Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[Shadow]

Su-57 Flechette; Foil or Foxtail to add more.

I have to admit, "Flintlock" is a good one.

There are quite few design q's I see influenced from the YF-23 in the 57. The one area that hurts it's stealthiness are the conventional engine exhausts.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Shadow

[Vifam7]

On 8/18/2017 at 6:31 PM, mechaninac said:

Su-57 Fizzle, or Flutter, or Fuzzy, or Fluster, or...  The amount of comically unflattering names are almost endless.

 

How about "Fool's Gold"?  Buyers of the Su-57 will think it's a stealth fighter equal to the F-22 or F-35, but it's really not.

In the meantime, I think the F-35 should be nicknamed Ultra SLUF or SLUF II .

[Devil 505]

7 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

In the meantime, I think the F-35 should be nicknamed Ultra SLUF or SLUF II .

The F-35 isn't slow, and it's not ugly, especially in comparison to the X-32.

[Shadow]

2 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

The F-35 isn't slow, and it's not ugly, especially in comparison to the X-32.

True but it's still a porker. In the same size class as the F-16 but weighing nearly as much as an F-15.

[slide]

48 minutes ago, Shadow said:

True but it's still a porker. In the same size class as the F-16 but weighing nearly as much as an F-15.

a Su-35 can out-turn an F-16 at the merge [once ]...

 

so there's how much "weight of fighter" matters nowadays...

Edited August 20, 2017 by slide

[Dobber]

3 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

The F-35 isn't slow, and it's not ugly,...

That's a matter of opinion....I think it is butt ugly.... and not in a cool way the way some describe the A-10.

Chris

[Shadow]

On 8/20/2017 at 0:49 PM, slide said:

a Su-35 can out-turn an F-16 at the merge [once ]...

 

so there's how much "weight of fighter" matters nowadays...

Comparing an apple to a watermelon there. Having two engines with thrust vector nozzles plus a large wing area make a noticeable difference. Weight does factor in when you have to consider how much the engine has to work to keep the plane at a good speed while remaining efficient.

[slide]

On 8/22/2017 at 9:05 AM, Shadow said:

Comparing an apple to a watermelon there. Having two engines with thrust vector nozzles plus a large wing area make a noticeable difference. Weight does factor in when you have to consider how much the engine has to work to keep the plane at a good speed while remaining efficient.

so are we comparing the "never-going-to-happen 1v1 with a full load of fuel and weapons"?

because Real-world: the F-35 is going to cut and run the second it unloads its BVR missiles, and the Su-35 [or whatever] will never get the chance to gun-kill it.

at least that had better be their plan, because it doesn't carry enough bang to fight off an equivalent number of Russians once they're close enough to see... and due to their nature, I'd expect the F-35 to be OUTnumbered most of the time.

 

 

Yes she's heavy [compared to the last-gen equivalents], but her role is different: Not a defender on the battlements of the cold war, but a ninja in the digital age...

whatever their rational, I still think the '35 is a mistake for all the countries who think it can be their 5th gen airforce all on it's own...

 

I think the Raptor had to go through a bunch of BS so she could fill-in for an F-15E [she certainly got bigger between the YF-22 and the F-22A's that are in service]... but she's still a purebred fighter like the USAF had only dreamed of, and the F-35 is simply there to alleviate the "Mud-Mover" mission from the 22's profile... they only have <190 Raptors, and it doesn't look like there'll be any more.

Edited August 23, 2017 by slide

[dizman]

Even if another fighter gets close enough to the F-35 to use guns it would still be a fight in the F-35s favor since it would most likely be armed with an AIM-9X. With the HUD camera system all you have to do is look at the target and shoot, doesn't matter where it's at and how maneuverable it is. 

[Shadow]

14 hours ago, slide said:

so are we comparing the "never-going-to-happen 1v1 with a full load of fuel and weapons"?

because Real-world: the F-35 is going to cut and run the second it unloads its BVR missiles, and the Su-35 [or whatever] will never get the chance to gun-kill it.

at least that had better be their plan, because it doesn't carry enough bang to fight off an equivalent number of Russians once they're close enough to see... and due to their nature, I'd expect the F-35 to be OUTnumbered most of the time.

 

 

Yes she's heavy [compared to the last-gen equivalents], but her role is different: Not a defender on the battlements of the cold war, but a ninja in the digital age...

whatever their rational, I still think the '35 is a mistake for all the countries who think it can be their 5th gen airforce all on it's own...

 

I think the Raptor had to go through a bunch of BS so she could fill-in for an F-15E [she certainly got bigger between the YF-22 and the F-22A's that are in service]... but she's still a purebred fighter like the USAF had only dreamed of, and the F-35 is simply there to alleviate the "Mud-Mover" mission from the 22's profile... they only have <190 Raptors, and it doesn't look like there'll be any more.

I was making a quip about what helps a heavy class fighter like the Su-35 turn so well. I doubt either Flanker-E or the F-35 will ever meet in RL combat. Besides, the F-35 would have to have F-22s covering it anyway. To me, the F-35 is a data-link node that can also drop bombs and defend itself. It is in it's own class altogether.

 

Also as I recall, they never intended the F-22 to fill-in for the F-15E as the proposed FB-22 never took off which is unfortunate in my view. The F-22 can carry x2 GBU-32s which sort of makes it a supercruising F-117.

[Vifam7]

16 hours ago, slide said:

so are we comparing the "never-going-to-happen 1v1 with a full load of fuel and weapons"?

because Real-world: the F-35 is going to cut and run the second it unloads its BVR missiles, and the Su-35 [or whatever] will never get the chance to gun-kill it.

at least that had better be their plan, because it doesn't carry enough bang to fight off an equivalent number of Russians once they're close enough to see... and due to their nature, I'd expect the F-35 to be OUTnumbered most of the time.

Yes she's heavy [compared to the last-gen equivalents], but her role is different: Not a defender on the battlements of the cold war, but a ninja in the digital age...

whatever their rational, I still think the '35 is a mistake for all the countries who think it can be their 5th gen airforce all on it's own...

 

 

Only China and Russia can somewhat match the US in terms of sheer combat aircraft numbers. Besides, it's not really realistic to think that the bad guys will always be able to send up more fighters than the good guys. And in the real world, it's rarely going to be a straight on 2v4 or 4v4 or whatever X numbers versus X numbers head-to-head engagement.  It's much more complex and fluid.

The F-35 is really about being part of a "system" on how the US and its allies will fight its wars. So, if a certain country is going to fight a war alongside the US, or is counting on US forces to be an integral part of its warfighting, then it makes all the sense to buy the F-35.

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by Vifam7

[kalvasflam]

Probably need more missile/bomb trucks.  If the F-35 is supposed to be a sensor and command node, then you need some trucks to deliver to munitions.

Lots of F-18s and F-15s carrying AMRAAMs and stuff, it's too bad the F-35 and F-18s don't quite have the legs of their predecessors.

[slide]

Just now, dizman said:

Even if another fighter gets close enough to the F-35 to use guns it would still be a fight in the F-35s favor since it would most likely be armed with an AIM-9X. With the HUD camera system all you have to do is look at the target and shoot, doesn't matter where it's at and how maneuverable it is. 

yea... but according to this image, it can only carry them externally, so they never would have AIM-9X on-board if there was as chance of enemy aircraft about; no stealth profile means 0 advantages for the F-35.

so no, I would give a visual fight to the Flankers or Migs, not the Lightnings

 

Just now, Shadow said:

I was making a quip about what helps a heavy class fighter like the Su-35 turn so well. I doubt either Flanker-E or the F-35 will ever meet in RL combat. Besides, the F-35 would have to have F-22s covering it anyway. To me, the F-35 is a data-link node that can also drop bombs and defend itself. It is in it's own class altogether.

exactly. except I'm not confident in it's ability to actually defend itself from a capable threat [other than running to cover/protection].

And even if they did meet, unless the Russians won the fight, and caught it on their guncam, we civilians won't know any details for at least 25 years lol.

 

Just now, Shadow said:

Also as I recall, they never intended the F-22 to fill-in for the F-15E as the proposed FB-22 never took off which is unfortunate in my view. The F-22 can carry x2 GBU-32s which sort of makes it a supercruising F-117.

That's what I meant: F-22 was supposed to be a purebred fighter, and the FB-22 was supposed to replace the F-117 and the F-111s. Or that was the plan, as I recall it...

but then budgets got more cuts, and all of a sudden there was talk about the F-22 replacing the F-15 fleet [and the JSF replacing the F-16], so the '22 had to be able to at least truck some bombs... can't recall if all that happened before, or after the one crashed because of the Thrust vector nozzles...

 

Just now, kalvasflam said:

Probably need more missile/bomb trucks.  If the F-35 is supposed to be a sensor and command node, then you need some trucks to deliver to munitions.

Lots of F-18s and F-15s carrying AMRAAMs and stuff, it's too bad the F-35 and F-18s don't quite have the legs of their predecessors.

I think the plan is to have the '35s command drones carrying SDBs and JDAMs. And apparently, you can sling a $#!%-load of AMRAAMs under the proposed B-1R

Edited August 24, 2017 by slide

[dizman]

Externally mounted AIM-9 only.....that's a bit silly but not surprising.

[Shadow]

8 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

 

Only China and Russia can somewhat match the US in terms of sheer combat aircraft numbers. Besides, it's not really realistic to think that the bad guys will always be able to send up more fighters than the good guys. And in the real world, it's rarely going to be a straight on 2v4 or 4v4 or whatever X numbers versus X numbers head-to-head engagement.  It's much more complex and fluid.

The F-35 is really about being part of a "system" on how the US and its allies will fight its wars. So, if a certain country is going to fight a war alongside the US, or is counting on US forces to be an integral part of its warfighting, then it makes all the sense to buy the F-35.

 

China, Russia and to a growing extent, Iran have capabilities that may not be able to match the F-22 and F-35, they may not need to in order to hinder operational capacity. In a fluid RL situation, adversaries would be looking squarely at support aircraft like tankers and AWACS to take them out of the battle. Russia certainly possesses some real threatening weapons that can do that in the S-300/400 platforms along with newer AA missiles like the R-37 being touted by MiG-31s. In the event that an AWACS is knocked out, the F-35 might be able to help fill in. Unless I'm grossly overestimating it's sensor suite.

[Vifam7]

2 hours ago, Shadow said:

China, Russia and to a growing extent, Iran have capabilities that may not be able to match the F-22 and F-35, they may not need to in order to hinder operational capacity. In a fluid RL situation, adversaries would be looking squarely at support aircraft like tankers and AWACS to take them out of the battle. Russia certainly possesses some real threatening weapons that can do that in the S-300/400 platforms along with newer AA missiles like the R-37 being touted by MiG-31s. In the event that an AWACS is knocked out, the F-35 might be able to help fill in. Unless I'm grossly overestimating it's sensor suite.

 

It's unlikely that the US hasn't thought up of such a possible scenario. Such scenarios were likely thought up and played out in various training exercises. The fact that the US and its allies can train for such possibilities (while having such assets like AWACs, tankers, & stealth fighters to play with) and perhaps have a system on how to deal with it is where there'd be an advantage. Not sure if the RusAF or PLAAF can train to the extent that US forces and allies can. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Vifam7

[kalvasflam]

I thought they gave up on the B-1R.  They'd be better off using F-15s... cause they can still make those at least, I can't remember when was the last time they built a B-1.

[Shadow]

10 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

I thought they gave up on the B-1R.  They'd be better off using F-15s... cause they can still make those at least, I can't remember when was the last time they built a B-1.

From what I read, it was proposed but certainly seems like nothing came of it. Commented on it before but retiring the F-111 and dropping the FB-22 certainly revealed a gap in the Air Force's arsenal that the Mud Hen struggles to fill.

[Thom]

Would there be any detraction from re-engining some B-1s to R specs and giving them external racks? They don't need to build any new ones then.

[AN/ALQ128]

3 hours ago, Thom said:

Would there be any detraction from re-engining some B-1s to R specs and giving them external racks? They don't need to build any new ones then.

B-1 airframes themselves are getting rather long in the tooth. I doubt there'd be much interest in putting a ton of funding into such a comprehensive upgrade for an old bird like her when the F-35 has just gotten past its development hell, and into service. Especially when a potential replacement (the B-21) is just over the horizon.

 

[slide]

9 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

B-1 airframes themselves are getting rather long in the tooth. I doubt there'd be much interest in putting a ton of funding into such a comprehensive upgrade for an old bird like her when the F-35 has just gotten past its development hell, and into service. Especially when a potential replacement (the B-21) is just over the horizon.

Time and budgetary constraints will tell on the B-21...

but the B-2s and B-1s could do with a replacement.

[electric indigo]

509 in dissolving digital splinter camo

[Sildani]

That's cool. 

[annebs2]

SUBJ1

[wm cheng]

8 hours ago, electric indigo said:

509 in dissolving digital splinter camo

Wow!  The Russians do know how to design beautiful sleek looking planes.

[David Hingtgen]

55 minutes ago, wm cheng said:

Wow!  The Russians do know how to design beautiful sleek looking planes.

::cough::  They sure know how to simplify/cheapen the YF-23 and put it into production...

[electric indigo]

The profile is even sleeker

So there is the story of the R2-D2 dome emitting laser beams to blind incoming IR-missiles?

Edited August 27, 2017 by electric indigo

[seti88]

The pilot be like...

[Dobber]

I was going to say the Russians sure know how to make cool camo schemes.....along with pretty planes

Chris

[Dobber]

4 hours ago, electric indigo said:

The profile is even sleeker

So there is the story of the R2-D2 dome emitting laser beams to blind incoming IR-missiles?

So what your saying is that it has the real world equivalent of head lasers!? Awesome!

Chris

Edited August 27, 2017 by Dobber

[spanner]

On 8/27/2017 at 5:01 AM, electric indigo said:

509 in dissolving digital splinter camo

gorgeous plane eh! And I love that paint scheme! The new Sukhoi is easily my favorite of the 5th gen fighters!

[wm cheng]

Yeah!!!  It certainly looks like the YF23 and I'd always preferred that over the 22 from a looks point of view.  If it only had non-round vectored thrust exhaust it would look so much more futuristic.  I can't wait for Hasegawa to come out with a super detailed 1/72 mold of this puppy!  Love the digital camo too, just would prefer to switch out the minty green for a light/med grey.

Edited August 27, 2017 by wm cheng

[AN/ALQ128]

I'm not sure I see the resemblance to the YF-23. They look completely different to me.

[grigolosi]

The F-35 isn't in the same size class as an F-16. The plane is huge compared to an F-16. I got to look at one up close back in 11' before I retired from AD. But in comparison yes it is supposed to take over the F-16's role in the AF. As I was looking at the picture of the new Russian toy. I noticed a couple of things. First of all no notching on the inboard edge next to the LEF's, F-22's have this to deter this sizable radar return surface ( I also noticed this on the Chinese monstrosity of a fighter). Second I noticed the Russians as in typical fashion only dog toothed certain panels, i.E. the landing gear doors. The rest of the surface has noticeable straight edge panel lines across the surface. If it has a negligible RCS I am curious as to how they did it without either coating the surface or panel lines with RAM or angling edges.  Been away awhile, was changing employers. Also here is a video shot this week by the IQAF MOD and posted to their FB page. Showing a walk around and launch of one of their F-16 training missions.......

 

[Shadow]

A spinning whirlwind of Nope!