Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[Shadow]

The Navy is in an even worse spot with no ASW platform now that the S-3 is gone, and no long-range fleet defender with increasingly more capable adversary aircraft as well as anti-ship missiles that the Super Hornet and F-35 could face in the not distant future.

[Vifam7]

31 minutes ago, Shadow said:

The Navy is in an even worse spot with no ASW platform now that the S-3 is gone, and no long-range fleet defender with increasingly more capable adversary aircraft as well as anti-ship missiles that the Super Hornet and F-35 could face in the not distant future.

 

The F-35 with its stealth and AESA radar combined with AEGIS is far better than anything the Navy had before. The AIM-120D AMRAAM with its 100mile range will finally fill the gap left by the retirement of the AIM-54 Phoenix

The gap left by the retirement of the S-3 is a much bigger issue IMHO.

[kalvasflam]

35 minutes ago, Vifam7 said:

 

The F-35 with its stealth and AESA radar combined with AEGIS is far better than anything the Navy had before. The AIM-120D AMRAAM with its 100mile range will finally fill the gap left by the retirement of the AIM-54 Phoenix

The gap left by the retirement of the S-3 is a much bigger issue IMHO.

What you said about the F-35 with AMRAAM Ds might be true.  And yes it's newer technology, but realistically, it tells you how far US naval aviation has regressed.  Those capabilities were already available in the mid to late 80s, and more.  (by which I mean, the capability to hit aerial targets 100 miles out, to strike targets with lots of ordinance from more than just a few hundred miles away, to have significantly ranged ASW platform from carriers)

That in 30 years, the USN has not advanced beyond those capabilities, and have in fact retarded their long range strike as well as their anti submarine capabilities from the carriers tells you just how dire things are.  I suppose you can blame good parts of this on the Clinton drawdown, which was follow by budget being diverted to the wars in the middle east., and the wasteful expenditures in the Pentagon.  If they had just incrementally advanced the capabilities of the aircrafts from the 80s, the US Navy would have been in much better shape over all.  All this fighting against the paper tigers in the middle east has basically taken the edge off of the USN capabilities, to a point where it is possible for there to be a near peer compared to the USN.  How sad.  

The day the F-14s were retired from the USN is more or less the day most Macross fans gave up hope of ever seeing a transforming VF-1.  

Edited January 10, 2019 by kalvasflam

[Vifam7]

1 hour ago, kalvasflam said:

What you said about the F-35 with AMRAAM Ds might be true.  And yes it's newer technology, but realistically, it tells you how far US naval aviation has regressed.  Those capabilities were already available in the mid to late 80s, and more.  (by which I mean, the capability to hit aerial targets 100 miles out, to strike targets with lots of ordinance from more than just a few hundred miles away, to have significantly ranged ASW platform from carriers)

That in 30 years, the USN has not advanced beyond those capabilities, and have in fact retarded their long range strike as well as their anti submarine capabilities from the carriers tells you just how dire things are.  I suppose you can blame good parts of this on the Clinton drawdown, which was follow by budget being diverted to the wars in the middle east., and the wasteful expenditures in the Pentagon.  If they had just incrementally advanced the capabilities of the aircrafts from the 80s, the US Navy would have been in much better shape over all. 

 

But isn't that exactly what they did? They simply kept upgrading the 80's vintage Legacy Hornets and purchased new build suped up Hornets.

It's also understandable why the USN's capability stagnated. When the Cold War ended, the big bad main threat was gone. As part of the peace dividend many systems were retired or simply not purchased and military spending went downhill. It's only now that some of gaps are being felt due to fears of the rapidly expanding Chinese military.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Vifam7

[kalvasflam]

2 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

 

But isn't that exactly what they did? They simply kept upgrading the 80's vintage Legacy Hornets and purchased new build suped up Hornets.

It's also understandable why the USN's capability stagnated. When the Cold War ended, the big bad main threat was gone. As part of the peace dividend many systems were retired or simply not purchased and military spending went downhill. It's only now that some of gaps are being felt due to fears of the rapidly expanding Chinese military.

The truth of course is that even with the bloviating by our idiotic leaders, the US military is still far ahead of the nearest competitor.  There will be rude surprises, but the strategic situation overall still hasn't turned enough for the nearest peer to be directly competitive.  It may change in another two decades, but for now, the weakness isn't in its body, rather in its heart and mind.  

[Vifam7]

7 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

The truth of course is that even with the bloviating by our idiotic leaders, the US military is still far ahead of the nearest competitor.  There will be rude surprises, but the strategic situation overall still hasn't turned enough for the nearest peer to be directly competitive.  It may change in another two decades, but for now, the weakness isn't in its body, rather in its heart and mind.  

Agreed.

[Shadow]

The AMRAAM-D is supposed to be ranged upto 60-65nm. Only double that of the AIM-120C from information is available.

I wasn't implying that we should have stuck with the F-14 platform but it would have been wise to look into developing a future heavy fighter for the Navy to ultimately replace the Super Hornet that provides the endurance of the F-14, if not greater than, but also perform more effectively than the F-35 in A2A with a more powerful AESA radar and perhaps a modified version of the AMRAAM for long-range. The post-Cold War geopolitics ofcourse changed alot of priorities and there is only recently a reshuffling of priorities as China appears to becoming a greater threat along with a more aggressive Russian foreign policy.

[Knight26]

See that's where my concept works great.  You issue an RFP for the various platforms with the stipulation that they all use the same core hardware: Engines, Avionics, Radars (with a larger or smaller antennae array) etc...  Now you have a fighting force that can use all the same weapons, and support hardware for the expensive bits.  Carrier for instance only need to carry one kind of engine onboard, plus or minus afterburners, and there is no question of weapons cross-compatibility.  The Air Force actually used this same argument back in the late 70s for the F-15, F-16, B-1 force.  They all used the same engines, radars based on the same core architecture, and Link 16 for connectivity, but they were all built by different contractors.

[Vifam7]

1 hour ago, Knight26 said:

See that's where my concept works great.  You issue an RFP for the various platforms with the stipulation that they all use the same core hardware: Engines, Avionics, Radars (with a larger or smaller antennae array) etc...  Now you have a fighting force that can use all the same weapons, and support hardware for the expensive bits.  Carrier for instance only need to carry one kind of engine onboard, plus or minus afterburners, and there is no question of weapons cross-compatibility.  The Air Force actually used this same argument back in the late 70s for the F-15, F-16, B-1 force.  They all used the same engines, radars based on the same core architecture, and Link 16 for connectivity, but they were all built by different contractors.

The hardware is easy to cross-compat. The software is much more difficult (maybe impossible) to cross compat. However, the biggest hurdle and cost multiplier is politics and budgets.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Vifam7

[kalvasflam]

1 hour ago, Vifam7 said:

The hardware is easy to cross-compat. The software is much more difficult (maybe impossible) to cross compat. However, the biggest hurdle and cost multiplier is politics and budgets.

So, let Microsoft handle all the software, and then every plane in the US arsenal will experience periodic unwanted crashes.  Ha ha.

Seriously though, the aerospace industry has been in some ways decimated through consolidation.  So, we get basically too big to fail.  Unless some upstart comes and shake things up.  Right now, in the US, there is just Boeing doing commercial airliners, and a hand full of other giants doing military aircraft.  What we need is like a Space X for the aircraft industry.

[David Hingtgen]

F-35 thinks it's an F-22:

 

This bodes well for the new demo routine this year.  

[Shadow]

 

The F135 is a beast of an engine indeed. I've heard it can been tweaked to push upto 50,000 pounds. Not sure how much that shortens the lifespan of the engine though.

[grigolosi]

12 hours ago, Shadow said:

 

The F135 is a beast of an engine indeed. I've heard it can been tweaked to push upto 50,000 pounds. Not sure how much that shortens the lifespan of the engine though.

It does have adverse affects on the engine in tweaking its DEC or DEEC up to higher thrust ratings like that. The GE 132 is essentially an "uptweaked " GE 129. All the components on the engine are the same except one or two minor things. In the past few years they have run into issues with cracks forming between the aeration holes int he turbine blades due to the increase in both heat and pressure from the increased thrust. When I was stationed in Japan back in the 90's they had us trim up the DEC's on 2 of our Blk 50's to 31K  and monitor them. The jets were restricted to local flying only because of it since the GE reps weren't sure what would actually happen to the engines. PW ran into issues with the burner cans on the early 229's. The flame holders were falling apart since they were the same design used in the 220. The Increase in thrust was tearing them apart.

[F-ZeroOne]

David! That must be a F-22, we all know the F-35 can't  climb/turn/dive/fly!

[grigolosi]

LOL....well the media would try to tell us that anyway F-ZeroOne. The energy recovery out of those maneuvers is damn good. I work with quite a few guys who came off the 35's. They told me that LM had to dumbdown some of the Avionics suite because it worked too well. Especially the camera's targeting system. They said it was able too zoom in too close......like the registration stickers on cars on the freeways. But that 135 is definitely putting out power. Now just imagine if they had gone with the GE engine instead...........

 

[Dobber]

Awesome video!

[kalvasflam]

Does anyone expect the LM guy to say anything bad about about their primary breadwinner? 

Seriously, I wonder if they could somehow get that engine into the F-16  C block 50s; it seems to have significantly more thrust.  Although the -Cs might not have stealth, it carries just as much weapons if not more.  And probably costs less.  But it does make me wonder if structurally the F-16s can accommodate such an engine.  

A total side note, I wonder how much it would cost to rip out the avionics and upgrade it to modern standards.   To be more precise, take something like an F-15 airframe, but stuff in the electronics of the F-35, compensated of course of the right frameworks.  I'm not sure what the difference would be between the F-15E and the F-15X in terms of the avionics, computers, and other capabilities.  Then how much of a difference there would be between the -35 and the 15X.  Anyone know?

[Vifam7]

3 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Does anyone expect the LM guy to say anything bad about about their primary breadwinner? 

Seriously, I wonder if they could somehow get that engine into the F-16  C block 50s; it seems to have significantly more thrust.  Although the -Cs might not have stealth, it carries just as much weapons if not more.  And probably costs less.  But it does make me wonder if structurally the F-16s can accommodate such an engine.  

A total side note, I wonder how much it would cost to rip out the avionics and upgrade it to modern standards.   To be more precise, take something like an F-15 airframe, but stuff in the electronics of the F-35, compensated of course of the right frameworks.  I'm not sure what the difference would be between the F-15E and the F-15X in terms of the avionics, computers, and other capabilities.  Then how much of a difference there would be between the -35 and the 15X.  Anyone know?

Well if the cost of the F-15SE Silent Eagle is any idea...

The F-15SE Silent Eagle was projected at $100 million per unit (compared to $85 million per unit for the F-35 currently).

[kalvasflam]

Interesting, I would be really curious to know what's driving the cost.  The F-15X is running at that price from a quick check.  It seems odd that in 1998, the F-15E costed about $31.1M, but the cost 20 years later is triple.  Has the air frame changed that much?  Or is this just inflation, but 300% seems to be a lot.  Could be just because it's a small lot order on a production line that's not running at full speed any more.  Interesting.  I wonder what the cost of development on the F-15s were back in the days.  My other thought is that the F-15X isn't that much of an improvement over the old F-15Es.

Anyway, found an old article on Popular Mechanics that talked about this a little: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a25678/the-cost-of-new-fighters-keeps-going-up-up-up/

Then there was this chart.  It was an entertaining read, not that it really explained why the cost has skyrocketed to such an extent.

[F-ZeroOne]

Few guesses; for one thing the A-4 which is the lowest cost plane on that chart was probably a lot simpler, even given that jets were kind of the New Big Ticket Thing back then. Economy of scale is another. They only made 57 F-117s, and although they made a lot of F-15s, they've only made 225 F-15Es (and theres significant changes between a F-15C and E, it wasn't just a case of strapping more bomb shackles on). The F-111 and F-14 were arguably among the most technically sophisticated aircraft of their day, and thus costly. The A-6E was a developed variant of an earlier model, and therefore some of the cost had already been "sunk" (compare to the F-111, which is listed as a single model when there were several different variants). The F-22, well, they only made 187 compared to the originally planned several hundreds; its cost would probably be less overall (though still probably upper tier) if that had happened. By most accounts the F-18E was essentially a new aircraft, and in that context accounting for inflation its cost isn't that that much higher than the F-15.

Avionics almost certainly makes a difference; the A-10 is one of the lowest cost aircraft on that chart but also the most basic avionics-wise (in its original form).

This is all supposition and "gut" feeling just from looking at that chart though.   

Edited January 13, 2019 by F-ZeroOne

[David Hingtgen]

A-10C would make an interesting comparison to add to the chart, as would the F-15I/S/K.  

Gotta add the F-16 Block 60, too.  I'm betting its avionics alone cost as much as a whole Block 5 did...

[kalvasflam]

10 hours ago, F-ZeroOne said:

Few guesses; for one thing the A-4 which is the lowest cost plane on that chart was probably a lot simpler, even given that jets were kind of the New Big Ticket Thing back then. Economy of scale is another. They only made 57 F-117s, and although they made a lot of F-15s, they've only made 225 F-15Es (and theres significant changes between a F-15C and E, it wasn't just a case of strapping more bomb shackles on). The F-111 and F-14 were arguably among the most technically sophisticated aircraft of their day, and thus costly. The A-6E was a developed variant of an earlier model, and therefore some of the cost had already been "sunk" (compare to the F-111, which is listed as a single model when there were several different variants). The F-22, well, they only made 187 compared to the originally planned several hundreds; its cost would probably be less overall (though still probably upper tier) if that had happened. By most accounts the F-18E was essentially a new aircraft, and in that context accounting for inflation its cost isn't that that much higher than the F-15.

Avionics almost certainly makes a difference; the A-10 is one of the lowest cost aircraft on that chart but also the most basic avionics-wise (in its original form).

This is all supposition and "gut" feeling just from looking at that chart though.   

I think the F-15E cost difference wise (if you believe this pop mech chart) is not that significant from the F-15C.  I found this chart while looking at costs for the F-15X, and it was a little astounding that that thing actually costed $100M a pop.  You could've said that there was a lot of sunk cost on the F-15 air frame, so I am really wondering where that cost is coming from.  Actually, I would also be curious on how much the avionics on these things actually cost.  Because it isn't as if each time you start a new combat aircraft, the avionics comes from a fresh sheet of paper, there has got to be a lot of commonalities here.  Given how much military procurement wants to go with off the shelf stuff, I wonder how much more money is invested here.  I suppose there is a consideration of the environment that you have to put these things through, but even then, the costs are sky high.

Also, I wonder if Boeing had to build the A-4 in volume today, what the cost would be?  I mean if you stuff in a bunch of new electronics and such, would it double the cost to $20M 2017 dollars?

[F-ZeroOne]

I don't have the time to check the costs now, but there were a couple of countries - Brazil and Argentina, I think? - that upgraded their A4s with some F-16 avionics, including the APG-66 radar. That might give you a baseline to work from. This was several years ago though, possibly back in the 90s.

Edited January 14, 2019 by F-ZeroOne

[F-ZeroOne]

Okay, Argentinas Skyhawks got the F-16 radar. Other countries, including Brazil, Australia and Singapore all had their own upgrade programmes that differed from Argentinas in various details.

[Shadow]

On 1/12/2019 at 12:38 AM, grigolosi said:

LOL....well the media would try to tell us that anyway F-ZeroOne. The energy recovery out of those maneuvers is damn good. I work with quite a few guys who came off the 35's. They told me that LM had to dumbdown some of the Avionics suite because it worked too well. Especially the camera's targeting system. They said it was able too zoom in too close......like the registration stickers on cars on the freeways. But that 135 is definitely putting out power. Now just imagine if they had gone with the GE engine instead...........

 

Okay. Now I'm curious. What were the pros/cons of the GE/RR engine over the 135? I don't imagine the difference was as stark as it was between the P&W F119 and the GE F120 were.

[Vifam7]

3 hours ago, Shadow said:

Okay. Now I'm curious. What were the pros/cons of the GE/RR engine over the 135? I don't imagine the difference was as stark as it was between the P&W F119 and the GE F120 were.

My guesses -

Pros:

- Should there be any problems with the P&W engine, the whole F-35 fleet doesn't have to be grounded

- Jobs for GE and RR <- esp. important for UK?

- Some air forces may be more familiar with how GE does engines and have better relationship

- Competition could mean each manufacturer strives to be the best in product, price, and service

Cons:

- Additional cost to develop a second engine

- Additional cost in making the F-35 be able to use both engines

- Additional cost to train technicians for the second engine

- Additional logistics train needed to support the second engine

- Lower production volume for each engine could mean higher costs for both

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by Vifam7

[grigolosi]

On 1/12/2019 at 8:34 PM, kalvasflam said:

Does anyone expect the LM guy to say anything bad about about their primary breadwinner? 

Seriously, I wonder if they could somehow get that engine into the F-16  C block 50s; it seems to have significantly more thrust.  Although the -Cs might not have stealth, it carries just as much weapons if not more.  And probably costs less.  But it does make me wonder if structurally the F-16s can accommodate such an engine.  

A total side note, I wonder how much it would cost to rip out the avionics and upgrade it to modern standards.   To be more precise, take something like an F-15 airframe, but stuff in the electronics of the F-35, compensated of course of the right frameworks.  I'm not sure what the difference would be between the F-15E and the F-15X in terms of the avionics, computers, and other capabilities.  Then how much of a difference there would be between the -35 and the 15X.  Anyone know?

No the engine won't fit. The 135 is longer but slightly smaller in diameter than the GE which is the larger of the 2 engines currently used in the F-16. It would require re positioning a lot of the major connections between the engine and frame IE PLA shaft. ECS bleed air ducts, PTO shaft/gearbox placement and thrust pins.

One thing to remember about the F-15 frame. The frame was built before any of its current systems went into it. They essentially crammed everything in after they proved the shape would fly. It would take some doing to re route hydraulics, wiring and bleed air systems. You would drop weight by replacing the flight controls with FBW and maybe be able to reduce the hydraulic systems to 2 and make them far simpler ( the hydro system on an Eagle is a nightmare to bleed, so much so that only the 7 level mechanics are qualified to do it).

Also I AM NOT SOME DAMNED public relations salesman trying to sell a product for my employer. The info I have learned about the F-35 has come from other crew chiefs who I work with on a daily basis. and are not giving some stupid press conference to push a product. We spend our time like this discussing various aircraft. They have the actual knowledge of the aircraft first hand not from some damned media outlet. So I tend to believe them not some reporter who only see's what the USAF and LM allows them to see. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by grigolosi

[AN/ALQ128]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25989/intel-report-confirms-china-developing-stealthy-regional-bomber-in-addition-to-strategic-bomber?fbclid=IwAR16X1KWfZUUBsLE4B-uHcm9Ih78YD-Jr5s53z1Xpf713k6i66xm2HqPwkI

Looks like the Chinese are having a go at making a strike bomber in addition to their H-20 bomber.

[Sildani]

The rear half of the YF-23?

[F-ZeroOne]

I can pretty much guarantee that whatever they build, it will look nothing like that image. Lots of  concept art floated around in the late 80s after the ATF competition was announced, virtually all of which was about as accurate as that Testors "F-19 Stealth" fighter model...

Edited January 18, 2019 by F-ZeroOne

[Chronocidal]

So, something to keep in mind when you talk about fitting modern avionics into old airframes.

Modern stuff is ridiculously processor intensive.  Not in the sense of how much hardware you need to fit, but in terms of how much heat all of that stuff generates, and how different digital systems are compared with older hardware.  Old tube-powered hardware would run just fine at high temperatures, but without some extensive reworking of the airframe to evacuate all of that heat build-up, those systems are going to melt themselves.  

Another thing to keep in mind is the rapid response angle.  Stories about the F-20 usually mention how it could be started, up and running, and in the air within something like 5 minutes.  That was back when everything was just purpose-built hardware.  By comparison today, a lot of hardware is generalized, and individual functionality is software defined.  It's more flexible, but you pay for that flexibility in response time, and the more computerized you get, the longer and less predictable your startup sequence becomes.

The comparison to Windows 10 is apt.  The more software-intensive your systems become, the more complex the boot-up procedure becomes, the longer it will take, and the more likely you are to have minor failures that require a reboot.

[grigolosi]

Very true Chronocidal, with the upgrade to the AESA radar alone in the Blk 60 F-16 two additional heat exchangers and a PAO system had to be installed on the frame to provide adequate cooling with the engine running . The heat output from the one on the right side is so much that getting into the right wheel well during summer operations is almost impossible. Plus anytime we performed maintenance with any electrical power running we had to use cooling air period, when runnig the radar you had to use the PAO cart also, The difference is that in the older F-16's you could run external power for up to 30 mins before requiring cooling air. 

[captain america]

https://theaviationist.com/2019/01/15/video-surfaces-of-f-35-hitting-five-precision-targets-at-once-including-moving-one/?fbclid=IwAR0BQ1XRQ4pdmqEhOEh5DlW-EnF_4QTqAHbn4NDYeoDtoYT4vBB9xV-haLo

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I read that Boeing is offering the F-15X to the USAF as replacements for their aging C models. The X is like the QA but single seat. I'm guessing CFT's would be carried as standard.

Are the QA/X's engines enough to counter the added drag and weight of the CFT's? I do remember hearing the Beagle wasn't anywhere near as good in DACM compared to the C model(on F-16.net, a Viper Driver didn't think much of the Beagle). However I also remember reading that the Slam Eagle, SG, SA and QA models would have higher thrust from newer models of the F100 engine.

[kalvasflam]

On 1/19/2019 at 9:06 AM, captain america said:

https://theaviationist.com/2019/01/15/video-surfaces-of-f-35-hitting-five-precision-targets-at-once-including-moving-one/?fbclid=IwAR0BQ1XRQ4pdmqEhOEh5DlW-EnF_4QTqAHbn4NDYeoDtoYT4vBB9xV-haLo

Nice, I wonder what type of munitions.  I'm sure that the -35 can easily carry that many SBD in its internal bays.  Although a moving target would suggest some other type of ordinance.  A Paveway would make sense as it would be an LGB.  I wonder in that case if the -35 was doing the illumination by itself or if it had a buddy.  What would be freakish is if the -35 was lasing by itself, and all five of the munitions were Paveways.  

Beagles, is that what they call the Boeing built planes as opposed to when McD did it, I guess then it would've been either Meagles or McDeagles.