Aircraft VS super thread!

[ewilen]

The civilians decide not only on the budget, but they can also meddle pretty much as much as they see fit. We don't give block grants to the military and say, "Here's a quarter-trillion dollars, defend the country and its interests, and you can keep the change."

There are pros and cons to the system but it could indeed be far worse.

[David Hingtgen]

F-15 stuff:

1. Finally found a good pic of an F-15C w/CFT's but no missiles, showing the pylons. Yes, all F-15 CFT's have pylons, not just the ones for Strike Eagles.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/730390/L

2. Dragon's latest diecast F-15C's have the tailfins and engines corrected, and are now very accurate. I plan to get the Langley one. They are numbers 50104 and 50106. The new F-15E has the same corrections as the C's, but it still has the pylon-less CFT's.

http://www.flyingmule.com/Merchant2/mercha...t_Code=DM-50104

http://www.flyingmule.com/Merchant2/mercha...t_Code=DM-50106

(Dragon's own pics showed early uncorrected samples, but the actual released versions have the improvements--FlyingMule is about the ONLY store that takes their own pics)

Edited January 6, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[Apollo Leader]

The CTF's are barely used on the fighter versions of the Eagle simply because they can't be punched off for a dog fight. They have been used on C models if they have been operating out of a place like Iceland and the North Sea region where having lots of fuel is the difference between life and death. But if they are still using the CTF's on the fighter versions of the F-15, I don't know.

[David Hingtgen]

Most interesting CFT pic I ever found was the 1FW Commander's plane with CFT's, and no less than 18 500lb bombs loaded up. CFT's also had the 1FW markings on them, not simply "generic" grey CFT's like you usually see on a C/D. Generally only E's get their CFT's painted for the squadron.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

David, I assume the dragon F-15C still can't take on sparrows or AMRAAM on the nacelles? Either way I plan on buying it whenever I see it at the langley BX. Though it would be dissapointing not to be able to load stuff on the nacelles, as long as it has some armnament, I guess I would be satisfied. Hopefully the canopy on the eagle stays shut unlike the dragon 50th FW falcon I got, awesome paint job, good armnament, HORRIBLE canopy locking mechanism.

To spark up another debate. How many of you think that buy 2020 or 2050, that the human pilot will cease to exist and most of our military will be flown strictly with UCAVs or AI within? Me personally I would hate to see this happen but it looks like the military is going in this direction. I don't agree with that decision at all, but how many of you think it will happen?

[David Hingtgen]

You can get to the Langley BX?!?! Then you might be able to get some of the "special" DW F-15's. Not listed on the DW site, not available anywhere but USAF/USAFE BX's etc.

Look here:

http://www.modelhangar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=534

Note: while very nice, and they even make a Bitburg one (my fave base) they have 'feathered' nozzles. Tailfins are right, but nozzles aren't.

PS---DW F-15's have *two* canopies--an open one, and a closed one, so there's no trying to get it to stay in place. Pick the one you want, like Corgi models.

PPS--I have 2 DW F-16's, and both canopies stay shut quite nicely. Certainly not with a pilot, but when empty they're fine. Loose, but "flush".

Edited January 7, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

When I went to the BX last month, all they had were the can-do models, and 3 1/72 F-16s. Mine is the 50th FW one. Canopy is like you say, loose but flush, heck I think mine are a little too loose for that matter. Overall I am happy but the airbrakes fall out a LOT, to the point where I keep them off, and sometimes the nose gear door likes to fall off too. I changed the way I hold it now so most of the time the nose gear door stays on now.

I really do wish they had the F-15s, but I think those might be in series 2. I read on the F-16 box that the 3 falcons I saw were all part of series 1. They had no pics of the eagles at all, further confirming to me, that the eagles are perhaps series 2. Funny for langley not to have them especially when their premier bird is the F-15C.

BTW price for my falcon was 17.95 but due to some sort of x mas discount was really only 14.00$.

the can-do models were 2.95 and they had a F-15D and A-10.

I don't go there much, I just hop along every now and then with my family. Rarely there though.

I checked the NEX to see if they had any hornets but as it seems I think only the BX's are getting dragon models, and I fear they will only get air force planes. The only difference in packaging is that there is a 5 star collectibles orange sleeve over the box, the box underneath is a dragon warbirds box. But for the F-15 it is different, its a straight up 5 star box with no folding cover flap I believe.

I sincerely HOPE these are not for christmas season only since that would diminish my chance of ever getting a dragon F-15 for cheap(flying mule sells them for 40$)>

[David Hingtgen]

Just a quick note:

Black Knights repainted their CAG, now it's almost full color:

http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_sea...php?id=00264509

http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_sea...php?id=00264510

Grey tail, red stripes, same knight as before.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

NOt bad!! Lets hope the navy moves the tailcodes to the RUDDERS later on though. It would make for a larger knight.

Anyhoo, is the super bug more of a mcdonnal douglass plane without northrop or did northrop provide any help at all before the MCD merged with boeing?

[Skull Leader]

Well, not quite as weak as what they WERE sporting, although I think they could've done better. That Euro/Gunship Grey (it's the same shade that is on the VF-103 low-vis 'cats) over red really messes with my eyes

[David Hingtgen]

The grey/red tail is exactly how their final F-14 CAG was painted. The Shornet just adds the knight. I think the grey looks lighter than VF-103's grey---I'm betting 36118 instead of 36081.

Shin--actually, the Super Hornet incorporates several YF-17 features, most notably the shape of the LEX's. Basically, MDC finally "fixed" what they changed when making the F-18A from the YF-17. The Super Hornet looks (from above) like a large YF-17. I think it shows how "right" the YF-17 was originally...

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

but still with somehwta inferior performance compared to the legacy right?

I actually think the super bug looks better aesthetically than the legacy. But the YF-17 is just damn sexier. So sleek. Wouldn't mind a transformer alternator of that!

Hopefully the black knights go back to actually using black instead of gray. That and tailcodes on rudders.

For the sake of aerodynamic comparisons.....sans avionics...

YF-17 Cobra vs F/A-18F super bug

discuss!~!

Which performs better in the arena of A/A and has better cruise, speed, handling, stuff like that and all that jazz.

[David Hingtgen]

F-18F is so high-alpha "tweaked" it'd beat most anything at this point in that category. And all Hornets can out-roll the Cobra. However, the YF-17 has sheer smallness on its side, and that would help its turn radius/rate. (sustained)

YF-17 far and away has better power/speed. Sleek enough to supercruise on less power than the F-18A had. (It has J101's, which are prototype F404's)

Edited January 13, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[hellohikaru]

I remember in the popular survey sim ATF Gold you could fly the ultra agile MBB F(X)-31 EFM/Vector. That plane has yaw vectoring non of the other planes in the sim did. And IIRC it was armed with Slammers, AIM-9X and a M61 internal gun. The main drawback was its lack of endurance and armor.

DH and others

What do you think an operational F-31 ? Is it viable as a fighter without enlarging it?

To me it seems the plane is too small to have a M61 class gun and the wings are too small to carry missiles.

Discuss.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I think the slammers could still work on the nacelles, maybe ASRAAM too since it has small fins.

I also meant to ask. Ok so I got the gijoe thunderwing, and that adds to my growing gijoe airforce of an A-10(rattler repaint from 97), X-30 conquest(99 reissue), PTE F-18, and skysweeper along with a mangled dismembered carcass of a night boomer(black skystriker TRU exclusive from 88).

I use my X-30 as a day fighter(70s ADF), and thunderwing as a multiroling bad ass....since the X-30 is based on the X-29 and the thunderwing is obviously a 2 seat F-22 I wonder.....

X-29 vs F-22 ACM. Close in knife fight, winders and gun,AIM-9L,M no super X winder.

People say the F-22 is greatly awesome close in and slauighters eagles and falcons close in in mock fighting. But how well does an FSW compete?

*BTW guys ever notice how we are 6 posts away from the 1000post mark?!!!! yey the thread lives!!*

Edited January 13, 2005 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0

[ewilen]

A little more on the politics over the F/A-22 cuts

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/business/13fighter.html

[hellohikaru]

@Ewilen

Most of us can't see the news since we need to register(most of us rather not) so if you would just paste it here instead

@Shin

Slammers will have clearence problems if fitted on the nacelle of the X-31. Perhaps they could try putting small pylons on the main landing gear door like those Sparrow on the early test F-16.

X-29 FSW is said to be the tightest turning aircraft, thrust vectoring only an advantage at higher altititudes. Rear vision from the X-29 seems a bit bad since its F-5 canopy. And the X-29 would need a total avionic upgrade...its mostly old gauge type cockpit there.

Although i agree the F-22 has the advantage in BVR combat, thing like "slaughters eagles and falcons close in in mock fighting" sounds a bit exaggerated to try sell the Raptor as a 100% all round winner.

[ewilen]

Sorry, it's a long article, so C&P isn't practical. Registration with the NYT is free; although it was a long time ago, I seem to remember it being pretty painless, too.

If I see it reprinted in another news source, I'll post a link.

[Nied]

There's a quote in that article that reminds me of something I brought up with my dad when arguing about the F-22 (he's against it). I told him that the airplanes we're flying now are going to need to be repalced real soon (this refering to F-15s), we can either spend money on building more F-15s to replace them, or we can build much better planes; considering that we've already spent billions on the F-22, and that from this point out they'll cost about the same why not build the better plane?

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Am I the only one who thinks that the X-31 looks very UN-american?

Even if the canards were removed, it looks more like a Euro/Russian/Chinese/Isreali/anything but USA plane!

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

1000TH POST IN THIS THREAD!!!

Nied, I agree they should definitely build the F-22 rather than keep building eagles. ATF was started what during the mid 80s? All that money to replace the eagle and 20 years later NOT build the successor? THAT would be a total waste of money to me.

Hikaru, the part about the raptor slaughtering eagles and falcons close in was from a post on another board about the raptor during training. I wonder just how good its low speed manuverability is. Could it out alpha the super bug?

[ewilen]

the airplanes we're flying now are going to need to be repalced real soon (this refering to F-15s), we can either spend money on building more F-15s to replace them, or we can build much better planes; considering that we've already spent billions on the F-22, and that from this point out they'll cost about the same why not build the better plane?

The marginal cost of building an F/A-22 is $115 million. What's the cost of a new F-15K?

Is it truly necessary to replace the F-15's on a 1-1 basis? And if so, when? How much air superiority do we need in the next 20-30 years? Or is the reality that all those Eagles would just end up being used as bombers--meaning that F-35's could take over the job when the F-15's are retired?

Also, the F/A-22 still has some development costs in store, if it's going to do everything that was promised. Without that development, will an F/A-22 even be as capable as an F-15E in the air to ground role?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Ewilen,

I don't think that the USAF post 1990 envisioned ever replacing eagles 1 by 1. Of course they did want to, but realistically I don't think it will ever happen.

The US of course likes having the best weaponry for the nation's defense, so while not all eagles would be replaced by raptors, having a good number of raptors would be good enough and better than none at all. Especially with all that money the USAF put into it over a 2 decade period.

And we will always need air superiority fighters. Sure the thing to do now is to make a multiroler, but if strike were the most important thing we could just retire and cancel everything but the B-52 and be satisfied. But if it can't defend itself.....

Hey guys, lets sy the USN or USAF wanted an all new fighter by 2015. BUt lets also say stealth by then was irrelevant since there is a way to detect stealth aircraft by then(this is purely hypothetical). Would a all new air superiority bird WITHOUT stealth be much cheaper than any of lockheed's stealth planes now?(F-22, F-111&, JSF)?

[Skull Leader]

I think it's getting to the point that the price difference is insignificant enough that you might as well pay the extra few million and go with the stealth... then again, F-22s have yet to be thoroughly tested in an air-superiority role. It's RCS reduction capabilities probably give it all the advantage in the world in BVR combat, but once it becomes a true ACM situation, where the pilots are going to have a good idea of where their enemy is, it probably won't make that much difference (the Raptor would likely be engaging in maneuvers counter-productive to it's passive stealth capabilities anyway)

Basically? I think Stealth is going to be what keeps us ahead of the game in a first-strike role, it would seem that the days of dogfighting are all but gone. It's also important to note that even if the technology did exist to detect stealth fighters, there is always the chance that a given enemy would not yet be advanced enough to own it, or employ it at the correct time.

Edited January 14, 2005 by Skull Leader

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Even so, if dogfighting is not needed, we would still need ideal fighters that could maul arse in ACM. Otherwise, we could just make missleers or put long range AAM's in B-1B's converted to launch such missles.

There have only been a small number of BVR engagements between the US and its allies against enemies years past in comparison with a lot more dogfights. Most of the kills in the lebanon war(bekaa valley) were atributed to sidewinders, and well at least in israeli experience, almost all fighter battles ended up being close in knife fights with exceptions being few.

If I am not mistaken, most of the gulfwar kills were with the winder as well, and in iranian hands, according to the book David bought, the F-14 scored most kills with the sidewinder as well. Though the AMRAAM is the almighty missle to beat, I still think dogfighting will always remain a very important aspect of aerial warfare no mattter how advanced missles become. Or radars and fire control systems.

Stealth does give a great advantage however,well if it works anything like it did in the TAW sim I. (though I do imagine much of the raptor's EMCON systems are highly classified and access hard to get, Even if TAW provided only a small glimpse of what EMCON in the raptor can potentially do, it is a VERY devastating weapon system indeed).

[ewilen]

Air superiority isn't an end in itself. If we can our bombs on target, and prevent the other guy's bombs from hitting us, it doesn't matter a flying fonzie if the enemy is doing reverse Immelmans and triple cobras over the battlefield.

The US of course likes having the best weaponry for the nation's defense

We also like winning wars without going bankrupt.

so while not all eagles would be replaced by raptors, having a good number of raptors would be good enough and better than none at all. Especially with all that money the USAF put into it over a 2 decade period.

Nope, you should never throw good money after bad. The only questions should be: how much MORE will we have to spend, and what will we get for it?

Edited January 15, 2005 by ewilen

[Keiichi]

Air superiority isn't an end in itself. If we can our bombs on target, and prevent the other guy's bombs from hitting us, it doesn't matter a flying fonzie if the enemy is doing reverse Immelmans and triple cobras over the battlefield.

How exactly can you accomplish that without air superiority?

[David Hingtgen]

Air superiority is everything. No superiority, then every A-xx, B-xx, EA-xx, C-xx, KC-xx, and H-xx is going to get shot down before it gets its job done. F-xx's exist to clear the air for the bombers/attackers/recon/tankers.

[Skull Leader]

So David, when do you think we'll first "hear" about F-22s fighting on the front lines? I suspect there may be some we don't know about already, but I wonder when it will begin to become commonplace?

[hellohikaru]

I think the F-22 would be deployed in small numbers as elite "silver bullet" squadrons. Who knows maybe there are some already doing experimental testing over Aghanistan or the middle east.

What we might not see is the F-22 carrying bombs.

[Nied]

Nope, you should never throw good money after bad. The only questions should be: how much MORE will we have to spend, and what will we get for it?

That's exactly the point I was trying to make to my dad (and in this thread). At this point it wouldn't cost much more to build new Raptors than it would to build new Eagles. We're going to need to build new somethings pretty soon (our Eagles are going to reach the end of thier airframe life in the next few years), why not build the better somethings instead of the worse ones.

[Mislovrit]

We also like winning wars without going bankrupt.

Bankruptcy is a problem for another day and secondary to winning the war in the first place.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Nope, you should never throw good money after bad. The only questions should be: how much MORE will we have to spend, and what will we get for it?

That's exactly the point I was trying to make to my dad (and in this thread). At this point it wouldn't cost much more to build new Raptors than it would to build new Eagles. We're going to need to build new somethings pretty soon (our Eagles are going to reach the end of thier airframe life in the next few years), why not build the better somethings instead of the worse ones.

I agree!!!!! Eagles, though very powerful and capable, are going old, and at least if the F-22 is replacing it, it will be replaced by something better than it in every which way not inferior to it.

It's like comparing the Israeli F-4 Kurnass to the F-15I, sure the eagle is more expensive but its also a lot better than the kurnass.

[David Hingtgen]

I've got 2 opinions on how we should deploy F-22's, depending upon the final number.

1. 3 squadrons at Langley, 3 at Eglin. 2 full wings, nothing more. Our premiere fighter wings having the best.

2. 3 squadrons at Langley, 1 at Kadena, 1 at Lakenheath. World-wide coverage.

If we should happen to have lots of F-22's, just combine the 2 options. Even 1 squadron at every non-Langley F-15C base is unlikely at this point. (since they'll probably fill up Eglin before assigning them to any but the most critical non-CONUS bases)

[Noyhauser]

I was just about to go to bed when....

Air superiority is everything. No superiority, then every A-xx, B-xx, EA-xx, C-xx, KC-xx, and H-xx is going to get shot down before it gets its job done. F-xx's exist to clear the air for the bombers/attackers/recon/tankers.

I've asked you this before and I'll ask ALL of you to say this again. THREAT? WHAT IS YOUR THREAT? There is NO NEED for the F-22 in the next decade, ESPECIALLY given the full range of capabilities that the US has.

Not one of you can come up with one possible threat will have the capabilities to wipe a US air expeditionary force out of the sky... because the only one is china, and honestly if you want to argue that one be my guest...

Many of the same arguements many of you put up were similar to the ones in the 1950s when it was thought that vast armadas of Soviet nuclear bombers being built that were going to come over the poles and nuke north america. 1960 rolls around U2 flights show that the USSR has barely a fraction of the bombers that people claimed. Billions of dollars that could have been used to adress the real threat (the impending missile gap, which later was overblown as well) was devoted to the Air defence of North America, which Provided us with all those great interceptors for Vietnam, and not enough funding for strategic rockets. Thats what happens when threat analysis isn't properly carried out and you get useless procurement programs that just waste money.

Bankruptcy is a problem for another day and secondary to winning the war in the first place.

What war is the F-22 going to fight? Really the F-22 was built for a war that was won 15 years ago. The F-22 is perfect to fight the Field Manual 100-5 Operations Airland Battle from 1982. The F-22 was built to stop a massive soviet attack on NATO airfields and be able to penetrate Soviet airspace, to fight against huge odds of fighters. How many countries do you think the US is going to fight in the next 10 to 15 years will have those sort of SAM capabilities that the US will be unable to neutralize, or that we would be outnumbered so significantly that the US would need to fight with stealth because it could not operate near the front lines? I really await your answer.

The US military is going to be fighting small wars for quite some time, given each and every policy document that has been put out. I'm sure troops on the ground in Iraq will be happy to hear that their body armor/next generation APC ect, is being pushed back because the airforce needs another fighter to defend the air superiority over their heads right now...

squadrons at Langley, 1 at Kadena, 1 at Lakenheath. World-wide coverage.

Why the would you have it at lakenheath? really thats an off shore deployement that costs WAAAY more money, and is nowhere near any sort of potential battlefield that the F-22 would have no range to deploy to. Its 4 hours more and far cheaper to keep them on any base on the east coast. Kadena is marginally better, but I'd rather chose guam or Diego Garcia which are closer to potential target areas for the F-22 (even though I can't imagine who would be foolish enough to strike them or even have the capabilities to do so)

Edited January 16, 2005 by Noyhauser