Shoji Kawamori Patlabor Aircraft Designs

[Knight26]

ask and ye shall recieve:

Edited August 8, 2005 by Knight26

[sktchrtst2002]

Um....so was Kawamori drunk when he designed these???

They kind of bring back memories of BATTLE OF THE PLANETS

Well the Eagle does!

[Goshawk]

Didnt they have a F-15 that had front canards on it, as a expermental craft?

[armentage]

Didnt they have a F-15 that had front canards on it, as a expermental craft?

318527[/snapback]

Think they did. I remember seeing a Revell or Tamiya kit of it 15+ years ago at the local hobby shop!

I don't think that F-16 looks too crazy - it looks like it had YF-22/23 features grafted onto a body that was modified to resemble Russian fighters... (the thurst vectoring SCREAMS Mac+ YF-21)

[Akilae]

mm... b.. b... but where's the Hellhound?! Come on nash!

[Isamu Atreides 86]

You can fly something like that F-15 in Ace Combat 4.

[David Hingtgen]

Ace Combat 2 had their own take on it, having the "F-15S" which was more like a "Super Eagle" than anything---lots of little changes, but it has the canards, which are the main point.

The first F-15 with canards was the "Agile Eagle".

Next, adding 2D thrust vectoring was the F-15S/MTD---this is in Ace Combat 4, but mistakenly called the F-15ACTIVE. Also in Air Force Delta Strike, also called the F-15ACTIVE. It is also in Ace Combat 5 with the correct name.

Finally, there is the F-15ACTIVE, which is like the F-15S/MTD but has 3D vectoring. Technically it's the NF-15B ACTIVE. Most everyone confuses the two, despite being really easy to tell apart, since nearly every website mis-labels the pics.

Interesting note, it is all the exact same plane modified many times---the original TF-15A prototype, #71-0290. Better known as the very first F-15B.

The canards are actually F-18 stabs.

S/MTD=Stol/Manuevering Technology Demonstrator

ACTIVE=Advanced Control Technology for Integrated VEhicles

Edited August 9, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[hellohikaru]

Reviving an old thread here..never heard from Nanashi again but found these apparently scanned from Dengeki Hobby Aug 2007. Havent seen them posted here yet so. I am sure DH or SDK have alot to say about these.

[Ratchet]

You guys ever read Day of The Cheetah by Dale Brown? BTW, that F-16 with the X-31 engines would fly rings around any fighter today even the SU-30MKI and F-22. Heck, it would probably fly rings around that fictional F-15 because the Eagle's got 2D TV engines vs. 3D of that F-16. F-16 and X-31 is a winning conbination. I'm surprised the USA and other countries don't build something like this based on a proven fighter like the Fighting Falcon. The F-16 is also pretty stealthy on it's own right if you modify it a little ala F/A-18E/F Super Bug.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Ratchet

[David Hingtgen]

I vote for the F-15ACTIVE beating even the F-16VISTA, as the ACTIVE has twin 3D nozzles and canards, which is far more than simply adding a vectoring nozzle to a single-engined non-canarded plane. Some say ACTIVE can out-fly the F-22. Supersonically I doubt the F-22 can out-do the ACTIVE.

And it's very cheap and easy to add just the nozzles, the ACTIVE nozzle was designed to retrofit every F100 engine out there. So of course it never happened. (If you could get F-22 performance from old planes, why buy F-22's?)

[Grand Admiral]

I agree with what you're saying about selling airplanes, but doesn't the F-22 offer the added bonus of stealth characteristics?

I recall someone saying (and this might be unfounded rumor) that it's almost as radar-resistant as the F-117A.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Grand Admiral

[David Hingtgen]

Exactly--Congress etc wouldn't understand that there's much more to the F-22 than just agility etc. They'd read reports that the F-15ACTIVE can out-fly the F-22, and say "well then we'll just buy new nozzles for F-15's and 16's and save billions".

As for stealth---I say the F-22 beats anything but the B-2. The F-117 is an angled compromise limited sheerly by computer processing ability of the time. The B-2 is utterly perfect 3D curves, as it has no need to fly in anything but a straight line. The F-22 is a "slightly compromised" 3D curve design, as it needs to be able to dogfight. Though the F-23 would beat the F-22.

[Knight26]

David got that all right, lets face it no one would see an F-23 until it was up your rear and spanking you across the sky, lol.

[Ratchet]

I vote for the F-15ACTIVE beating even the F-16VISTA, as the ACTIVE has twin 3D nozzles and canards, which is far more than simply adding a vectoring nozzle to a single-engined non-canarded plane. Some say ACTIVE can out-fly the F-22. Supersonically I doubt the F-22 can out-do the ACTIVE.

And it's very cheap and easy to add just the nozzles, the ACTIVE nozzle was designed to retrofit every F100 engine out there. So of course it never happened. (If you could get F-22 performance from old planes, why buy F-22's?)

The Russians think they're slick with those SU-30's. X-31, X-29, and F-15S SMT/ACTIVE came first before all that Pucachev Cobra and swept wings came into existence.

[Ratchet]

Which would you rather have: A modernized F-16 with 3d vectoring/stealth and the A-10C Warthhog II or the F-35 Lighting II replacing both the F-16 and A-10 as a companion to the Raptor? Personally, I'd rather have the former because the Raptor is already an F-35 and then some.

[David Hingtgen]

FB-22.

[Knight26]

We're getting off topic, but, the F-35 fills a nice nitch role, it really more then anything else is a modernized, stealthy THUD, with a bit of F-16 and F-117 mixed in, and for the marines, Harrier. In that respect it makes a nice interdictor aircraft that can go in first, hit key targets and then fight its way back out. Is it a pure fighter, no, is it a pure attacker, no, is it a strike fighter, barely. Is it a tank killer/close air support aircraft, no way in H3!!. A true A-10 replacement is no where near available, OPSEC, and the A-10C, while a great upgrade of my beloved A-10 will unfortunately be replaced by the F-35 unless something better comes along. In truth though nothing will, the Air Force leadership does not like the CAS role yet doesn't want to fixed wing CAS back to the army because it will call into question why we have the Air Force, and I work for them, trust me. The future of CAS therefore lies with the helicopters so more and more we will likely see air-cav units traveling alongside the tanks, possibly even having support units integrated amongst the tanks. In an acq class last year my team actually put together a proposal for a legimate A-10, A-6 replacement that would give the stealth performance and close air support ability needed in such an aircraft and the payload as well. Since it was a 1 week course we couldn't really design anything from scratch so used the an old Luft '46 concept the Gotha P.60 as substitute for the pictures. Since then I have been in irregular contact with one of my team members over at DARPA and have shot basically pencil sketches back and forth of a concept more closely resembling the P.60A2, but inverted with some stealth features, a larger size and more conventional seating. Something based on this would be a nice successor to the A-10C and would give the generals/admirals the stealth features they are clamoring for.

[Noyhauser]

First off I don't think you want a CAS aircraft with underslung engines... for a variety of reasons

Second are you trying to single handedly revive the Flying Dorito?

All joking aside, while I think the AF Brass doesn't like CAS, they will have to eat it nonetheless. With the massive clout the Army wields now because of Iraq, if the Air Force doesn't want to take such missions the army will do it for them, like they did with the C-27J.

[Knight26]

Note where I said, INVERTED, the engine intakes on our little paper concept are dorsal not ventral. And no, we are not trying to bring back the A-12, what a POS that was.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Knight26

[Noyhauser]

Note where I said, INVERTED, the engine intakes on our little paper concept are dorsal not ventral. And no, we are not trying to bring back the A-12, what a POS that was.

Ah my apologies, I skipped over that one word, but I like the concept nonetheless. A flying wing design makes perfect sense for a CAS aircraft. Also I was kidding about the A-12 revival, I didn't think you were supporting it in the least. Its one of those stories that will go down in procurement history with the label "do not repeat."

About the future of CAS, I think a battle is looming, but I don't know if the Air Force can win this time. There was a time in the past when Congress and the OSD wouldn't depreciate the advice of Service arms, but I think with the advent of the Rumsfeld era, the balance has changed significantly. As I noted before, they lost the C-27J fight (though that was more the Air Force fighting to regain lost turf), and now that service arms can lobby congress directly its going to make it a lot different.

The big question that will blow this right open is UAVs. When the cost of CAS drops significantly because of cheap platforms, its going to blur this line even further. Thats particularly as you pointed out company and battalion commanders start viewing them as organic assets.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Noyhauser

[Ratchet]

Note where I said, INVERTED, the engine intakes on our little paper concept are dorsal not ventral. And no, we are not trying to bring back the A-12, what a POS that was.

No sh*t..... everything went downhill for the Navy and the Tomcat after that crap. Too bad Reagan wasn't around anymore to get these things completed. Reagan was a military friendly president all the way. I miss the 80s.

[Ratchet]

FB-22.

How much would that cost per plane vs. an updated F-16 as a companion to the F-22 Raptor? It's all moot anyway and I do support the F-35 (just not as a replacement for the A-10).

[Knight26]

I really doubt that UCAVs will be used much for CAS unless they are imbedded assetts where the ground troops/tankers are controlling them, otherwise I doubt that the ground assetts would want a remotely controlled, or worse yet autonimous aircraft defending them.

[David Hingtgen]

I support the F-35 as a Harrier replacement and that's it. For an F-16 replacement---for how much it's costing just buy F-22's! If everything's going to small-diameter-bombs anyways, there's no need for big external 2000 pounders.

[Noyhauser]

I really doubt that UCAVs will be used much for CAS unless they are imbedded assetts where the ground troops/tankers are controlling them, otherwise I doubt that the ground assetts would want a remotely controlled, or worse yet autonimous aircraft defending them.

Thats exactly my point, embedded UCAVs have the potential of opening up this question, particularly if they come down in price. Such assets (commanded at the Battalion or Company level) makes it alot more difficult for the Air Force to argue that such capability should be their domain, when the army can legitimately say that its more efficient if they control things on the ground rather than a command link to Nevada like it is now.

[Mr March]

I support the F-35 as a Harrier replacement and that's it.

Blasphemy! I just really want Canada to buy F-35s like they said they were going to. I like the fighter.

[Noyhauser]

Blasphemy! I just really want Canada to buy F-35s like they said they were going to. I like the fighter.

Its a pretty sure bet they will.

[Dante74]

Blasphemy! I just really want The Netherlands to buy F-35s like they said they were going to. I like the fighter.

[Dante74]

Although I would prefer them to buy this one.

*EDIT* spelling

Edited November 28, 2007 by Dante74

[Ratchet]

Although I would prefer them to buy this one.

*EDIT* spelling

Hmmmm...I'd estimate that CF to cost 2 Billion each considering it has twin thermonuclear powered engines and protoculture if your going by ROBOTECH.

[Zinjo]

Blasphemy! I just really want Canada to buy F-35s like they said they were going to. I like the fighter.

I expect they will as they've invested extensively in the project along with other countries. The F-18 will finish it's life cycle in less then 20 years.

.... and protoculture if your going by ROBOTECH.

Let's not and say we did, m'Kay?

[Nied]

We're getting off topic, but, the F-35 fills a nice nitch role, it really more then anything else is a modernized, stealthy THUD, with a bit of F-16 and F-117 mixed in, and for the marines, Harrier. In that respect it makes a nice interdictor aircraft that can go in first, hit key targets and then fight its way back out. Is it a pure fighter, no, is it a pure attacker, no, is it a strike fighter, barely. Is it a tank killer/close air support aircraft, no way in H3!!.

Interesting you bring up F-105, since I always felt that the JSF is closer to the A-7 in terms of it's mission profile with a little bit of F-4 thrown in for good measure, mostly meant for various kinds of attack missions, but capable of defending itself in a knife fight if need be and doing a repectable job at CAS if called upon as well. Interestingly enough all the aircraft the F-35 is slated to replace took on the A-7's mission when they went into service.

[Nied]

No sh*t..... everything went downhill for the Navy and the Tomcat after that crap. Too bad Reagan wasn't around anymore to get these things completed. Reagan was a military friendly president all the way. I miss the 80s.

If anything it was the A-12 itself that did more to frack over Naval aviation than anything else. Read the program summary on globalsecurity.org sometime if you want to make yourself really mad, I'm honestly surprised criminal charges weren't brought against the contractors. The Navy would have been better off going for the A-6F (which was canceled to pay for the A-12) or one of the more robust Bombcat variants (though that would've been a whole other can of worms at the time). The only way Saint Ronnie could have saved naval aviation from that screw up would have been to not order it in the first place (he was still in office when the decision to buy it was made).

[David Hingtgen]

A-6F would have helped a lot. Cheap and easy. Heck, new-build A-6E's would have worked decently well.

[Mislovrit]

Thats exactly my point, embedded UCAVs have the potential of opening up this question, particularly if they come down in price. Such assets (commanded at the Battalion or Company level) makes it alot more difficult for the Air Force to argue that such capability should be their domain, when the army can legitimately say that its more efficient if they control things on the ground rather than a command link to Nevada like it is now.

U.S. Army doesn't care where where the UCAV controllers are, as long as they're theirs.. Moving the UCAV control like was you said runs into the likely problem of micromanagement.