Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[slide]

18 minutes ago, F-ZeroOne said:

As far as government conspiracies go - a UK politician in parliament was explaining how guard dogs barking scares away drones from prisons, does that sound like someone who could engineer such a plan to you?

Yes, Minister 

Edited December 21, 2018 by slide

[F-ZeroOne]

Runway closed again after another suspected drone sighting. This time of year, its probably going to turn out to be Venus...

[electric indigo]

We need anti-drone drones...

[slide]

1 hour ago, electric indigo said:

We need anti-drone drones...

How's that Dutch Anti-Drone-Eagle Training program going?

 

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/12/the_eagle_has_been_grounded/

oh...

[kalvasflam]

You know, if the perp had any brains, he would have gone to ground, and no one will ever hear from him again.  Hopefully he'll be stupid and post this crap on social media, and then the law throws the book at him.  I think he should get jail time, the amount of time should be equal to the manhours that are wasted by all the travelers at Gatwick, may be divided by ten (just so we can show that the law can be lenient).

Speaking of anti drone drones...  what they need is this Aeroguard.  The funniest thing though are some of the experts they got on the news media, one of them actually said that having a surface to air missile to shot down a drone was a bad idea.  (geez, do you actually even have to say that?  thanks Captain Obvious)

But realistically, this is one hell of a way to screw up things, imagine a more nefarious organization doing something of this kind, except with dozens of drones around the country all at once.  No casualties, but still makes a horrible point of inconveniencing people and showing them how helpless they are.  I suppose you could call this civil disobedience or non-violent protest.

 

Updated: https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/22/uk/gatwick-airport-drone-arrests-gbr-intl/index.html

If they got the right people, I hope they throw the book at them.  In fact, several books.

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by kalvasflam

[Shadow]

I'm actually hoping this becomes a thing, although I could never see any of these entering a combat zone carrying 22 AMRAAMs just due to the extra drag alone. I'd also assume these would be using the GE F110 engines like the F-15SA.

Edited December 24, 2018 by Shadow

[F-ZeroOne]

How can you have a "Passive Active" warning system? Doesn't one contradict the other?

[Sildani]

Reading the ad copy, I think it should be called “Eagle Passive/Active” since it both senses/receives signals and can actively jam/throw flares and chaff.

 https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/download-en-us/20181010190741/1434591504767.pdf

[kalvasflam]

But from what I remember, the F-15X is not ever happening, didn't the USAF already reject this concept?

[Vifam7]

27 minutes ago, kalvasflam said:

But from what I remember, the F-15X is not ever happening, didn't the USAF already reject this concept?

 

You might be thinking of the F-15SE Silent Eagle concept.  As for the F-15X, it was recently reported that the Pentagon might request to buy 12 of them in the 2020 budget.

https://about.bgov.com/blog/pentagon-billion-new-boeing-fighters/

[kalvasflam]

2 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

 

You might be thinking of the F-15SE Silent Eagle concept.  As for the F-15X, it was recently reported that the Pentagon might request to buy 12 of them in the 2020 budget.

https://about.bgov.com/blog/pentagon-billion-new-boeing-fighters/

Oh man, I see the Boeing hand could be problematic,  Shanahan, the former Boeing exec, I wonder if he has divest all of his interests in the company.  Don't get me wrong, I think having a 4th gen missile truck loaded for bear is an excellent thing.  It could replace some of the existing F-15C, and possibly fill in the gaps for the F-22s in some ways.  I just hope they don't mire this in some dirty politics.  I hope they end up with a fleet of a few hundred.

I do have to say, all the talk about command and control platforms when they talk about the F-35s does leave me to wonder where the shooters are going to come from in the future.

[F-ZeroOne]

Ah thanks, Sildani, that makes more sense.

[David Hingtgen]

16 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Oh man, I see the Boeing hand could be problematic,  Shanahan, the former Boeing exec, I wonder if he has divest all of his interests in the company......I just hope they don't mire this in some dirty politics. 

Pretty much.  The announcement that all of the sudden, the USAF was buying F-15X's, was also the moment that Shanahan became acting SecDef.  

[Drad]

Hi all. I'm looking to pick up a 1/72 scale F-14 Tomcat. Can anyone recommend a manufacturer? So far I see Century Wings, Hobby Master, Dragon Wings, Calibre Wings and Witty Wings. Thanks in advance for the advice.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Drad

[Dobber]

Calibre Wings hands down. It the best looking of the bunch. Though there are only a few releases available at the moment. HM and Century are essentially the same mold. While not terrible, their canopy and nose section just are far too off for my taste. Some people like them though. They do have far more liveries available.they’d be the only ones I’d recommend. 

Chris

[Shadow]

On 12/27/2018 at 11:19 PM, kalvasflam said:

Oh man, I see the Boeing hand could be problematic,  Shanahan, the former Boeing exec, I wonder if he has divest all of his interests in the company.  Don't get me wrong, I think having a 4th gen missile truck loaded for bear is an excellent thing.  It could replace some of the existing F-15C, and possibly fill in the gaps for the F-22s in some ways.  I just hope they don't mire this in some dirty politics.  I hope they end up with a fleet of a few hundred.

I do have to say, all the talk about command and control platforms when they talk about the F-35s does leave me to wonder where the shooters are going to come from in the future.

I think the intent is to fill gaps, particularly those coming to the F-15C/D squadrons in the Air Guard as those airframes are retired. The Super Hen would be a force multiplier since the possibility of building additional F-22s is pretty much dead and turn the F-15 into a 4++ Gen aircraft. I agree with your point that I hope shady politics aren't involved and it's adopted cleanly.

[grigolosi]

I know for a fact that the South Korean Strike eagles have GE's in them. But the Koreans have run into issues obtaining parts for them since the GE is the primary engine for the USAF F-16 fleet. The USAF essentially has top priority for the parts. At Edwards when i was stationed there they tested the GE 129 in some of the F-15's. The USAF F-15 crew chiefs hate them. They stated they are "too oil dependent". They are definitely more sensitive to correct oil servicing but not as bad they made them out to be. Yeah I have been away for quite a while. I am now working for a new employer (LM) in another overseas assignment........Anyway I know the information I saw said the F-15X was reported by non official sources. The USAF doe inquire at times about this stuff. I would bet whoever gave out this info saw some form of cost analysis somewhere on it. But only time will tell.

 

[Shadow]

Laughed at the aftermath of pulling 10+Gs in the Tomcat.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Shadow

[captain america]

4 hours ago, Shadow said:

Laughed at the aftermath of pulling 10+Gs in the Tomcat.

 

 

Love me that fighter! I even painted it once. 

[AN/ALQ128]

9 minutes ago, captain america said:

Love me that fighter! I even painted it once. 

Nice painting!

[Thom]

On 1/6/2019 at 3:41 PM, captain america said:

Love me that fighter! I even painted it once. 

Indeed! Very nice painting!

[Sildani]

Christ, Cap, what CAN’T you do?!

[Dobber]

Wonderful Painting Cap!

Chris

[David Hingtgen]

On 1/6/2019 at 3:41 PM, captain america said:

Love me that fighter! I even painted it once. 

Bounty Hunters D-model, nice.  And NACA ducts on the same side of the ventral fins, props for getting that right. (But modelers have the best eye for things like that).  

[captain america]

15 hours ago, Sildani said:

Christ, Cap, what CAN’T you do?!

Make no mistake sir, there's a whole lot more that I'm bad at than good at. You've obviously never seen me try to fold sheets, dance, do calculus or build a time-machine. Staying on-topic with the Tomcat, I had ideas on a more advanced version of the Tomcat 21 that would incorporate stealth-like F-23 intakes and all-moving vertical stabilizers and a few more interesting gizmos. She may be gone, but I think the Tomcat was just starting to reach its true potential before being axed. Oh, whatcould have been...

[kalvasflam]

1 hour ago, captain america said:

Make no mistake sir, there's a whole lot more that I'm bad at than good at. You've obviously never seen me try to fold sheets, dance, do calculus or build a time-machine. Staying on-topic with the Tomcat, I had ideas on a more advanced version of the Tomcat 21 that would incorporate stealth-like F-23 intakes and all-moving vertical stabilizers and a few more interesting gizmos. She may be gone, but I think the Tomcat was just starting to reach its true potential before being axed. Oh, whatcould have been...

You mean like transform?   I agree.

It is sad, that they retired the F-14.  I think part of that had to do with the demise of Grumman and it being folded into Northrop.   And let's face it, Northrop Grumman hasn't built much in the way of combat aircraft as of late.  Sure, there is the B-21 coming up, the only thing we can hope for is that there won't be the same B-2 cost overruns which ended production at 21 units.

Edited January 8, 2019 by kalvasflam

[Vifam7]

5 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

You mean like transform?   I agree.

It is sad, that they retired the F-14.  I think part of that had to do with the demise of Grumman and it being folded into Northrop.   And let's face it, Northrop Grumman hasn't built much in the way of combat aircraft as of late.  Sure, there is the B-21 coming up, the only thing we can hope for is that there won't be the same B-2 cost overruns which ended production at 21 units.

Perhaps if Grumman had come up with a clean sheet design instead of a tweaked up Tomcat, they might have had a chance of beating MDD's Super Hornet proposal and stayed longer in the fighter jet business.

Btw, on a separate note, did anyone see the news about an Israeli F-15 losing it's canopy at 30,000 feet and the pilot bringing it down safely?

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25780029/canopy-flies-off-f-15-landing/

Edited January 9, 2019 by Vifam7

[kalvasflam]

8 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

Btw, on a separate note, did anyone see the news about an Israeli F-15 losing it's canopy at 30,000 feet and the pilot bringing it down safely?

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25780029/canopy-flies-off-f-15-landing/

I read that, and it was nothing short of a miracle.  At,that altitude, even ejecting is very iffy.  That they managed to land the plane was just amazing.  Although I believe this wasn't the first  time for a canopy failure at altitude.  Fortunately they had oxygen, but can't imagine the thermal shock the two must have gone through.

[Shadow]

Plus it would still have taken a bit to get to get down as I'd imagine they needed to maintain a safe speed in their decent.

[kalvasflam]

2 hours ago, Shadow said:

Plus it would still have taken a bit to get to get down as I'd imagine they needed to maintain a safe speed in their decent.

I heard the audio, I'm not sure how much of it was cut, but it seemed like the decent and landing was pretty quick.  My bet is some of it was cut.

Anyway, going back to my favorite whipping boy, the F-35.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-new-pentagon-chief-said-the-1-trillion-f-35-is-f-2019-1 

My only comment here is: OMG.  Not because of the fact what Shanahan said was true, but because of the fact a Boeing exec made that comment.  Now I question whether Boeing would've done any better, (hello KC-46) but Boeing was stuck with a firm fixed price contract, there is no question that the -35 was a crap show that kept ramping up costs.  Either way though, the acting SecDef isn't doing himself any favors, and now the procurement decisions involving the F-15X is going to get questioned, and it won't matter if he signed a pledge, his soul, or his firstborn on recusing himself from Boeing related matters.  This is what happens when defense consolidation gets too far.

[AN/ALQ128]

"Shanahan reportedly called the F-35 stealth fighter "f---ed up,' saying that Lockheed Martin "doesn't know how to run a program.""'If it had gone to Boeing, it would be done much better,'" a former official recalled Shanahan saying, Politico reported."

Ha, with the X-32 being what it was? I would bet fair money it would've been even WORSE.

[Knight26]

I have said for years that the JSF/F-35 never should have been a production aircraft.  It should have remained a technology testbed and demonstrator from which multiple aircraft could be designed and built using a common logistics footprint.  The most expensive parts of any combat aircraft are the internal systems, structures are relatively cheap by comparison, but if you have multiple fighter/attack platforms using the same engines, radars, sensor suites Flight Control Computers (albeit with tweaked software) and weapons interfaces, then you have made massive savings.  Imagine in you will:
F-35: Air Force, single engine similar to the primary POS we have out there (Lockheed)
F/A-32:  Refined Naval version of the X-32 as a Hornet/A-7 replacement (Boeing)
AV-33: brand new strike craft for the marines/Royal Navy (BAE/Boeing)
F-34: twin engine naval interceptor based on the F-23 Christmas Fighter proposal (North-Grumm)
A-36: twin engine (non-afterburning) A-10 replacement, with possible naval variant (Contractor TBD)
F-37: twin engine Gen5.5  Air Force Interceptor/Forward Combat Drone Controller (Lockheed)
B-21: four engine (non-afterburning) stealth bomber (North-Grumm)
All of them share the same basic engines and radars with some having large phased array antennae as well largely same internal systems, down to the actuators.  Supply train problems all but solved and you have seven different platforms farmed out across multiple contractors, all turning out purpose built aircraft.

[kalvasflam]

1 hour ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

"Shanahan reportedly called the F-35 stealth fighter "f---ed up,' saying that Lockheed Martin "doesn't know how to run a program.""'If it had gone to Boeing, it would be done much better,'" a former official recalled Shanahan saying, Politico reported."

Ha, with the X-32 being what it was? I would bet fair money it would've been even WORSE.

I don't know about that, all I know is that the Aussies sure know what to do with their surplus gear.  The most entertaining part of the note, those aircraft were of the same vintage as the CF-18s.  But then, it's not that much money, not enough for a new F-35.  Which could wipe the floor with those 25 F-18s if it had enough weapons.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canberra-confirms-sale-of-25-hornets-to-canada-at-a-454867/

[Chronocidal]

1 hour ago, Knight26 said:

I have said for years that the JSF/F-35 never should have been a production aircraft.  It should have remained a technology testbed and demonstrator from which multiple aircraft could be designed and built using a common logistics footprint.  The most expensive parts of any combat aircraft are the internal systems, structures are relatively cheap by comparison, but if you have multiple fighter/attack platforms using the same engines, radars, sensor suites Flight Control Computers (albeit with tweaked software) and weapons interfaces, then you have made massive savings.  Imagine in you will:
F-35: Air Force, single engine similar to the primary POS we have out there (Lockheed)
F/A-32:  Refined Naval version of the X-32 as a Hornet/A-7 replacement (Boeing)
AV-33: brand new strike craft for the marines/Royal Navy (BAE/Boeing)
F-34: twin engine naval interceptor based on the F-23 Christmas Fighter proposal (North-Grumm)
A-36: twin engine (non-afterburning) A-10 replacement, with possible naval variant (Contractor TBD)
F-37: twin engine Gen5.5  Air Force Interceptor/Forward Combat Drone Controller (Lockheed)
B-21: four engine (non-afterburning) stealth bomber (North-Grumm)
All of them share the same basic engines and radars with some having large phased array antennae as well largely same internal systems, down to the actuators.  Supply train problems all but solved and you have seven different platforms farmed out across multiple contractors, all turning out purpose built aircraft.

Only problem with that idea is that you assume all of those platforms would use completely compatible hardware.  Like you say, airframes are cheap, and the F-35 probably isn't any different in that regard, at least as compared with the cost of the internals and their development.  Just in general though, I hope we do go back to another cycle of more specialized platforms, rather than multi-role fighters.

The problem though is that aircraft are becoming overwhelmingy software driven, and you could easily drive the analogy that Lockheed Martin is a PC, Boeing is a Mac, and Northrup Grumman would be some kind of Android platform, while each military service is some oddball UNIX platform that doesn't play nicely with the others.  Universal components like weapons, radars, and engines, sure, those will be cross-platform compatible, once they standardize the interfaces.  But aircraft software?  That's an entirely different can of worms.

The X-35 was a great X-plane, and you're probably right about the idea that it should have remained a tech testbed, but I don't even think the internal systems are what's driven the program into the ground.  It's just that the combined complexity of building an aircraft to meet the demands of over a dozen military services spead across nearly as many countries has snowballed into a red tape singularity so utterly massive that no productivity can escape.  

If they were making the aircraft for any singular service?  The plane would have been done years ago.  Requirements wrangling between all the countries and services involved in the development is like trying to run a triathalon with a 747 strapped to your back.  Combine all this with your usual government inefficiency in getting anything done on budget or in a timely manner.. and well, there you are. 

Not to forget that the plane has been in development so long, the hardware it's running on is probably 20 years old, and every time anything gets upgraded, everything needs to be rebuilt to work with the new hardware.

[kalvasflam]

44 minutes ago, Chronocidal said:

Only problem with that idea is that you assume all of those platforms would use completely compatible hardware.  Like you say, airframes are cheap, and the F-35 probably isn't any different in that regard, at least as compared with the cost of the internals and their development.  Just in general though, I hope we do go back to another cycle of more specialized platforms, rather than multi-role fighters.

The problem though is that aircraft are becoming overwhelmingy software driven, and you could easily drive the analogy that Lockheed Martin is a PC, Boeing is a Mac, and Northrup Grumman would be some kind of Android platform, while each military service is some oddball UNIX platform that doesn't play nicely with the others.  Universal components like weapons, radars, and engines, sure, those will be cross-platform compatible, once they standardize the interfaces.  But aircraft software?  That's an entirely different can of worms.

The X-35 was a great X-plane, and you're probably right about the idea that it should have remained a tech testbed, but I don't even think the internal systems are what's driven the program into the ground.  It's just that the combined complexity of building an aircraft to meet the demands of over a dozen military services spead across nearly as many countries has snowballed into a red tape singularity so utterly massive that no productivity can escape.  

If they were making the aircraft for any singular service?  The plane would have been done years ago.  Requirements wrangling between all the countries and services involved in the development is like trying to run a triathalon with a 747 strapped to your back.  Combine all this with your usual government inefficiency in getting anything done on budget or in a timely manner.. and well, there you are. 

Not to forget that the plane has been in development so long, the hardware it's running on is probably 20 years old, and every time anything gets upgraded, everything needs to be rebuilt to work with the new hardware.

In a word, they should've made the damned thing for the USAF first, gotten it all done, and then signed up the other countries and services.  Well, too bad we let a bunch of whack jobs in the Pentagon dictate how all of this should go, and now, basically, what you have is the worst of all worlds.  The F-35 was designed to be the jack of all trades, and instead it became the jack of no trades.