Shadow Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 (edited) I'm shocked they want to kill the A-10. Now they are saying the AF is going to axe KC-10's, F-15C's, and CSAR Helo's as well. The A-10 and F-15C have both been service for well over 30 years now so it's not surprising. The question is how will there numbers be replaced, especially the F-15 with the F-22 inventory capped at 187 for the near future. The A-10 is outstanding in low risk CAS missions but I'd be worried we'd be losing a fair number of these against an opponent equipped with better air defenses like the Tunguska and Igla-S, and even intermediate tech defenses such as the SA-11. Edited September 19, 2013 by Shadow
LOW_ALT Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Too bad the F-15 never got updated to the "Eagle-Plus" from Patlabor 2:
areaseven Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 U.S. Pilot Scares Off Iranians with Top Gun-Worthy Stunt: "You Really Ought to Go Home"
Shadow Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Too bad the F-15 never got updated to the "Eagle-Plus" from Patlabor 2: Hmm. Remove the canards. Fit it with AESA like the Golden Eagle and replace the F-100s or GE engines with P&W F-119s.
frothymug Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 Interesting idea for a picture, but... heh, I don't see why a VF-11 would need to be refueled in an atmosphere.
LOW_ALT Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 Interesting idea for a picture, but... heh, I don't see why a VF-11 would need to be refueled in an atmosphere. Then again there isn't much reason to refuel an aircraft with thermonuclear engines.
Noyhauser Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 Too bad the F-15 never got updated to the "Eagle-Plus" from Patlabor 2: LOVE IT. That movie's mechanical design has always inspired me. I can't help but think of it whenever I construct a JASDF aircraft.... which is why I snapped up the hell hound when it came out. Maybe I'll try something like this some day.
electric indigo Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 Then again there isn't much reason to refuel an aircraft with thermonuclear engines. Due to massive cost overruns, the VF-11 program had to be downgraded to conventional engines. It was either that or being replaced by drones...
LOW_ALT Posted September 27, 2013 Posted September 27, 2013 Due to massive cost overruns, the VF-11 program had to be downgraded to conventional engines. It was either that or being replaced by drones... Hmm, that I hadn't heard before. Both MAHQ and the Mecha Manual have the powerplants listed as "two Shinsei Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2025G thermonuclear reaction turbine engines". Excuse my lack of knowledge on this subject but a conventional engine would still require a fuel+oxygen combination for propulsion. How exactly does that work in space?? Isn't that the whole reason the VF-0's and SV-51's couldn't leave the atmosphere?
electric indigo Posted September 27, 2013 Posted September 27, 2013 Actually, I was totally making that up...
frothymug Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) Then again there isn't much reason to refuel an aircraft with thermonuclear engines. ...which is what I was alluding to in my post. Hmm, that I hadn't heard before. Both MAHQ and the Mecha Manual have the powerplants listed as "two Shinsei Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2025G thermonuclear reaction turbine engines". Excuse my lack of knowledge on this subject but a conventional engine would still require a fuel+oxygen combination for propulsion. How exactly does that work in space?? Isn't that the whole reason the VF-0's and SV-51's couldn't leave the atmosphere? Yes, neither the VF-0 nor the SV-51 could leave the atmosphere, but as was mentioned in Ep. 3 of M-0, The VF-0 could still operate for a couple of minutes sans atmosphere. A thermonuclear engine would work in space by superheating propellant, which would be linearly-accelerated out of the engine. The subsequent action-reaction would produce thrust in space. In-universe, the thermonuclear engines can operate indefinitely within an atmosphere, while those same engines would require stored propellant somewhere on the craft. Edited October 3, 2013 by frothymug
David Hingtgen Posted October 5, 2013 Author Posted October 5, 2013 Iran unveiled their latest aviation innovation----the Fakour-90 air-to-air missile. They say it's compatible with their F-14.
Shadow Posted October 5, 2013 Posted October 5, 2013 Tried looking that up but there isn't much on it. It looks basically like any Phoenix but I'm wondering what's been changed from the AIM-54A missiles that Iran possessed.
David Hingtgen Posted October 5, 2013 Author Posted October 5, 2013 The entire insides, I presume. Probably basically a really big Sparrow, inside. Unless you think they've got an advanced active-homing long-range missile inside that body, when even the US doesn't yet have anything equal to the Phoenix, power/range-wise. (still waiting on the always-proposed, never-worked-on AMRAAM-D)
Shadow Posted October 5, 2013 Posted October 5, 2013 I'd have liked to have seen work on a true long-range missile. (I recall reading about something called LRAAM awhile back.) I'm sure the AMRAAM-D will be suitable for helping the Raptor meet its true potential. I wonder how it stacks up to the Meteor though.
miles316 Posted October 5, 2013 Posted October 5, 2013 (edited) I believe it is a Modified Hawk missile modified to fit on the Phoenix missile hard point, and homes in on the RADAR from the F-14. Hawk is a Anti-Aircraft missile from the 1960's Iran bought a lot of them before the fall of the Shaw. Iran Makes a lot of claims about its ability to manufacture "Advanced" technology. Iran also claimed to have Hacked a US spy drone; and made it land at one of their airfields they built a crude mockup at paraded it in front of a group of reporters. Edited October 5, 2013 by miles316
miles316 Posted October 5, 2013 Posted October 5, 2013 All US ground launched and air launched missiles of the 1950's and 1960's had the same aerodynamic configuration before the Sparrow, sidewinder, and AIM-120.
anime52k8 Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 7th Gen fighter concept? more like the love child of the FFR-41MR MAVE from Yukikaze and an R-103 Delphinus 3 from Ace Combat 3.
Lobizon Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 7th Gen fighter concept? AvA03 Resistance Concept Jet.
derex3592 Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 In a weird way that could be Hikaru's new fan racer/jet if they ever redid Macross!
raptormesh Posted October 11, 2013 Posted October 11, 2013 Ugly as sin (the yukikaze thing, not the glorious F-15)
areaseven Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 I feel the need... the need for speed. Wait a minute... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD3nuXt4ldo
Vifam7 Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 I feel the need... the need for speed. Wait a minute... Some really bad CG animation going there.
Model-Junkie Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 For some reason a lot of CGI from Asia seem to be lacking in quality / realism. The weird thing is, if you look at the credits for a Western produced movie you will see a lot of Asian people are involved in the special effects and CGI. I have to assume it is just that Asian movies have a lower in budget compared to ones produced in the Western part of the world or they are just really cheap on the effects. I've seen some newer Jet Li movies from Hong Kong / China and the CGI were really bad.
Smiley424 Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2013/sr-72.html There seemed to be a lull in my opinion on advances in aviation and then lockheed-martin announces this. I want to see this trickle down to sub-orbital commercial flights one day.
Shadow Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Been playing alittle too much War Thunder and am in a WW2 plane mood. Still one of my favorites.
electric indigo Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2013/sr-72.html There seemed to be a lull in my opinion on advances in aviation and then lockheed-martin announces this. I want to see this trickle down to sub-orbital commercial flights one day. I don't understand the need for a hypersonic military aircraft. Why not just put the payload on a bunch of missiles?
mechaninac Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 I don't understand the need for a hypersonic military aircraft. Why not just put the payload on a bunch of missiles? You can't recall a missile.
Shadow Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 The real question is, what military application would such an aircraft serve since satellite technology has advanced such a great deal, we don't need a high speed reconnaissance jet. A fast deep strike aircraft as they described I guess would be possible. Might have to give it the A designation over SR however.
Noyhauser Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 The real question is, what military application would such an aircraft serve since satellite technology has advanced such a great deal, we don't need a high speed reconnaissance jet. A fast deep strike aircraft as they described I guess would be possible. Might have to give it the A designation over SR however. Plenty, which is why DARPA and the USAF has been funding such work for so long. Satellite technology is limited in two respects. First, adversaries are able to know when a satellite is coming into view, therefore can hide their activities. Relatedly, they cannot easily change their orbit making it difficult to obtain information on demand in a crisis. Finally they are limited by the payload they are carrying from the time of their launch, their altitude, and climactic conditions. The SR-72 would be able to avoid those problems.
mechaninac Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 Exactly. A spy plane offers versatility unattainable by other means.
David Hingtgen Posted November 15, 2013 Author Posted November 15, 2013 Been playing alittle too much War Thunder and am in a WW2 plane mood. Still one of my favorites. Is that *the* Fw190A, or a replica?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now