David Hingtgen

I think that Typhoon issue was mentioned early in the F-35 thread. It's kind of like the F-16 nightmare scenario. If the F-16's pitch-control ever failed, it'd rip itself apart in moments. So it was designed to be as utterly fail-proof as possible, and that's never happened. EF-2000 has the same problem (pretty much all unstable planes do), but it apparently isn't nearly as reliable as the F-16's FBW. Anyways--Tornado lacks power. Always has. It simply doesn't have the right engine design for a mid-to-high altitude fight. It's the fastest, most agile fighter/striker there is at low-altitude, skimming the valleys, because that is its primary role. The engines simply do not have any power up high, and it doesn't have much power, period. Also, it does not have an infinitely positionable wing like the F-14. It has 4 positions. Fully swept, fully unswept, and 2 spots inbetween. It only goes to those positions, and will never "stop" at an optimum position. Also, it only selects positions by airspeed, no other factor. F-14 takes into account G-loads and alpha when selecting wing position, and how quickly to swing them. The wings swing, but not nearly as "suitably" as the Tomcat's. I love the Tornado, but it's frankly like a poor F-18 or F-16 in performance. The IDS's have been continually upgraded, and now that they've got new laser designators, ALARM, and the Storm Shadow--they're a heck of a strike aircraft. But the ADV is still the same F3, with Skyflash and lack of power, and not that great of a radar. (For some reason, F3's do not use AMRAAM---there's apparently something about the latest Skyflash missile that they actually prefer to keep using them) And I prefer the ADV over the IDS! Overall, the F3 is really not a fighter, more of an interceptor. Think MiG-25, but slower. Designed for sheer air defense, not air superiority.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=614292004 So, no Jaguars, no Harriers, F-35's that can barely fly, and EF-2000's that are too expensive to even keep. Boy, hope they come up with some Tornado upgrades soon. Sigh---I think the world would be better off if we just made fighters, and strike aircraft. Quit mixing them, it just leads to hideously expensive "decent" aircraft. Successfull small/medium sized multi-role planes, I think, was a one-time thing for the F-16 and F-18. The standards are so high now, no plane can do both to "modern" standards. Unless you're a HUGE plane, like an F-14, F-15, or Flanker.

Raw power generally counteracts energy bleed. The new engines on the later E's make all the difference in the world. (Though it's of course not used for agility, just makes it easier to carry more stuff further). 1/4 more thrust. Jane's models the early E's, which do suffer badly. Much like an F-16C Block 40---all the new gadgets and bombs and weight, but the same engine.

Shaking=worthless. You can shake for 30 mins, and it won't be as good as 30 secs of stirring. And stir EVERYTHING. Even black. (Actually, especially black---it always looks ok, but it actually separates quite quickly and easily, and you won't realize until you're actually painting with it, or even after its dried) For brush-painting acrylic, the brush used is a BIG factor. And I swear synthetic fibers are better for it. Best I've ever found for a larger area is a Floquil Silver Fox 3/8in (or maybe it's the 1/4in--either way, it's got LONG bristles, nearly an inch long). Also, the el-cheapo white plastic Testors are the second-best after that. After all these years, and dozens of brushes, very few things beat them for brush-painting acrylic. Finally---even the ultra-cheap $18 Testors "airbrush-esque" thing at Wal-Mart gives a far superior finish to even my best brush-painting. $18, including air can and bottles and pipettes. At that price, the thing's practically disposable when you want to change colors.

Well, F-14's could have carried 8 with little drag, and probably 10. F-15's can carry 8 with little drag. Anyways---it's pretty simple why the pylons won't fit on the Super Bug---you can't stuff that many pylons under a small wing! It's not an F-15, there's simply not that much room. You can't add 10% to the wingspan, and expect to have enough clearance for 50% more stuff underwing. They're pretending it's a Strike Eagle, trying to fit large quantities of large bombs. And yes, angling and rotating the pylons were the best they came up with. PS--Boeing, not Lockheed. (MDC had been bought out by the time this problem came up, only the very early Super Hornets had MDC markings) They're not just angled out from the centerline, they're off in 2 axes, not just 1. The Inboard and Center pylons are rotated 4 degrees out from the centerline. The Outboard pylons are rotated 4 degrees, AND canted outwards 3.5 degrees---as in, they do not hang off the wing vertically. If you look at them from head-on, the outboard pylons have the bottom noticeably outboard of their top. And this is creating a big problem with the outboards, as the weapons do not simply "drop" off, the have to roll to the sides a bit. The outboard pylon is effectively useless---rarely carries much, and lots of the time I don't even see it attached. Not many weapons like being carried sideways AND rotated, and at the outboard position no less. They should just make it chaff/flare dispenser. Another effect is that the pylons don't really "fit" on the wing anymore. They were designed to be mounted straight, flush with the wing. They changed the MOUNTS, but not the pylon. The rear mount is the same, but the forward mount was off-set. So there's pretty obvious gaps between the wing and pylons now, if you look. Because the bottom of the wing is curved, not straight, and the pylon's curve no longer matches the wing's curve. And you know what angled offset gaps lead to---more drag! As for F-15E--I was talking agility, not speed. F-15's top speed is so utterly inachievable 99% of the time it's just plain pointless. I think F-14's can go faster most of the time, as they can actually go fast under most conditions, and they have a stronger windscreen.

Yes, the infamous 10 AMRAAM's pic. Drag would be beyond insane though, range would be about 10 miles. When Hornets carry dual AMRAAM launchers (1 on each wing), they generally don't carry much else. Drag, drag, drag. Main reason the Super Hornet isn't doing well range-wise---pylon/rail drag, and lots of it.

Hornets carry dual AMRAAM launchers all the time. F-15 doesn't need it, plently of places anyways. F-16---has two more pylons than the F-18, so doesn't really need it. F-14---the AMRAAM would fit in the underbelly Sparrow slots, but those are almost always occupied by Phoenix pallets, nowadays usually with bombs on them. So a twin launcher would be good. The glove pylon can hold a Phoenix (and still hold the Sidewinder), and 2x AMRAAM's weigh far less than a Phoenix, and are not much more than single Sparrow. Plenty of room too, as again--Phoenixes are BIG! I would imagine they'd go for a "1 down, 1 across" (1 dropped, 1 rail-fired) launcher, rather than side-by-side rails like the Hornet. Here's a Hornet's twin AMRAAM launcher, Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Super Tomcat 21 was to have 90% of the Naval ATF's performance for 60% of the cost. Basically, everything but "really stealthy." So of course the Super Hornet offers like 60% of the performance (if that) for 90% of the cost. (At least, I THINK the Super Hornet costs less than F/A-22's! ) F-15E is said to suck, agility-wise, when carrying bombs. But I always wonder if thats exaggerated. Most people seem to talk like a 747 would out-turn it... However, if it jettisoned the weapons, it would probably do better than the F-15C, due to the much more powerful engines, despite weighing inherently more than the C. And it's got a 2nd guy onboard, always a plus. (Assuming it's a later F-15E with the better engines) Raw weight, carried pretty far outboard (the outboard CFT pylons are only slightly inboard of the wing pylons). F-14 would do better, much closer to centerline. And for the same payload, by being larger the F-14 would suffer less, weight-wise, proportionately. And I always figured the F-14 would have replaced the AIM-7 adaptors on the glove pylons with twin AMRAAM adapters, thus having 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders on the gloves alone.

F-22 has all its edges line up along 1 of 2 angles. The NATF could have done the same---line up unswept wing position with 1 angle, swept with the other angle. They wouldn't be in an "inbetween" position very much at all. I mean, how often do you see an F-14 at say, 37 degrees sweep? Never, unless you get a photo at the 1 second that it's there while swinging from 20 to 68... The only time the wings actively sweep or are in any position other than unswept, bombing, or full sweep, is air combat, and even the YF-22/23 lose a lot of stealth quickly under those conditions, for as soon as you starting rolling and pitching, you're constantly exposing the less stealthy parts of the airframe. Roll 90 degrees and the F-117's RCS is several times its "normal" size. As for the F-14 mx: a lot of it is the panels themselves. Yeesh, you can count 30 fasteners on some sections. It's worse than the F-4. Simply replacing 30 screws with 2 latches would cut the time needed by a lot. The engines themselves can be swapped out pretty fast, you've just got to spend all day opening the panels to get to them, then the next day closing them back up... F-14 mechanics must spend half their lives unscrewing screws. It's like changing the battery in my watch. 10 secs to change it, 20 mins to get the darn cover off... A "quick release" cover would make watch maintenance much easier. As for speed: you can do Mach 2.05 at least with a fixed intake, because the F-16 can. The Hornet's only slow because of so darn much drag. F-14B/D can only do 1.88 anyways, Mach 2 would actually be an upgrade for them. (Yes, the original F-14A is the fastest Tomcat by far, Mach 2.41 max clean speed) And recall that the Super Hornet's intakes were switched to box style mainly for stealth, the F-14's already got box-style. Round intakes=BAD for stealth. Also, by carrying weapons in the fuselage tunnel, any F-14 variant reduces RCS that way. All the RAM in the world on a Super Hornet doesn't help its many, angled, pylons. They add to the RCS quite a lot. Semi-conformal (F-15E, Tomcat 21) is the way to go, for both stealth and drag considerations.

Can't find any images at all of the AST-21 nor ASF-14. Basic F-14 derivative summary: Quickstrike F-14: Add FLIR, LANTIRN, new HUD/cockpit/avionics and generally all night-attack options/equipment of the F-15E. Add LGB's, HARM, SLAM, Harpoon, Maverick. Add 24 additional hardpoints (2x2 plus 4x5) to have double even the F-15E's bomb carrying capacity. Basically the "Strike Cat". At this point, already beats the Super Hornet for payload/range, and costs less and flies faster. Super Tomcat 21: Everything the Quickstrike has, plus modified gloves for more fuel, new access panels to cut maintenance labor in half, upgraded engines to supercruise, improved flaps, and double the radar's power. Well now we're just WAY better than the Super Hornet. Oh, and lots of mods to lower the RCS. Attack Super Tomcat 21: As above but with thicker outer wings for more fuel, new drop tanks for more fuel, even better flaps, and some of the A-12's systems. No range problems here! And can still go Mach 2. What the F-111 should have been. But sorta stealthy. ASF-21: Go back to your standard F-14D, but add in the ATF's engines, weapons, and systems. Basically would be a quite fast, supercruising F-14 with very good weapons. Don't think it'd have the range/payload advantages of the others. All in all--bigger planes are easier to work with/modify, and they'll always be inherently longer-ranged with bigger payloads. All the mods in the world won't give the F-16 a range or payload capacity equal to the F-15, nor will even the Super-Duper-Mega Hornet come close to what the F-14 can do. The bigger the plane, the more proportionately large the fuel/payload becomes. Take 2 very similarly designed planes, but one is 50% larger. It'll have 60+% more fuel, not 50%. That's just how it works. At the extreme end, the larger airliners can carry more than their own structural weight in fuel, and they're not stuffing their fuselage with fuel cells, nor carrying external tanks.

Super Hornet's RCS has been reduced to approximately that of a Glass Falcon, which is basically "any F-16 with a gold canopy". Basic Hornet RCS is bigger than an F-16's. Later Hornet's RCS is down to F-16A level. F-16C's/Glass Falcons have lower RCS than older ones. Later F-16's do have RAM, just harder to spot. Super Hornets have been brought down to the latest F-16's RCS. Which is still orders of magnitudes larger than an F-22/35.

They wanted a stealthy plane. All the RAM in the world won't make the F-18 stealthy. USAF has their pick of stealth--F-117, B-2, F-22. Navy has NO stealth, neither fighter nor bomber. Needed something, might was well get the F-35. Though of course, the F-22N would have been a world-beating aircraft, most likely. And if they'd have gone with the swing-wing version as a Tomcat replacement...

Let's see, compared to a Legacy Hornet, the Super Hornet has: New wings, new fuselage, new LEX's, new cockpit, new v.stabs, new h.stabs, new gear doors, new pylons, new panels/hatches, pretty much all-new "skin", new engines, new intakes, new exhausts, and other "various" changes. I believe it can use the same nose-cone as the old one. And the landing gear is quite similar. PS--F-18 can't replace the A-7 IMHO---can't carry as much stuff nor as far. The Super Hornet can now (I think) carry ALMOST as much stuff, but when it does, it's got so much drag it can't go supersonic at low level WITH afterburner, and thus has no range or speed advantages over the A-7 during a typical bombing mission.

I've always found "caucasian" to be about as incorrect a term as there is. The Caucas mountains are Cechnya/Kazakhstan/Armenia/Southern Russia. And that's a pretty distinctly different ethnic group than what 99% of people mean when they say "caucasian". I personally am (mainly) German/English/Norwegian. That's utterly not "Caucasian" both geographically and ethnically. I mean, the Alps would be a way better mountain range to use. But that includes Italy, which is also pretty distinct... I'm like, "Scandigermanglosaxon". (Which is a pretty darn common combination for "white" from what I can tell---German+English is VERY common)

To add to above post: I mentioned this a little while ago (on this thread I think) that even the very first Tomcats had "Ground Attack" as one of their wing sweep options. Has always been there. Just like the F-15 has ALWAYS been able to carry lots of bombs. They just didn't do so until the F-15E came about. F-14 took even later, but they didn't even really need to do anything, just start using the previously almost-never-used ground attack wing-sweep setting. And why do you think they use the Phoenix pallets for carrying bombs? Because that's always been part of the system too, just needs a little adapter. Response to questions: B-1B can't supercruise. Tu-144 can't. That's the main reason it wasn't in service very long at all. You can't afterburn your way across Russia and expect to be economical. Even with "Communist national prestige" funding the gas bill. Tu-144 has frankly a wing 20 years less advanced than the Concorde, and a vastly inferior lift/drag ratio. And thus WAY higher drag. And Soviet engines in the 1960's? Pretty much the definition of gas-guzzlers. Not too mention it had so much drag, that the friction REALLY heated up the airframe, to the point that it has the most powerful air conditioning system of any airliner, but it all goes to cool the skin (from the inside), thus leaving very hot passengers. As opposed to the best Rolls-Royce has to offer. Tu-144 is quite a bit faster than the Concorde though, faster than an F-16/18/22, and the later ones are faster than F-14's. And there's one unique one, the Tu-144LL, which can go like Mach 2.6. Nasa borrowed that one for a while.

"Without afterburner" is the short definition of supercruise. So the SR-71 most certainly can't. And AFAIK, the Concorde still has the all-time record for fastest supercruise, for it has hit Mach 2.23, and that's using below 90% thrust. The thing is SLEEK. (Concorde, like many planes, is heat-limited for speed, not thrust--it can go as fast as it wants, so long as it doesn't get past a certain temperature---but since weather at 60,000ft is pretty constant, the day-to-day speed range doesn't vary much at all) BTW, the absolute speed limiter for the SR-71 is the compressor inlet temperature.

Yes, and that's what its role was supposed to be. US ANG coastal/border defense. And to do it even better than the F-15 and F-16. Anything that got close, it was supposed to get up in the air NOW, be supersonic in 50 secs, and be able to out-dogfight anything in the sky. Also, it's quite the little strike plane, just as good as an F-16C Block 30. Cheap lightweight multi-role plane. It's basically just an F-5E with some aerodynamic tweaks, and an immensely more powerful engine. Plus very advanced avionics/cockpit, at least as good as the F-18's. But with very very little maintenance needed. If you want range, you can hook it up with 3 massive fuel tanks. That much fuel, plus a single F404 engine on a tiny plane, gives pretty good range. Overall, basically a lightweight F-16 for even less money, anybody could afford it. But then the US bought 1,000 F-16C's, and dumped all its "like new" F-16A's on the market CHEAP.

Well, 2 tanks and 4 missiles (2 Sidewinders and 2 AMRAAMs, or 4 AMRAAMs)is pretty much the standard load for ANY F-16 nowadays, even night-strike bombing missions... I don't think I've ever seen an F-16 with 6 air-to-air missiles, though I know there's a twin-Sidewinder launcher available for European F-16's. A twin-AMRAAM launcher like the F-18 now has (and uses often) would be neat, but I don't know if one exists. PS--while the VT ANG F-16's were first CAP after 9/11, the first planes launched and in NY that morning were MA ANG F-15A's. Only planes that day to go supersonic. Loadout was I think 1 tank, 2 Sidewinders, and 2 Sparrows---light-weight max-speed intercept loadout, as light and fast as an F-15 can be. (F-15's will rarely drop their center tank, it's rated to sustain 9G's, and induces no yaw or roll effects since it's on the centerline)

Let's see: 1. Yes, the AL-1 laser platform, like all 747-400F's, has the original, shorter upper deck. Difference is 23ft, BTW. 2. F-16's are "louder than they should be". Don't know why, F-14D's sound quieter, despite having the same engines. (As in, 2 F-16's taking off sound louder than 1 F-14, despite both of those situations being 2 GE F110 engines at full afterburner) F-14's do have slightly downrated engines for better reliability etc, maybe those last few pounds of thrust are "loud". 3. YF-23 #1 is at Edwards AFB, sitting in storage somewhere. YF-23 #2 is at the Western Museum of Flight, in Hawthorne, CA. Which is also Northrop Field, and YF-17 #1 is there too.

Another point is that one of the key features of the F-5/F-20 is that's it's ULTRA easy to maintain, and ULTRA reliable. Nothing else comes close. 6-barrel gatling guns are not simple. A lot of the F-20's abilities simply came from its engine. 70% more thrust than the baseline F-5E, with almost no additional structural weight. (like 95% of the F-20's small weight increase over the F-5E was simply due to the new engine). And the second and third ones had upgraded engines, 80% over the F-5E, and the fourth one (never finished) was to have even better engines like the late Hornets have, 90% over baseline. And they didn't use all that power to carry more fuel or weapons or fancy gadgets, it went to raw acceleration, climb, and sustained turning capability.

Eh, red tape is more "excessive forms and regulations". Different than "political clout".

Your last sentence: EXACTLY. They spend their money on research and development, rather than funding re-election campaigns. I love F-20's, btw. Awesome dark metallic grey (almost black) paint job.

Supercruise: the ability to go (and sustain) supersonic flight without use of afterburners. 99% of people seem to forget the Concorde's been doing it at Mach 2.04 for decades, and think the F-22's the first production plane to do it. It's very useful, for you can cruise to and from the combat zone much faster, with less fuel. Heck, a heavily-loaded F-16 often needs afterburner just to maintain Mach .9, wasting precious fuel. F-15ACTIVE: F-15 with canards and thrust vectoring. Resulting combination can out-manuever most anything in the sky, especially at high speeds where it can do moves at Mach 2 that most things can't do at Mach 1. Cheap and easy to retrofit, could be done to every F-15, F-16, and F-14B's and D's. So of course they didn't. F-20: Highly modified F-5E, used to be called F-5G. Was supposed to be a dedicated air defense interceptor, even cheaper and better than the F-16. This was before we had all those ANG F-16's, and most air defense was F-4's and F-106's, and that simply wasn't good enough in the 1980's. Mainly a Sparrow/AMRAAM user, with an insanely good dogfighting capability. Had a marginal supercruise ability. Main feature was ultra-rapid intercept capabilities. Could be off the ground in 30 secs from a cold start, whereas an F-16 would still be starting its engines. Generally had a 3-5 minute lead over any US fighter for a "scramble to intercept" scenario. Even the F-15 couldn't catch it within like 10 mins, despite the F-15's world-beating speed and climb rate, because they took that long to get ready to fly. (Getting the navigation systems up takes the longest, not the engines) Could out accelerate, out-climb, and out-turn even the fabled F-16 in a close-in dogfight. So of course we didn't buy any, and just bought more F-16's to supply all the ANG squadrons See, it was a NORTHROP plane, like the YF-23. That means it totally rocked, but didn't have half of congress in it's back pocket, so wouldn't be bought.

I believe the VT ANG had ADF's before, which were Block 15's. Nowadays only the ND ANG has ADF's. ::goes off to check:: Hmmn, Block 25, upgraded with -220E engine and AMRAAM's. Lots of VT F-16 info: http://www.philippecolin.net/falcon.html

That is from Carswell, but not an ANG squadron. That's the "real" USAF, though a reserve squadron. 301st Fighter Wing, 457th Fighter Squadron. (Anyone with a number that high is in the reserves) On this pic: http://www.sharpshooter-maj.com/Images/profil03/301fw.jpg you can see "AFRC" just ahead of the h.stab, thus Air Force Reserve Command. Earlier they put "AFRES" there. Also note the very dark nosecone---F-16 nosecone colors vary an incredible amount, this is the darkest I've seen for the non-black ones. (Only EARLY F-16's had true black noses, and they were all changed to grey eventually) That's a Block 30 BTW, I'd presume Block 30B or 30C, since it looks like a small intake, and the serial is from 1985. ::edit:: I looked it up, and it's a Block 30A. That's kind of unexpected and rare. Those are the only non-AMRAAM capable Block 30's. Though based on the appearance of the #8 weapon station, it may have been retrofitted. Without AMRAAM's, an F-16C has nothing but Sidewinders, as your standard F-16 can't carry Sparrows. I doubt even a reserve plane couldn't carry AMRAAM's nowadays.