Jump to content

David Hingtgen

Moderator
  • Posts

    16938
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Hingtgen

  1. Let's see: 1. Yes, the AL-1 laser platform, like all 747-400F's, has the original, shorter upper deck. Difference is 23ft, BTW. 2. F-16's are "louder than they should be". Don't know why, F-14D's sound quieter, despite having the same engines. (As in, 2 F-16's taking off sound louder than 1 F-14, despite both of those situations being 2 GE F110 engines at full afterburner) F-14's do have slightly downrated engines for better reliability etc, maybe those last few pounds of thrust are "loud". 3. YF-23 #1 is at Edwards AFB, sitting in storage somewhere. YF-23 #2 is at the Western Museum of Flight, in Hawthorne, CA. Which is also Northrop Field, and YF-17 #1 is there too.
  2. Another point is that one of the key features of the F-5/F-20 is that's it's ULTRA easy to maintain, and ULTRA reliable. Nothing else comes close. 6-barrel gatling guns are not simple. A lot of the F-20's abilities simply came from its engine. 70% more thrust than the baseline F-5E, with almost no additional structural weight. (like 95% of the F-20's small weight increase over the F-5E was simply due to the new engine). And the second and third ones had upgraded engines, 80% over the F-5E, and the fourth one (never finished) was to have even better engines like the late Hornets have, 90% over baseline. And they didn't use all that power to carry more fuel or weapons or fancy gadgets, it went to raw acceleration, climb, and sustained turning capability.
  3. Eh, red tape is more "excessive forms and regulations". Different than "political clout".
  4. Your last sentence: EXACTLY. They spend their money on research and development, rather than funding re-election campaigns. I love F-20's, btw. Awesome dark metallic grey (almost black) paint job.
  5. Supercruise: the ability to go (and sustain) supersonic flight without use of afterburners. 99% of people seem to forget the Concorde's been doing it at Mach 2.04 for decades, and think the F-22's the first production plane to do it. It's very useful, for you can cruise to and from the combat zone much faster, with less fuel. Heck, a heavily-loaded F-16 often needs afterburner just to maintain Mach .9, wasting precious fuel. F-15ACTIVE: F-15 with canards and thrust vectoring. Resulting combination can out-manuever most anything in the sky, especially at high speeds where it can do moves at Mach 2 that most things can't do at Mach 1. Cheap and easy to retrofit, could be done to every F-15, F-16, and F-14B's and D's. So of course they didn't. F-20: Highly modified F-5E, used to be called F-5G. Was supposed to be a dedicated air defense interceptor, even cheaper and better than the F-16. This was before we had all those ANG F-16's, and most air defense was F-4's and F-106's, and that simply wasn't good enough in the 1980's. Mainly a Sparrow/AMRAAM user, with an insanely good dogfighting capability. Had a marginal supercruise ability. Main feature was ultra-rapid intercept capabilities. Could be off the ground in 30 secs from a cold start, whereas an F-16 would still be starting its engines. Generally had a 3-5 minute lead over any US fighter for a "scramble to intercept" scenario. Even the F-15 couldn't catch it within like 10 mins, despite the F-15's world-beating speed and climb rate, because they took that long to get ready to fly. (Getting the navigation systems up takes the longest, not the engines) Could out accelerate, out-climb, and out-turn even the fabled F-16 in a close-in dogfight. So of course we didn't buy any, and just bought more F-16's to supply all the ANG squadrons See, it was a NORTHROP plane, like the YF-23. That means it totally rocked, but didn't have half of congress in it's back pocket, so wouldn't be bought.
  6. I believe the VT ANG had ADF's before, which were Block 15's. Nowadays only the ND ANG has ADF's. ::goes off to check:: Hmmn, Block 25, upgraded with -220E engine and AMRAAM's. Lots of VT F-16 info: http://www.philippecolin.net/falcon.html
  7. That is from Carswell, but not an ANG squadron. That's the "real" USAF, though a reserve squadron. 301st Fighter Wing, 457th Fighter Squadron. (Anyone with a number that high is in the reserves) On this pic: http://www.sharpshooter-maj.com/Images/profil03/301fw.jpg you can see "AFRC" just ahead of the h.stab, thus Air Force Reserve Command. Earlier they put "AFRES" there. Also note the very dark nosecone---F-16 nosecone colors vary an incredible amount, this is the darkest I've seen for the non-black ones. (Only EARLY F-16's had true black noses, and they were all changed to grey eventually) That's a Block 30 BTW, I'd presume Block 30B or 30C, since it looks like a small intake, and the serial is from 1985. ::edit:: I looked it up, and it's a Block 30A. That's kind of unexpected and rare. Those are the only non-AMRAAM capable Block 30's. Though based on the appearance of the #8 weapon station, it may have been retrofitted. Without AMRAAM's, an F-16C has nothing but Sidewinders, as your standard F-16 can't carry Sparrows. I doubt even a reserve plane couldn't carry AMRAAM's nowadays.
  8. The current wild weasel is the F-16C Block 50/52, generally called the F-16CJ. Nowadays the term is "SEAD"--Supression of Enemy Air Defenses. And now it's more anti-SAM than anti-AAA. F-16CG= F-16C Block 40/42, Night Falcon, optimized for precision munitions/strike. Night vision goggles, wide-angle HUD like the F-15E, LANTIRN pods like the F-15E. F-16CJ= F-16C Block 50/52, SEAD, optimized for SAM-hunting, secondary air-to-air role. HTS (Harm Targeting System) very often equipped. Most of the Block 30's are with ANG squadrons now, primarily air to air, secondary strike role.
  9. I bet it would have supercruised. Supercruise is nothing more than thrust vs drag. The F-20 could supercruise without much trouble, as could the early F-5's. A *very* lightly loaded F-15 or -16 will as well. (The 18 sure can't, too much drag). The F-14 is very aerodynamically efficient with low drag for its size. More power would probably give it a thrust/drag ratio better than anything but the F-22/35.
  10. AFAIK the latest projected standard F-35K load that I've seen is ASRAAM x4. It seems to be a Sea Harrier replacement more than anything. There's no doubt it'd be superior to a Sea Harrier as a fighter in almost every way, though the current Sea Harriers can carry quite a few AMRAAMs, and have a top of the line radar.
  11. My true love is airliners, and there's a lot of talk about twin-engine overwater flights vs 3/4 engine ones, so a lot of my knowledge does come from there, thus "peacetime" jet ops. Umm, basically the fewer engines the better, weight/drag/fuel-wise. And that includes power/weight ratio. If an F-18 had 1 big engine with exactly the same thrust as its 2 F404's, it'd climb and accelerate better, and have better range and be able to carry more weapons. And as I alluded to earlier, nowadays engines are so reliable that anything that knocks out an engine, will likely knock them all out. As in, fuel starvation--doesn't matter how many engines you have, if you're out of fuel, you're gliding home. Combat damage and bird strike are about the only things that will randomly strike only 1 engine, and that is frankly rare. How often do you find a jet that's had its engine, and only its engine, taken out in combat? Not very often, if you're hit that bad the plane tends to crash due to gaping holes in the airframe or large fires caused by the damage. Also, the vast majority of military planes lost are due to collision (either another plane or controlled flight into terrain), not engine failure. Of course, about the one and only time I know of it happening lately was in Desert Storm, an F-18 took a SAM and it only got 1 engine and there was no fire. But half of the reason is due to the Hornet's funky design with such aft-mounted engines. An F-14 or F-15 would likely have been toast, since they'd have many more hydraulic lines, stabs, etc in the area. All that said, just about everybody likes two engines, no matter how small the safety margin is nowadays compared to other things that can go wrong. Finally---can't thrust-vector for roll with only 1 engine. F-22 enjoys 50% better roll rates due to vectoring, couldn't do it with just 1 engine.
  12. *Officially* the F-15E is still simply the Eagle. Strike Eagle, Mud Hen, Beagle, and simply "E" are all equally valid and commonly used nick-names, though Strike Eagle is the most famous. Might as well talk about the F-117 while we're here. Officially Nighthawk, unofficially Cockroach, and possibly Scorpion. BTW "Wobblin' Goblin" was never, ever used by anybody (pilot/crew/worker/designer) to describe it. That was a complete lie by some (NY Times?) reporter to discredit the program that got copied and printed 10,000 times by every other paper and magazine. Nothing like "overpriced military hardware doesn't work" to get some column space. F-117 is said to fly like the F-15, if anything. Quite stable and agile, just lacking raw power.
  13. Yup. The new RN carriers were pretty much counting on VTO for the JSF. Sure, the USMC may not NEED it, but the RN sure does it seems. And at this point, the F-35 is so overweight it can't even do a rolling STO takeoff from the new carriers. That is a severe problem.
  14. Yup, little more to add than to check the above site for a pretty darn comprehensive list. Though I did notice it skipped the F-5C Tiger, which is kind of important since that's why the F-5E is the Tiger II. Also--- B-1A is Excalibur, only the B-1B is the Lancer. And it's called Bone even more often than the A-10 is called Warthog. Finally-- A-12 (the Mach 3 Lockheed one) is the Cygnus. Or if you want, the Archangel. Ok, post-finally, the F-22 was originally the Lightning II, then Rapier, and now Raptor. ::edit:: Oh yeah, this always bugs me. It's the F-16 *FIGHTING* Falcon. Not the Falcon. It'd be like saying "A-10 bolt". Don't forget the first half of the name.
  15. Eh, 99% of battleship discussions try to do the ENTIRE ship, and choose which is better. Which is pointless, IMHO. I think we've restricted it to "superstructure damage from modern weapons" and "sheer quality of armor".
  16. That pretty much goes against Nathan Okun's stuff, who's probably the most-referenced guy for armor. http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm (huge, mainly about Bismark) He basicallly compares every major WWII BB class to Bismark, mainly "how would it do against the 15in guns of the Bismark". Notably: <<<I am going to throw in the belt protection of the IJN YAMATO here as a "worst case" comparison, though the Japanese Vickers Hardened (VH) armor was the weakest form of face-hardened armor used in any WWII warship, being a modified, but not upgraded, form of the WWI British Vickers CA with the cemented surface eliminated and a higher carbon content to make decrementally hardening it easier. The waterline belt of the YAMATO was 16.1" (410 mm) VH at a 20o outboard inclination to increase the minimum impact obliquity (the greatest inclination of any belt armor in a WWII battleship) laminated to a 1" (25.4 mm) cement layer (assuming British practice was followed) and a 0.63" (16 mm) D-steel bulkhead. The portion below the waterline was covered by a spaced curved outer hull plate of 0.55" (14 mm) D-steel, but the upper portion of the belt was exposed - this thin hull plate would not appreciably slow down or decap any large impacting projectile, in any event. >>> <<The Japanese enlarged their warship designs but did not keep up in face-hardened armor quality and because of this did no more than break even with the best foreign designs.>>
  17. This page is pretty useful for a quick comparison: http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_armor.htm But basically--yes, Japanese armor quality was quite poor. Sheer lack of materials. When you need .2% this, and .5% that, and 1.8% that to make the really good alloys---Japan simply didn't have many crucial "exotic" metals to do so. They basically had to use late 1800's materials, and many "substitute" metals. They had the formulas, and the knowledge to make good armor, but absolutely didn't posess the materials to do so. Yes, the Yamato's had THICK armor. But it simply wasn't that GOOD. The thickest, heaviest armor (turret faces) was pretty much impervious due to sheer thickness. But their 16 inch belt was maybe equivalent to US quality 13 inch. Better than most battleships, but not by much at all. Also, the quality was quite inconsistent. There'd be quite a lot of areas that were only as good as 11 or 12 inch US/UK equivalent. I must say I do not know how the Yamatos' superstructure was armored. Conning tower of course, but what of the fire control towers and directors, etc? Yes, Yamato had a lot more armor by weight, but only because it was "bulky, low-quality armor". Better than raw cast iron plates, but nowhere near what US/UK/Germany could do, pound for pound. Finally--AFAIK, most every anti-ship missile aims for the mid-section around waterline (usually a bit above, as hitting the water is bad for a missile), where any armored ship generally is armored decently well. If you launch 5 Harpoons at something, you won't do any damage to the superstructure, they'll all go for the (armored) midsection.
  18. Tomcat 21 was to have new maintenance panels, etc. Said to reduce time/hours needed by 40%. Not as good as a Super Hornet, but quite an improvement. Read both links up above. Of course Cunningham's right about the other guy being an idiot, because the other guy was making a lot of stupid claims. However, the Super Hornet's "unaddressed in that report" problems are the severe lack of acceleration, supercruise (and pretty much all transonic performance), and the eventual "range chopping" due to redesigning the pylons. I'm really trying to pinpoint when they discovered the pylon problem vs when that report was made. Yes, the Super Hornet does have greater range than a Legacy Hornet--however, it is much less than was originally thought, and less than a lot of reports indicate because they were made before the pylon redesign. And the wing-drop is still a "temp" fix, most overhead photos show the "patch" over the wing joint fairing. And they keep fiddling with it, it seems every block has a new version of it. Also, the redesigned pylons are NOT friendly to many weapons. There have been numerous reports of damage to the weapons by flying them through the air at Mach 1, sideways. (Duh). A Paveway LGB with broken fins will NOT be accurate, and even JDAMs and dumb bombs will lose accuracy. Thank God the AIM-9X has vectored thrust, and AIM-120C's have clipped fins, or the air-to-air weapons might suffer damage too. All this is, I believe, subsequent to Cunningham's report. At least when a Tomcat carries bombs, it doesn't damage them in the process. Sigh---all threads here become Tomcat vs Hornet, no matter what. So, any JSF news?
  19. This may be a stupid question, but since I'm pretty new to Mr Surfacer in general, and it's not quite like putty: To fill a moderately deep seam, etc----do you just keep layering it and letting it dry until you can see it's filled and then sand away the large amount of excess in one session, or do you sand away the excess between each layer after that layer dries?
  20. That's the military for you. "Why spend $10 billion on a brand new plane, when you can spend $15 billion and get a marginally improved version of the old one! " Navy doesn't *demand* twin engines, but it's always preferred. (Same with Canada and Australia) If they design their own plane (A-6, F-4, F-14) they always are twins. When there's a fly-off (F-16 vs F-17) they'll go for the twin. For the JSF, X-32 vs X-35, they picked the one that didn't look like it was specifically designed to kill sailors on deck... (Boeing will never learn, large mouth bass intakes will NOT endear you to the Navy) Naval JSF has strengthened gear (of course) and larger wings and tails for slower landing speeds and better control at those low speeds. Looks better than a "normal" JSF from some angles, worse at others. One final thing is that overall, history has shown the technology of the engines to be more important than the number of them. Newer engines are SO much more reliable, an older 2 or 3 or 4 engined plane is more likely to have 2 or 3 engines fail, than a newer 1 or 2 engined plane is to have a single failure. And I fully believe an F-14A or even F-15 is more likely to have double engine failure than a JSF is to ever have its engine fail. Heck, the GE F4x4 family is so darn reliable you really only need one. And that'd be the X-29, F-20, and Grippen. A second engine is always nice, but the weight and fuel burn is becoming more and more of a disadvantage every year. If it gets down to the odds being 1/1000000 of an engine failure, there's no point in carrying a second one around 99999/1000000 of the time. (Money/fuel/weight wise for the military, the pilot of that 1 failed-engine plane will always want the second engine) And the Navy does hate excess weight coming aboard...
  21. Heck no, the ACTIVE would have made every F-15 and F-16 and F-14B/D thrust-vectoring capable, quickly and cheaply using the existing engines! No way the US would do something like THAT. The "real" reason is that upgrading F-15/16's would take away from money for the F-22/35. That's why Lockheed isn't trying TOO hard to make F-16C Block 60's all that great, they almost didn't do CFT's for it. The better the F-16C is, the worse the F-35 looks. Same with the F-22. Same reason they killed the F-14---if there was the possibility of upgrading the F-14 for cheap, or heck an almost-new F-14 design, then the "more $/lb than platinum" Hornet had serious competition. New designs cost LOTS of money, and upgrading already-paid-for planes always looks way more attractive, money-wise. So of course they don't let that happen, so new more expensive planes can be built.
  22. Ok, the *most heavily armored* parts of the Iowa's are nigh-invulnerable. However, one of the lesser known facts about the Iowas is that they are actually pretty much built of armor. Most nations build ships of "normal" (mild) steel, then armor the vital areas. The Iowas are not. Almost every "non-armored" area is built of STS armor. It's not nearly as good as face-hardened or cast armor, and actually ranks below class-B armor (but that'd be US class-B armor, which means it's as good as many nation's class B armor, and maybe somebody's class A), but it is still far far stronger than normal warship steel. There is very little "normal ship-building" steel in them. The basic hull, superstructure, and decks of the Iowa class is as strong as most other nation's light or even medium armor. Yeesh, the Missouri took a direct kamikaze hit, and it left a small dent in the most external hull layer. And presumably removed the paint from that section. Most missiles aren't going to do much better than a fully-loaded Zero at 500mph. So yeah, a lot of weapons will bounce off every square inch of an Iowa class. They'd decimate the Bismark or Yamato's superstructure, being unarmored normal steel, but with the Iowa's entire superstructure (asides from the funnels) being basically eqivalent to moderate armor, they could shrug off quite a few attacks. There's battleships, then there's the Iowas (and the South Dakotas). Frankly, only the US could afford (and had the raw materials) to build a class of ships made almost entirely of armor. Sure, some parts are much more heavily armored than others, but even the weakeer parts of the ship are far stronger than many other ship's moderately armored sections. They will not have their superstructure blasted away bit by bit from little guns like the Bismarck did. PS--I was wrong about the Cole, it is a late Flight I, not a Flight II Burke. (like many other things, the programme was delayed---like DDG66-78 should have been Flight II, but only 72-78 were) No kevlar. Though it likely got it while being repaired, for it got several other later Burke features added on and there'd never be a better time to do it.
  23. Nah, when that happens they'll just make the Ultra Hornet. 1% more range, 2% more payload, and only 3x the cost of a Super Hornet.
  24. Hornets of any type can slow down incredibly fast (the one use for drag), but I seriously wonder about a Super Hornet's acceleration. In car terms, their 0-60 is pretty good, but their quarter mile SUCKS. Drag builds up incredibly fast on that airframe---once you're past a few hundred knots , acceleration is very poor, and the Super's is worse than the regular's. Tomcats at low speed with the wings unswept can use their maneuvering flaps and can turn like *that*, especially B/D models, since it's all power for high-rate sustained turns. I need to check out some real-life bombloads for Operation Iraqi Freedom, I want to compare bombloads before I comment on that aspect. (I hope I have *super* Hornet load-outs) Stats are meaningless, I like real-life usage. Super Hornets ironically are often seen flying with 2 pylons empty--wasn't that one of the main points in building it, to have 2 more pylons? Anyways back to the Jennycraig Strike Fighter--while lightweight fan blades may help, I doubt that using solid blades on the current ones accounts for 3,300lbs. I think it's more than that. Just IMHO, I think we need a new swing-wing plane. The bigger, the better. (Hard to make the mechanism small, Tornado's about as small as it gets). A new big, fast, long-range high-speed swing-wing interceptor. With Phoenix missiles. And just like the F-14 and F-15, those sorts of airframes tend to make awesome bombers with almost no mods needed. Think about how advanced a new swing-wing plane could be, with 30+ years of aerodynamics over the F-14's wings and gloves. Rather than a re-re-re-re-hashed Northrop P530 wing, which is a modified F-5 wing. Heh, just go look at the F-5A>F-5E>P530>YF-17>F-18A>F/A-18E. Not much changes, just gets fuglier. The Hornet is a super-tweaked F-5, much like the F-22 is little more than a stealth F-15. F-16's about the only "new" design lately. But a new swing-wing starting from scratch? With more power than a Super Flanker? ::drool::
×
×
  • Create New...