Jump to content

Aircraft Vs Thread 5


Recommended Posts

Sounds interesting.

Even if they quoted it at half the price (with all else the same), I'll think a snowball has a better chance in hell.

Thanks for the pics Joseph. I originally thought you meant that the nozzles were tested on a T-50 but I never saw those Su-27 pics either.

As Phyrox said, I can't imagine why they would have weight issues with such a tiny and space efficient and smart looking and well balanced set-up! :lol:

Edited by Retracting Head Ter Ter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Visited the RAF Museum at Cosford yesterday. It was amazing the see the TSR-2 up close, not to mention the 3 V-bombers. Will post pics later when I'm back home.

Graham

I hope you got some decent photos of the Ki-46 they have.

It's one of the most beautiful planes ever made, and they've got the only one.

...to think I spent 3 months in England and didn't manage to work a visit to Cosford into the mix, and it was only #3 on my list!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and you say there was a weight/maneuverability penalty with this sophisticated installation? Hard to believe... :rolleyes:

It was experiment that didn't well results. After they created 3D nozzles that were selected for Su-35 and Pak-fa.

The Pak-fa radar an IR firm aren't unknown ready yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New image of the T-50 kills two birds with one stone. One, it's pretty clear it's wearing the same paint scheme as the "photoshopped" picture I posted the other day. Two, if you fiddle with the levels a little you can see that the engine faces are exposed, no S shaped ducts, not even a Super Hornet or Bone style radar blocker; just the bare engine face. Even with the rumor of RAM applied to the first stage engine blades, I don't see how the PAK-FA can even match the Super Hornet's RCS let alone something like the F-35 or F-22.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Neid, if you look at that picture, look closely, that first stage blade you are seeing is the radar blocker. THe X-32 has something similar, as does the super bug. It is fairly effective at blocking radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't look anything like the Super Hornet's IMHO. This is a Shornet's radar blocker--you can't see anything behind it, that's the point. Everything overlaps, there's no gaps exposed from the front--just curved slots where the air can "slip around behind". The PAK-FA seems to have inlet guide vanes, and you can see 2, maybe 3 stages through the gaps.

DSC00413_2.jpg

Photo credit: Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't look anything like the Super Hornet's IMHO. This is a Shornet's radar blocker--you can't see anything behind it, that's the point. Everything overlaps, there's no gaps exposed from the front--just curved slots where the air can "slip around behind". The PAK-FA seems to have inlet guide vanes, and you can see 2, maybe 3 stages through the gaps.

DSC00413_2.jpg

Photo credit: Me

F-18:

26500333_nRjJ6-M.jpg

117C Engine:

indexphp2vb7.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you compare the engine face with the engine face of the 117C engine, which I believe is mislabeled, the radar blockers are quite similar in appearance, which makes we wonder if the blockers are variable in pitch. BLockers no matter how they are shaped will affect airflow into the engine, and at low altitudes or takeoffs and landings that could be a serious issue. SO what if you adjust their position during those key periods where stealth is not a requirement, and adjust them to be more covering when doing a stealthy penetration? Also we could just be looking at the test engines without radar blockers in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're mis-identifying the stator vanes for a variable radar blocker. Compare Joseph's picture to the 117C's close cousin the AL-31FN which we know doesn't have a radar blocker and it's pretty clear we really are just looking at the vanilla engine without any RCS reductions. I'm willing to entertain the idea that a radar blocker may be added later or that they have applied RAM to the first stage blades (neither of which is going to lower the RCS as much as an S-shaped duct), but the fact that other pictures clearly show a variable intake ramp tell me that Sukhoi just isn't as invested in lowering the craft's RCS as the fuselage shaping initially led everyone to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. Getting that to 45,000ft, is kind of like when they dropped the shuttle Enterprise off of a 747 and glid down to a landing. It's a LONG way from an "actual test spaceflight".

Can they actually call that Space Ship two flight when it is just Cargo on White Night Two, or did they do a drop test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. Getting that to 45,000ft, is kind of like when they dropped the shuttle Enterprise off of a 747 and glid down to a landing. It's a LONG way from an "actual test spaceflight".

And yet everyone goes crazy when the PAK-FA takes off, flies around for a little under an hour, and then lands.

Hmmm...

I think it is still neat and interesting. The progress of private spaceflight is moving faster than I expected, and considering recent slashes to NASA's program, this is probably going to be the best we'll get for a while.

:p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little late and apologies if this has been posted before.

I found this very interesting and it means that the real world is getting a little closer to the Macross universe, with multi-purpose missiles that can strike air or ground targets. :D

Graham

Raytheon adapt AIM-9X for air-to-ground mission

DATE : 03/12/09

SOURCE : Flight International

EXCLUSIVE: Raytheon adapts AIM-9X for air-to-ground mission

By Stephen Trimble

Click Here

Raytheon has adapted the heat-seeking AIM-9X to strike moving targets on the ground or in the water, adding another new capability for the formerly air-to-air-only missile.

The modification allows the same AIM-9X to strike both air and ground targets. Jeff White, Raytheon's business development manager for AIM-9X, declines to describe the modification in detail, but says it involves only software changes. The AIM-9X infrared seeker, proximity fuse and blast/fragmentation warhead remain unchanged.

During a 23 September Gulf of Mexico test, a US Air Force F-15C fired the air-to-surface AIM-9X and hit a speeding "cigar boat", a type commonly used by drug smugglers. "The missile went right through the boat," says White.

The F-15C test follows a previous shot by an F-16 at a similar target, which also scored a hit on the boat, he adds.

The project to develop the air-to-surface mode for the AIM-9X began with a request from the USAF in March 2007. Although the AIM-9X is primarily an air-to-air missile used in short-range engagements, USAF officials saw a need to make it multi-purpose.

"Maybe you're flying an F-15 that only has air-to-air weapons," says White. "The F-15C only carries air-to-air weapons. Well, now the pilot has an air-to-ground weapon."

The same concept also applies to fighters that can carry a mix of air and ground munitions. For example, if a Boeing F/A-18 is asked to strike a ground target after dropping all its bombs, the pilot could still use the AIM-9X, says White.

Raytheon has greatly expanded the missile's capability since introducing the AIM-9X Block 1 missile in 2003. The company is completing developmental testing on Block 2, which adds a smaller fuse that allows room to insert a one-way datalink for lock-on after launch capability.

The latter upgrade also enables Raytheon to convert the AIM-9X into a surface-to-air missile, launched from a high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV). Raytheon is discussing the concept with US government agencies, says White.

Meanwhile, a submarine-launched variant of the AIM-9X is being prepared for the US Navy. Raytheon has demonstrated underwater launch of a Sidewinder-shaped missile, and is in talks with the USN to launch a programme of record in 2012.

The goal of the Littoral Warfare Weapon would be to equip submarines with a missile to strike helicopters equipped with dipping sonars and torpedoes. "If submarines get caught in the shallows, they need some defence," says White.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I had heard of this, thanks Graham.

I was wondering when we would see AAMs turned multi-role, Although my bet was on seeing the AIM-120 being used in an ARM role as I think I remember reading that it had/has a home-on-jam mode (if anyone else knows if so would like to hear from you).

With the work they have been doing on the laser homing 2.75"/70mm rockets, this kinda makes me wonder if a similar system might make it to AAMs next. That or a GPS system, like a AAM/JDAM mix, I think that would be more useful over Afghanistan or Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They even have their own XB-70. There's not much they DON'T have a counterpart of.

It is actually similar to the B-1B.

I know this is probably a stupid question why is that Bomber not scrap Metal littering the Scottish Country side if it had over flown the Scottish Main island?

The Russians/Soviet got a way with destroying a S Korean airliner why can't United Kingdom the defend their territory from a Blatant/indefensible intrusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this on CNN today: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/25...dex.html?hpt=T2 I didn't realize they had their own version of the B1.

The Blackjack was designed strictly to just fire long range cruise missiles correct? Unlike the B-1 which can carry a load of unguided ordinance.

Found this story just pop up. Robert White who flew the X-15 just passed away. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_..._robert_white_2

LOS ANGELES – Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Robert M. White, who flew high enough as a test pilot in an X-15 rocket plane to earn astronaut wings in the early 1960s, has died at age 85.

White died March 17, NASA said in a statement. His son, Greg White, told the Orlando Sentinel and the Los Angeles Times that his father died in his sleep in Orlando, Fla.

White was a veteran combat pilot before he came to Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and began flying X-15s in the hypersonic, high-altitude research program that contributed to the U.S. space effort.

X-15s were carried aloft under the wing of a B-52 bomber and released at 45,000 feet. The rocket engine was ignited to hurl the slender, stubby-winged craft on altitude or speed runs that ended with an unpowered glide to a landing on a dry lake bed in the Mojave Desert north of Los Angeles.

On July 17, 1962, White flew to an altitude of 314,750 feet, more than 59 miles high. That was well above the 50-mile altitude the Air Force accepted as the start of space, earning him the service's first rating as a "winged astronaut." At the time, only four other Americans, all Mercury astronauts, had gone into space.

During the previous year, White had become the first person to fly a winged craft several times the speed of sound at Mach 4, Mach 5 and then — at full throttle — to Mach 6, or more than 4,000 mph.

Born in New York City in 1924, White joined the military in 1942 as an aviation cadet.

He served in the 355th Fighter Group in Europe during World War II, flying P-51 fighters from July 1944 to February 1945, when he was shot down over Germany on his 52nd mission and held as a prisoner of war until April 1945, according to his Air Force biography.

White received a bachelor of science degree from New York University in 1951, the year he was recalled to active duty during the Korean War, serving with units based in the U.S. and Japan.

In 1954, White went to the Air Force's Experimental Test Pilot School at Edwards and was eventually selected as an Air Force representative in the X-15 program, which also involved NASA, the Navy and aircraft builder North American Aviation. In all, he flew 16 X-15 missions between April 13, 1960, and Dec. 14, 1962.

There were 199 flights in the X-15 program, which ran from 1959 to 1968. At the time, only the Air Force pilots were awarded astronaut wings.

White returned to Edwards in 2005 when astronaut wings were awarded to three civilian X-15 pilots, two posthumously, according to Alan Brown, a spokesman at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center.

After his X-15 flights, White served in various Air Force assignments and received a master of science degree in business administration from George Washington University before being sent to Southeast Asia. He flew 70 combat missions in F-105 aircraft over North Vietnam in 1967 and earned the Air Force Cross.

White later commanded the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards before retiring in 1981.

He and his wife, Chris, who died previously, will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

___

Edited by Shadow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The B-1 was also originally designed strictly for nukes, both cruise missiles and dropped bombs. The B-1 was so "nuke-only" that there was no consideration in the design given to reloading it, as it was basically a suicide mission. Which caused big problems (and still do) when they adapted it to conventional bombing. Takes FOREVER to reload the thing. ('cuz they were never expected to come back).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is actually similar to the B-1B.

I know this is probably a stupid question why is that Bomber not scrap Metal littering the Scottish Country side if it had over flown the Scottish Main island?

The Russians/Soviet got a way with destroying a S Korean airliner why can't United Kingdom the defend their territory from a Blatant/indefensible intrusion?

Can't gain any electronic intelligence info from its emissions if its burning wreckage now, can we? :)

IIRC, one of the major differences between the B1-B and the "Black Jack" is that the Russian bomber is a fair bit larger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the bomber crew and the interceptor pilots give each other a thumbs up through the glass ... Hurray for employment! Same time next week?

In the States the the thumb is not our finger of choice when running into other aircraft :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pictorial history of the Admiral Gorshkov to Vikramaditya conversion:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showt...l=1#post4821907

Not often you see an aircraft carrier on land surrounded by and covered with snow... (I'm sure that'll be in the next Ace Combat)

Fantastic pics David. Thanks for the link!

Is it me or do the pics make the ship look rather small for an aircraft carrier? Doesn't look much bigger than the USS Intrepid (CV-11) in NYC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are some incredible pictures, from all the BS India has been getting from Russia I fully expected the Vikramaditya to still look like the first couple of pics. Vifam you have to keep in mind that Russian carriers are a lot smaller than US style super carriers. Technically speaking the Kiev class isn't even an aircraft carrier at all but an "aircraft carrying missile cruiser," you can see the missile tubes on the bow in some of the early pictures there. Post re-fit the Indians will use it as a more traditional aircraft carrier but they can't afford something as big as American ships, although IIRC their domestically built follow on the Vikrant will be closer in size to the Queen Elizabeth or Kuznetsov class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A co-worker sent me this link the other day: http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2010/03...lan/#more-11522

It's kind of sad to see it sitting like that, wasting away. I can't believe how huge it is (someone in the comments on that page posted its coodinates, so you can find it in google maps: 42° 52′ 54″ N, 47° 39′ 24″ E).

Would make a good Ace Combat mid-campaign boss....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...