Aircraft Vs Thread 3

[Skull Leader]

reminds me of one of my favorites (probably seen a million times, but always cool)

[Nied]

I've been wanting to post this since I first saw it but the boards were down.

Sharp eyed observers will notice that the nose is slightly deeper than a standard F-5 (and I don't mean the knockoff F model behind it). Also note the intakes.

If I had to guess I'd say that Iran is trying to squeeze a better radar set into the nose of an F-5, speculation on the internets has it that that deeper nose could introduce some adverse yaw effects, hence the need for more vertical stab area.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I wonder how the flight characteristics compare, like if the new fighter is a lot better than the F-5.

[David Hingtgen]

Well, Iran says it makes it so manueverable that radar can't pick it up, thus a STEALTH F-5...

[Nied]

Well, Iran says it makes it so manueverable that radar can't pick it up, thus a STEALTH F-5...

Seriously?! Where'd you here that one, and where can I get some of whatever the Iranian official is smoking? I could see it being pull one of those maneuvers that fool Doppler radar momentarily (which should be rather useless against an AESA set). Unfortunetly I can't remember the name of the maneuver or the specifics of how it worked.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Seriously?! Where'd you here that one, and where can I get some of whatever the Iranian official is smoking? I could see it being pull one of those maneuvers that fool Doppler radar momentarily (which should be rather useless against an AESA set). Unfortunetly I can't remember the name of the maneuver or the specifics of how it worked.

From what I remember its flying vertical and I believe hanging/stalling. Either that or flying 90 degrees parallel to the radar to break the lock, its been a while but I did hear of this some years back.

BTW guys the Oceana air show was decent. F-104 did a surprising demo(replaced a plane that could not fly that day, forgot which one). F-15C demo was very good as usual. Blue angels had a good display but GOOD GOD they took so long(they were scheduled for 3 but started@3:45pm). I still wish there was a lot more planes on static display...like way back when I went in 97. Now THAT was a great airshow.

I did get some shots, I'll post them later this week.

[David Hingtgen]

General term for a doppler-evading turn is an "F-pole" manuever.

Here's some choice quotes from the Iranian defense ministry regarding the modified F-5 called the "Saegheh":

"Meantime, air force experts also tested their optimized F5 fighters successfully. The optimized version of the fighter uses a wider variety of weapons, enjoys higher operational power and is more difficult to pick up on the radar systems compared with the normal version due to its higher maneuverability"

...quoted the commander of the Iranian army General Attollah Salehi as saying their new indigeous Saegheh [DID: "thunder" or "lightning", reports vary] aircraft is "similar to the F-18 fighter jet, but it is more capable and has been manufactured domestically... designed, remodeled, optimized and made more capable by our engineers... no country has aided us in its production."

Yeah, so it's the new stealth F-5 that's superior to the Hornet.

Those must be some AMAZING canted fins---not only does it endow the F-18's looks, but its abiities as well!

[kalvasflam]

General term for a doppler-evading turn is an "F-pole" manuever.

Here's some choice quotes from the Iranian defense ministry regarding the modified F-5 called the "Saegheh":

"Meantime, air force experts also tested their optimized F5 fighters successfully. The optimized version of the fighter uses a wider variety of weapons, enjoys higher operational power and is more difficult to pick up on the radar systems compared with the normal version due to its higher maneuverability"

...quoted the commander of the Iranian army General Attollah Salehi as saying their new indigeous Saegheh [DID: "thunder" or "lightning", reports vary] aircraft is "similar to the F-18 fighter jet, but it is more capable and has been manufactured domestically... designed, remodeled, optimized and made more capable by our engineers... no country has aided us in its production."

Yeah, so it's the new stealth F-5 that's superior to the Hornet.

Those must be some AMAZING canted fins---not only does it endow the F-18's looks, but its abiities as well!

Meh, I'd take Iran as seriously as any of the other pissant Arab air forces in the region. The plane looks entertaining, but I would not want to be flying in the Iranian air force if the US ever decided to get serious on launching an air offensive against them. However, if they were to go against Iraq (without US involvement), I'd give them more than even chance on gaining air superiority.

[Zentrandude]

Im more interested on what upgrades they did that they will not talk about.

[Nied]

Meh, I'd take Iran as seriously as any of the other pissant Arab air forces in the region. The plane looks entertaining, but I would not want to be flying in the Iranian air force if the US ever decided to get serious on launching an air offensive against them. However, if they were to go against Iraq (without US involvement), I'd give them more than even chance on gaining air superiority.

Considering that the current IrAF consists of a couple of helicopters, a handful of second hand C-130s, and some light scout planes, I'd give the IRIAF very good odds of gaining air superiority against them (that is without US involvement). Actually given the level of training in the IRIAF, and their relatively intact air force compared to the other countries we've faced, I'd say that the IRIAF could inflict some real damage before finally being ground down by superior numbers and technology.

[KingNor]

are those "modded" F-5s or redesigned and brand new?

I'm not too familiar with f-5's so forgive my ignorance, we're talking about the little dart looking things that were used in top gun as migs right?

[Nied]

are those "modded" F-5s or redesigned and brand new?

I'm not too familiar with f-5's so forgive my ignorance, we're talking about the little dart looking things that were used in top gun as migs right?

Actually both of the F-5s in the in flight picture are examples of Iranian reverse engineering. The camouflaged two seater in the back originally started life as a single place model (Iran only ever bought single seat F-5s) but it was re-built as a two place model after the Iranians reverse engineered some Pakistani examples. The Iranians claim the twin tailed plane is a completely new build, given the amount of modifications to the basic F-5 design I'm willing to believe them.

[Maxtype]

Ummm... George H.W. Bush served as a Navy pilot in WWII, flying a TBF Avenger off of a light carrier (the name eludes me at the moment). He was shot down during a mission and was picked up the by the submarine USS Finback.

I don't mind if they name a ship after him, as he served a our country in the military and as president (whether you liked him or not). I just don't think anyone should have a ship named after them until after they're dead.

Right on with that-naming for people that are still alive just seems wrong.I miss the old carrier names-Saratoga,Independance,Essex(which has now been bestowed upon an amphibius ship).Oh well,maybe one of the new attack subs will be Colorado.We havent had one since that lovely clipper-bowed battleship from the "30's.

Edited September 13, 2006 by Maxtype

[Skull Leader]

There was a huge discussion about this on another forum that some of us here frequent... naming ships after still-alive people is a serious no-no to me. I also think we're bestowing people's names onto ships a little too frequently. It's getting to the point that someone with enough money (who happens to be recorded, either by doccument, video, or otherwise saying just one time "I support the United States Navy") can get their name on a ship.

This can be a touchy subject considering the potential political implications, I hope everyone keeps that in mind while they discuss this

[Akilae]

Just outta curiosity, where did the old carrier names come from? I know battleships were named after states (New Jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin), how about carriers? Personally, I find "Enterprise", "Intrepid", "Essex" and all that to be more fitting.

[Skull Leader]

Just outta curiosity, where did the old carrier names come from? I know battleships were named after states (New Jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin), how about carriers? Personally, I find "Enterprise", "Intrepid", "Essex" and all that to be more fitting.

different things. Carrier names like "Hornet" or "Wasp" really don't have any ingenious origins... in WWII they needed a lot of carriers and didn't have time to put a ton of thought into their names. Some were named after battles (USS Ticonderoga, USS Antietam, USS Coral Sea or the USS Lexington, etc). Ships like the USS Nimitz or the USS Carl Vinson were named after people who had a great deal to do with the Navy (Nimitz was an admiral in the pacific theater of WWII, Vinson a senator that championed many causes for the navy).

It's only in recent years (read: the past 30 or so) that the concept of naming carriers after presidents became a fad.

USS Franklin D. Roosevelt - Midway Class

USS John F. Kennedy - a one-off "Kennedy class" carrier. Similar to the Kitty Hawk class in size and capability

USS Theodore Roosevelt - Nimitz Class

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower - Nimitz Class

USS George Washington - Nimitz Class

USS Abraham Lincoln - Nimitz Class

USS Harry S Truman - Nimitz Class

USS Ronald Regan - Nimitz Class

the USS George HW Bush will be the last of the Nimitz class carriers, but is supposed to feature a number of innovations that will become standard on the new CVN-21 class carriers we will be switching to after that (more efficient nuclear power plants, magnetic rail-gun catapults, etc)

Edited September 13, 2006 by Skull Leader

[anime52k8]

if you name a ship after a person wait till the person is dead sounds like a good idea. though it would be nice if they could be a little more creative.

Edited September 13, 2006 by anime52k8

[KingNor]

just so long as we dont' ever see ships with "sponsor" names.

I'd definately have to switch countrys if i ever saw a "USS Yahoo" or "USS Qualcomm"

and how exactly can you call a ship a "she" if it's name is John F. Kenedy. They should be nameing them after the presedents first lady, or just go by the last name.

very bizzare

[Zentrandude]

just so long as we dont' ever see ships with "sponsor" names.

I'd definately have to switch countrys if i ever saw a "USS Yahoo" or "USS Qualcomm"

and how exactly can you call a ship a "she" if it's name is John F. Kenedy. They should be nameing them after the presedents first lady, or just go by the last name.

very bizzare

I wouldnt mind it if demoralizes the enemy well maybe not all of them, would hate to see they go nascar and put up a bunch of logos all over the ship. A pilot might have a hard time landing from the light bouncing off a shiny logo into his eyes.

[David Hingtgen]

Carriers are named after presidents only recently, because before that it was missile subs that were named for presidents. Roosevelt, Washington, Lincoln, Madison--all were missile subs in the 60's.

And yes--you should certainly wait until someone's dead. And I still really don't like the idea of the next carriers being Ford class. Still a chance it won't be, but it's getting close. http://www.ussamerica.org

[Warmaker]

just so long as we dont' ever see ships with "sponsor" names.

I'd definately have to switch countrys if i ever saw a "USS Yahoo" or "USS Qualcomm"

and how exactly can you call a ship a "she" if it's name is John F. Kenedy. They should be nameing them after the presedents first lady, or just go by the last name.

very bizzare

Naval tradition, going back to God knows when, maintains that ships are referred to in a femenine form.

Many names used by ships don't sound femenine: Warspite, Lexington, King George V, Essex, Bismarck, Illustrious, Relentless, Dreadnought, Gato, Midway, Nimitz, etc.

Yet, when described, the ships are referred to as women with terms like she, her, etc.

Sailors today still refer to ships as females:

"She's a great ship!"

"The ____? That ship's nasty as h*ll! Screw her!"

[kalvasflam]

Considering that the current IrAF consists of a couple of helicopters, a handful of second hand C-130s, and some light scout planes, I'd give the IRIAF very good odds of gaining air superiority against them (that is without US involvement). Actually given the level of training in the IRIAF, and their relatively intact air force compared to the other countries we've faced, I'd say that the IRIAF could inflict some real damage before finally being ground down by superior numbers and technology.

I'd disagree, but that's just me. It's always possible that the Iranians have a bunch of surprise in store if it ever came to open fight against the US. But I don't think they'd be able to inflict much damage before they were grounded down. If they launched an all out surprise attack against the US forces in the region (never say never) then they could do some damage. But I doubt the Iranian air force would survive more than a week of open conflict.

just so long as we dont' ever see ships with "sponsor" names.

I'd definately have to switch countrys if i ever saw a "USS Yahoo" or "USS Qualcomm"

and how exactly can you call a ship a "she" if it's name is John F. Kenedy. They should be nameing them after the presedents first lady, or just go by the last name.

very bizzare

Wait for the USS Google, the USS Intel, and the USS Microsoft .... heh heh... but I remember being involved in a discuss on this thread earlier, so think I'll sit this round out.

[buddhafabio]

I'd disagree, but that's just me. It's always possible that the Iranians have a bunch of surprise in store if it ever came to open fight against the US. But I don't think they'd be able to inflict much damage before they were grounded down. If they launched an all out surprise attack against the US forces in the region (never say never) then they could do some damage. But I doubt the Iranian air force would survive more than a week of open conflict.

we do have cap patrols flying in iraq but iran has enough planes to overwhelm assets in reagion for air defense. but a week after that would be another story. i figure we have enough air to air cabability to own the chinese and iranian airforce at the same time. maybe even just on carriers.

[CoryHolmes]

Quick question for all you knowledgeable-type-personages. How are the HUDs on aircraft made?

[David Hingtgen]

Try here:

http://www.mikesflightdeck.com/head_up_displays.htm

Holographic ones are generally wide-screen ones, like the F-15E's.

I believe my car's is partially reflective.

[Gaijin]

Anyone going to the Tomcat Sunset event next week? I ordered my stuff awhile back but can't make the event.

[Nied]

I'll be getting married the day after it's over, and my fiance is understandably against me travelling across the country the day before our wedding to see an airshow.

[Apollo Leader]

I'll be getting married the day after it's over, and my fiance is understandably against me travelling across the country the day before our wedding to see an airshow.

What kind of excuse is that?

I see they got some shirts and a calendar on the Sunset website so I'll probably order a few.

[Nied]

What kind of excuse is that?

I know! Women, they just don't understand what's important in life: Airplanes and toys.

[Lightning]

Try here:

http://www.mikesflightdeck.com/head_up_displays.htm

Holographic ones are generally wide-screen ones, like the F-15E's.

I believe my car's is partially reflective.

Can one retrofit these to go in a car?

[David Hingtgen]

I think aftermarket HUDs for cars do exist, but the only retrofit I've actually seen is "adding it to a car for which it was an option, but that particular one didn't have it"----the wiring etc was already there, just needed a HUD to plug in basically. (And I could go on one heck of a rant about GM and their stupidity in changing HUD availability)

I seriously doubt you could put an aircraft HUD in a car, not only would everything from voltage to data signals be incompatible, but they probably cost more than the average car, and wouldn't work---aircraft HUDs sit about 6 inches from your face. (Car makers seem to totally miss the point of a HUD--they try to make them small and unobtrusive, down low out of your direct line of sight--which is the exact OPPOSITE of the reason they exist)

The few airliners with HUDs tend to have ones that fold down from cockpit celing, no idea how they work. Could just be the normal method upside down, but I don't know if there's room like that.

It's been 10 years and no one's figured out yet how the Grand Prix's HUD works, data-wise. "Somehow" it gets a signal to display speed etc, but every attempt to get the HUD to work with aftermarket parts/data/signal has failed. Basically---if a HUD that's designed for a specific car can't be figured out to have it generate the correct numbers and info from said car, I can't image how hard it'd be to integrate one into a car it's not designed for.

[Warmaker]

C-130J models have the folddown HUD from the top of the Pilot & Copilot Positions.

I recall seeing them way back in 1998-1999 in Ft.Worth, Texas. There was supposed to be a big get together for the military and various companies to show off their gear for purchase by the DOD (I was part of the traffic & security detail as a Corporal, and I had my right hand up in a salute position all day with all those eagles and stars roaming about from all the services).

Lockheed brought over a C-130J model and parked it over at our flightline (I was with VMGR-234, Marine Reserve squadron flying KC-130T's). The pilot came down and was seeing if any of us Herc boys wanted to see the new bird. Went over there and met the Flight Engineer, a retired Marine Master Sergeant.

It was interesting. The flight station was completely different from previous versions (esp. the OLD Marine variants). What got us the most was the folddown HUDs. We joked with the Flt.Engineer, "So, are Hercs going to be dropping bombs and firing missiles now?"

Well, Hercs HAVE dropped bombs in the past, i.e. Daisycutters.

BLU-82B Daisycutter

GBU-43/B "Mother of all Bombs"

I never saw the GBU-43/B, however.

[buddhafabio]

I think aftermarket HUDs for cars do exist, but the only retrofit I've actually seen is "adding it to a car for which it was an option, but that particular one didn't have it"----the wiring etc was already there, just needed a HUD to plug in basically. (And I could go on one heck of a rant about GM and their stupidity in changing HUD availability)

I seriously doubt you could put an aircraft HUD in a car, not only would everything from voltage to data signals be incompatible, but they probably cost more than the average car, and wouldn't work---aircraft HUDs sit about 6 inches from your face. (Car makers seem to totally miss the point of a HUD--they try to make them small and unobtrusive, down low out of your direct line of sight--which is the exact OPPOSITE of the reason they exist)

i think i read some where (popular mechanics????) a while ago that caddy was going to put a few in their windsheilds.

[CoryHolmes]

There's a HUD add-on for motorcycles, but that works by lowering an LCD window over one eye and projecting the image onto that.

[David Hingtgen]

Best HUD out now for a car is the new Vette's.

PS--polarized sunglasses kill a HUD's image (as well as LCD). Basically, the image on a HUD and the angle that sunglasses polarize at are the same. It's been known for years, but there's never been a change. Tilting either 45 degrees makes everything ok, but no manufacturer seems willing to change anything. Lenscrafters said they had tried a sunglass lens 90 degrees "off" (which works perfectly with a HUD) but said it didn't work well as a sunglass then----but I don't really believe that because I can tilt my sunglasses 90 degrees and there's no difference at all. Talking to yet another guy, the polarization seems to be set the way it is due to the inherent widescreen view humans have, plus that fact that so much glare comes from horizontal surfaces (water, snow, concrete) rather than vertical.

That could be true, so then why not change how HUD's are projected? They tend to be typically square anyways, there's no preference for vertical vs horizontal.

I turn my HUD up to max when wearing my polarized sunglasses, even then I can barely see it--I hate having to actually use my speedometer.

Of course, the simple and most obvious solution would simply be to let us turn the HUD's brightness WAY up, that'd solve any visibility problem with any sort of sunglasses, and probably is the cheapest solution.