Noyhauser Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 According to boeing, they want this fighter to be in service by 2020~2025, which I thought might be kinda hasty. This is a slide from a boeing presentation that might give you a sense of how they perceive the market in the future. (Courtesy of aviation week) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 We are currently on the train in the French countryside and two fully loaded French Air Force Mirage 2000's just went tearing right over us at about 100 meters off of the ground. Dope!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowen Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Heh, that's pretty high for the Frenchies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted August 13, 2010 Author Share Posted August 13, 2010 (edited) The Antonov strategic airlifters are monstrous... I think the AN-225 still holds all sorts of records for cargo weight being flown from point A to B. Unfortunately, most of the people on this side of the world are too dumb and ignorant to realize that Ukraine is not the same as Russia. Letting An compete is really no different than allowing Airbus to bid on contracts. I imagine when Antonov submits a serious proposal (on time) the USAF might consider it. As it was all they did was photoshop a pair of GEnX engines onto an An-70 and then claim they were going to attach a refueling boom to the cargo door! And then they couldn't even get their shoddy proposal delivered on time. For comparison's sake both Boeing and Airbus delivered their proposals at least several hours early (I think Airbus' was delivered a full day ahead) and had multiple couriers taking redundant copies of the proposal through several different travel methods just to be sure they would make it on time. Related. Still not a fan of the way the 7fatty7 looks. Edited August 13, 2010 by Nied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 (edited) Hey, we get to have a say in how to run the PLAAF (OK ok, just their J-10 demonstration team). http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/nz/j10tuzhuang/index.shtml None of em look particularly appealing, although the 2nd one has a Macross Plus tinge to it and the 3rd and 4th remind of some Yamato Macross nth Anniversary 1/48 repaint. Edited August 13, 2010 by Retracting Head Ter Ter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vifam7 Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 (edited) Hey, we get to have a say in how to run the PLAAF (OK ok, just their J-10 demonstration team). http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/nz/j10tuzhuang/index.shtml None of em look particularly appealing, although the 2nd one has a Macross Plus tinge to it and the 3rd and 4th remind of some Yamato Macross nth Anniversary 1/48 repaint. Looks terrible. I agree that none of the colors and patterns are really that appealing. Though, if they make the colors and patterns on every ship uniform, it might help. Btw, what's the name of their aerobatic team? Edited August 13, 2010 by Vifam7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 Btw, what's the name of their aerobatic team? Pretty boring name IMHO. Its called the 'Ba Yi' (August the 1st) Aerobatics Team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 Hey, we get to have a say in how to run the PLAAF (OK ok, just their J-10 demonstration team). http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/nz/j10tuzhuang/index.shtml None of em look particularly appealing, although the 2nd one has a Macross Plus tinge to it and the 3rd and 4th remind of some Yamato Macross nth Anniversary 1/48 repaint. I like the 1st and 2nd schemes, they remind my of the M7 Emerald Force VF-19F and VF-19S respectively. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Train Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 lolz for extra Chinese fortune and luck.... why not call it å…«å…« / ba ba / eight-eight ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 lolz for extra Chinese fortune and luck.... why not call it å…«å…« / ba ba / eight-eight ? Because then Kaoru Shintani would sue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daigoro Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 (edited) lolz for extra Chinese fortune and luck.... why not call it å…«å…« / ba ba / eight-eight ? August 1 refers to August 1, 1927 -- the founding of the PLA. According to boeing, they want this fighter to be in service by 2020~2025, which I thought might be kinda hasty. This is a slide from a boeing presentation that might give you a sense of how they perceive the market in the future. (Courtesy of aviation week) (graphic omitted) Nice graphic. But if the U.S. experiences a "Lost Decade" (or Decades) like Japan, you can throw all those dates out the window... Edited August 16, 2010 by Daigoro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 August 1 refers to August 1, 1927 -- the founding of the PLA. Nice graphic. But if the U.S. experiences a "Lost Decade" (or Decades) like Japan, you can throw all those dates out the window... If the US experienced a "lost decade" like Japan, then we could expect two fighters to be in service, not just one (Japan has seen a massive rearmament program in the past decade.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) I ordered a Hobbymaster 1/72 F-22A. What version of the thread were we talking about that in? We can't search inside a single thread anymore? Sigh. Anyways, anyone get one? David? I've been reading about the 'mod' to make some of the gaps around the landing gear, etc disappear and curious what I'm in for. Edited August 17, 2010 by Uxi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daigoro Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) If the US experienced a "lost decade" like Japan, then we could expect two fighters to be in service, not just one (Japan has seen a massive rearmament program in the past decade.) Huh? They may be rearming -- like the rest of Asia -- but their current frontline fighter types are the same ones they've been using since the start of that lost decade -- the F-15J and the F-2. I don't get your analogy. EDIT: My mistake -- the F-2 didn't actually enter service until 2000 -- well after the bubble burst, so basically Japan managed to introduce one new type during that time. (Also I didn't know that the F-4 Phantom II is STILL in service with them, though I wonder if that could be called a frontline fighter for them...) The Japanese also drastically reduced their order for the F-2 from 141 planes to 98... Anyway, there is no way the U.S. could emulate the deficit spending of Japan -- 90% of their government bonds are bought by Japanese, while the U.S. relies on foreigners to buy around half of theirs. Not that Americans should want to emulate the Japanese -- with their debt approaching 200% of GDP and their credit rating downrated, some economists are worried Japan might have the next sovereign debt crisis... Edited August 17, 2010 by Daigoro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 I haven't bought any F-22 kits, and don't plan to. Every single one is designed to have everything "opened up"---and that's too much work for me (god I hate painting gloss white, especially heavily-detailed three-dimensional areas), and it's too much work to close everything up. From what I've seen, there's 2 general categories of F-22 kits: Early ones that have shape/accuracy issues. Recent ones that are accurate, but way over-done panelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 It's not a kit, it's the assembled die-cast toy version. IIRC you were saying it was the most accurate back in the day, but that may have changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Whoops, I misread what you wrote. Actually, if you get the latest one, the HM F-22 may be about the best you can get. Good shape, panels not over-done. (HM has been gradually tweaking each one, tightening up the fit/seams) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewie Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 My buddy was on FB having a heart attack over some sounds up north in Portland. http://www.kxly.com/news/24665004/detail.html I would have loved to have heard it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Float plane was apparently on the ground before they even got there. Not fast enough... (The F-20 might have been able to do it though!) PS---seems they had to ask permission to go supersonic. I wonder what it takes for them to be allowed to "just do it". PPS---in related news, Air Force One is still very shiny: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Got it. Pretty damned cool. This is probably from the last batch of the Langley birds, not an Elmendorf. There is a slight gap under the canopy but I'd only know it's there if light is shining behind it. I don't really get the point of the movable horizontal stabs if those are the only parts that move. Moving flaps and ailerons, leading edge, etc would have been nice little touches but definitely cool. Currently displayed plane with all panels closed (how I like it). Wish they would do a concept F-23A... wish someone would re-release the 1/72 kit (problems or not, but ideally fixed up). I keep losing on evil-bay. What do you think was likely to change from YF-23 to F-23A production if it had won, David? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Huh? They may be rearming -- like the rest of Asia -- but their current frontline fighter types are the same ones they've been using since the start of that lost decade -- the F-15J and the F-2. I don't get your analogy. EDIT: My mistake -- the F-2 didn't actually enter service until 2000 -- well after the bubble burst, so basically Japan managed to introduce one new type during that time. (Also I didn't know that the F-4 Phantom II is STILL in service with them, though I wonder if that could be called a frontline fighter for them...) The Japanese also drastically reduced their order for the F-2 from 141 planes to 98... Anyway, there is no way the U.S. could emulate the deficit spending of Japan -- 90% of their government bonds are bought by Japanese, while the U.S. relies on foreigners to buy around half of theirs. Not that Americans should want to emulate the Japanese -- with their debt approaching 200% of GDP and their credit rating downrated, some economists are worried Japan might have the next sovereign debt crisis... I know. the indicates I was kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 YF-23 vs F-23? Lengthened forward fuselage to add a Sidewinder bay in front of the AMRAAM bay was the big thing. I think it was actually Nied who mentioned changes to the exhausts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Probably. Can't seem to search within a thread anymore. YF-22 to F-22A saw practically the entire plane redesigned, though, moving the cockpit, redesigned wings and horizontal stabs, etc Think the 23 would have been as drastic for production? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted August 18, 2010 Author Share Posted August 18, 2010 YF-23 vs F-23? Lengthened forward fuselage to add a Sidewinder bay in front of the AMRAAM bay was the big thing. I think it was actually Nied who mentioned changes to the exhausts? Yeah the engine nacelles on the YF-23 were designed to be big enough to house the thrust reversers originally called for in the ATF specs. Since that got deleted in the final requirement the production model's would have been slimmer. I also found out recently that the intakes would have been re-designed as well, the production model would have featured F-104/Mirage like shock cones. I'll see if I can dig up the diagram I found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Yeah, I remember reading about the thrust reversers getting deleted from the requirements. Shock cones huh. THAT is something that I haven't read before. Please post 'er up. And any other thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 (edited) Shock cones? Does that mean it was meant to go much faster? Oh, and Uxi, I got the Italeri 1/72 YF-23. I bought two when I saw it in the shop years ago, thinking that noone would make em again. Edited August 18, 2010 by Retracting Head Ter Ter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobbes221 Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Here's some pics that I think shows what you guys are talking about on the -23s, don't know if they're official or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beltane70 Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 I don't know if anyone has seen this, they had an interview today with the pilot from the F-18 crash in Canada: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38752427#38752427 The only injuries he received were compression fractures in his spine. He's expected to have a complete recovery and should be flying again in a month or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Here's some pics that I think shows what you guys are talking about on the -23s, don't know if they're official or not. I have confirmation from someone I work with here who was an FTE on YF-23 that those are real pictures. The "shock cones" are actually meant more as radar blockers, but yes they had the added benefit of increasing the top speed somewhat. THere were some later drawings as well for other production variants, and they were quite sweet. Oh but if I could only share them with you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Could you *describe* them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) I have confirmation from someone I work with here who was an FTE on YF-23 that those are real pictures. The "shock cones" are actually meant more as radar blockers, but yes they had the added benefit of increasing the top speed somewhat. THere were some later drawings as well for other production variants, and they were quite sweet. Oh but if I could only share them with you guys. I'd be happy with your conjecture on the evolution of a production F-23A and variants, as well. Edited August 19, 2010 by Uxi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted August 19, 2010 Author Share Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) Yup those are the pictures I saw. My understanding of the shock cones was that they were both radar blockers as Knight26 said, and that they helped disrupt the boundary layer air going into the intakes. Sort of a primitive version of the F-35's DSI inlets. Also note how much slimmer the rear fuselage gets without the extra space for thrust reversers, much more aesthetically pleasing than the YF-23's squared off fat ass. All in all you're talking about basically a whole new fuselage for a notional F-23A while retaining the YF-23's wings with minor changes (almost a complete reversal from the YF-22 which had it's wings replaced with completely new one's but minor changes to the fuselage). It's certainly more attractive than it's Naval cousin. Edited August 19, 2010 by Nied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 On that subject, I can't think of any aircraft with underbody intakes and shock cones. All seem to be side or pylon/wing mounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raptormesh Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Shock cones? Does that mean it was meant to go much faster? Oh, and Uxi, I got the Italeri 1/72 YF-23. I bought two when I saw it in the shop years ago, thinking that noone would make em again. I've got a Tamiya 1/72 YF-23 kit which I'm too nervous to touch laying around in my parents' place. Does anybody know if it's an accurate representation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electric indigo Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) The Tamiya, Revell und Testors YF-23s are reboxed versions of the Italeri kit. There seems to be another kit made by Dragon. The Italeri model is fairly accurate in shape, but to me the bigger issue are the raised panel lines and the sparse surface details. This is a nice kit, but unfortunately still in limbo. Edited August 19, 2010 by electric indigo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts