Aircraft VS super thread!

[Knight26]

How about navalized, Typhoons and Tornadoes. *ducks flying fruit* Seriously though i could see the brits going for the F-35C, look at the diagram and it clearly shows the F-35C on deck, not the F-35B. Hmm, maybe I should submit the Razor paper to the RN and see if they are interested, of course I could never produce it at this point, lol.

[Nied]

How about navalized, Typhoons and Tornadoes.  *ducks flying fruit*  Seriously though i could see the brits going for the F-35C, look at the diagram and it clearly shows the F-35C on deck, not the F-35B.  Hmm, maybe I should submit the Razor paper to the RN and see if they are interested, of course I could never produce it at this point, lol.

357977[/snapback]

I've been thinking more and more that if the F-35 survives they should just kill the A and B models and give all three US services the C model (with a few modifications like higher G loadings and maybe an internal gun). This keeps well with the whole "super-SLUF" theory of the JSF. Honestly the JSF looks like it might just go down in flames at this point. Which will be good for the F-22 but bad for just about everyone else (I guess the Marines could purchase Super Hornets, but I don't know what the heck the Navy is going to do).

[Skull Leader]

I'm hella thrilled that Britain and France are finally going to have their own mammoth flat-tops (not that the DeGaulle is really small...). The problem I think is that they're going to figure out very quickly that in order to EFFECTIVELY use a ship that size, they're gonna need a diverse airwing (either different aircraft for various jobs, or at least different variants of similar aircraft for different jobs). I'm guessing a navalized variant of the EF will be involved (maybe in combination with the F-35, I dunno). I suppose they could always stick the FRS.9s on there (that are replacing the current Sea Harriers soon)

One thing, Dave... in the early 1980s a midway class carrier (the USS Midway actually) *did* once trap a pair of tomcats: one from VF-114 and one from VF-213. The weather over the USS Enterprise was too rough to take them in, so they were diverted over to the Midway (which wasn't seeing such bad weather). They cross-decked overnight. A tomcat-experienced launch-crew was helo-ed over to the midway the next morning with a pair of Tomcat launch-bars and they were successfully launched. Granted, they had to keep the blast-deflectors lowered, but it worked.

The VF-114 Fighting Aardvark pilot was heard as saying "When your target deck is about 100 feet shorter and about 40 feet closer to the water than what you're used to, you do a lot of thinking!"

Edited January 7, 2006 by Skull Leader

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

(I guess the Marines could purchase Super Hornets, but I don't know what the heck the Navy is going to do).

358014[/snapback]

Naval ATF anyone?

[buddhafabio]

(I guess the Marines could purchase Super Hornets, but I don't know what the heck the Navy is going to do).

358014[/snapback]

Naval ATF anyone?

358240[/snapback]

if it is unrealistic to Navalize the f-15 the f-22 has no chance. it would take as long or longer to get one of these two planes to be carrier ready. then it wouild be to just design a new navy fighter from scratch.

[Nied]

I'm hella thrilled that Britain and France are finally going to have their own mammoth flat-tops (not that the DeGaulle is really small...). The problem I think is that they're going to figure out very quickly that in order to EFFECTIVELY use a ship that size, they're gonna need a diverse airwing (either different aircraft for various jobs, or at least different variants of similar aircraft for different jobs). I'm guessing a navalized variant of the EF will be involved (maybe in combination with the F-35, I dunno). I suppose they could always stick the FRS.9s on there (that are replacing the current Sea Harriers soon)

358139[/snapback]

Well the French already have the Super Etendard as their current strike plane. I think the plan may be to replace them with strike optimised Rafale Ns, with the single seat Rafale Ms as the air superiority component. I suppose the Brits could do the same thing with Sea Typhoons (or some kind of combo of Sea Typhoons and Rafales).

[Nied]

(I guess the Marines could purchase Super Hornets, but I don't know what the heck the Navy is going to do).

358014[/snapback]

Naval ATF anyone?

358240[/snapback]

Too expensive, especially when you consider that the Super Hornet is being purchased for the role originally envisioned for the NATF. Besides which the F-22 would be too expensive. If the F-35 is canceled, the only option I could think of would be to up the number of Super Hornets purchased, and rush development of Naval UCAVs. That might work out in the end but I don't like putting that much trust in unmanned aircraft this early in the game.

[RFT]

I'm hella thrilled that Britain and France are finally going to have their own mammoth flat-tops (not that the DeGaulle is really small...). The problem I think is that they're going to figure out very quickly that in order to EFFECTIVELY use a ship that size, they're gonna need a diverse airwing (either different aircraft for various jobs, or at least different variants of similar aircraft for different jobs). I'm guessing a navalized variant of the EF will be involved (maybe in combination with the F-35, I dunno). I suppose they could always stick the FRS.9s on there (that are replacing the current Sea Harriers soon)

There isn't going to be an "FRS.9". once the FA.2s are retired, our carriers are solely going to be operating GR.9s and GR.9As as a stopgap until the new carriers and F-35 come into service. this of course means that our carriers will have to rely on allied air cover, should the need arise.

If everything goes to current plan, we'll be operating the new carriers basically as a bigger version of what we've already got, launching F-35Bs off a ski jump and landing them harrier-style without wires.

If F-35B (alone) collapses, then we'll very likely go to F-35Cs (and configure the new carriers with cats and wires) or possibly a further upgraded harrier (as the USMC will presumably want something with STOVL)

It's only if JSF totally collapses that the possibility of navalised typhoons, or rafales, or super bugs comes in. and even then, with a fairly conventional carrier, I can;t see us operating multiple fighter/attack types. As a nation I don't think we can afford it. fortunately the Rafale and Typhoon (and the Super Bug) are both sufficiently muti-role to cover both jobs.

I don't think, from a techincal standpoint, we'd have much trouble navalising the Typhoon- BAe have carrier expeience from the goshawk, and few planes have stronger gear than a Harrier. However, I still think that for cost reasons an off-the-shelf carrier plane is more likely, and between the hornet and the Rafale, I think we'd pick the Rafale, but neither would be a popular decision.

[Nied]

I had heard speculation that the RAF may pull the radars out of retiring Shars and plug them into the nose of the GR.9, turning it into something very similar to the AV-8B+ (only with a more powerful Blue Vixen Radar instead of the APG-65).

[Skull Leader]

There isn't going to be an "FRS.9". once the FA.2s are retired, our carriers are solely going to be operating GR.9s and GR.9As as a stopgap until the new carriers and F-35 come into service. this of course means that our carriers will have to rely on allied air cover, should the need arise.

.

358949[/snapback]

That was my mis-use of British designations... I meant the GR.9. Sorry.

-Jeremy (who can't really get used to british aircraft designations)

[RFT]

I had heard speculation that the RAF may pull the radars out of retiring Shars and plug them into the nose of the GR.9, turning it into something very similar to the AV-8B+ (only with a more powerful Blue Vixen Radar instead of the APG-65).

359025[/snapback]

That would be a great idea, but I don't think it's going to happen. The plan seems to be just making do with GR.9/9A (9A has a more powerful engine) until JSF comes into service.

If we wanted to retain the fleet-defence capabilities of the FA.2, then they could just have been kept in service. lots of life left in them (about half of them were new builds in the 90s). I think our government doesn't feel there's an airborne threat to worry about.

UK designations are odd, (it's taken me a long time to understand them) but it makes sense once you know them.

it goes Type name, Mission Identifer, mark Number (of the type)

So for Tornado it Goes:

Tornado GR.1, Tornado F.2 (abortive ADV Variant), Tornado F.3, Tornado GR.4

Harrier's slightly more confusing as designations seem to keep getting skipped, but that's the trainers. so

Harrier GR.1, Harrier T.2, Harrier GR.3, Harrier T.4 (it keeps alternating until uoi get to the GR.9 and T.10. If a Radar and Amraam-equipped GR.9 were built, it would likely be the Harrier FGR.11 .The Sea Harrier is Considered a different type and has it's own sequence, though there's more in common between Sea Harrier and Harrier GR.3 than GR.3 and GR.5

[David Hingtgen]

So explain FA.2 vs FRS.1, for the two Sea Harrier variants.

Also---I would call the Tornado F.2 "interim" rather than "abortive". Semantics, but abortive gives me the impression it never came to be.

[RFT]

I actually did, but deleted it out of the post as it was getting a little out of hand.

Sea Harrier FRS.1: Mark 1 of type "Sea Harrier". Role: Fighter/Recon/Strike

Strike in this sense refers to nuclear anti-ship capablity, a role it ostensibly took over from the bucanneer (S.1 and S.2)

Sea Harrier FA.2: Mark 2 of type "Sea Harrier". Role Fighter/Attack. This has changed with the dropping of Recon (the Shar never did it in the end) and dropping anti-shipping and nuclear duties to a more general ground and shipping attack role.

there's no skipped numbers for trainers, as the Royal Navy doesn't have Sea Harriers for trainers. it used Harrier T.4N (for learning how to fly the thing) and Hawker Hunter T8Ms (for learning the Radar). the T.4Ns have been upgraded to T.8N.

Still, it's riddled with inconsistecy. I guess it's not as important for the UK to have quite as rigourous a designation system as the US, as due to the smaller and less diverse nature of our armed forces, you don't need it to tell you quite as much.

and you're right on abortive V interim- for some reason the right word eluded me.

Edit:

There's an interesting House Of Commons Defence select commitee report on the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier Here.

the main reasons given by the MOD were that it's underpowered in hot climates and not that effective as an air-ground platform. The Fleet-defence role is envisioned to be taken over by the new type 45 destroyers. mention is made of both upgrading the Shar with the latest engine from the GR.9 and making a radar/amraam capable GR.9, but the MoD says either programme would be risky and very expensive seeing as the Harrier's supposed to be out of service by 2015.

Edited January 11, 2006 by RFT

[Nied]

Well it looks like my comment on the last page about the F120 living on as the F136 may have been premature. The DoD is trying to axe the F136 program to save costs (this despite the fact that the F136 might just become the greatest fighter engine ever). This could be another blow to the JSF program. With Rolls Royce's 40% work share in the F136 this is a real blow to the UK's involvement, and an even bigger symbolic blow considering the problems the Brits have had with technology transfer issues. This comes on top of the news that Australia is also getting cold feet on the JSF over the same technology transfer issues. They're the two biggest partners in the JSF program and they're backing away, that's very bad news indeed.

In other news it looks like the Air Force is pretty desperate to get a decent number of F-22s. They're talking about axing a number of programs to pay for the full 277 fighter that they wanted. They want to get rid of the F-117 (good idea, the F-22 carries a similar bomb load but is stealthier faster and can carry A-A missiles for self defense), half the fleet of B-52s (neutral, modern PGMs and ALCMs have been force multipliers for the B-52 fleet, but it never hurts to have more), and kill the U-2 (bad idea, the Global Hawk really isn't ready to take over for the Dragon Lady, and wont be for several years, and even then I don't think it will be a proper replacement).

[Skull Leader]

Yeah, I read that article. I'm not really at a loss for them wanting to kill the F-117 in favor of more F-22s (after all, the things been flying since the late 70s as it turns out), the F-22 can do everything the Nighthawk can plus much more in a faster, stealthlier, and more maneuverable package. The loss of B-52s and U-2s I'm less thrilled about. Hell, didn't they just plan an electronic warfare upgrade for the B-52?? And as for the U-2... we're ALWAYS gonna need a brain "on scene" when it comes to intelligence gathering ops of that nature. UAVs aren't really ready to claim a solid place in it's stead.

[RFT]

How can they axe F136 but not JSF? Surely the cost of re-engineering the airframe to take another engine is going to be astronomical.

[Nied]

How can they axe F136 but not JSF? Surely the cost of re-engineering the airframe to take another engine is going to be astronomical.

359592[/snapback]

Because the F136 is one of two engines being developed for the JSF, the other being the more mature (but less advanced) F135 from P&W.

Edited January 12, 2006 by Nied

[Skull Leader]

Tomorrow's defender: powered by good 'ol "Pratt and Whimpy". Excuse me if I'm not awestruck (I'm not)

I've said it before on other forums and I'll say it again here:

die, JSF! DIE!!!

[David Hingtgen]

I say we get rid of stealth. Makes planes survive through agility, speed, and the pilot's ego.

[F-ZeroOne]

"My pretty girl... I've been waiting for you... " huh, David?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hey guys do you think the JSF will prove to be a successful replacement for the F/A-18C legacy hornet? Why not just replace the legacy birds in the navy with the F/A-18E? What does the JSF have over the F/A-18E aside from stealth and internal armnament?

Wouldn't it be cheaper for the navy to just have a nearly all hornet strike fighter fleet?

[Knight26]

The navy is almost an all hornet navy as it is, which is bad, you need diversity in an airwing.

[Capt Hungry]

hey Knight26, excellent avatar you have there!!!! I love Hank Caruso's work!

[buddhafabio]

The navy is almost an all hornet navy as it is, which is bad, you need diversity in an airwing.

360229[/snapback]

f-18e/fs arent exactly like previous hornets. the airframe themselves are diverse.

i personally think we should have kept the tomcat 21 in development. but that is the over bloated politicians for you.

and keep in mind that as i am posting this my father currently works on the final assembly of the e/f line here in st louis

Edited January 14, 2006 by buddhafabio

[Skull Leader]

I say we get rid of stealth.  Makes planes survive through agility, speed, and the pilot's ego. 

360009[/snapback]

Well, it's worked for us since the dawn of the "fighter' concept... I don't see why it should end now.

[buddhafabio]

I say we get rid of stealth.  Makes planes survive through agility, speed, and the pilot's ego. 

360009[/snapback]

Well, it's worked for us since the dawn of the "fighter' concept... I don't see why it should end now.

360339[/snapback]

yess but our aviation history dictates the new technology will make us relearn the basics. i.e. the F-4 and no guns.

so going by that we will learn that stealth isnt all that

Edited January 14, 2006 by buddhafabio

[Coota0]

All the talk about the F-35 made me ask this: If the Air Force had chosen the YF-17 over the YF-16 would there still be an F/A-18?

[F-ZeroOne]

All the talk about the F-35 made me ask this: If the Air Force had chosen the YF-17 over the YF-16 would there still be an F/A-18?

360410[/snapback]

Almost certainly, or something very like it. The original YF-16 was a much simplier aircraft than the production F-16; European customers demanded much more capability which changed the specification a fair bit. If the YF-17 had been selected, then its reasonably likely that the same thing would have happened - Northrop even had plans for a F-18L land based version which would probably have been pretty much equivalent to a F-16C - not having been navalised, it was lighter, faster (Mach 2) and was shown in mock-up with Sparrows mounted - on the wing-tips!

[David Hingtgen]

Basically--absolutely. YF-17 needed a lot of changes to work from a carrier, if the USAF had F-17's in service it wouldn't really matter, it couldn't be used by the Navy. Either way, you have to make a dedicated naval version, thus the F-18.

I think the real question is---would the Navalized F-16 (with fuselage-mounted Sparrows) have happened, if they couldn't have gotten F-18's? (As in, if Congress forced the Navy to use the USAF's lightweight fighter)

[Warmaker]

I Navalized F-16 would have been... interesting.

I have a hard time visualizing it in my head. The F-16 as it stands now just can't stand the rigors of Carrier Aviation. The airframe would need to be stronger. Then there's the landing gear. The jet would snap like a twig.

For the jet to be strengthened to withstand Carrier Aviation, you'll get alot more weight. Would the Falcon (I refuse to call it Viper) be the same jet as before? How much of a hit would it take in performance & capability with all the extra weight?

[David Hingtgen]

I'll have to go see what I have on the Naval F-16. Neat artist's conception, F-16's flying over a carrier...

[Apollo Leader]

I say we get rid of stealth.  Makes planes survive through agility, speed, and the pilot's ego. 

360009[/snapback]

I say we also return to the days where soldiers are dressed up in flamboyant, brightly colored uniforms, marched out on the battle field in large formations, and then mowed down by the thousands in minutes.

Stealth works.

[Coota0]

I'm going to show my ignorance, why are some fighters reffered to as "Legacy"?

[Skull Leader]

I'm going to show my ignorance, why are some fighters reffered to as "Legacy"?

360746[/snapback]

"Legacy" was simply a term applied to the older Hornet fighters when the F/A-18E/F "Super" Hornets were produced. It's not an official designation, although I've heard it used by hornet pilots. It's just something to help differentiate between the two kinds in polite conversation (without having to get into letter/number designations). I've heard the term "legacy" applied to F-14A Tomcats all of ONCE. Virtually no one uses the term "Super" Tomcat when talking about F-14Bs and Ds, even though that's their official name... so it's really only the hornet family that the legacy title seems to seriously stick to.

[David Hingtgen]

I say Super Tomcat, but usually specifically mean the D. Engines alone aren't enough.