F-ZeroOne Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Yup I love that story, I'm sure the F-35 will be able to do the same....oh wait it won't. Of course, with its greater situational awareness the F-35 might not hit the other guy in the first place... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) "My, what lovely ASRAAMS you have there." said the Bear. I also recall reading that the F-8 could land with it wings folded up. Edited February 23, 2015 by Shadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Yup I love that story, I'm sure the F-35 will be able to do the same....oh wait it won't. No, it has an Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System, which will save far more people's lives than manual reversion will. Moreover the A-10 will need it. Its slow speed and poor transonic performance makes it extremely vulnerable to modern air defences. Its survivability against double digit SAM systems or even new MANPADs is not high. Basically the aircraft can only operate in a permissive environment. No, because everyone will point out that the F-15 lost the vast majority of its wing, vs "a chunk of it". Anyways---IIRC, an F-18 was tested with a "battle damage" program that allowed control to be transferred to other control surfaces. As in, if an aileron was damaged, the tailplanes would have augmented differential to compensate, and try to retain as normal-feeling flying characteristics as possible to the pilot. I think it even allowed for loss of tailplane pitch control, by using symmetrical aileron movement, to alter the center of lift of the wing. Did anything ever come of this, in common use/frontline fighters? Seems a waste for a successful program not to be implemented. I think you're referring to the Self-Repairing and Self-Diagnostic Flight Control System (SRFCS)... which was originally tested on NASA's F-15 back in 1990s. I know components of the system are used in the F/A-18E/F (since McD actually was a co-partner with NASA on the program), and have been employed in several occasions. I'm almost certain that the F-35 has it or something like it, given what we know of how some aspects of its FCS operates in various areas (like with AutoGCAS) And F-14s have landed at full sweep, and flown normally with one wing swept and the other at min sweep, and this was before fly by wire was even an idea. I just chalk it up to sensible design requirements for a combat fighter craft. I don't know about any battle damage programming reaching the front lines or not. It seems like it would, but I know for a fact the military is more concerned with bureaucracy when it comes to upgrading aircraft, than with results, a lot of the time. Oh, that's total BS. All Aircraft see constant upgrades, including new EW systems, radars, Comms, weapon plug-ins ect. The reality is quite a few of these systems need to be flight tested beforehand to ensure proper integration: you can't just load up anything at your whim and expect it to work, or not to create interference. The SRFCS can only be loaded into aircraft with full digital FCS, and effective health management system to identify failures. Really, only aircraft built in the 1990s could potentially potentially carry the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 There have been a few cases where even though a new system has worked, other reasons have prevented it seeing widespread use. When they were testing "decoupled manoeuvres" (for example, travelling in one direction but having the aircrafts nose point off the actual line of travel) back in the late 90s, it was thought that although they had some potential combat value, the skill required to process and actually make the move might be beyond the average squadron pilot (as opposed to the test pilots engaged in the experiments). Additionally, improvements in missile technology also meant that close-in dogfights where such moves would be most advantageous may have been considered as less likely to occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizman Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 No, it has an Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System, which will save far more people's lives than manual reversion will. Moreover the A-10 will need it. Its slow speed and poor transonic performance makes it extremely vulnerable to modern air defences. Its survivability against double digit SAM systems or even new MANPADs is not high. Basically the aircraft can only operate in a permissive environment. Yeah I'm sure in the F-35s long service career it will never once see flak or lose an engine over enemy territory. Say what you will bout the a-10 being antiquated but at least it could get home on one engine if things got rough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronocidal Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) If I remember correctly, the story about the F-8 landing with folded wings was a bit more than just landing. Story I recall had him catapulting off the deck, getting a call that his wings were folded, realizing he'd taken off without unfolding them, and then circling around to land again. Area 88 kinda took that and ran with it, having him folding and unfolding them while in flight. Edited February 24, 2015 by Chronocidal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sildani Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Oh, wow, those contraprops on that Bear were mesmerizing! So greatly curved as well. An old, still amazing aircraft. Also liked the Typhoons quite a bit - quite the mission load. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 I'm not sure about an F-8 *landing* with the wings folded. Every time they've taken off like that (twice?), they've always successfully unfolded them in-flight prior to touch down. IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beltane70 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Oh, wow, those contraprops on that Bear were mesmerizing! So greatly curved as well. An old, still amazing aircraft. Also liked the Typhoons quite a bit - quite the mission load. I love the ways that the cameras make the props look like they're slowly rotating. I actually saw that effect in person when taking photos from inside a turbo-propped commuter plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekko Basara Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Here's what Greg Goebel's Air Vectors has to say about the Crusader folded-wings story: "The operational history of the F-8 Crusader has an interesting distinction. In August 1960, a US Navy pilot took off from Naples, Italy, and climbed to about 1.5 kilometers. When he leveled off, he found he needed an unusual amount of pressure on the stick. Looking around for the cause, he discovered that he hadn't unfolded his wings! The pilot was obviously cool-headed, since he decided to investigate how the aircraft handled in this configuration while he dumped what fuel he could. After about 24 minutes of flight he came back in for a landing, which was fast but otherwise uneventful. He reported no particular problems flying the aircraft. Vought engineers were very pleased when they heard the story, though Navy brass was far from happy with the incident. This is said to be the first case where an aircraft took off with folded wings and safely landed again, but Crusaders took off with folded wings at least seven more times afterward. Unsurprisingly, it usually happened at night. One pilot managed to waggle the aircraft and get the wings back down in flight. In response to the posting of an early version of this document on the Internet, the executive officer of the French Aeronavale squadron operating the Crusader, Antoine Guillot, said one of his pilots had pulled the same trick at an airshow in Belgium. Under such circumstances, the pilot might have been able to claim he did it on purpose, as a stunt." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Yeah I'm sure in the F-35s long service career it will never once see flak or lose an engine over enemy territory. Say what you will bout the a-10 being antiquated but at least it could get home on one engine if things got rough. F-16, AV-8B, Mirage III, Mirage 2000, Mirage F1, MiG-27, F-105, Hawk, Hunter, Su-17, Sea Harrier FRS1, 2, Harrier GR.3, 5, 7, 9, J-10, A4... they all have something in common with the F-35 oddly enough... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizman Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) F-16, AV-8B, Mirage III, Mirage 2000, Mirage F1, MiG-27, F-105, Hawk, Hunter, Su-17, Sea Harrier FRS1, 2, Harrier GR.3, 5, 7, 9, J-10, A4... they all have something in common with the F-35 oddly enough... Yeah low survivability . Joking aside, I guess it just annoys me that a dedicated ground attack aircraft is being replaced with a fragile multipurpose fighter. I get that the A-10 doesn't fit into the new air force. Guess we have to hope the F-35 never has to get close and dirty to help the ground troops. Maybe that will give the F-16 something to do. Edited February 25, 2015 by dizman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekko Basara Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Not saying I agree, but I think the key idea is that the concept of air support has changed. Previously, it was necessary to have an aircraft that could get "down and dirty" with the troops, because identifying friendly/enemy forces required getting in close, and delivering munitions with the necessary accuracy when troops were closely engaged meant getting right on top of the target. Now that lower-cost, smaller precision munitions are in widespread use, and ground troops may even have the ability to designate targets for their air support, it's not necessary for an aircraft to get down in the mud. It's just a delivery system for smart munitions, so tacticians can focus on the get-in, get-out approach to survivability without (theoretically) undermining an aircraft's ability to perform effective ground support. If that's the paradigm, then, yes, an F-35 - with stealth, speed, and altitude - is far more survivable than an A-10 that loiters over the battlefield and flies right up the nose of enemy air defenses. The question I don't feel the F-35 answers is battlefield availability. Loiter time was a major factor in the A-10's design, because the best air support is the air support that's on-hand when you need it. An F-35 isn't going to provide that. I feel as though, if the paradigm I described above is valid, the better model for modern air support is relatively cheap and plentiful stealthy drones that can orbit the battle space with smart munitions ready to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) There have been a few cases where even though a new system has worked, other reasons have prevented it seeing widespread use. When they were testing "decoupled manoeuvres" (for example, travelling in one direction but having the aircrafts nose point off the actual line of travel) back in the late 90s, it was thought that although they had some potential combat value, the skill required to process and actually make the move might be beyond the average squadron pilot (as opposed to the test pilots engaged in the experiments). Additionally, improvements in missile technology also meant that close-in dogfights where such moves would be most advantageous may have been considered as less likely to occur. Actually, "decoupled manuevers" are valuable... in reality they are a variation of instantaneous turn performance, which is among the most valuable type of aircraft performance in the age of high off boresight all aspect missiles. Note that the Hornet has very good instatenous turn, and the F-35 emphasizes that type of maneuverability. Yeah I'm sure in the F-35s long service career it will never once see flak or lose an engine over enemy territory. Say what you will bout the a-10 being antiquated but at least it could get home on one engine if things got rough. Why would it need to fly vs flak? How effective was Iraqi Flak vs F-117s during the Gulf War? Negligible. How effective was it vs A-10s? Basically it, along with MANPADs contributed to the aircraft suffering the highest rates of attrition among all coalition aircraft, and having it pulled from the front line. And why? because it flew the vast majority of its missions under 10,000 Feet. F-16s and F-15Es saw 1/4th the losses per strike, mostly because it operated at higher altitude and employed maverick and other precision munitions. You call the F-35 fragile... In reality, in the age of very high probability to hit missiles, getting hit means you're dead. And as such, the A-10 was probably the most vulnerable aircraft on the battlefield. The best course of action is not to get hit at all, and the A-10 wasn't going to get anymore survivable, no matter how much money is thrown at it. Only with the Precision Engagement upgrade to the A-10C was it able to effectively operate like all the other aircraft the USAF employs. Not saying I agree, but I think the key idea is that the concept of air support has changed. Previously, it was necessary to have an aircraft that could get "down and dirty" with the troops, because identifying friendly/enemy forces required getting in close, and delivering munitions with the necessary accuracy when troops were closely engaged meant getting right on top of the target. Now that lower-cost, smaller precision munitions are in widespread use, and ground troops may even have the ability to designate targets for their air support, it's not necessary for an aircraft to get down in the mud. It's just a delivery system for smart munitions, so tacticians can focus on the get-in, get-out approach to survivability without (theoretically) undermining an aircraft's ability to perform effective ground support. If that's the paradigm, then, yes, an F-35 - with stealth, speed, and altitude - is far more survivable than an A-10 that loiters over the battlefield and flies right up the nose of enemy air defenses. The question I don't feel the F-35 answers is battlefield availability. Loiter time was a major factor in the A-10's design, because the best air support is the air support that's on-hand when you need it. An F-35 isn't going to provide that. I feel as though, if the paradigm I described above is valid, the better model for modern air support is relatively cheap and plentiful stealthy drones that can orbit the battle space with smart munitions ready to go. Stealthy drones are already starting to become part of the equation. This isn't really an F-35 vs A-10 argument. Really its an emerging concept of operations that concerns a whole whack of systems: low, medium and high altitude drones, eyes on the ground, ground based sensor systems, satellites, manned aircraft, SIGINT, Arty, direct fire, ect, to support the operation. The F-35 is built with that battlefield in mind. The A-10 has been upgraded to roughly current standards, but that goalpost is already moving. So, in a period of deep fiscal austerity, the USAF has chosen to prioritize a weapon system that emphasizes that future. Edited February 25, 2015 by Noyhauser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 The A-10 is finding itself in a very similiar place to what the A-6 and A-7 found themselves in the early to mid-90s. They were great aircraft but limited by a number factors compared to the multirole F/A-18, and increasilngly vulnerable to more advanced air defense systems. That said, I still think the A-10 should have a place in U.S. inventory with Reserve and ANG squadrons while Active Duty converts to F-35s and F-16s. I also think it was a mistake not to incorporate the Block 60 F-16E into U.S. squadrons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 6, 2015 Author Share Posted March 6, 2015 The F-16 that survived a mid-air collision and landed missing part of its wing? Here's the other F-16, not so lucky, and very flat: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miles316 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Harrison Ford was in a air plane crash http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/05/harrison-ford-crash/24467457/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TangledThorns Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Harrison Ford was in a air plane crash http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/05/harrison-ford-crash/24467457/ Looks like he was flying the plane Solo when it crashed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sildani Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 What happens when you fly a bit TOO casual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 If I was feeling mischievous, I could point out that this obviously proves that the F-16 is not survivable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekko Basara Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 It's all that single engine's fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizman Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 It's all that single engine's fault. If only he had 2, or maybe 3 to be extra safe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickyg Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 The F-16 that survived a mid-air collision and landed missing part of its wing? Here's the other F-16, not so lucky, and very flat: Hmmm... Almost looks like it came down perfectly vertical. No ditch behind it. Also looks like it's missing a stab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areaseven Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Harrison Ford was in a air plane crash http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/05/harrison-ford-crash/24467457/ Indy never had any luck on a plane. "Son, I'm sorry. They got us." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I think it might be more accurate to say that planes don't have much luck on an Indy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Some history on the F-35 programme which largely avoids the, ahem, "debate": http://www.airvectors.net/avf35.html It is interesting to consider that all three services at one point had their own development programmes going - considering the, er, comment the F-35 gets for not being the F-22/PAK-FA/J-20/F-15/F-16/P-51/T-65B what sort of remarks three separate aircraft would have gotten, all of which would have to have been at least as good as the F-22, and presumably just as... erm... "affordable"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 The thing about the F-35/JSF program is that it should have been handled in much the same way as the F-15/16 B-1 programs. All three share a common tech/engine base. While this wasn't completely intentional it did color USAF acquisition towards the end of the 70s. The JSF should have done something similar. Develop a prototype/demonstrator that would mature the engine. sensors, flight control, and weapons technology. Then take that information and design separate aircraft using that common architecture and supply chain. In that way each service could have their own specialized aircraft for the role but share the supply workload. For the Air Force: An actual F-35A to compliment the F-22. A twin engine F-22 follow. A twin engine CAS aircraft using the F-135 core and stealth tech (a true successor to the A-10, I have sketches in my notebook, lol)For the Navy: A twin engine F-14-F/A-18E-F follow on. A lighter, single engine A-7 successor (though the navy would probably prefer a twin engine, oh well) A CAS/S-3 replacement based on the F-135 core and APG-81 based larger scale AESA radar. For the Marines: The light/single engine A-7 successor A VTOL variant A navalized version of the AF CAS aircraft. For the Army: Give them the CAS aircraft, the air force doesn't want the role anyway. This would also have employed a great many more people by farming out the individual aircraft to different manufacturers instead of forcing them all to work together on different parts of the same aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) I think the issue is that the F-35B was a bridge too far. There is a long history of Navy aircraft being successfully adapted for the Air Force (F-4, A-7, A-1,etc.), but trying to shoehorn in a S/VTOL aspect into the plan is just too much compromise. Incidentally all of the successful examples I can think of were Naval aircraft adapted to the AIr Force, not the other way around (maybe YF-17 to F/A-18?) and not a joint program. Edited March 17, 2015 by Coota0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sildani Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) I was wondering why the AF couldn't use the C variant as its own. The larger wing would confer longer range and better maneuverability, and I doubt they'd have too many pilots complain about larger control surfaces. Couldn't be that difficult to shoehorn in the GAU-12. Delete the wing folding mechanism and job's a good 'un. Edited March 18, 2015 by Sildani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekko Basara Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I was wondering why the AF couldn't use the C variant as its own. The larger wing would confer longer range and better maneuverability, and I doubt they'd have too many pilots complain about larger control surfaces. Couldn't be that difficult to shoehorn in the GAU-12. Delete the wing folding mechanism and job's a good 'un. I asked a similar question back on page 40, and there were some very interesting responses that I would probably mangle if I tried to paraphrase them here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Regards Knights26s comments, I find it a little unlikely that even the U.S. would sanction building ten different aircraft, regardless of how much they may have in common, to replace one or two types for each arm. I also have trouble imagining a single aircraft that is both for Close Air Support and Anti-submarine work... there may be other considerations as well from an international perspective; the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force for example would have been looking for a Harrier replacement, which is effectively what the F-35B is (in the UKs case, also a possible Tornado IDS successor) and I suspect many international customers would be in the same boat, looking for a single multi-role type (or at most, two) rather than multiple dedicated types. BAe did have plans for a "Super-Harrier" once, and I also have to wonder if the F-35 would be attracting as much ire if the navalised F-22 had gone ahead... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Those were just examples, I wouldn't expect them to go for 10 different airframes either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areaseven Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 An upcoming film shows that even drone pilots suffer from PTSD. Good Kill @ IMDb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 So... not much chance of "Danger Zone" being on the soundtrack then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.