY THE FUDGE aren't more people aware/excited by this?!?  Holy sheep, it's like something from Marvel comics or a James Bond movie made practical (more or less).  All that stuff from the "world of the future" type exhibits from World's Fairs of old is finally coming to pass.

[frothymug]

Because it's fake. And even if it was real, it would be so unpractical, it would never reach mass markets.

Wearing a few gallons of flammable liquid on my back while standing on a few turbine engines? No problem there.

Got enough room to throttle engine power to help balance AND spin up fast enough to increase thrust to compensate any unexpected pitching? Easy.

Center of balance low enough to add stability? Check.

I could go on... I'm surprised there aren't more skeptics being more vocal, seeing as how there's so much bullshit vaporware that comes out all the time.

[F-ZeroOne]

Look, however you feel about the F-35, could you please just make sure it works in the end? We're starting to run out of potential substitutes over here... 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/29/last-sea-vixen-plane-foxy-lady-performs-emergency-landing/

[Nazareno2012]

On 17/05/2017 at 10:18 PM, Shadow said:

It would be nice to take the Lockheed T-50A, fit it with weapon avionics and a radar (maybe even the F414 engine), and you basically have your light fighter/attack aircraft for the USAF and Air Guard. It would be a spiritual successor to the F-20.

That already exists in the form of the F/A-50, which is the primary fighter of the Philippine Air Force:

[Shadow]

Oh was well aware of the FA-50. Developing a single seat version would be nice. Cut down on weight.

 

Props to the Sea Vixen pilot on a very smooth "crash" landing. Shame it happened. Great looking airplane.

[David Hingtgen]

Just a few pics from this weekend:

 

They at least allowed the F-35 to do a mini-demo (nowhere is getting a full demo, not this year) and there were two notables:

1.  Max acceleration demo.  "minimum clean speed", around 200kts, approaching end of runway--hits full burner, hits 500kts by the end of runway.  (if announcer is to be believed)  

2.  Not even sure what to call it, but ----go fast, hit rudder hard left and hit burner, and just "drift" a bit, with the nose pointing way to the left while still traveling straight ahead, before the burner really kicks in and it starts flying the way it's pointing.   A "power crab"?     

PS---as you can see, pink canopy tint is totally a thing...