Jump to content

Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII


Recommended Posts

On 11/7/2018 at 11:12 AM, kalvasflam said:

You mean like the F-23,   Don't worry, China will rescue the design from its undeserved fate... at least partially.  

You have to admit, the J-20 superficially looks a little like the F-23, even though a lot of the details on the J-20 supposedly came from the F-35.  Then there is the J-31 that is slowly going to come on line, given enough time, China will build a strike version of that, and we'll have the equivalent of the FB-22 design.  Then your dreams may start to come true.

:yahoo:

The only thing China needs now is a good engine.  Do you think P&W will be able to help there?  Because obviously the stuff from Russia is garbage.  

:crazy:

To me, the J-20 bares a much stronger resemblance to a Mig-31 with its stretched airframe. Showing it to be much more of an interceptor I think compared to an air superiority fighter. The J-20 is an AWACS-killer from my impression of it.

Hopefully we'll see the YF-23 design live on in Northrop's 6th generation fighter.

Also, it's alittle off the course of the F-35 but found this to be a neat analysis of the fiction MiG-31 Firefox. :p

 

Edited by Shadow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shadow said:

To me, the J-20 bares a much stronger resemblance to a Mig-31 with its stretched airframe. Showing it to be much more of an interceptor I think compared to an air superiority fighter. The J-20 is an AWACS-killer from my impression of it.

Hopefully we'll see the YF-23 design live on in Northrop's 6th generation fighter.

Also, it's a little off the course of the F-35 but found this to be a neat analysis of the fiction MiG-31 Firefox. :p

Ah man, this brings back memories.  

I remember when that movie came out.  Then I heard about the real Mig-31, I thought, wow, that would be so cool.  Sure, they called it Foxhound, but real life Mig-31.  Imagine my disappointment when the darn thing turned out to be a souped up Mig-25.  Mikoyan & Gurevich so disappointed me,  in my mind, it was like they were promising this:

Image result for mclaren

and then gave this instead:

Ford Pinto.jpg

The disappointment was so palpable that not even the Mig-29 could make up for it.

Thank God for Sukohi, they renewed my faith in beautiful fighter design with the Su-27.  You know, the funny thing about Firefox is that at least they got one concept right, stealth fighters needed internal weapons bays.  If I remember right, in the movie, the Mig-31 had internal missile bays, angled surfaces, not sure about RAM, but I remember it had a huge heat signature, at least it gave a good idea of stealth even if the engine takes looked like huge reflectors for radars.

It's funny, the fighter manufacturers of the 70s/80s have all been folded into other companies, Grumann (F-14) into NGC, McDonnel Douglas (F-15, F-18) into Boeing, General Dynamics (F-16) into Lockheed Martin.  

Hopefully they'll do a good job with the next iteration.  :5:

57 minutes ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/french-firm-dassault-pulls-out-of-fighter-jet-competition-sources

Canada requires any replacement fighter jet to be Five Eyes certified, which means the Rafale is now off the table.

That leaves the F-35, Super Hornet, and Typhoon as potential replacement aircraft. What a complete mess of a procurement process, sadly not something new to Canada.

Is that a joke?  It has to be Five Eyes certified?  I didn't think the intelligence agencies would be out certifying warplanes.  I' m sure if it means selling planes, the PRC would happy to get its planes Five Eyes certified...  ha ha.  :friends:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like SAAB is still in. I’d be tickled if the Canucks chose the Gripen NG. It seems to meet most all their requirements, except politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sildani said:

Looks like SAAB is still in. I’d be tickled if the Canucks chose the Gripen NG. It seems to meet most all their requirements, except politics. 

The problem with choosing anything other than the F-35 is that, Canada would face the possibility of losing the workshare on the F-35 production. That and losing half a billion Canadian dollars they already pumped into the program and get nothing in return.

That said, if Canada picks the Gripen, I would love it as it would bring something different to the airshows (when they come down south). :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sildani said:

Looks like SAAB is still in. I’d be tickled if the Canucks chose the Gripen NG. It seems to meet most all their requirements, except politics. 

Again: single-engines are a non-starter up in our barren-@$$ arctic.

At least they refuel with the right gear...

Saab_JAS-39_of_the_Swedish_Air_Force_und

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

The problem with choosing anything other than the F-35 is that, Canada would face the possibility of losing the workshare on the F-35 production. That and losing half a billion Canadian dollars they already pumped into the program and get nothing in return.

That said, if Canada picks the Gripen, I would love it as it would bring something different to the airshows (when they come down south). :)

You know, that half a billion is what people would call sunk cost.  It also depends on how much the lifetime cost of the Gripen would be vs the F-35.  In reality, the Canadians were always going to be better off with F-18s, and they acknowledged it essentially by buying second hand hornets.  If you think about them and their role as junior partners essentially, they are better off with the F-18s, more guns, more missiles, let the Americans go all fancy with stealth and clear the air before sending in the Canadian bomb trucks.

What the pretty boy really ought to do is to buy the super hornets that they have, just to show Boeing that Canada will never do business with Boeing military arm directly again.  It would be hilarious.

  :help:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

You know, that half a billion is what people would call sunk cost.  It also depends on how much the lifetime cost of the Gripen would be vs the F-35.  In reality, the Canadians were always going to be better off with F-18s, and they acknowledged it essentially by buying second hand hornets.  If you think about them and their role as junior partners essentially, they are better off with the F-18s, more guns, more missiles, let the Americans go all fancy with stealth and clear the air before sending in the Canadian bomb trucks.

What the pretty boy really ought to do is to buy the super hornets that they have, just to show Boeing that Canada will never do business with Boeing military arm directly again.  It would be hilarious.

  :help:

As a Canadian, I would much rather the RCAF get brand new F-35's over clapped out 2nd hand Hornets and Super Hornets nearing the end of their airframe lives.

Trudeau buying those Hornets wasn't due to any kind of tactical consideration, but simply a stop-gap measure because our CF-18's are quite literally falling out of the skies and it wouldn't look very good for the Liberal party to have a pilot die due to long time governmental negligence. Once Lockheed gets economy of scale going, the F-35's will be quite affordable to buy, and will provide a longer service life than simply buying more Hornets from allies that no longer want theirs. It would also be a boon for our aerospace industry, considering we are still part of the JSF program, and there are multiple Canadian companies supplying the program.

9 hours ago, slide said:

Again: single-engines are a non-starter up in our barren-@$$ arctic.

I don't think it matters much considering Alaska has F-16's (and soon, F-35's) stationed and there's never been much of an issue there in regards to reliability. Or at least, none that I've heard of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

As a Canadian, I would much rather the RCAF get brand new F-35's over clapped out 2nd hand Hornets and Super Hornets nearing the end of their airframe lives.

Trudeau buying those Hornets wasn't due to any kind of tactical consideration, but simply a stop-gap measure because our CF-18's are quite literally falling out of the skies and it wouldn't look very good for the Liberal party to have a pilot die due to long time governmental negligence. Once Lockheed gets economy of scale going, the F-35's will be quite affordable to buy, and will provide a longer service life than simply buying more Hornets from allies that no longer want theirs. It would also be a boon for our aerospace industry, considering we are still part of the JSF program, and there are multiple Canadian companies supplying the program.

Oh well, I'm sure Lockheed will be happy if that happens.  But there is still a good chance for pretty boy to go in with either the Typhoon or the Gripen.  Those are not bad planes, and although they're 4th or 4.5th generation, it's not as if they are any worse off than F-18s.  After all, did the Canadian government decide it was a good idea to rebid the contract?  

I have to admit, I don't know much about the Canadian aerospace industry other than Bombardier, wonder what other companies do a lot of work up there.:pardon:

Edited by kalvasflam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, kalvasflam said:

Oh well, I'm sure Lockheed will be happy if that happens.  But there is still a good chance for pretty boy to go in with either the Typhoon or the Gripen.  Those are not bad planes, and although they're 4th or 4.5th generation, it's not as if they are any worse off than F-18s.  After all, did the Canadian government decide it was a good idea to rebid the contract?  

I have to admit, I don't know much about the Canadian aerospace industry other than Bombardier, wonder what other companies do a lot of work up there.:pardon:

My experience with Canadian aviation is nothing but headaches dealing with TCCA, most disorganized CAA I've ever had to deal with.  Well second most, Italy was a nightmare, even my EASA contacts said so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s what I immediately thought of. The first company to make a battlefield laser system that’s effective at range, through adverse weather, that’s small enough to fit in a scout vehicle or fighter and still put enough joules on target to do something will make money hand over fist and also sound the death knell of aircraft over the battlefield. If an airplane can be seen visually and tracked, it’s dead at the speed of light. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sildani said:

That’s what I immediately thought of. The first company to make a battlefield laser system that’s effective at range, through adverse weather, that’s small enough to fit in a scout vehicle or fighter and still put enough joules on target to do something will make money hand over fist and also sound the death knell of aircraft over the battlefield. If an airplane can be seen visually and tracked, it’s dead at the speed of light. 

Unless they cover the planes with mirrors. Shiny and chrome!

Immorten Joe would approve!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Sildani said:

That’s what I immediately thought of. The first company to make a battlefield laser system that’s effective at range, through adverse weather, that’s small enough to fit in a scout vehicle or fighter and still put enough joules on target to do something will make money hand over fist and also sound the death knell of aircraft over the battlefield. If an airplane can be seen visually and tracked, it’s dead at the speed of light. 

I'm thinking of Muv Luv TSFs and BETA lasers when I read this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J-20 shows off its load...

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/2172993/china-reveals-j-20-stealth-fighters-missile-carrying-capability

Somehow, it looks a little familiar.  The only question is how many of these can be fielded, and whether they can replace the engines easily.

In other news.  Is Boeing secretly saying that it has an override for human pilots?  I jest obviously, but this seems a bit much, for pilots  not to know about the way the plane can function.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airline-industry-rushes-to-understand-nuances-in-737-453602/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the Su-57/T-50/PAK-FA?   How about an HD documentary?   http://video.sina.com.cn/p/mil/doc/2018-11-12/194769071146.html   Interesting version of the "digital speedbrake"--uses the vertical fins angled in (slab surfaces, not rudders).  (YF-23 used the flaps and ailerons, F-22 and Super Hornet like to splay the rudders out)  

As for the J-20-----the belly-bay is getting all the attention, but it's the side-bays that are FAR more interesting/revolutionary---like being able to fire with the doors closed: 

a7a45bbcgw1e2z5uzszvwg1.gif

Why?  The full answer is here: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24841/chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-stuns-by-brandishing-full-load-of-missiles-at-zhuhai-air-show

But the short version is---if you've reduced the range to the point that you're now in a knife-fight using off-boresight missle launches---stealth is no longer a factor, manueverability/aerodynamics/timing is paramount---and keeping big draggy bay doors open at low-speed high-alpha is a bad thing, as is the delay in opening the door, letting the seeker confirm its lock, then firing.  By getting the missles into a "ready" position---they can start locking on immediately, while preserving flight characteristics---and the instant you're ready to fire---so is the missile.  No bay-door/ejector-rail delay.  1 second delay could easily be the difference between winning and losing in those situations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know the J-20 looks like a joke now, but Chinese can and will iterate on them over time.  For now, the role of China's military is simply different from that of the US.  It is basically asserting itself in its own backyard.  It still can't really match the US anywhere else, but fortunately, it doesn't really have to, it isn't the policeman of the world.  And although people might hate it, the world does need a cop.  

I would say the J-20 is probably going to be some type of limited production run, and there'll be a 5.5 generation fighter from China at some point that can match the F-22.  But the J-20 probably won't have that role, it was never designed to go head to head with the F-22.  It probably has a different mission altogether, but it is doubtful anyone will ever test the capability of that fighter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, David Hingtgen said:

Like the Su-57/T-50/PAK-FA?   How about an HD documentary?   http://video.sina.com.cn/p/mil/doc/2018-11-12/194769071146.html   Interesting version of the "digital speedbrake"--uses the vertical fins angled in (slab surfaces, not rudders).  (YF-23 used the flaps and ailerons, F-22 and Super Hornet like to splay the rudders out)  

WOW, chinese web page with russian documentary, maked by propaganda tv channel, sponsored by ministry of defense and all of this at english forum. Idk why but that's so funny for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

In other news.  Is Boeing secretly saying that it has an override for human pilots?  I jest obviously, but this seems a bit much, for pilots  not to know about the way the plane can function.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airline-industry-rushes-to-understand-nuances-in-737-453602/

 

 

Apparently, Airbus has been doing that for decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296#Alternative_explanation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, enphily said:

WOW, chinese web page with russian documentary, maked by propaganda tv channel, sponsored by ministry of defense and all of this at english forum. Idk why but that's so funny for me

Yup!  Couldn't understand a word of it, but it was probably mostly half-truths anyways.  (pretty sure they had a plasma-stealth mention in there, with the "disappearing" T-50 scene).  But I still learned quite a bit just watching the thing fly up close, and see how it uses its control surfaces. 

21 minutes ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

Gorgeous aircraft.

message-editor%252F1542190341600-top_com

Dang, it would have been ginormous.  Never realized just how big it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, sketchley said:

Apparently, Airbus has been doing that for decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296#Alternative_explanation

The alt explanation has little credence IMHO---programmed not to respond below 100ft AGL?  That would mean the plane was designed to not be able to perform go-arounds nor touch-and-gos, and had never done so during the prior year of certification testing.  I think at best, they are arguing that "it should have responded quicker to commands, and possibly have saved the aircraft from the dangerous situation it had been put in".  In which, it's far better NOT to put the aircraft "in a descent, at 100ft off the ground and dropping, with engines at idle, and NOT plan to be on the ground soon thereafter..." in the first place.  You're supposed to be level and stabilized BEFORE you do your pass, not 'drop right into the crowd and hope you stop your descent in time', even at airshows. 

"If only it'd had 300,000lbs of thrust and afterburners, it could have cleared the trees..."    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, David Hingtgen said:

The alt explanation has little credence IMHO---programmed not to respond below 100ft AGL?  That would mean the plane was designed to not be able to perform go-arounds nor touch-and-gos, and had never done so during the prior year of certification testing.  I think at best, they are arguing that "it should have responded quicker to commands, and possibly have saved the aircraft from the dangerous situation it had been put in".  In which, it's far better NOT to put the aircraft "in a descent, at 100ft off the ground and dropping, with engines at idle, and NOT plan to be on the ground soon thereafter..." in the first place.  You're supposed to be level and stabilized BEFORE you do your pass, not 'drop right into the crowd and hope you stop your descent in time', even at airshows. 

"If only it'd had 300,000lbs of thrust and afterburners, it could have cleared the trees..."    

No one is denying that there were piloting errors (and if memory serves, there were bureaucratic errors as well higher up in the company - last minute route changes, poor maps, etc.).

They made the point in that TV show episode that the plane went into "landing mode" and overrode some of the pilots later commands.  The follow-up point was that Boeing (at the time) stressed that ultimate override control was in the hands of the pilot, but with Airbus, it was the avionics - which wasn't in support of the pilot's assertion, just a general statement of company design philosophy (something which, 20+ years later, Boeing now allegedly appears to be doing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VMAQ-2 completed it's final deployment with the EA-6B Prowler. It's alittle hard to believe the Prowler bested the A-6 by 21 years or that it's been that long since the Intruder was retired. :(

https://theaviationist.com/?p=63856

https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/VMAQ-2-Lajes-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shadow said:

VMAQ-2 completed it's final deployment with the EA-6B Prowler. It's alittle hard to believe the Prowler bested the A-6 by 21 years or that it's been that long since the Intruder was retired. :(

https://theaviationist.com/?p=63856 

https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/VMAQ-2-Lajes-1.jpg 

RIP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...