Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nied

  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
  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 furth
  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 how
  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
  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 happen
  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 a
  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.
  16. That actually hasn't been true since the 70s. There's been a real revolution in IFF for BVR, in addition to long range optical systems like the Tomcat's TCS or the Rafale's OSF there's a rather shadowy world of what's called Non Cooperative Target Recognition. How it works is still classified but systems have been rumored to do anything from count the fan blades on engine faces, to picking up on the resonance of the various comms antennae on an aircraft. Regardless of how it works quite a few modern fighters have sprouted IFF antennae farms on their noses. I think the bigger reason we see
  17. The SA will be similar to the SG but definitely not the same. The SG has quite a bit of Israeli avionics in it, which the SA for obvious reasons will not have.
  18. I think you might be overestimating the difficulties just a little here. The AĆ©ronavale has already spent a good deal of time cross decking with the US Navy while the Charles De Gaulle was in refit, they made a conscious decision to move away from the old bridle catapults with the introduction of the Rafale and the CDG for precisely that reason. The only big problem is that the QE will be equipped with EMALs catapults vs the steam cats currently used by the Navy and AĆ©ronavale but by the time the FAA has them in service those two will as well, and I don't know how much of a difference they w
  19. Meh, I've been saying the F-35C was the best looking version since it's first flight a couple of months ago. The others just don't have the right proportions (F-35A's wings are too small, F-35B has a hump back).
  20. CF-01 finally gets a paint job. It already looked good flying around in primer, and with full coatings it looks fantastic! Can't wait to see it flying again in this paint scheme.
  21. Looks can be deceiving. The Navy didn't want, and Lockheed/Boeing/GD didn't design in much performance above the F-14's, if any at all. Remember the A/FX was supposed to do the job of the A-6 first and the F-14 second (and with a big watering down of the F-14's job description at that).
  22. Which Lockheed/Boeing? There were two as I said, one with General Dynamics and one with Northrup. The main difference was the nose of the Northrup version was much broader and almost triangular, while the GD version was more F-22-like. Neither would have been any great shakes against an F-14 since air-to-air wasn't supposed to be their specialty. They only had enough performance to take over the F-14's fleet defense mission, and to ward off anything that tried to get in the way of completing their strike mission. A good indication of what the A/F-X was intended for is the fact that even t
  23. Actually I was going to ask which AF/X were you looking at because there were several. Lockheed alone had four different proposals depending with different partners, two were with Boeing (with Northrup or General Dynamics being the third partner) were based off of Lockheed's original NATF proposal, and were thus very similar. While the third Lockheed offered alone and was a heavily upgraded F-117 with a bubble canopy, new wings and tail and possibly afterburning engines, and the fourth offered with Rockwell was a big pointed triangle with flip out swing wings. McDonnell Douglas got back tog
  24. I'd actually agree with this sentiment, there has been a move in US military circles over the past several decades to favor quality over quantity. I think in part as a response to the Soviet Union's clear quantitative advantage. That's part of why I've become a bigger supporter of the F-35 program, because it starts to break that paradigm. It may not stack up quite as well as other 5th generation designs in some areas, but the shear numbers of highly adaptable network enabled fighters we plan on deploying will easily overwhelm any potential foe we could face in the next few years. Russia i
  25. Oh man don't even get me started on debt to GDP ratios, you think Japan's looks bad look at the US's after WWII. Then look at 1)How long it took to bring that ratio down, 2)the tax rates we used to bring it down (especially top marginal rates) and 3) what else the government spent money on at the same time. I could write a whole post about this but it'd waaaaaay off topic. I think those worried about weakening US power need to think of it in relative terms. By 2020 our nearest closest peer in terms of airpower China, will have about 300-400 Su-27/J-11s of various types, 500-600 J-10s, and m
  • Create New...