Aircraft Vs Thread 5

[edwin3060]

Armchair. But you sure can't swap the F100 and F110 around!

Yes you can! Saudi Arabia just did it http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...ine-boeing.html

Changing from PW F100-229s to GE F110-129Cs

miles316: The F110 generates more thrust than the F100 but also requires greater airflow, which means a bigger intake-- which is why older F-16s couldn't accept the GE F110-- but now all F-15s and F-16s are compatible with both the F100 and the F110.

Edited March 18, 2009 by edwin3060

[Bowen]

The new Eagle looks pretty spiffy.

Would've been cool if they took it a step further and added canards and thrust-vectoring like the F-15 S/MTD / F-15 ACTIVE has

Edited March 18, 2009 by Bowen

[David Hingtgen]

See where I wrote "only the very latest F-15s can use it at all"? That's the batch of F-15s that can take both. Interestingly, it's the opposite situation of the F-16:

Most F-15's can only take the F100. The few that can take the F110, can also take the F100. They can only do that because Boeing re-designed the entire aft fuselage internally to make that possible. You'd have to re-build the entire back end of an F-15A to put in F110s---but it'd probably be cheaper to buy an F-15K with them.

F-16's are about 50/50 for what they can take. But when they can take the F110, they can ONLY have the F110. They're not "compatible with both"---it's a joke that the new "Modular Common Intake Duct" is not "common" at all nor modular--it's for and only for the F110, and incompatible with the F110. Asides from NASA's VISTA, no F-16 has swapped engine types---because you'd also have to swap major sections of the fuselage (which NASA did, for experimentation).

Finally--the F110 doesn't *require* higher airflow---it's just better with it. Quite a few F110-equipped F-16s were built with the smaller intake.

Yes, most anything CAN be done. You can convert an F-5 into an X-29---doesn't mean it's easy or "supposed" to be done or done more than once. Yes, if you really, really, really want to, you could swap F100 and F110 in most planes due to being about the same size. But it's not some "remove 20 bolts, disconnect the fuel lines, and you're all set" operation. They're not compatible. Which is why no USAF plane has ever done so. Every F-15A/B/C/D/E and F-16 Block 5/10/15/20/25/30/32/40/42/50/52 the US has, has its original engine model. They may have gone from F100-220 to F100-229, but they never swapped between F100 and F110.

No one changes engines if it takes millions of dollars and thousands of hours of modifications to the plane to do so.* That's not a "swappable" engine. I'm sure a Lamborghini V10 would *fit* in my car. It COULD be installed. Probably COULD be made to actually run with my electrical system and PCM. Doesn't mean it's "compatible".

*Exception being the F-14, because the TF30 sucked so bad it made many F-14s crash--so it WAS deemed worth the effort to send them back to the factory to be totally taken apart and rebuilt over the course of months to make a custom-designed F110 variant fit. But once it takes an F110---it won't take the TF30, nor F100.

[F-ZeroOne]

Yes it was the Sonic Cruiser sorry it's been a while since I read that article.

Do you know if the conformal fuel tanks are integrated in to the F-15 structure, or are they removable.

A Gripen is a dragon right and a Griffin in a mythical creature with a lions body and a eagles head and wings? That is what I get for trusting spell check.

All of Sweden's fighters are named after dragons.

What fighter has a FAST pack?

Thats fine, just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing! "FAST" packs are the "original" name for CFTs, they were originally intended to mount fuel, sensors and weapons (though its never been clear to me if the sensors were supposed to be inside the packs or on mounts on the outside; AFAIK all CFT-equipped aircraft only have fuel inside - well, until the "Silent Eagle", anyway!).

[miles316]

Thats fine, just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing! "FAST" packs are the "original" name for CFTs, they were originally intended to mount fuel, sensors and weapons (though its never been clear to me if the sensors were supposed to be inside the packs or on mounts on the outside; AFAIK all CFT-equipped aircraft only have fuel inside - well, until the "Silent Eagle", anyway!).

So the writers of Macross took the term FAST pact from the real life military.

[Nied]

I'm going to be the dissenting voice here and say the SE is really underwhelming. The signature reduction measures are meager at best, there's no edge alignment and it still retains the big square radar reflective intakes (as opposed to the edge aligned diamond intakes on the Super Hornet or Raptor). The canted tailfins are a good idea but I'm curious how they'll get them to work structurally as the mockup looks like they just sawed off the old Eagle tail fins and welded them back on at an angle. The weapons load it can carry in the FAST packs is pitiful, slightly less than an F-35 but without anywhere close to the level of LO the JSF has to mitigate it. While the (unspecified) AESA is good, it doesn't have an IRST or the comprehensive DASS the Typhoon, Rafale, F-35 or even Super Hornet have to back it up. The Eagle's no slouch when it comes to maneuverability but I don't see how it's supposed to compete against advanced FBW designs like the eurocanards, the Super Hornet or even the JSF (latest on it says it combines the high speed performance of a mid block Falcon with the low speed/high AoA performance of a Hornet/Super Hornet). In the end I can't see a reason to buy a SE when there are better fighters available for the same price (Typhoon, JSF) or roughly equivalent fighters for less (Super Hornet, Rafale, Grippen).

[David Hingtgen]

If you have existing F-15s (Japan, Israel, etc) you could save a LOT of money in maintenance, training, etc by buying these instead of something totally new like a Shornet. And even better, I'm betting a good chunk of real F-15SEs will be conversions of existing ones, not new-build. Even cheaper. Heck, do a partial conversion. F-15C with the original engines, intake baffles and missile-carrying CFTs. Japan doesn't need range--but they'd love to halve the RCS of their existing Eagles quickly and cheaply.

And it'll be ready long before the JSF is at this rate.

This is not supposed to be an uber-fighter----it'll be a *cheap* stop-gap available *soon*, to those who want something to counter the "more of them patrolling the border every day" Super Flankers while waiting for the F-35 to make its what, 6th supersonic flight?

[Nied]

If you have existing F-15s (Japan, Israel, etc) you could save a LOT of money in maintenance, training, etc by buying these instead of something totally new like a Shornet. And even better, I'm betting a good chunk of real F-15SEs will be conversions of existing ones, not new-build. Even cheaper. Heck, do a partial conversion. F-15C with the original engines, intake baffles and missile-carrying CFTs. Japan doesn't need range--but they'd love to halve the RCS of their existing Eagles quickly and cheaply.

And it'll be ready long before the JSF is at this rate.

This is not supposed to be an uber-fighter----it'll be a *cheap* stop-gap available *soon*, to those who want something to counter the "more of them patrolling the border every day" Super Flankers while waiting for the F-35 to make its what, 6th supersonic flight?

Isreal could get the same effect cheaper by upgrading the rest of their Falcon fleet to F-16I standard and popping in an AESA (SABR or Elta 2052). Japan might find the idea of halving their existing F-15s' RCS appealing but would they want to do the same to their missile loads? At any rate they've turned their noses up at the idea of upgraded Eagles, and if the congress doesn't repeal the Raptor ban soon they'll likely start building their own Typhoons. That leaves Saudi Arabia as the only large source of orders and I can't imagine why they'd go for the SE when they could expand their buy of Typhoons or re-instate their Rafale purchase and get much more bang for their petro-bucks.

[Nied]

[miles316]

Does any one know if the Japanese have made any progress in their stealth fighter prototype.

[Vifam7]

Isreal could get the same effect cheaper by upgrading the rest of their Falcon fleet to F-16I standard and popping in an AESA (SABR or Elta 2052). Japan might find the idea of halving their existing F-15s' RCS appealing but would they want to do the same to their missile loads? At any rate they've turned their noses up at the idea of upgraded Eagles, and if the congress doesn't repeal the Raptor ban soon they'll likely start building their own Typhoons. That leaves Saudi Arabia as the only large source of orders and I can't imagine why they'd go for the SE when they could expand their buy of Typhoons or re-instate their Rafale purchase and get much more bang for their petro-bucks.

I don't think Japan has fully rejected the F-15 yet. IIRC their need for the replacement of the Phantoms is immediate. They may indeed buy upgraded Eagles as a quick stop gap. Even if Japan buys the Typhoon it'll probably take time to enter service. In the meantime, they may have to insert Eagles to replace those Phantoms as it'll likely be easier and faster* to do so.

*due to familarity in operations, maintenance, training, piloting etc.

[Noyhauser]

I don't think Japan has fully rejected the F-15 yet. IIRC their need for the replacement of the Phantoms is immediate. They may indeed buy upgraded Eagles as a quick stop gap. Even if Japan buys the Typhoon it'll probably take time to enter service. In the meantime, they may have to insert Eagles to replace those Phantoms as it'll likely be easier and faster* to do so.

*due to familarity in operations, maintenance, training, piloting etc.

I don't really know about that. Given the current economic predicament the Japanese economy is in, where it posted a CA deficit for the first time in 13 years, as well as the almost certain victory of the DPJ in the next election. The japanese aren't likely to be making large offshore procurement decisions in the near future. Neither are most of the other regional competitors (I'll believe Russia's big defence plans when I actually see them.)

You also have to realize the F-4 replacement program sits at a interesting intersection of Japanese politics. Its clear given the fairly strident calls (by Japanese standards) rejecting the F-35 in favour of the F-22, this is an issue that has roots in Japan's powerful bureaucracy. So its not an issue that will change with a different government. They want a next-gen fighter, and this F-15 won't satisfy them, neither will the F-35.

Now the likely election of the DPJ (a left leaning party with pacifist roots, which has adopted a skeptic attitude towards the United States), will deform these choices by making a movement away from a strictly US centric approach to foreign policy. That makes the Eurofighter alot more palatable as a choice, as it fills the bureaucracy's desire for a new fighter and the political desire to move away from the U.S.

Obviously if the Japanese get the F-22, none of this matters, but I sincerely doubt they will be going for the F-15SE or anything other than a true next gen.

[edwin3060]

If you have existing F-15s (Japan, Israel, etc) you could save a LOT of money in maintenance, training, etc by buying these instead of something totally new like a Shornet. And even better, I'm betting a good chunk of real F-15SEs will be conversions of existing ones, not new-build. Even cheaper. Heck, do a partial conversion. F-15C with the original engines, intake baffles and missile-carrying CFTs. Japan doesn't need range--but they'd love to halve the RCS of their existing Eagles quickly and cheaply.

And it'll be ready long before the JSF is at this rate.

This is not supposed to be an uber-fighter----it'll be a *cheap* stop-gap available *soon*, to those who want something to counter the "more of them patrolling the border every day" Super Flankers while waiting for the F-35 to make its what, 6th supersonic flight?

That's assuming it will be available as a retrofit kit, which we don't know yet-- even a partial conversion will probably only involve the CFTs, and maybe the RAM, since intake baffles and the canted tails will require some rebuilding of the airframe (and the baffles would definitely affect performance). If you're just changing the CFTs the advantages might not be worth the loss in range and the increase in maintenance required.

Nied: The Saudi's only just re-engined their F-15s so I doubt that they would be in for more upgrades so soon-- especially not with their oil profits plummeting.

So, all in all, out of all the target market, we've eliminated the Japanese and the Saudi's as customers, which leaves the Koreans, Israelis and Singapore-- Korea and Singapore are the likely buyers since they have aircraft still on order which could be built as SE's, a little similar to how the Australian's modified their F-18 E/F order to include wiring for a possible G variant. That's not a very big market-- less than 50 new-builds altogether. Hopefully the SE is an easy retrofit because I don't see how it would make commercial sense otherwise, barring a large new order of aircraft.

Could this be Boeing's last gasp attempt to remain in the fighter jet market? The Shornet hasn't exactly generated alot of sales, and there will probably be no new fighter contracts for the next decade at least.

Edited March 19, 2009 by edwin3060

[F-ZeroOne]

So the writers of Macross took the term FAST pact from the real life military.

Yep, along with quite a few other things; famously, many of the transforming fighter aircraft in Macross are named after real-world aircraft.

[Bri]

The USAF is the most likely target customer even though Boeing denies it. If this is indeed a retrofit kit then it could be an option with target numbers of F22s falling short of what the USAF needs.

Boeing is a major subcontractor for the F22 so has no real interest to see the program ended. Maybe that is why the statement was made that they don't actively aim to market it in the US.

[Knight26]

Looks like the Terrafugia, Transition Roadable aircraft finally flew for the first time. And, I finally found a decent picture of the cockpit. Well I hate the cockpit layout, it is cluttered and a mess, plus the stick is way too low for comfortbale flight.

[Apollo Leader]

I just saw the news about the Silent Eagle this morning. Looks nifty, but it's definitely no substitute for either the F-22 or F-35. But still would make an interesting upgrade for old F-15's and any others that come off the assembly line.

If I can find the picture, McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) had a data sheet showing potential usages for the F-15's FAST Packs/CFT's all the way back in the 1980's and at least one of the proposals indicated the possibility of internal weponary. I know at least one proposal was for an internal gun and I think another was internal weapons carriage (bombs and missiles).

[miles316]

Maybe they could put a Metal Storm gun in the FAST/CFT to bust tanks like the A-10.

Though it would not be as accurate as the A-10 cannon.

[Knight26]

That actually would not be that bad of an idea, except that F-15 is not as surviable or slow flying as the A-10. However I still prefer it to the AT-6 COIN aircraft they are proposing as an A-10 replacement.

[edwin3060]

Maybe they could put a Metal Storm gun in the FAST/CFT to bust tanks like the A-10.

Though it would not be as accurate as the A-10 cannon.

Imagine the recoil! The A-10 more or less had to be built around the GAU-8--- and the gatling itself is positioned such that the firing barrel is along the centre axis of the aircraft so as not to throw the aim off! Imagine F-15's slewing off to the side every time they fired their weapons. Besides, fast jets don't really do the whole CAS role very well-- I'd rather it carry the 8 SDBs modified for laser targeting so that ground troops could designate targets, and leave the down and dirty CAS to UAVs/ Apaches.

Actually the fact that both the F-18 and the F-15 came from MDD lead me to think-- Boeing is not really a fighter company. What was their last fighter that got produced anyway, excluding those from the companies they bought over? Seems like LM has had dominance of the fighter market ever since the F-16.

[F-ZeroOne]

Actually the fact that both the F-18 and the F-15 came from MDD lead me to think-- Boeing is not really a fighter company. What was their last fighter that got produced anyway, excluding those from the companies they bought over? Seems like LM has had dominance of the fighter market ever since the F-16.

Uh... the P26 Peashooter? (to give you an idea of how far back thats going, the "P" is from when fighter aeroplanes were "Pursuits"...! ).

Edited March 19, 2009 by F-ZeroOne

[Bri]

Neither Boeing nor Lockheed was particularly impressive in building real fighters. Boeings last fighter to enter service was the P26 Peashooter in 1934 if I'm not mistaken.

Lockheed was bit more succesful with the P38 Lightning, P80 Shooting star and the F104 Starfighter. They were off course far more reknoned for their Spy/Stealth planes.

The F16 was developed by General Dynamics.

McDonnel-Douglas and North American were far more famous builders (both part of Boeing now)

Northrop-Grunman is still independant I think?

Edited March 19, 2009 by Bri

[edwin3060]

Well I guess LM did a better job of nurturing the aerospace division that they bought over from GD then, seeing as to how they won both the ATF and the JSF competitions. Boeing, on the other hand, comes up with weird guppy fish fighters . And Northrop Grumman is more focused on their shipbuilding I think. Going to a single source fighter producer can't be good for the US!

Same issues plaguing the fighter engine business-- PW seems to win every time, even though GE manages to make up for it by coming up with higher thrust engines that secure the secondary contracts--see the F-15/F-16.

Edited March 20, 2009 by edwin3060

[Apollo Leader]

Northrop Grumman Next Generation Bomber patent revealed. Obviously previous speculation about it being based off of the current X-47 designs was correct. Looks to be a side-by-side cockpit and it's four-engined. More pictures of the patent are posted at the Secret Projects forums.

[Apollo Leader]

Going to a single source fighter producer can't be good for the US!

Been thinking of the same thing as of late. Lockheed as it is is in a bit of a pickle since both the F-22 and F-35 are competing for the same defence dollars and are trying to justify their existences.

[Nied]

It's like something out of GI Joe.

[Noyhauser]

Well I guess LM did a better job of nurturing the aerospace division that they bought over from GD then, seeing as to how they won both the ATF and the JSF competitions. Boeing, on the other hand, comes up with weird guppy fish fighters . And Northrop Grumman is more focused on their shipbuilding I think. Going to a single source fighter producer can't be good for the US!

Same issues plaguing the fighter engine business-- PW seems to win every time, even though GE manages to make up for it by coming up with higher thrust engines that secure the secondary contracts--see the F-15/F-16.

Actually its not like that at all. Both NG and Boeing have a significant stake in the F-35 (25% produced by NG alone), which ensures that all major manufacturers get some portion of the funding. Moreover since these are diversified companies, they aren't as reliant on one market type as other companies in the past.

In reality Northrop Grumman is actually better placed than Lockheed Martin for the future of US airpower. In 1999 they bought Teledyne Ryan, who possessed the most advanced UAV designs in the industry, and won the US Navy UCAV competition with the X-47 in 2007. Given Secretary Gates' enthusiasm for UCAVs, its quite likely the next major aerospace fighter contracts will go to NG or Boeing for a UCAV.

[David Hingtgen]

LOL, the last thing I heard about that crash was Iran's denial that it had happened.

[reddsun1]

It's like something out of GI Joe.

LOLOL!!! That was F'IN AWESOME!!

But it does beg the question: at WHAT point do either of those guys start to think "you know, it'd probably be a good idea to get OUT of the plane now." ?!?

[miles316]

I take it they survived the crash. I guess they are so good because Russian planes are prone to crash.

[David Hingtgen]

Rafael (not Rafale) music video. WTF and OMG combined. And this is an actual company-produced production.

[F-ZeroOne]

It's like something out of GI Joe.

Some Russian warplanes - not sure about the SU-24 - use "Eskeem", an automatic ejection system that dumps the pilot out if certain flight parameters are exceeded.

Without the pilots consent...

Next-gen stealth bomber: didn't that just get cancelled?

Edit: David: What? The?!

Edited March 20, 2009 by F-ZeroOne

[David Hingtgen]

The video makes (slightly) more sense if you read the article: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewl...-bollywood.html

[VF-19]

Some Russian warplanes - not sure about the SU-24 - use "Eskeem", an automatic ejection system that dumps the pilot out if certain flight parameters are exceeded.

Without the pilots consent...

Next-gen stealth bomber: didn't that just get cancelled?

Edit: David: What? The?!

Must be a big hit at the airshow, that and at the base's pool too.

It's a pretty standard bollywood short David. I've seen a few as part of a Modern Indian Literature course I took in university. They're great fun to watch. Long though.

[David Hingtgen]

BIG planes:

(I'd like to see the C-5, 747-100, and An-124 in there too though)