Jump to content

Aircraft Vs Thread 5


Recommended Posts

Took longer than we thought and it's not as big, but we DID get a new USS America carrier (and even got it to be the class leader). Behold, LHA-6, USS America:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_3I_MsAGX584/SGkXlu...A-6+America.jpg

Will replace the Tarawa-class. I always like to call LHA's etc "Harrier carriers" but that's no longer appropriate...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting the pics Graham, but next time could you ask the guy to move out of the way so we can see the pretty jets? :p

Also; You might not want to put your thumbs in you pockets like that or you're sure to lose a couple of fingers if your balls explode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Took longer than we thought and it's not as big, but we DID get a new USS America carrier (and even got it to be the class leader). Behold, LHA-6, USS America:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_3I_MsAGX584/SGkXlu...A-6+America.jpg

Will replace the Tarawa-class. I always like to call LHA's etc "Harrier carriers" but that's no longer appropriate...

Interesting that the rear quarter seems to have Phalanx on one side and SeaRAM on the other - are they expecting one side of the ship to only be attacked by low performance missiles or something? :)

Speaking of carriers - the Royal Navys two carriers are definitely going ahead now, so would you lot please hurry up and finish making F-35s so we have something to fly from them please? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm about a month-and-a-half late posting this, but I took a bunch of pictures from my last visit to the Strategic Air and Space Museum on May 17th (Armed Forces Day here in the US). Got 'em all posted on my Facebook account. Unfortunately I was a little rushed so I missed getting over to the B-58 Hustler and MiG-21 Fishbed.

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2642...mp;id=582816193

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2643...mp;id=582816193

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2643...mp;id=582816193

Edited by Apollo Leader
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice shots Graham, the Reagan is a nice ship, only carrier where you don't have to go through a lavatory aka head, to get into the forward RAM launcher space.

Actually F-Zero-One, the America has pretty standard self defense armament all around, the rear fantail has, from left to right, a CIWS mount, a NATO SeaSparrow Launcher, and RAM mount (not-SeaRAM, which is basically a CIWS mount with an 11 round RAM magazine instead of a phalanx cannon.) THen forward it has a RAM Mount, with a SeaSparrow mount behind that and a CIWS mount over the bridge. That is pretty standard on all carriers, LHA/D to full on CVN, though most CVNs are going away from the CIWS and going to replace the Sea-Sparrow with ESSM in the next few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice shots Graham, the Reagan is a nice ship, only carrier where you don't have to go through a lavatory aka head, to get into the forward RAM launcher space.

Actually F-Zero-One, the America has pretty standard self defense armament all around, the rear fantail has, from left to right, a CIWS mount, a NATO SeaSparrow Launcher, and RAM mount (not-SeaRAM, which is basically a CIWS mount with an 11 round RAM magazine instead of a phalanx cannon.) THen forward it has a RAM Mount, with a SeaSparrow mount behind that and a CIWS mount over the bridge. That is pretty standard on all carriers, LHA/D to full on CVN, though most CVNs are going away from the CIWS and going to replace the Sea-Sparrow with ESSM in the next few years.

yes, it makes more sense now that Davids posted the other angle. My bad with SeaRAM and the Sea-Sparrow; I meant RAM and I missed the Sea-Sparrow launcher at first, I thought it was just a deck fitting after only glancing at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit that I didn't even know the Vulcan existed until I saw the one they had on display in the Royal Air Force Museum in London last year. I was quite impressed, especially when I learned that it's considered a medium bomber. I would have loved to see the restored one on its flight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it's COOL, and that's reason enough to do it. Why merely lower the flaps when you can get a bigger effect by raising the whole damn wing? :)

PS---the F-8 is so sleek that even with a normal wing, that and the fact that it's the last of the gunfighters means it'd still merit being a "cool" plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coolest planes aren't that well-known. Heck, even people who like fighter planes often know little about the F-8, and bomber people don't know the Vulcan.

I'm sure Brits know about the Vulcan. Which do you think is more well known - the Victor or the Vulcan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure Brits know about the Vulcan. Which do you think is more well known - the Victor or the Vulcan?

Vulcan. Clearly.

Although I think the Victor is a thousand times cooler. Even as a tanker.

But that is a decidedly minority opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sharkey" Ward [1] would be most annoyed, but yes, most people in the U.K. of about my age would probably recognise the Vulcan.

[1] Author of "Sea Harrier Over The Falklands" and not overly impressed with the "crabs" contribution. [2]

[2] Fleet Air Arm term for the R.A.F. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet they are regretting having retired the F-14's... Nice pic though :) Just interesting how they are using ext fuel tanks on the 22, wich makes it incredible easily to be targeted by an enemy radar...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of intercepting Bears off of US territory, I think we are wanting the Russians to know we are there and know that we know they are there so stealth in these circumstances aren't important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but you could have a full interceptor squadron any place you want with the carrier based F-14's... The F-22's have to fly a long way to be able to intercept the enemy plane. I don't know if the new 18's are being used as interceptors, but if the US will need to rely on their 22's, they have lost a lot in response time.

Btw, is the US navy still using the phoenix missiles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JSF troubles (of course, again). The F135 doesn't seem to like doing to whole "transitioning from normal to VTOL" thing. Turbine blade failures, etc. The alternative F136 engine seems to do it fine---not surprising, since the F-136 is derived from the uber-awesome F120, which was DESIGNED FROM THE START to have 2 different modes. (The F135 is a modified F119). The F136 however, isn't being funded/accepted---they seem to want to give PW the contract no matter what.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...vl-testing.html

Now, IMHO, PW is even more "preferred" than Boeing is. Boeing vs Airbus? Hah. Look at the track records of PW and GE in US military jet engines:

F-14: PW's TF30 sucks and we all know it. The military eventually out of desperation (and a decade late) finally allows GE F110's--and they rock.

F-15: F100 sucks, fails all the time. So bad that many F-15's are grounded or delivered sans engines, even though they have TWO engines to rely on. When it becomes available, everyone who can starts ordering F-15's with GE engines (except the US of course).

F-16: F100 sucks in the F-16 just as badly as it does in the F-15, but it's even more of a situation since they only have one engine. The GE F110 is commissioned due to desperately needing something else--and it's WAY better. Almost all future USAF F-16's are ordered with GE's, and those with PW's are subsequently restricted to CONUS and ANG use. Front-line F-16's are GE-powered as a rule.

F-18: GE ordered from the start. Does great, no problems. Just as good when upgraded for the F-20, Super Hornets and the Gripen.

F-22/F-23. PW F119 vs GE F120. F119 is inferior in all aspects, so it's chosen to power the F-22.

F-35: Modified F119 (F135) vs modified F120 (F136). Guess which one sucks? Guess which one gets the contract?

Yeesh. Favortism for PW, anyone? I mean c'mon---the F119 is nothing more than a souped-up F100. The F120 is a whole new class of engine, new from the ground up and DESIGNED TO OPERATE IN TWO DIFFERENT MODES---and they DIDN'T pick it to be developed to power the VTOL 2-mode version of the F-35?

The F120 is a truly brilliant design--it can switch from turbojet to turbofan. It can adjust its own bypass ratio, from "Harrier-style" low-speed max-power ducting everything directly out from the compressor fan, to F-4 style "pure raw afterburning at high speed from the turbine". It's the realization of a concept I saw years ago in a book basically saying "a Concorde replacement will need an engine from the future that can do THIS". And the F120 does it. As does the F136. I wouldn't be surprised if the civillian 797 or A360 have engines like that, while the "ultra-high-tech" F-22/F-35 fall way behind engine-wise. Yes, the F119 family has power---but nothing more. The F120 family is the most important new design since the turbofan was invented--but nobody wants to use/develop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...