Aircraft VS super thread!

[ghostryder]

The "real" purpose between these exercises is to make current USAF fighters look bad---thus, we get more F-22 funding. I'm all for it.

Ok, that confirms some articles I've read ... and I'm all for it , too.

[myk]

I thought that the '22 was being rendered "obsolete" or otherwise put on hold?

[buddhafabio]

any one think the pentigon will let the airforce use the f/a-22 in the next us vs india wargames?

[Skull Leader]

I thought that the '22 was being rendered "obsolete" or otherwise put on hold?

349321[/snapback]

Well, it DID spend several years on the development table, but consider that the F-117 Nighthawk was flying in top-secret back in the very late 1970s, and a lot of people still consider it "cutting-edge". The F/A-22 no longer has that "new car" smell to it (metaphorically speaking), but it's still pretty far ahead of most anything else the world's airforces are packing.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Very true about the F-22. Close in its pretty murderous as well.

David did you see the F-14 in the Ace COmbat zero trailer? The scheme on that is a lot better than the AC5 schemes. The only good F-14D scheme in ac5 was the razgriz one.

[Nied]

DOD Rejects Canceling Air Force Variant Of JSF, Expert Says

Been following this on F-16.net. Aparently the F-35A came very close to being canceled in favor of the F-35C. Frankly that seemed like a good idea to me, there's not much (besides G-limits and a gun) that would disqualify the F-35C from flying in the AF. WHat's more interesting to me is that the AF is cutting it's ridiculously high 1700 plane JSF order down to a more resonable 1100 planes. (Why do we need more JSFs then we have F-16s?) More importantly they're extending Raptor production out to 2010 which they explain as a hedge against JSF failure but I imagine they might be stalling till new civilian leadership comes in that might be more sympathetic to buying useful aircraft.

[David Hingtgen]

Darn, I was hoping the F-35A would be killed too. That and the ABL-1 (747 laser).

[Skull Leader]

Darn, I was hoping the F-35A would be killed too.  That and the ABL-1 (747 laser).

349596[/snapback]

They ain't on the flight line yet. There's still plenty of time to see the whole project tank (which I sincerely hope it does). The ABL-1 on the otherhand, I rather enjoy (I do work on an aircraft at the local boeing facility and I often see one of the laser-test aircraft sitting on the tarmac. Kinda cool.

[David Hingtgen]

Cool idea, but I just don't think it'll work. (And latest reports are that it doesn't). They're trying to build a weapon 1 step away from a phaser----and I think there's got to be a lot more interim weapons before they get to that level. It'd be like designing the F-24 as a space-capable anti-matter-cannon-equipped super-plane. It's a bunch of new technologies at once, and they want them all to be beyond state of the art, immediately. Try getting basic laser weapons first, THEN try to mount them on a plane, THEN try to give them insane accuracy against a moving target for prolonged periods of time. (I think maintaining the beam on the target is the biggest problem--doesn't it need like 5 to 10 seconds of continuous contact?)

Nobody on this forum likes airliners more than me, but this is the most "out there" of all 747 proposals. (I've always been fond of the ICBM-launching one) I would be stunned if they get it to work. And then I'll want miniature versions mounted on F-22's as soon as possible. Phasers vs Flankers.

Edited December 5, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[buddhafabio]

i cool with most of the looks of airliners(love the md-11 look) david do you read any dale brown books, he does alot of futuristic area 51 airforce type books, in his latests books he has a gutted b-52 with lasers

[VF-19]

Nobody on this forum likes airliners more than me, but this is the most "out there" of all 747 proposals.  (I've always been fond of the ICBM-launching one)  I would be stunned if they get it to work.  And then I'll want miniature versions mounted on F-22's as soon as possible.  Phasers vs Flankers.

349634[/snapback]

And then we can actually have the line used seriously: "Mr Hawk, lock target, and fire phasers."

I can see the trekkies and trekkers lining up in droves at the local Air force recruiting desk.

Also, I'm interested in the JAS-39 Gripen. More like looking for plenty of detail photos. I've found the official Gripen site, but those are mainly good for wide angle shots. Thing is, I've got a 1:72 Gripen (an Italeri model that actually doesn't suck construction-wise! ) on my bench, and I'd like to do a nice paintjob on it. I wouldn't mind the standard grey on grey setup, but a wild and out there paintjob would be pretty cool, something like this .

[Mislovrit]

I imagine they might be stalling till new civilian leadership comes in that might be more sympathetic to buying useful aircraft.

Possibly a huge mistake especially if one of the choice decides a "peace dividend' is better than mantaining status quo or increasing the fleet.

[David Hingtgen]

buddhafabio----the MD-11 2nd prototype is my avatar on nearly every aircraft forum I visit. Best-looking airliner ever.

VF-19-----Gripen details:

http://www.jetfly.hu/rovatok/galeria/fotok...l/gripenmakett/

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2000...tail_gripen.htm

[VF-19]

buddhafabio----the MD-11 2nd prototype is my avatar on nearly every aircraft forum I visit.  Best-looking airliner ever.

VF-19-----Gripen details:

http://www.jetfly.hu/rovatok/galeria/fotok...l/gripenmakett/

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2000...tail_gripen.htm

349644[/snapback]

David, you are my new god. Thank you!

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Nobody on this forum likes airliners more than me, but this is the most "out there" of all 747 proposals.  (I've always been fond of the ICBM-launching one)  I would be stunned if they get it to work.

Whoa wait! They had a proposal for an ICBM launching 747?!?! Link! Pic! Please!

[David Hingtgen]

Nonthing online that I know of, but it's in my best 747 book. Basically, have the entire belly aft of the wing be a series of doors, and have the missiles loaded horizontally through the nose. Open the rear-belly doors, slide the missile back, and they drop out. Then they zoom away. Being launched while climbing at 600mph and 40,000ft gives them a huge range boost.

It's a lot like dropping cargo out of a C-130's rear hatch---only with ICBM's.

[Nied]

I imagine they might be stalling till new civilian leadership comes in that might be more sympathetic to buying useful aircraft.

Possibly a huge mistake especially if one of the choice decides a "peace dividend' is better than mantaining status quo or increasing the fleet.

349638[/snapback]

Well peace dividends seems to be what the current regime has in mind so I don't blame them for hoping someone different might think differently.

Edited December 6, 2005 by Nied

[Nied]

Nonthing online that I know of, but it's in my best 747 book.  Basically, have the entire belly aft of the wing be a series of doors, and have the missiles loaded horizontally through the nose.  Open the rear-belly doors, slide the missile back, and they drop out.  Then they zoom away.  Being launched while climbing at 600mph and 40,000ft gives them a huge range boost.   

It's a lot like dropping cargo out of a C-130's rear hatch---only with ICBM's.

349882[/snapback]

IIRC Lockheed tried to sell almost the same thing using a C-5.

[Knight26]

it wasn't an ICBM carrier, that 747 was going to be a cruise missile platform, i have pictures somewhere.

[David Hingtgen]

Just looked in my book. It is clearly an ICBM carrier. The explanation mentions ballistic missiles, uses the term ICBM several times, and the missiles in the schematic themselves are clearly ICBM's. If there was also a cruise missile variant, it's not what I'm talking about.

[myk]

Wow. What, is that like a cold-war left over? Well, I certainly hope that they can still do this with a 747. Aw hell, you know they have one or two of these things in some hangar somewhere if they need it...

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Just looked in my book.  It is clearly an ICBM carrier.  The explanation mentions ballistic missiles, uses the term ICBM several times, and the missiles in the schematic themselves are clearly ICBM's.  If there was also a cruise missile variant, it's not what I'm talking about.

349913[/snapback]

Its a paper plane right? They never even attempted a prototype or even a mock up?

Sounds like a very anime type of weapon carrier. You know, the one where the renegade general with the eye-patch steals while kidnapping the chick and the hero has to stop him from launching while saving the chick.

[buddhafabio]

it wasn't an ICBM carrier, that 747 was going to be a cruise missile platform, i have pictures somewhere.

349896[/snapback]

i wondered how it was done so i did google search http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/usslanes.htm no pics could be found.

if i was a rich tally ho boy like John Trovalta i wouldnt have a paltry 707 my bird would be a md 11 (or old fighter)

[Mislovrit]

Well peace dividends seems to be what the current regime has in mind so I don't blame them for hoping someone different might think differently.

Bush brought the miltary budget back up to Reagan's Cold War level which is a stark contrast to gutting the military's budget.

[David Hingtgen]

I think John Travolta showed INCREDIBLE taste in picking a 707, especially a -138B. It's rare, historic, and it's a 707. It's the only non-stretch 707 still flying AFAIK. (I love 707's)

[buddhafabio]

I think John Travolta showed INCREDIBLE taste in picking a 707, especially a -138B.  It's rare, historic, and it's a 707.  It's the only non-stretch 707 still flying AFAIK.    (I love 707's)

349982[/snapback]

the fact that he is doing it is cool i would have picked a more efficent bird. but it porbably was also the cheapest. i know i heard him say he was looking for a great way to fly the Whole family. when he picked that plane.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

A personal XB-70 would be the ultimate toy. All the other pilots will go green with envy. You could even showboat in front of the Concorde flyboys (back when they were still flying that is).

[F-ZeroOne]

A personal XB-70 would be the ultimate toy. All the other pilots will go green with envy. You could even showboat in front of the Concorde flyboys (back when they were still flying that is).

350041[/snapback]

If we're talking dream aeroplanes we'd like to own, then I'll have a Blackburn Buccaneer. You can spend your time with your head in the stratosphere, I'll be down here at 600mph looking up at the weeds going by...

[Apollo Leader]

C-17 airlaunching a dummy rocket. Didn't read it over in full detail yet, but it looks like it has to do with our anti missile program.

C-5 airlaunching a Minuteman I. The picture's on page 10 of the PDF file.

Early B-1 (AMSA) proposals, early B-2 and early ATB concepts, and the proposed 747 ALCM carrier.

[Nied]

Well peace dividends seems to be what the current regime has in mind so I don't blame them for hoping someone different might think differently.

Bush brought the miltary budget back up to Reagan's Cold War level which is a stark contrast to gutting the military's budget.

349979[/snapback]

The Pentagon's Budget isn't anywhere near it's cold war highs, and I don't remember nearly as many prominent programs being cut during the '90s (at least after '92). Crusader, Comanche, and possibly the F-22 these things looked to have bright futures back in '99.

[Skull Leader]

The Pentagon's Budget isn't anywhere near it's cold war highs, and I don't remember nearly as many prominent programs being cut during the '90s (at least after '92).  Crusader, Comanche, and possibly the F-22 these things looked to have bright futures back in '99.

350086[/snapback]

Crusader?? Surely you aren't referring to the swept-wing Supersonic fighter (the F-8 Crusader) that we used back in the 50s and 60s... what other Crusader project was there?

[Nied]

The Pentagon's Budget isn't anywhere near it's cold war highs, and I don't remember nearly as many prominent programs being cut during the '90s (at least after '92).  Crusader, Comanche, and possibly the F-22 these things looked to have bright futures back in '99.

350086[/snapback]

Crusader?? Surely you aren't referring to the swept-wing Supersonic fighter (the F-8 Crusader) that we used back in the 50s and 60s... what other Crusader project was there?

350094[/snapback]

The new and now dead super acurate mobile artillery system for the US Army.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...nd/crusader.htm

[Apollo Leader]

Decided to do some digging this afternoon, and it looks like Lockheed's original B-2 proposal, Senior Peg, was finally revealed earlier this year:

http://www.dreamlandresort.com/black_proje...senior_peg.html

I found a link to the story about it being on Aviation Week's website, but you need to be a subscribed member. I am really surprised I haven't heard about this before.

From what I can tell, it looks like the Lockheed B-2 was quite a bit smaller then Northrop's design. When what became the F-117 was proposed, one of Lockheed's original proposals was for a two seater, F-111 sized aircraft, but the Air Force wanted to take the safer route and go with a smaller aircraft to begin with. Lockheed's B-2 design was clearly based off of their intermediate range attack aircraft. Interesting that the twin V-tail is on an extended part of the fuselage. Northrop's B-2 clearly beats this in payload and range (probably in stealth, too). Can't wait to see what other proposals and prototypes from the 70's and 80's that are "in the dark" that are just waiting to be declassified.

Though it's in Czech or Polish, here's another very interesting site.

http://www.hitechweb.szm.sk/stealth1.htm

Edited December 7, 2005 by Apollo Leader

[Phyrox]

I don't want to get in the way of the current discussion, but I figured I would post a small picture of the project I posted about a long time ago in this thread.

It is my fictional seaplane racer.

I ended up using floats from a Kawanishi E7K.

It is much larger than the real interwar raceplanes...but what can ya do?

I know I am not the most skilled modeller (i don't even try to weather), but with my limited skill set, I am very happy with the results.

[Mislovrit]

The Pentagon's Budget isn't anywhere near it's cold war highs,

I got 401.7 billion from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html

and

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/n...40202-0301.html and it appear I'm off by about 40-50 billion of Reagan's Cold War budget.

Check http://www.defensetech.org/ to see what the Military is and isn't spending it money on.