Aircraft VS super thread!

[Coota0]

Haha.. can you imagine it? A USN Carrier Wing comprising of:

• Interceptor Squadrons with ST-14s
  
• Attack Squadrons with Quickstrike F-14s
  
• Electronic Warfare with EF-14s
  
• etc. with F-14 variants
  

I start to drool.

EDIT: changed ASF-14s to Quickstrike F-14s.

Can you imagine what it would cost?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Again that sound exactly like the AFM article and less like the descriptions of the ASF-14 I've heard. I haven't really heard much in the way of officail or semi-official sources describing upgrades as extensive as you descirbe (other than idle message board scuttlebut).

So the one you saw wasn't official? Hmnmm. I really wish grumman could let us at least have a peek into the official design layouts at least. Like some profile views. I mean with the big cat retiring, it would be nice to at least know "what could have been". Always makes phantom and crusader discussions interesting. I just have a fascination with cancelled planes or planes that never made it off the drawing board.

[ewilen]

Ewilen did the site owner get back to you with more pics of the ASF-14?

So far, no.

BTW, if you like cancelled planes, I can recommend that book I mentioned upthread a couple pages, which I got the Curtiss F-14C info from. (Huh, just found the picture online.) But it only goes up to about 1960.

[Noyhauser]

What are the JMSDF's prospect of operating AV-8B Plus(AV-8J) jump jets from its so called large helicopter destroyer ?

slim to none

The helicopter carrier is to be as un-offesnsive as possible. Its a strict helicopter carrier, that is designed to be used for ASW work, thats it. Anything more would be a contravention of the Japanese constitution, which forbids the possession of offensive weapons of any kind. Notice how the Japanese really have no long range strike weapons either... same reason. Its a really politically touchy subject. Its really more like the old Moskva Class of Helicopter cruisers the USSR once fielded, even in design. with no ski jump, it makes it highly unsuitable for carrying this sort of plane. Here is a link to the old Moskva (I really liked this ship)

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/1123.htm

Even if the Japanese did secretly intend to use their helo carrier for offshore support of a land force (I can't even begin to tell you how unlikely that would be)... it would pretty obvious they were doing so if they started buying harriers.

Edited December 10, 2004 by Noyhauser

[hellohikaru]

@noyhauser

I agree with you that it will be most difficult for the JMSDF to acquire AV-8s for its carrier. Silly politics getting in the way just like the tankers for the JASDF.

However the ship not being able to operate Harriers due to a lack of ski-jump isn't true. USMC Tarawa class ships don't have one either but Harrier operating from them would require a longer TO run when carrying heavy loads. I also think it will interfere with other ops due to the increase use of space.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Its not that. The Japanese just prefer to launch their aircraft from carriers which either are submersible or capable of flight. So they'll hold their yen until such tech becomes available.

[VF19]

Submersible subamarines are available.....the Japanese had three of them, I believe, in WW2. Each carried three seaplanes, and were some of teh biggest subs ever.

[hellohikaru]

Novi Avion proposed Yugoslav fighter project. looks alot like a single engine rafale.

[hellohikaru]

Another possible configuration

[VF19]

Either a Canarded F-16 or a Rafale.

[David Hingtgen]

Yeesh, Dassault and/or Lockheed should sue for patent infringement on those...

[F-ZeroOne]

@noyhauser

I agree with you that it will be most difficult for the JMSDF to acquire AV-8s for its carrier. Silly politics getting in the way just like the tankers for the JASDF.

Its probably not quite so silly to the Japanese. They are very close to a number of nations that have very good reason not to like them very much (at least two of the Japanese islands are actually in Russian hands) and who have long memories.

Japan is still - and hopefully will remain - the only country to have been attacked by atomic bombs in anger. That tends to focus the populations thoughts a bit; its unlikely the Japanese public would give much support to any politician who suddenly took an interest in aircraft carriers (and in US service, the Harrier is a Marine support aircraft - and those large countries near Japan would take notice of an acquisition of an aircraft that could potentially support an amphibous assault. For the UK, the Harriers role is a little different, mainly because its the only adequate aircraft that can operate from our current aircraft carriers).

[VF19]

You guys should just go the extra half-mile and build full size ones. Lose the ski ramp.

The point about the Harrier and Amphibious assaults is completely true, however. No one really notices Japan as a military threat anymore, but a sudden purchase of say....30 harriers could make them a point of interest from our UAVs and satellites, and that they don't want. Personally, I don't think their weapons should be limited as they are, anyone who had a grudge against the US and could hold any power to take action against us is long dead by now. Same for Germany. Germany was just under teh power of an insane dictator who had plenty of health problems and mental dementia. The german people aren't warlike in nature (Trust me, my entire family is german, all the way down my dads side.) and have incredible military forces. The KSK, GSG9 (Well, I still don't know if they are allowed to handle things out-of-country) etc. Times change. Grudges are lost.

Anywho, back to discussion of planes. Lockheed and Dassault should sue, David. You caneven make out the panels on the body of the 16 in that pic.

[F-ZeroOne]

We had full size carriers. Then the government of the time decided we couldn't have them, so we got "through-deck cruisers" instead. Then the Falklands happened, and it suddenly turned out aircraft operating from carriers were quite a good idea after all. Luckily for us, Hawker-Siddeley did some lateral thinking back in the 50s and 60s and invented the Harrier [1].

Flash forward a few years, and we currently have a couple of aircraft carriers - proper ones - on order. However, if you're aware of British military procurement history, don't hold your breath...

[1] I've just been reading a book by someone who worked for Hawker, and he describes an incident where an aircraft overshot a 7,000 foot long runway and had a rather harder-than-intended landing. The aircraft involved was a Harrier.

A jump jet. Think about it, and then wonder just how much runway this pilot must have needed...

[hellohikaru]

Either a Canarded F-16 or a Rafale.

Actually it is a Rafale with the rear section of the Grumman F-29A.

[VF19]

No, I said one looked like a canarded F-16 or a Rafale. The foreward section of the first one looks EXACTLY like a Rafale.

[hellohikaru]

@VF19

I am surprised that Germany didn't acquire their own Harrier equivalent considering the amount of research they made into VTOL aircraft like EWR VJ-101C, VFW VAK-191B and Do 31E. They were also one of the parties involved in the P1127 Kestrel test aircraft.

Since Germany was the front line during the cold war they would have needed aircraft capable of operating from disperse sites away from vulnerable airfields.

Germany ended up buying mostly US aircraft when it could easily designed their own. US political arm twisting again ?

And they never bought a fighter to replace the Phantom.

[VF19]

They just really haven't had a need to, seeing as they are limited to a self-defense force. They don't need long range fighters. I imagine they will be getting some Typhoons, if they can.

[Coota0]

They just really haven't had a need to, seeing as they are limited to a self-defense force. They don't need long range fighters. I imagine they will be getting some Typhoons, if they can.

They've got EF-2000s on order to replace they're F-4s

[hellohikaru]

What i am trying to say is that there was a generation large gap between the F-4F and the now operational EF-2000. Then again the F-4s were purchased in the 70s.

For a long time they only had crap AIM-9B Sidewinders as their only AAM. Can't imagine them taking on Warsaw Pact MiG-23s armed with AA-7s.

And for the Harrier-type jets could have given the Luftwaffe some degree of CAS capability. They were already using the G-91 and inadequete Alpha Jet A for this role.

I heard they increased the numbers of EF2000 they purchased to reudced the price. This is good news.

[Noyhauser]

You guys should just go the extra half-mile and build full size ones. Lose the ski ramp.

The point about the Harrier and Amphibious assaults is completely true, however. No one really notices Japan as a military threat anymore, but a sudden purchase of say....30 harriers could make them a point of interest from our UAVs and satellites, and that they don't want. Personally, I don't think their weapons should be limited as they are, anyone who had a grudge against the US and could hold any power to take action against us is long dead by now. Same for Germany. Germany was just under teh power of an insane dictator who had plenty of health problems and mental dementia. The german people aren't warlike in nature (Trust me, my entire family is german, all the way down my dads side.) and have incredible military forces. The KSK, GSG9 (Well, I still don't know if they are allowed to handle things out-of-country) etc. Times change. Grudges are lost.

Anywho, back to discussion of planes. Lockheed and Dassault should sue, David. You caneven make out the panels on the body of the 16 in that pic.

Actually I think its a fine thing to do. with regional tensions the way they are MORE offensive weapons is not a good thing. What would the Japanese use a carrier for when the have article 19?

And your point about germany is a lot different. The german government has forces for self defence and a constitutional clause preventing out of country depoyments (but due to a 1994 constitutional court ruling the Federal republic has been ammended saying deployments as part of a multinational coalition is ok). GSG 9 is a self defence measure. Also germany has the EU to use as a framework for action and a moral check on its behavoir... Japan has no close allies. Germany for the longest time supported "civillian power"" models of foreign affaris, which eschewed miliatary force ans stressed the application of diplomacy and economic trade to act internationally. It still believes in those tenets deeply. So things haven't changed that much.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hey guys. Does anyone know for sure that some eurofighters are having the gun deleted? I think this is a dumb idea. I don't know for sure but a lot of the magazines I read say that the gun will deleted in all but one version. I look to jane's in the campus library but they don't talk about it.

I think the tornado is a wonderful plane but what's with this being different tranches? Wasn;t it supposed to be a dedicated multiroler from teh outset?

Also., The Tornado E3B or whatever its called. Can it still do fighter ops or is it strictly ECR-like?

And does anyone know if orders were placed for the MIG-29M2? That's a beautiful aircraft. I dunno, I just have a thing for 2 seaters.

And for sake of random battles.

F/A-18D(marines version) vs F-15E

Which is the better multirole striker/bomber? Which is better in dogfighting?

[David Hingtgen]

Tranch is Eurofighter for "Block".

After changing about 5 times in 5 months, I think the scenario is to sell "Tranch 1" EF-2000's to other nations as soon as Tranch 2 are delivered. Tranch 2 MIGHT have working guns, that changes so often I don't know. Tranch 3 will have working guns I think.

Finally--the current Luftwaffe F-4F is very upgraded and quite capable. Similar to the Sea Harrier FRS2, it has Hornet-C-like radar and AMRAAM's. So it's got the same BVR capability as a Baby Hornet, and is much faster. So long as you don't dogfight, it can do air defense very well. Maintenance/age is the primary issue AFAIK, no matter how upgraded, F-4F's are old.

[ewilen]

But doesn't Shin have a point in that the later EF2000's are designed for surface attack, while the initial bunch aren't? Not that this means the later ones'll be any less capable in air-air role than the first bunch (though for all I know, it might).

[cyde01]

You guys should just go the extra half-mile and build full size ones. Lose the ski ramp.

The point about the Harrier and Amphibious assaults is completely true, however. No one really notices Japan as a military threat anymore, but a sudden purchase of say....30 harriers could make them a point of interest from our UAVs and satellites, and that they don't want. Personally, I don't think their weapons should be limited as they are, anyone who had a grudge against the US and could hold any power to take action against us is long dead by now. Same for Germany. Germany was just under teh power of an insane dictator who had plenty of health problems and mental dementia. The german people aren't warlike in nature (Trust me, my entire family is german, all the way down my dads side.) and have incredible military forces. The KSK, GSG9 (Well, I still don't know if they are allowed to handle things out-of-country) etc. Times change. Grudges are lost.

Anywho, back to discussion of planes. Lockheed and Dassault should sue, David. You caneven make out the panels on the body of the 16 in that pic.

Actually I think its a fine thing to do. with regional tensions the way they are MORE offensive weapons is not a good thing. What would the Japanese use a carrier for when the have article 19?

And your point about germany is a lot different. The german government has forces for self defence and a constitutional clause preventing out of country depoyments (but due to a 1994 constitutional court ruling the Federal republic has been ammended saying deployments as part of a multinational coalition is ok). GSG 9 is a self defence measure. Also germany has the EU to use as a framework for action and a moral check on its behavoir... Japan has no close allies. Germany for the longest time supported "civillian power"" models of foreign affaris, which eschewed miliatary force ans stressed the application of diplomacy and economic trade to act internationally. It still believes in those tenets deeply. So things haven't changed that much.

Agreed. Germany is surrounded by NATO allies. The situation is a little different for Japan because it has two Communist coutries right in its neighborhood who fear and loath it and who have been conquered by it in the past. When the Japanese National soccer team played some games in the Nanking province of China this summer it started a total anti-Japanese riot. Some (and I do stress SOME, not all) South Korean citizens also mistrust Japan and their SDF (especially after it deployed to Iraq) EVEN MORE than they do the North Koreans. Most of Asia does not trust Japan with a military, and most citizens of Japan do not want a military because after the nucs, they are pretty much sick of war.

VF19, this is not about whether Japan and the US still have a grudge with each other. In fact, Japan relies on the US for its survival, as stated by others. However, there are some political analysts that do lament at the fact that because of this, some Japanese politicians feel they have to listen to the US' every whim.

Well, sorry to clog the thread with more political mumbo jumbo.

Here's something more on topic- The YF-23 did not have thrust vectoring nozzles because it's engines were recessed far into the fuselage (similar to B-2) to protect it from heat seeking missles. This design feature made it impossible to add vector nozzles. My question is, how effective is this design feature in protecting the plane from heat seeking weapons, and is it worth sacrificing thrust vectoring to have this design?

Edited December 12, 2004 by cyde01

[VF19]

I am well aware that Japan relies on the US heavily, I just find it amusing that they are still limited in what they are allowed to have in their armed forces.

More on topic, I don't think it would have been effective at all, because turbojets give off SOOO much heat, that you couldn't possibly stop getting painted from a Heatseeker. If it didn't detect the heat from convection in the body panels, it would most certainly find the exhaust.

[Nied]

Hey guys. Does anyone know for sure that some eurofighters are having the gun deleted? I think this is a dumb idea. I don't know for sure but a lot of the magazines I read say that the gun will deleted in all but one version. I look to jane's in the campus library but they don't talk about it.

I think the tornado is a wonderful plane but what's with this being different tranches? Wasn;t it supposed to be a dedicated multiroler from teh outset?

Also., The Tornado E3B or whatever its called. Can it still do fighter ops or is it strictly ECR-like?

And does anyone know if orders were placed for the MIG-29M2? That's a beautiful aircraft. I dunno, I just have a thing for 2 seaters.

And for sake of random battles.

F/A-18D(marines version) vs F-15E

Which is the better multirole striker/bomber? Which is better in dogfighting?

Last I heard the all versions of the Typhoon are to have a gun installed, just not have the software to be able to fire them. Aparently after a lengthy study, it was found that the ballast that best replicated the Mauser 27 in wieght and aerodynaimc properties was the Mauser 27. THus the gun was deleted in order to save money and to maintain the same flying qualities it was replaced by the same gun. And people mock the decision makeing behind the Super Hornet.

[ewilen]

I don't know if it would have been effective, but if it was, I think it would have been worthwhile in the original context the fighter was designed for. That is, in a high-intensity conflict with the Soviets, where you really want to see and kill the other guy beyond visual range, instead of worrying about visual ID and other sorts of restrictive ROE more typical of low-intensity conflict, it's worth sacrificing a little maneuverability for the sake of stealth. Even moreso given that things like helmet-mounted sights and off-boresight targeting seem likely to reduce the importance of basic airframe maneuverability even in WVR dogfighting.

(However, as I've stated before, between the F-22 and F-23, the F-22 is probably marginally better for the world as it is, not only because it seems that the F-22 costs less than the F-23 would have, but also because we're in a low-intensity world for at least the next couple decades.)

[cyde01]

I am well aware that Japan relies on the US heavily, I just find it amusing that they are still limited in what they are allowed to have in their armed forces.

As I said in my earlier post, the Japanese are not willing to have a true military (although the JASDF seems close enough) and some key Asian neighbors would be at an uproar if Japan attempted to get any more of a military than they already have. It makes sense to me: unfortunately, some grudges die hard.

Back to topic: I also think that thrust vectoring is definitely not worth sacrificing (and the only feature that I like better on the 22 than the 23), but I do think it makes sense if the 23 is resurrected for some bombing role as rumored (most SAMs are heat seeking, aren't they?). The requirement for manuverability would decrease and from what I've read it is supposed to decrease the heat signature significantly by mixing the hot air from the exhaust with outside air. Also, because the openings are completely on the top side of the plane, heat seeking missles coming from the ground would have a harder time tracing it. Still not convinced that the 22 would be cheaper, but we've been over that argument several times over so I don't think going over it again would help.

Edited December 12, 2004 by cyde01

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Last I heard the all versions of the Typhoon are to have a gun installed, just not have the software to be able to fire them. Aparently after a lengthy study, it was found that the ballast that best replicated the Mauser 27 in wieght and aerodynaimc properties was the Mauser 27. THus the gun was deleted in order to save money and to maintain the same flying qualities it was replaced by the same gun. And people mock the decision makeing behind the Super Hornet.

Wait, you mean they installed the whole damn gun back in but it _cant_be_fired_?

Or was the ammo deleted?

[hellohikaru]

I heard the gun deletion thing is just an RAF only feature. In order to save cost(pocket change ?) the MoD decided that the second batch of Typhoons will not have the Mauser gun installed and have it substituted by concrete ballast. However it turned out that the cost of developing the ballast cost more than removing the gun. It also interfered with the aircraft handling.

So the gun will be present but without the ammunition and wiring needed for it.

[ewilen]

(most SAMs are heat seeking, aren't they?).

I thought the big ones were generally radar-guided, while the little ones (like Stinger) were heat-seekers.

Don't have time to look up the details right now, so someone else will probably set me straight if necessary.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

(most SAMs are heat seeking, aren't they?).

I thought the big ones were generally radar-guided, while the little ones (like Stinger) were heat-seekers.

Don't have time to look up the details right now, so someone else will probably set me straight if necessary.

Anything medium range and above are almost always radar guided. I can't even think of a current medium range SAM that is IR at all.

[Noyhauser]

(most SAMs are heat seeking, aren't they?).

I thought the big ones were generally radar-guided, while the little ones (like Stinger) were heat-seekers.

Don't have time to look up the details right now, so someone else will probably set me straight if necessary.

It has more to do with weight. IR seekers are self contained guidance units, that can be man portable. Radar guided needs a radar dish, computer, and maybe a comunication link to operate... which is impossible to make manportable. And its impossible to make a radar guided self contained SAM... the seeker is too big, and too delicate to be used on the ground.

[hellohikaru]

IR SAMs are normally for short range engagements. Russia use most medium size IR sams than NATO. Some examples are SA-8, SA-9 and SA-13.

NATO example is Chapparal.