Jump to content

Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII


Recommended Posts

On 1/21/2019 at 11:00 PM, Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 said:

I read that Boeing is offering the F-15X to the USAF as replacements for their aging C models. The X is like the QA but single seat. I'm guessing CFT's would be carried as standard.

Are the QA/X's engines enough to counter the added drag and weight of the CFT's? I do remember hearing the Beagle wasn't anywhere near as good in DACM compared to the C model(on F-16.net, a Viper Driver didn't think much of the Beagle). However I also remember reading that the Slam Eagle, SG, SA and QA models would have higher thrust from newer models of the F100 engine.

The Newest Eagles are either equipped with the PW 229 or GE 129, depending on the contract and what the customer prefers. The USAF has kept its Eagles restricted to PW 220's and 229's. The 229 being in the 29-30k thrust rating. 

In a conversation I had with my pilot when I was stationed in Japan. He told me that when engaged at visual range by F-16's the Eagles would go completely DACM. They would try to run for altitude since the Eagle operates far better at higher altitudes than the Viper. These were the Charlie and Delta models he was referring too.

I would say that the munitions dropped were SDB's most likely (GBU-53's) The newest version uses a tri seeker system for targeting giving the pilot more options in attacking their targets. It is also capable of carrying 8 of them internally. Not too sure about the targeting. I would ask some of the guys I know but that would  be stepping into the realm of classified info more than likely. With  the use of IDM systems in the aircraft now I would say it was target info passed from other aircraft to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, David Hingtgen said:

Le Hornette will last forever!  CF-188A+++ in 2040!   Or maybe buy some F-16A MLU's from somebody by then...

Le Hornet.

They went with the English name as-is.  (Also, with the feminine form, wouldn't it be La Hornette? ;) )

 

(Je suis Canadien.  Je regrette de ne pouvoir parler qu'un peu.)

Edited by sketchley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much all the foreign hornets (legacy) will have much longer lives.  They are relatively low hours and have pretty much zero trap life.  That is ultimately killed the USN Legacy Hornets, and what will kill any and all Navy birds eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Knight26 said:

Pretty much all the foreign hornets (legacy) will have much longer lives.  They are relatively low hours and have pretty much zero trap life.  That is ultimately killed the USN Legacy Hornets, and what will kill any and all Navy birds eventually.

It will be interesting to see the differences in physical wear in 10 years between the F-35C and the A model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m usually not a fan of U.S.A.F anniversary/commemorative schemes but I’m liking this one. 75th Anniversary of D-Day.

821F0D7A-004B-452B-9597-2A66B66453AD.jpeg.398a7f255ee23f0abe79af828752e4f9.jpeg

C357D8F8-1BD9-436B-9B38-54B023E6BD17.jpeg.268f604a2ad596402351781dce16b93e.jpeg

BB36957E-435C-4B96-AE79-12B624FB0BFE.jpeg.fa8263eae87b6fa59b6fd69ca0565d1e.jpeg

C8531BD0-0234-4BFB-9E43-145307033F95.jpeg.cc53ac9ac40a14a6f4fb595e8a234d00.jpeg

E94E6E90-1538-43A5-BABB-B5A5C99D5BE1.jpeg.f96a5bbc390847f3337adbd73e1ced02.jpeg

 

 

Edited by Dobber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple months ago I took a cross country trip with my brother and along the way we stopped at the USAF Museum in Dayton and the South Dakota Air & Space Museum in Box Elder. I promised pics and I've finally got them uploaded to my flickr account if you guys still want to see them. There's also some older pics in there from the New England Air Museum and some tanks from the American Heritage Museum, Wright WWII Museum, and the defunct Danbury CT tank museum if that's your thing. Also Battleship Cove too. Let me know what you think. :)

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/94560635@N04/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you remember when the Lightnings went out of service?  How about the Phantoms? 

The RAF has better tech for sure, but its is a farcry from the late 80s in terms of mass and just overall readiness.  I think if the Falklands happened today, the RN and RAF will not be in any better shape than it was in 1982.  But then, the same can be said about most of the western armed forces.

These Tornadoes are the attack versions I believe, the air defense variants has been phased out for a while, is that right?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they look like tail-less J-10s

 

This idea is so Stupid I LOVE IT! shoulda been funded!:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Dobber said:

USAF concept for 747 airborne aircraft carriers with “micro” fighters. 

 

Amen, now, that's a defense project I can get behind.  Except, now it can be more realistic, we don't need pilots, we have drones.  It would be cool.

In fact, I have an even better alternative here.  Use the A380, it has a larger carrying capacity, and this needs to be a European project to save the line before it is permanently killed.  

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-to-axe-a380-programme-after-emirates-order-re-455756/

In fact, they don't even have to wait for a process, someone could use their discretionary budget, to buy the two A380 from Dr Peters on the cheap, then retrofit and test.  :clapping:

 

Edited by kalvasflam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Vifam7 said:

The mothership idea is nothing new. It's been around since the age of biplanes and dirigibles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akron-class_airship

That's true, and there is always the danger of the mothership coming under attack.  The practical question becomes what is the best advantage conferred by the mothership.  One would assume it has something to do with operational range, and the fact that it is mobile.  But if you have to start considering the degree of logistical support for the carried aircraft and defensive capabilities, suddenly you need something a lot larger and a lot more robust than a converted 747...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

That's true, and there is always the danger of the mothership coming under attack.  The practical question becomes what is the best advantage conferred by the mothership.  One would assume it has something to do with operational range, and the fact that it is mobile.  But if you have to start considering the degree of logistical support for the carried aircraft and defensive capabilities, suddenly you need something a lot larger and a lot more robust than a converted 747...

 

A lot larger you say?

P-1112_Aigaion.jpg.3108675b317004291a0749c91a1f212e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question then becomes how you can physically maintain such a gargantuan monstrosity while in mid-flight, because if you don't have quadruple redundancy on pretty much everything, it's not going to stay in the air very long.

At least that last one has the sense that you could land it on water, but I think the Yukikaze designs were never meant to land once launched.

Not to mention.. the idea that those tankers are refueling that thing is hilarious.  Unless they're carrying some kind of incredibly efficient and high energy-to-volume fuel source, those tankers would probably fit inside the carrier's fuel tanks.  They might be better off landing the tankers and offloading the fuel manually so they'd at least save the gas the tanker would spend while flying. :p 

Edited by Chronocidal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chronocidal said:

The question then becomes how you can physically maintain such a gargantuan monstrosity while in mid-flight, because if you don't have quadruple redundancy on pretty much everything, it's not going to stay in the air very long.

At least that last one has the sense that you could land it on water, but I think the Yukikaze designs were never meant to land once launched.

Not to mention.. the idea that those tankers are refueling that thing is hilarious.  Unless they're carrying some kind of incredibly efficient and high energy-to-volume fuel source, those tankers would probably fit inside the carrier's fuel tanks.  They might be better off landing the tankers and offloading the fuel manually so they'd at least save the gas the tanker would spend while flying. :p 

IIRC the Banshees in Yukikaze had a nuclear reactor powering it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...