Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[Thom]

Time to dust off the YF-23 plans....

If something did come of it (that being the ability to at least export F-22 tech on at least a limited basis) I wonder of the US might also be a buyer.

[Shadow]

I like alot of Matsimus' videos and he finally did one on the F-14.

 

[F-ZeroOne]

Minor bit of F-35 news, the first nine F-35s for the UK are due to arrive here in mid-July.

[Shadow]

Someone at Boeing wants to turn the Bone into a loitering gunship. You can hear the faint sound of collective facepalming by AC-130 and A-10 pilots.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20782/boeings-been-granted-a-patent-for-turning-the-b-1b-into-a-gunship-bristling-with-cannons

[F-ZeroOne]

Good grief, is Russia in response patenting some sort of disposable rocket interceptor that fires one salvo of rockets at the incoming B-17... I mean, B-1 formation and which then rams its target whilst the pilot parachute... I mean, ejects?

Edited May 12, 2018 by F-ZeroOne
Typos!

[kalvasflam]

14 hours ago, Shadow said:

Someone at Boeing wants to turn the Bone into a loitering gunship. You can hear the faint sound of collective facepalming by AC-130 and A-10 pilots.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20782/boeings-been-granted-a-patent-for-turning-the-b-1b-into-a-gunship-bristling-with-cannons

Is this even realistic, I mean the B-1 can't be operating supersonic while using those guns... right?   right?

[Sildani]

The patent writing says it can. Now, can it be accurate at supersonic speeds? Hmm. All I can say is, I wouldn’t want to be the FAC on the ground when it has its combat debut. 

[kalvasflam]

Ok, raise your hands if you think it's just better to go with lasers.  B-1B with friggin lasers.  I wonder how effective that weapon will actually be, since there is no boom unless the target provides it.

[Smiley424]

They are doing demolition/refurbishing on a hangar here at the Guam Internation Airport and a Mig-15? was pulled out of storage.  The story is that some rich guy brought it in 20+ years ago and it's been in storage since.  I believe they tried to get it certified to fly, but never could for one reason or another.

[Shadow]

Someone drew up some concept art of what a production F-32 may have looked like. I honestly like it. It looks like the A-7 brought into the 5th generation.

[Petrov27]

Yeah shoot those renders make it look a 1000x better than the prototype

 

[kalvasflam]

Ok, so, the loser of the JSF is going to contend for the next gen air superiority fighter?  That isn't even remotely realistic, if Boring goes that route, they may as well just rehash the F-23.  Although I think I heard that the original Boeing JSF contender lost because it looked like a pregnant whale rather than any performance shortfalls, not sure what the reality was.   But then, all Lockheed did was take the F-22 and removed an engine and weapon storage.

[slide]

Just now, kalvasflam said:

But then, all Lockheed did -Structurally- was take the F-22 and removed an engine and weapon storage.

And design a lift-fan system for the 'B, and then completely revamp the avionics and attempt to develop a helmet-mounted cuing system that also allows [was to allow?] the pilot multi-phase visuals/targeting through the cockpit itself in 360 degrees, and an all-aspect multi-phase threat warning system, and, and, and.... they got a little ambitious with Electronics and were in the fortunate position to be able to scale-down a raptor to the size they thought they needed...

My suspicion is this will all prove to have been another misguided attempt to shove too many missions into an air-frame... I guess we'll find out soon if it worked or not...

Edited May 20, 2018 by slide

[AN/ALQ128]

4 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Ok, so, the loser of the JSF is going to contend for the next gen air superiority fighter?  That isn't even remotely realistic, if Boring goes that route, they may as well just rehash the F-23.  Although I think I heard that the original Boeing JSF contender lost because it looked like a pregnant whale rather than any performance shortfalls, not sure what the reality was.   But then, all Lockheed did was take the F-22 and removed an engine and weapon storage.

The X-32 lost due to multiple shortcomings, the biggest being an inferior lift system to the X-35 (which would lead to hot exhaust being reingested by the intake), failure to iron out issues with making the upper surface of the wings out of a single piece of carbon composite (which would have provided significant weight savings), issues with reaching the top speed of the aircraft and making vertical flight in the same test flight (this meant that Boeing had two different aircraft in testing, the X-32A and X-32B), and a sudden Navy decision to modify low speed manuevring requirements, necessitating a change in planform for the X-32.

[sketchley]

4 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Ok, so, the loser of the JSF is going to contend for the next gen air superiority fighter?  That isn't even remotely realistic, if Boring goes that route, they may as well just rehash the F-23.  Although I think I heard that the original Boeing JSF contender lost because it looked like a pregnant whale rather than any performance shortfalls, not sure what the reality was.   But then, all Lockheed did was take the F-22 and removed an engine and weapon storage.

... well, it's a wee bit more complicated then that, but I do agree about it looking like a pregnant whale (even those renders don't hide the fact that it's not a sleek looking fighter).

I'm not sure the specifics, but I'm pretty sure that the X-35's "Mission X" clinched the deal (in short, a sortie outside of the test regime that had the test craft do a STOVL takeoff, and transition to supersonic flight).  The "Boring" test craft couldn't do that - it had to swap out a bunch of equipment to do either action.

[kalvasflam]

2 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

The X-32 lost due to multiple shortcomings, the biggest being an inferior lift system to the X-35 (which would lead to hot exhaust being reingested by the intake), failure to iron out issues with making the upper surface of the wings out of a single piece of carbon composite (which would have provided significant weight savings), issues with reaching the top speed of the aircraft and making vertical flight in the same test flight (this meant that Boeing had two different aircraft in testing, the X-32A and X-32B), and a sudden Navy decision to modify low speed manuevring requirements, necessitating a change in planform for the X-32.

Nice picture.  I agree with the fact that the Pentagon is trying to cram too many missions into one platform.   

The typical example was what happened to the typical carrier air wing.  I recall in the mid 80s, the air wing composition was pretty balanced and mission specific.  F-14s to defend the fleet, A-6 were the medium bombers, A-7s transitioning to F-18s were the light attacks, S-3 and Sea Kings were the ASW long and short distance, KA-6B were tankers, EA-6Bs were dedicated electronic warfare, and the E-2 were the mini AWACS.  Fast forward thirty years, the typical carrier air wing is undersized.  There are no more dedicated ASW patrol planes any more, F-18s have taken over the role of the fleet defender, bombers, EW, and tankers the only other aircraft type they haven't replaced with the F-18s are the E-2s.  Sadly, the F-18s are not great for most of those missions except may be for the light attack.  This is what happens when you get the peace dividend.

The USAF is not far behind, trying to replace the F-16s and A-10s with the F-35.  Thankfully, the F-15E and F-16Ds aren't going to be completely retired.  I suppose the other problem is the USAF or rather the various aerospace companies keep coming up with crazy concepts, like the B-1B gunship, and I think there was also a B-1R where the B-1 essentially carried a bunch of AMRAAMs and is tethered to F-22 or F-35 or something like that... not sure if I have that one mixed up with something else.

[dizman]

15 hours ago, slide said:

My suspicion is this will all prove to have been another misguided attempt to shove too many missions into an air-frame... I guess we'll find out soon if it worked or not...

Give it ten more years of actual combat testing and the F-35 will probably be able to accomplish everything it was advertised to do, revamping the F-22 to work with all of the proposed F-35 systems may be the big challenge.

[Shadow]

21 hours ago, dizman said:

Give it ten more years of actual combat testing and the F-35 will probably be able to accomplish everything it was advertised to do, revamping the F-22 to work with all of the proposed F-35 systems may be the big challenge.

It'll need to happen sooner or later. Perhaps something really does come from Japan wanting an "F-22/F-35 hybrid" and what we really get is a Raptor with the APG-81 and many other JSF systems with Japan footing the bill.

The F-15E does a great job but the AF still lacks a good interdiction/medium bomber aircraft since retiring the F-111.

The Navy has a bigger problem on it's hands as the Super Hornet and F-35C struggle in a number of crucial areas that may be exploited by potential future adversaries. Namely lack of range and loiter time. Area's the F-14 excelled in. I hope the Navy really takes a serious look at a future Fleet Defender aircraft.

[Sildani]

It’ll be a drone, if it happens at all. People always forget that the Tomcat was a maintenance hog. 

[Vifam7]

1 hour ago, Sildani said:

It’ll be a drone, if it happens at all. People always forget that the Tomcat was a maintenance hog. 

 

Plus, there's no current need for a fleet defender. The Cold War is over and the navy doesn't have to worry about waves of Soviet Backfire or Badger bombers firing AS-4 Kitchen or AS-6 Kingfish missiles at carrier battle groups.

[Shadow]

Good points but this is more about being prepared for threats for the next 10 - 15 if not 20 years. A fleet defender may not have to directly protect the fleet but protect key asset's (AWACS and tanker's) operating in the airspace vulnerable to newer threats like the J-20 and Su-35.

[kalvasflam]

3 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

 

Plus, there's no current need for a fleet defender. The Cold War is over and the navy doesn't have to worry about waves of Soviet Backfire or Badger bombers firing AS-4 Kitchen or AS-6 Kingfish missiles at carrier battle groups.

Are you kidding, the specialization of aircraft will be more necessary than ever in the next two decades.  A derivative of the S-3 will be more necessary than ever given the newer Russian subs.  I don't think they'll be using F-18s for that role.  As far as fleet defenders are concerned, China has a large number of J-11, J-10, H-6, JH-7s, and that doesn't even begin to take into account possible J-20s.  Now, that doesn't mean going back to an F-14, but it sure as heck means that F-18s and the F-35s need to be replaced with something that can go against those numbers and possible stealth.   Admittedly, using UCLASS for tankers will alleviate some of the problems, but the -18s still have very short legs. < 500 miles when loaded for combat if I remember right, 

[slide]

2 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Are you kidding, the specialization of aircraft will be more necessary than ever in the next two decades.  

No no no, It'll be fine, the F-111 will make a great Fleet-Defense fighter in addition to airforce bomber, right?!

Edited May 22, 2018 by slide

[kalvasflam]

touche, I guess so was the F-4s.

[AN/ALQ128]

The F-35 has seen its first combat sortie.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44210403

[Vifam7]

12 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Are you kidding, the specialization of aircraft will be more necessary than ever in the next two decades.  A derivative of the S-3 will be more necessary than ever given the newer Russian subs.  I don't think they'll be using F-18s for that role.  As far as fleet defenders are concerned, China has a large number of J-11, J-10, H-6, JH-7s, and that doesn't even begin to take into account possible J-20s.  Now, that doesn't mean going back to an F-14, but it sure as heck means that F-18s and the F-35s need to be replaced with something that can go against those numbers and possible stealth.   Admittedly, using UCLASS for tankers will alleviate some of the problems, but the -18s still have very short legs. < 500 miles when loaded for combat if I remember right, 

I'd agree that a S-3 replacement is sorely needed.

But the F-35s should be able handle the fleet defense mission if necessary.  It's AESA radar and sensors networked with AEGIS is likely to be better in situational awareness than anything the navy had before in terms of fleet defense.

F-35Cs are expected to have a 1100km combat radius and Super Hornets are expected to get conformal fuels which should bring the combat radius on par with the retired Tomcat.

[AN/ALQ128]

44 minutes ago, Vifam7 said:

I'd agree that a S-3 replacement is sorely needed.

But the F-35s should be able handle the fleet defense mission if necessary.  It's AESA radar and sensors networked with AEGIS is likely to be better in situational awareness than anything the navy had before in terms of fleet defense.

F-35Cs are expected to have a 1100km combat radius and Super Hornets are expected to get conformal fuels which should bring the combat radius on par with the retired Tomcat.

I'm pretty excited for the Block 3 Superbug. It'll be a fine upgrade for sure, RAM, CFT's, IRST, new engines, and a fancy new tactical datalink software so it can keep up with the Lightnings.

[GMK]

2 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

I'm pretty excited for the Block 3 Superbug. It'll be a fine upgrade for sure, RAM, CFT's, IRST, new engines, and a fancy new tactical datalink software so it can keep up with the Lightnings.

Or the Panthers - http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20914/the-f-35-has-a-new-nickname-given-to-it-by-the-usafs-most-elite-pilots

[Knight26]

5 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

The F-35 has seen its first combat sortie.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44210403

That the IASDF had the first combat sortie does not surprise me at all.

[Shadow]

22 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

I'd agree that a S-3 replacement is sorely needed.

But the F-35s should be able handle the fleet defense mission if necessary.  It's AESA radar and sensors networked with AEGIS is likely to be better in situational awareness than anything the navy had before in terms of fleet defense.

F-35Cs are expected to have a 1100km combat radius and Super Hornets are expected to get conformal fuels which should bring the combat radius on par with the retired Tomcat.

I just think the Navy could benefit from a new Heavy class fighter not unlike what was proposed for the ASF or even the navalized F-22. Something with greater speed, payload capacity and loiter time than the F-35C. A new ASW platform I'd agree is a no-brainer as the SH-60 is just not sufficient and you can't exactly land a P-3 onto a carrier flightdeck.

[Sildani]

Bring back the A-12!

[kalvasflam]

OMG, someone who actually remembered the A-12, the second flying wing... or was it the third.

[Petrov27]

20 hours ago, Sildani said:

Bring back the A-12!

Bring back the A-6

Shoot most got brand new composite wings and upgraded avionics then were promptly retired to the desert

[Shadow]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21755/f-15sa-bristles-with-a-dozen-aim-120s-missiles-during-star-wars-canyon-run

Them SPAMRAAMs.

 

[AN/ALQ128]

On 5/23/2018 at 6:03 PM, Sildani said:

Bring back the A-12!

I'm not so sure that would be the best idea, considering the circumstances of its ignoble death (massive overpromising from the contractors, massive underestimation of the challenges involved in making a navalized stealth aircraft). IMO, they should have never retired the Intruders for it.