Jump to content
Nied

Aircraft Vs Super Thread VI

Recommended Posts

The F-23 goes to sea.

Took 20 years, but a look at what the Northrop NATF would have looked like has finally been revealed. Other then the diamond wings, it otherwise looks like a totally different aircraft.

Wow. I never put much stock in the theory that Northrop lost because Lockheed's had a stronger NATF proposal, but if that really is their proposal for an F-23N I may have to re-think that. I think David might have to eat his "Nobody else could make planes that ugly," remark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't realize he had posted this on Secret Projects a month ago...

Northrop NATF

(up-ship.com is "Orionblamblam"s personal blog)

Supposedly additional views of that CAD printout coming soon!

post-342-127389155062_thumb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, Iran acquires multiple 747-400s. Now, China's got mil-spec surveillance 737s. Whoever's in charge of "making sure modern Boeings don't go to sanctioned nations" really sucks at their job.

00000128a77226d334f208f0007f000000000001.PLAAF%20737%23.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NATF, we hardly knew ye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, Iran acquires multiple 747-400s. Now, China's got mil-spec surveillance 737s. Whoever's in charge of "making sure modern Boeings don't go to sanctioned nations" really sucks at their job.

00000128a77226d334f208f0007f000000000001.PLAAF%20737%23.jpg

Now now David, that's clearly an original design that looks nothing like a Boeing 737 and any suggestion to the contrary is merely a transparent attempt to downplay the glorious technical achievement of the People's Republic. ;)

I hadn't heard anything about Iran buying 747-400s, got a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, Iran acquires multiple 747-400s. Now, China's got mil-spec surveillance 737s. Whoever's in charge of "making sure modern Boeings don't go to sanctioned nations" really sucks at their job.

00000128a77226d334f208f0007f000000000001.PLAAF%20737%23.jpg

Obviously an original design. It is part of the PLAAF's ASTRO PLAN initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, that's interesting. I wonder what they're going to use them for? Three jets seems like too few to even fly one route, especially when they'll likely have little to no support from Boeing. I can't even think of a military application they'd need a 747 for.

In other news the F-35 just completed it's 200th flight, and the first two production standard F-35As flew to Edwards to begin testing which presented the opportunity for a very nice photo op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously an original design. It is part of the PLAAF's ASTRO PLAN initiative.

Government planes

China has like Ten 737 B-4052 most likely has been modified by china not Boeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government planes

China has like Ten 737 B-4052 most likely has been modified by china not Boeing.

You obviously have problems understanding Macross humor/sarcasm :p ... and making links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

second try

www.sinodefence.com/aircraft/airlift/b737.asp I have not become used to the new lay out

Here is another source, and I replied to the wrong post sorry.

Edited by miles316

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, that's interesting. I wonder what they're going to use them for? Three jets seems like too few to even fly one route, especially when they'll likely have little to no support from Boeing. I can't even think of a military application they'd need a 747 for.

Iran has the world's only 747 tankers. Possible they want a couple more with even greater capacity and range. They just need to reverse-engineer the original mods that Boeing did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran has the world's only 747 tankers. Possible they want a couple more with even greater capacity and range. They just need to reverse-engineer the original mods that Boeing did.

My understanding was that the IRIAF hasn't found much use for them, and their KC-707s see a lot more work. If they're looking for new tankers they'd be better off buying some old 767s, A300s or 757s and trying to mate a boom to them. I could see them trying to throw a radome up on top for a home-grown AWACS, the extra space of a 747 might be an advantage if you're trying out different configurations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A buddy of mine at work knows I have contacts with obsessed people, lol, so asked me if anyone had some 3-views of the Williams V-Jet2, he needs it for a project he is working on, and can't find any. If anyone has some, or knows where to find some please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are those the definitive production standard?

Not with those pitot tubes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting reading about JSF- I was under the impression that the GE/RR engine had been axed a few years ago. while there's some merit in the competition argument, it seems unlikely that the benefits would pay off. plus it's not really competition if the same body is funding both sides...

Reading some of the linked articles, it does seem odd that under the US system one branch of government can be trying to move in one direction, and another effectively just ignores it and spends lots of money on stuff anyway ("ah, a few more F-18s won't hurt"). I know the US system is all about checks and balances, but this seems a bit daft. I apologise if this is straying too close to politics.

That JSF is getting less commonality is hardly a surprise - though I wonder how that percentage of common parts looks without the STOVL version (and how much of this loss of commonality is down to the weight reduction programs of the last couple of years).

My personal take on this for the UK hasn't really changes in the last few years - the Royal Navy should drop the STOVL variant, stick cats and wires on the new carriers, and buy F-35C / Superbugs / Rafales / naval Typhoons. the RAF can replace their harriers with either F-35A, more Typhoons or maybe Gripens (Gripen would probably be quite a good fit for harrier replacement as it's meant for dispersed operation & has good STOL capabilities).

this whole thing has dragged on that long now the the RAF also need to be thinking about what's going to replace The Tornado GR4s in the bomb truck role, as those are going to be positively ancient by the time whatever is going to replace them comes into service.

Edited by RFT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta admit, the Joint Strike Fatty looks good in the new pics.

Er, been meaning to post, but the JSF strikes me as very awkward looking. Not the worst by far but....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, been meaning to post, but the JSF strikes me as very awkward looking. Not the worst by far but....

I like the widely spaced canted twin-tailfins and the stabilators jutting out past the fins and exhaust pipe. The air-intakes could be cooler-looking IMO. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the production F-35 looked a lot better than a lot people gave it credit, I think the less refined shape of the X-35 got stuck in a lot of peoples head. I will say with that short nose and bulbous canopy I can't help but think of my brother's chihuahua from certain angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the production F-35 looked a lot better than a lot people gave it credit, I think the less refined shape of the X-35 got stuck in a lot of peoples head. I will say with that short nose and bulbous canopy I can't help but think of my brother's chihuahua from certain angles.

I think the 35C looks best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 35C looks best.

Agreed though I haven't really liked any of the stealth aircraft designs with the exception of maybe the B-2 and YF-23.

My personal take on this for the UK hasn't really changes in the last few years - the Royal Navy should drop the STOVL variant, stick cats and wires on the new carriers, and buy F-35C / Superbugs / Rafales / naval Typhoons. the RAF can replace their harriers with either F-35A, more Typhoons or maybe Gripens (Gripen would probably be quite a good fit for harrier replacement as it's meant for dispersed operation & has good STOL capabilities).

this whole thing has dragged on that long now the the RAF also need to be thinking about what's going to replace The Tornado GR4s in the bomb truck role, as those are going to be positively ancient by the time whatever is going to replace them comes into service.

So, you don't want any future VTOL capable aircraft in the RAF or Royal Navy? Just found that kind of odd considering how big a role the Harrier has played with the British services.

Edited by Shadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The harrier's played a great role in the RAF for the last 30-odd years, but the main advantage that VTOL offers - dispersed operations away from fixed airbases was very important in the cold war, but seem a lot less so now.

VTOL/STOVL means massive compromises on the airframe side (in warload / fuel capacity) that I'm not sure are worth putting up with if there's a clear opportunity not to have to do it. With the new Navy Carriers being big enough to support CATBAR or STOBAR operation, I'm not sure there's a compelling case for F-35B with either the RAF or the RN. F-35A or C will be on most measures a more capable aircraft, and probably cheaper to operate.

This whole situation is of course subject to UK government spending review, and there's no guarantee now that the both the new carriers or F-35 will actually be procured (though a conservative government seems less likely to cut them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the production F-35 looked a lot better than a lot people gave it credit, I think the less refined shape of the X-35 got stuck in a lot of peoples head. I will say with that short nose and bulbous canopy I can't help but think of my brother's chihuahua from certain angles.

Have to admit those the bulbous canopy and the shorter nose make it look at lot more pleasing to the eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 35C looks best.

Speak of the devil and he shall come. It's in taxi tests right now, which means it could be flying as soon as tomorrow.

post-752-127552145646_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheaper alternative? Sure

http://aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/06/03/01.xml&headline=Pentagon%20Recertifies%20JSF,%20Cost%20Increases&channel=defense

So, the F-35 has a flyaway cost of $133M per unit, as opposed to $92.4M a few months ago. Geez, a couple more revisions, it'll cost more than the -22.

So, less capabilities, not that much cheaper than the -22, one wonders why Gates was so adamant in shutting down the -22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheaper alternative? Sure

http://aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/06/03/01.xml&headline=Pentagon%20Recertifies%20JSF,%20Cost%20Increases&channel=defense

So, the F-35 has a flyaway cost of $133M per unit, as opposed to $92.4M a few months ago. Geez, a couple more revisions, it'll cost more than the -22.

So, less capabilities, not that much cheaper than the -22, one wonders why Gates was so adamant in shutting down the -22.

Because that price is almost certain to drop significantly once production gets underway and the US and all its allies start buying JSFs. By comparison the F-22's costs actually haven't decreased that much and aren't likely to over time because of all the features; moreover there is no way in hell the US would have bought sufficient numbers of the fighter to bring the cost down significantly. For comparison, FY2000 Super Hornets cost about 90 million each (and I believe the initial estimates had them around 110 million), now they are around 60 million. So its nowhere close to a fair estimate of cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×