Aircraft VS super thread!

[Noyhauser]

yes, but most of those (like the SA-9) are used because they need ruggedness, ease of maintenence and mobility. Also the Gaskin is more of a short range close in defence missile, vehicle mounted (like the Avenger) than a medium range one.

One thing you have to realize about soviet equipment in the 1980s, it was designed to be as untechnical as possible. Soviets were going to EMP everything with nukes, and watch NATO's technical advantage fry out. Radar systems would be the first to go.

(i'd type more, but I've dislocated my shoulder yesterday playing Rugby, and I've only got one hand to type... sorry)

Edited December 12, 2004 by Noyhauser

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

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.

Goodness that is incredibly stupid. Ther typhhoon is an amazing fighter and I think even if some will primarily be strikers, the gun should retain the wiring in the "gunless versions" since who knows, it might be pounced when it is egressing from it's target. After all a couple of F-105's gunned down migs with their vulcan after getting jumped from their targets/.

[F-ZeroOne]

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?

Perhaps the only thing that can match British aviation genius in making such aircraft as the Spitfire, the Harrier, and the Lancaster bomber, is our politicians complete and utter insanity when it comes to making aviation decisions.

We are the country that decided that manned aircraft were obselete and should all be replaced by guided missiles. Then someone decided that manned aircraft were OK after all and we went about building one of the greatest-that-never-was, the TSR 2. So superlative was it for its time, that the politicians scrapped the programme and decided to buy F-111s from the US instead. Boy, that worked...

The Typhoon is simply following on a long tradition of what the RAF refer to as "Blue Circles" - after a famous cement company; early Tornados also carried concrete ballast in the nose due to radar problems...

[hellohikaru]

The RAF Harrier II force suffers from the same problem of lacking any real guns. They carry fake mahagony gondolas instead. Apparently they had some problems getting the 25mm ADEN guns to work. Why not just use the guns from the older GR3s ?

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I guess they would carry no ammo. If they _did_ carry the ammo I am pretty sure the pilots and groundcrew would jury rig it to fire by shoestring pull if necessary.

[GunnerX]

Guys have we gotten any more news about the YF-23 being refurbished for the RB competition?  Did grumman really take it out to refurbish or was it just taken out to be put in a museum?

"Northrop Grumman's long-abandoned YF-23A advanced tactical fighter (ATF) leaves museum and could be heading for bomber contest on which we reported last week. The company recently retrieved the second of the two YF-23A "Black Widow II" prototypes from the Western Museum of Flight in Hathorne, California. Officially the aircraft will be used for a air fair in August. However, the restoration is also thought to include several changes, including new cockpit displays and other possible cosmetic modifications.

Northrop Grumman confirms restoration is taking place, but declines to comment on whether the revived YF-23A is linked to any USAF proposal. But sources close to the studies, say Northrop Grumman now includes a YF-23-based "regional" bomber concept among its raft of proposals.

The distinctive, rhomboid-winged YF-23A lost out to Lockheed Martin's YF-22 in the ATF competition in 1991, but proved a valuable technology testbed for Northrop Grumman, which gave it all-aspect stealth. The company says it "drew upon a wide range of experience for its response to the interim bomber RFI, and the YF-23 is one".

WhhheEeeeee! But this WAS reported July this year.. can't seem to find any updates.

Hmmm.. i guess we know what they did with the recovered 23.

"The air force has put out a RFP (request for proposal) for a multi role strike bomber that has stealthy features. Lockhead submitted a variant of the F-22, now in production. Northrop supprised everyone by submitting a modifyed yf-23, PAV-2 is being modified for the RFP."

I think the F-22 'bomber' variant is also seen in Ace Combat 5? Correct me if i'm wrong....

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

WHOA is that report totally confirmed? i've heard similar but I hope to hell it is true!! What is PAV-2?

And in AC5, the FB-22 is available, but whether or not this is the "true" F-22 RFB is anyohnes guess. It was one of the proposals for the F-22 but the latest I saw had all vectoring and no stabilizers.

[GunnerX]

"The YF-23A "Black Widow II" PAV-2 (S/N 87-801) is on display at the Western Museum of Flight in Hawthorne, California, on long term loan from NASA. YF-23A "Black Widow II" PAV-1 (S/N 87-800) is currently at the USAF Test Center Museum at Edwards Air Force Base, California. "

Hehe, i guess they refurbished the museum piece! If i remember correctly, PAV-2's callsign is "spider" and PAV-1's is "Grey ghost", pretty darned cool!

[GunnerX]

Some info on the FB-22... should it even be here? I don't want men in black suits knocking at my door...

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21848.pdf

and another...

http://www.air-attack.com/page.php?pid=26

[GunnerX]

Very interesting! Active camo... for jets?!?!

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...ws/11294wna.xml

[David Hingtgen]

When that report on the YF-23 came out, I started a whole new thread on it. (Of course, it was the best news I'd heard in a long time) Not a word since, that's a 6-month old report.

PS--related note, I did get my YF-23 DVD, and it's the first time I've ever seen the red hourglass on the belly, and it IS true that it only leaves contrails from one wingtip at a time. (My brother said it did, but I've never heard anyone else say so--but it shows up quite well)

Edited December 14, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

David how long is the DVD? Is it worth the money? Anything awesome on it?

Crap. I read at abovetopsecret.com(very very very skeptical on this site for various reasons) that some of the members contaced the museums and it's on loan either to northrop or somewhere else(PAV-II).

[David Hingtgen]

DVD is about an hour, has AFAIK about all the non-classified YF-23 footage that exists--construction, roll-out, taxi tests, test flights. Also some of both flying together, including a dual pass over the factory. Many interviews with designers, etc.

Frankly, it's about the only YF-23 footage there is, asides from the "Wings" episode which is only shown about twice a decade...

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hmm I don't think I have seen that wings episode. Man that show needs to come back to discovery channel instead of this digital cable crap. UGH. best show for airplanes on tv EVAR.

More debates.

F-4G wild weasel vs F-16D wild weasel(israeli and US) Who is better@ SEAD?

Mirage 2000 vs F/A-18E knife fight..

MIG-29M2 vs F/A-18D marine. Overall capability and knife fight

EF-2000 vs F-16F vs F/A-18F vs MIG-29M2

F-104 vs F-4. Knife fight and intercept

MIG-23 vs Tornado F3

Discuss!!!

Also the best high viz super bug I have found recently is the VFA-14 showbird. HIGH VIZ IN MASS AMOUNTS!! Unlike minimal amounts on others.

[hellohikaru]

Shin

The USAF doesn't have any Wild Weasel F-16Ds.

Compared with the F-4G i think the F-16 is perhaps better able to defend itself due to its gun and agility which may not be a good idea since it will distract them to go hunting other aircraft. However the F-16 is inferior to the F-4G as far as the wild weasel role is concern. The F-16's HTS pod is no way as capable as the build in systems carried by the F-4G, it simply got more room. When the F-16 first join the F-4G as part of a Hunter-Killer team, the Falcon was nothing more than a extra set of pylons.

The F-16D IAF/RSAF OTOH are very capable SEAD planes because they carry a second crew and have all the fancy avionics inside the big spine. A truly worthy succesor to the F-4G.

F-4 vs F-104 ? What versions ?

Generally the F-104 is the better interceptor due to its speed and rate of climb. A well flown Starfighter can beat an F-4 or F-100 in a dogfight provided the pilot fights in the vertical.

F-4 has the benefit of more range and payload. But the early version might need to depend on a gunpod.

Flogger vs Tornado F3

F3 definitely. Better radar and weapons. Has a second pair of eyes. Flogger may have better climb rate but is a harder plane to fly. It lacks wing autosweep function that the F3 has. The ultimate MLD-K version can fire the AA-11 Archer (but not the AA-10) which is an added advantage but never got a HMS for it.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hmm. I guess F-4E vs F-104S or whichever is the best starfighter. I rarely hear about it. What is it known for?

Ok some more

Su-35 vs EF-2000

F-16D israel vs F-16F UAE. capabil;ity and knife fight

F-15E vs F-15C knife fight( weird but what the hay should be interesting)

Do strike eagles ever operate in pure a2a? They've got the capability.....

[hellohikaru]

Hmm. I guess F-4E vs F-104S or whichever is the best starfighter. I rarely hear about it. What is it known for?

Ok some more

Su-35 vs EF-2000

F-16D israel vs F-16F UAE. capabil;ity and knife fight

F-15E vs F-15C knife fight( weird but what the hay should be interesting)

Do strike eagles ever operate in pure a2a? They've got the capability.....

F-104S is the Italian updated 104G Super Starfighter. Basically adds Sparrow capability, a J79-19 with 13 % more power, new radar that can handle the Sparrow and TFR flight but losses the gun.

F-104S ASA is updated S with the gun reinstalled plus Aspide MRMs and 9L Sidewinders. This is really the ultimate Starfighter in every respect and can handle the stock F-4E well enough.

F-15E vs F-15C

I go with Eagle Charlie here since E is rather underpowered. Why should they risk a high value strike platform when the F-15C and F-16 Block 25 can handle the air-to-air work ?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Oh that was just a hypothetical question. I know the E gets the uprated engines and strength capacity upped to 9G.

Do the CFT's really add that much weight to make the mud hen underpowered even in full a2a Loaudout? I know it's primary mission is strike but it is a dual role fighter after all.

F-104ASA sounds awesome.

[ewilen]

Kind of surprised to see the F-104 get the nod over the F-4, especially in the interceptor role. At least in the 60's/70's/80's, I'd think the F-4's radar would be superior. (But then, for most of the same time period, Sparrow wasn't so great, which might reduce the benefit of radar.)

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

The F-104's definitely got the speed and altitude advantage, I think that is why hikaru thinks it could take on the phantom. From a site I read the altitude max was 90,000 ft.

[Nied]

While the idea of F-23s serving along side F-22s is intriguing to say the least I don't see how it's going to happen. Frankly any FB-23 is going to have to porve that it's a) signifigantly stealthier b) signifigantly faster and c) cheaper than a FB-22. While the YF-23 was arguably faster and stealthier than the YF-22 (though how much is a matter of conjecture), it shouldn't have nearly as much of an advantage over the proposed FB-22. One of the big reasons the F-22 wasn't as stealthy as the YF-23 was because it had those big four poster tails instead of the YF-23s V tail design, this led to a much bigger side RCS, they also contributed a good amount of drag. The FB-22 doesn't have tails, and thus it wouldn't have the RCS or drag deficiencies of it's parent. That just leaves cost, I've gone over the F-23's problems with cost of ownership compared to the F-22 before (short version the an F-23 would be more of an expensive headache to keep flying than the F-22), that and it's also an all new fighter program, with all the teething costs that involves (not that a FB-22 would be a sinch , but it certainly could be sold that way). Combine all that with the fact that the FB-22 helps re-inforce the F/A-22 program and you've got a recipe for a failure.

Not that I don't think that an FB-23 might be better though.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

It sounds too good to be true. Although I do hope it is confirmed that the YF-23 was indeed truly refurbished for RFB proposal. Slim a chance it may be, but anything to see that thing flying again would be worth it. Wouldn't the FB-22 and F-22 not be that compatible anyways in terms of parts use? I mean it seems a lot different than the F-111A and F-111B issue where most of the airframe was compatible and interchangeable. Plus the FB-22 doesn't even have a flying airframe done yet, as it is it is still a paper airplane whereas the YF-23 could be put into flight status within weeks or months. I guess we will see but I kind of agree that a FB-22 is more likely.

[hellohikaru]

Request to Shin

Can you draw up what you think FB-23 and ASF-14 would look like ?

[ewilen]

Wouldn't the FB-22 and F-22 not be that compatible anyways in terms of parts use? I mean it seems a lot different than the F-111A and F-111B issue where most of the airframe was compatible and interchangeable.

I think there would be a fair amount of compatibility, maybe about what you see in F-16XL vs. F-16.

  Plus the FB-22 doesn't even have a flying airframe done yet, as it is it is still a paper airplane whereas the YF-23 could be put into flight status within weeks or months.

What makes you think an FB-23 wouldn't be as different from the YF-23 as the FB-22 would be from the F/A-22?

Anyway, I doubt the FB concept will get off the ground. To me it just looks like an effort to lower the cost of the F/A-22 by sinking a lot of money into an unnecessary and expensive regional bomber concept. Good on Northrop Grumman for making a go of it, though, instead of just rolling over for Lockheed.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

YES. I will have it either tonight or tomorrow. I've got 2 more finals and a painting due within these 3 days.

[Knight26]

The way I see it is that the FB-23 will have an edge over the FB-22 in the eyes of the general judging the competetion in large part because it will have a more "convetional" configuration in comparison to the FB-22. The USAF has always been reluctant to approve any plane that does not match what they think a fighter plane should look like, hence the lack of deltas and canards in the US inventory.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hmm I agree with that as well. Not to mention I doubt they would change the YF-23 much, I imagine a 2nd seat, and new radar aside from a minimal weapon bay change. Otherwise, I mean it's already stealthy and fast.

BTW guys I am thinking about doing a photoshop digital paint sketch for the ASF-14 and YF-23. As soon as I get my design work out of the way. (most likely by tomorrow). And hell since this is the big aircraft thread, I mineswell put my airplane drawings here anyways.

1 question. Does the air force like tandem seating? Reason being is that since the F-111, there have never been any side by side fighters in the air force. Aside from the raven. I prefer tandem but side by side works on planes like the aardvark and A-6.

[Nied]

It sounds too good to be true. Although I do hope it is confirmed that the YF-23 was indeed truly refurbished for RFB proposal. Slim a chance it may be, but anything to see that thing flying again would be worth it. Wouldn't the FB-22 and F-22 not be that compatible anyways in terms of parts use? I mean it seems a lot different than the F-111A and F-111B issue where most of the airframe was compatible and interchangeable. Plus the FB-22 doesn't even have a flying airframe done yet, as it is it is still a paper airplane whereas the YF-23 could be put into flight status within weeks or months. I guess we will see but I kind of agree that a FB-22 is more likely.

The FB-22 is supposed to have the same avionics, forward fuselage and engines as the F/A-22 (though it may get F135/6s instead). I imagine that much of the center fuselage could be re-used too. While the FB-22 doesn't have a flying prototype yet that really doesn't make a great deal of difference, prototypes are easy, getting them to a production line is hard.

[Nied]

My prediction: The FB-22 as proposed will not come to pass. I think that the air force will go for a compromise route with more of a "Strike Raptor" concept. A standard F/A-22 with a fuselage plug to acomodate an enlarged weapons bay, the F-35's chin sensor, and maybe two seats. That way they get to keep the most of the Raptors Air superiority aspects while still having a pretty good strike plane.

[ewilen]

I realize I may be beginning to rant here, but I think even the above proposal is going to struggle to get funded. Here's an article which addresses the issue a bit more broadly, pointing to a number of proposed alternatives to the "regional bomber" concept :

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Nov2004/1104strike.html

It notes that the FB-22 (and this would certainly apply as well to an F/A-22 upgrade) doesn't have the range or loiter time to fill the niche that's supposed to justify it.

But re: the FB-22 vs. FB-23--it'd be ironic if the AF picked a slightly-modified YF-23 becuse it looks more "conventional" than the FB-22, since the YF-23 was beaten out by the more conventional YF-22 in the ATF competition. Anyway, looks are one thing, but wouldn't the tailless design also potentially offer even better stealth for the FB-22 over a slightly-modded YF-23? Any stealth advantage would surely weigh heavily in choosing a plane designed to penetrate the air defenses of an adversary with "strategic depth".

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I think a 2 seatF/A-22 would be the most likely outcome in this endeavor. Out of the 3 it is the cheapest and the raptor is just becoming operational in combay units. It would also look incredibly cool like most 2 seater planes.

Is RFB supposed to be a strike eagle replacement?

[David Hingtgen]

hellohikaru---late F-15E's (which is pretty much all the non-SJ ones) have a significantly superior thrust/weight ratio than the F-15C. They've got more power than F-14D's, on a lighter frame. An A2A F-15E would easily beat the C. And the CFT's aren't an issue--they can come off in 15 minutes. Annoyingly, I can't find what a CFT actually weighs...

[ewilen]

My understanding is that officially the regional bomber concept is supposed to provide a rapid response long range strike/interdiction capability. Longer range than the F-15E, so that it can operate from bases outside the reach of enemy counterforce capabilities (such as short/intermediate range ballistic missiles). If I recall correctly, the use of the F-111 to hit targets of opportunity (based on intelligence) during Operation Iraqi Freedom is cited as the model in at least one article I read. (I don't remember the attacks being particularly successful, though...I seem to recall them bombing a neighborhood restaurant in an effort to get Saddam, but they only killed a few civilians.)

Again, I think the regional bomber concept is really a covert effort to expand the number of airframes built from the F-22 program, since if they can develop the FB-22 cheaply and build a bunch of them, the overall cost per aircraft for F/A-22 & FB-22 may end up looking a little better than the current F/A-22 numbers. This could keep the F/A-22 out of the Pentagon budget death spiral and help it avoid the fate of the Mitsubishi F-2.

There are only three problems:

a) Maybe Shin and others are right and the YF-23 will make a better regional bomber. It will then be rather funny watching the acrobatics as the Air Force has to switch from explaining how important the regional bomber is (because they really want more F-22's), to explaining why the superior YF-23-based bomber shouldn't be built (because it won't help build more F-22's).

b) As the article I linked mentions, there are quite likely better ways to achieve the mission than via a "regional bomber", especially in the long term. And in the short term, it's doubtful we need it. (Well, unless we can make sure that we go to war with Iran and North Korea no earlier than 2013 but no later than 2025.)

c) We don't have any money, and our politicians are already thinking of other ways of spending the money we don't have.

Edited December 15, 2004 by ewilen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

hmmm sweet. So the later mudhens can smoke the regular eagle in a2a. but are mudhens ever used in full a2a? I know they are capable of doing so just wondering if they ever are.

I believe either the F-15I or F-15K might be the best a2a eagle.

[cyde01]

I realize I may be beginning to rant here, but I think even the above proposal is going to struggle to get funded. Here's an article which addresses the issue a bit more broadly, pointing to a number of proposed alternatives to the "regional bomber" concept :

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Nov2004/1104strike.html

It notes that the FB-22 (and this would certainly apply as well to an F/A-22 upgrade) doesn't have the range or loiter time to fill the niche that's supposed to justify it.

But re: the FB-22 vs. FB-23--it'd be ironic if the AF picked a slightly-modified YF-23 becuse it looks more "conventional" than the FB-22, since the YF-23 was beaten out by the more conventional YF-22 in the ATF competition. Anyway, looks are one thing, but wouldn't the tailless design also potentially offer even better stealth for the FB-22 over a slightly-modded YF-23? Any stealth advantage would surely weigh heavily in choosing a plane designed to penetrate the air defenses of an adversary with "strategic depth".

Hmmmm... Just read this article. If the proposed FB-22 does not even meet the range requirement of a regional bomber, then I doubt that an "FB-23" would either. Northrop/Grumman's proposed block upgrade for existing B2's sounds like the best idea to me. If the Airforce is using a lot of cash to maintain the existing bomber fleet for "decades to come", I'm sure they can wait until an all new bomber program is conceived and developed. How about forgetting the whole "interim" bomber program and moving up the process of building a next gen bomber by 5 or 10 years (instead of sometime in the 2030s)?

Although I like how the FB-22 looks and both an FB-22 and an FB-23 would rate high in my personal coolness factor.

Side note: I don't like the idea of using orbital and suborbital bombing weapons or using ICBMs with conventional warheads to bomb targets. The former, because I heard somewhere that there was an agreement NOT to use space for war (I guess ICBMs are designed to fly at that altitude anyway) and the latter because it just somehow emotionally disturbs me.