Jump to content

Nied

Members
  • Content count

    1,317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nied

  • Rank
    Bridge Bunny
  • Birthday 11/20/1979

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Nied
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Boston, Massachusetts
  • Interests
    Aviation, Politics, and Anime (I suppose that last one's obvious)

Previous Fields

  • Old MW Name
    Nied
  • Old MW Post count
    1645
  1. Even better pictures. Bill Sweatman is having multiple orgasms about this even though all the stuff he keeps saying about it turns out to be untrue (It's got a lamda wing clearly it's extremely stealthy! No wait it turns out it's just a straight backed delta that's not stealthy at all. We know the Russians have sold the Chinese 117S engines, it will supercruise for sure! Well maybe we don't know that but it would be really cool if that were true right? Besides WS-10s might let it supercruise anyway! And on and on). I've already seen this pointed out elsewhere but I noticed it as soon as I saw it: it looks like nothing more than a stealthified Mig 1.44. You're right it is pretty ugly, in fact it might just be the ugliest aircraft built in the last decade (and before anyone mentions it the X-32 was build in the 90s so it doesn't count).
  2. Seems like P&W's big mistake was not designing their crate to conform to the Navy's standard then. If they do that there wont be a problem. Considering that the Navy was able to get an engine just as big on their carriers for thirty years (and one made by Pratt too) they shouldn't have too big of a problem making a new crate that will fit.
  3. Oh for crying out loud! The F135 is almost the same size as a TF-30 (it's 20" shorter and 2" wider) and the Navy had no problems delivering it to carriers for years. I think the key graf here is that the problem occurs when the engine is packed in it's shipping container. Re-design the container and you should have no problem.
  4. That one's been around for a while. The problem with that scheme is A) keeping the aircraft sheathed in plasma as it flies at 500 knots, and B) while you might be invisible to radar you'd be glowing like a light bulb at just about every other wavelength, including IR and visible("the radar see's nothing but what's that huge X-ray source coming at us at mach 1?"). Re: F-22 edges, my understanding is that they're made out of different materials/painted with different coatings than the rest of the plane. The reason why hasn't been explained but I have to think it has something to do with further reducing the RCS (remember most of the radar re-emission would be from the edges of the plane).
  5. Yikes! Looks like we lost a third Raptor, hope they find the pilot OK.
  6. Retracting Head Ter Ter is right, the F-22 has a datalink that can share a limited amount of information with other F-22s but nothing else. It doesn't have a working Link 16 terminal, so it can't pass or receive information with any allied forces like AWACS or troops on the ground, it's completely cut off from the network. It was feared that a Link 16 transmission could give away an F-22 so it was left out entirely. Later on when the omission became more glaring it was planned to integrate a receive terminal only so that it could at least get information from other assets on the network however software integration issues and technological progression ended up killing that idea. The current plan is to replace the Link 16 standard entirely with something called MADL (Multifunction Advanced Data Link). MADL is being designed from the ground up to be capable of Low Probability of Intercept modes so that it can be used in stealth platforms. The F-35 will have a MADL terminal built in when it reaches operation, and the plan was to have the F-22 flying with it before that. However the same software integration issues that have repeatedly plagued the F-22 cropped up again and MADL integration has repeatedly blown past it's cost projections and schedule, now there is real doubt that the Raptor will ever get MADL.
  7. The costs for the F-22 did drop once it exited LRIP, but that's not it's problem. The problem as I've been saying is it's tied to an outdated computer system that makes it incredibly difficult and expensive to integrate new weapons or sensors. That's why it still can't retarget JDAMs on the fly, that's why they still haven't integrated AIM-9Xs, and it's why they still haven't gotten a proper datalink set up. It may be an excellent air superiority platform, but how true will that be in 20 years when it's still struggling to integrate missiles built after 1995? You could rip out the computer and try and integrate one based on the F-35's as Lockheed has proposed, but it would utterly annihilate your cost saving argument (Lockheed won't even disclosed a price tag for the project, only that it's "significant").
  8. I swear to god I think someone at the DEW line is reading this board, because this is the second post in a week covering something discussed about the F-22 here. This time the efforts Lockheed is taking to ease a potential Raptor production re-start.
  9. You've also got both the F/A-18 HARV and F-15 ACTIVE in that shot as well. Throw in a Blackbird and you've got one heck of a NASA all star gallery there.
  10. I'd be remiss if I didn't link to this report on troubles and potentially significant delays in the F-35 program. This comes from two people who have rather large axes to grind against the F-35 (Bill Sweetman who fears it will destroy the European combat aircraft industry, and Winslow Wheeler who's never forgiven the Air Force for ruining his beloved F-16 by putting a radar in it), so take it with a grain of salt. The flip side to that is that (as Sweetman crowed in his post) both Bloomberg and NYT have also picked up the story. On the other other hand this brief was supposed to have happened yesterday and yet there's been no news of an earth shaking delay and jump in costs.
  11. An F-16 theoretically could carry more ordinance under it's wings than an F-35 carries internally, but only if it's planning on dropping it at the end of the runway. On an average mission an F-16 carries 2-4 500-2,000lb bombs, 2-3 AMRAAMs, 1-2 Sidewinders, 2-3 bags of gas, 0-1 Jamming pods, and generally some kind of targeting pod (HTS, Sniper, Litening, etc.). The F-35 has the gas, jammer, and TGP built in, and carries the bombs and AMRAAMs internally while ditching the sidewinders on the theory that stealth and vastly improved situational awareness will obviate the need for them. You're also right, once you start hanging ordinance on the outside of the plane the amount it can carry is pretty staggering.
  12. There's a potential answer to your question of institutional memory and regenerating capability Noyhauser. I could see how that could work out for both sides if they start soon, the Aeronavale gets the UK to essentially pay for part of their deck and air crew, and FAA personnel get to retain (or rather re-acquire) CATOBAR deck handling and flying capabilities.
  13. A nice post hitting on something Noyhauser and I have been harping on for a while now. I'd be interested to hear an actual dollar amount attached to the "significant initial investment" estimate. I wouldn't be surprised if it amounted to a few squadrons worth of F-35s.
  14. Call me a cheerleader all you want, you can't tell me this doesn't look awesome!
  15. Well I never said it was fool proof, just really good. Besides compare your Dessert Storm engagement to some of the ones from Allied force where most of the time fighters were slinging AMRAAMs from long ranges, in awful weather at night.
×