iyaayas01 posted:

Yeah, that's the really frustrating part. I get SLEPing the limited number of F-15Cs to the "Golden Eagle" standard, because there isn't really a ready supplement out there (F-22s don't play and the Silent Eagle concept, while cool, is really more to fill the Strike Eagle role, not the strictly air to air role the Charlie fills). But spending oodles of money to SLEP the Vipers when you could spend just a bit more (or maybe even the same amount depending on how much the SLEP ends up costing) to purchase vastly upgraded NEW MANUFACTURE aircraft of the EXACT SAME TYPE just blows my mind.

Whatever, in a decade or so we'll have one squadron of F-22s from the tail end of the production line, a couple squadrons of JSFs, and a few squadrons of ancient Strike Eagles and Hawgs soldiering on and we'll look back at today as the "good ol' days" just like folks today look back at the '80s.

That was about half sarcastic bitterness and half somewhat serious prediction.

mikerock posted:

I want that as a shirt

Pablo Bluth posted:

Apparently, we have a total of eight trained Typhoon pilots. And 53 of the aircraft already delivered are going to be scrapped after just three years, due to a lack of funds to upgrade them to the required spec.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/02/raf-cut-training-pilots-typhoon

Laser Cow posted:

That would make me sad. Also why did Russia do this? What was going to happen exactly?

Sunday Punch posted:

So in the 1970s the US Navy was interested in VTOL fighters to operate from the carrier fleet. One of the proposed modes for VTOL operations was VATOL, for Vertical Attitude Take Off and Landing. Vertical Attitude meaning the aircraft would be standing on end when landing or taking off. Now most of the proposed aircraft using this mode weren't designed to actually land vertically straight onto the flight deck, rather they would land belly-first on a vertical platform hanging over the side of the ship. This way the platform and accompanying aircraft could be rotated back to horizontal for servicing, and it avoided the problems associated with jet exhaust blasting directly into the deck.

But landing an aircraft while lying on your back and staring into the sky is a bit tricky, so one of the proposed solutions was tilting the entire cockpit and nose area of the plane forward by 90 degrees. Since nothing like this had ever been attempted before some design studies were in order. NASA-Langley built scale models of the F-16 and F-17 with the hinged cockpit for wind tunnel testing. They determined that the idea was workable, but the accompanying weight penalties meant it never went any further than the initial round of tests.

YF-17 scale model with rotating cockpit module (click for full size):




Would have been quite something to see an aircraft carrier with a flock of fighters perching bird-like off the side.

Sunday Punch posted:

Well it was more like they identified the major issue with why tailsitters were a failure in the past as the impossibility of seeing what the gently caress you were doing when taking off and landing, and trying to come up with a way to fix that. And the concept tests pretty much did their job by determining that it was indeed needlessly complex, and therefore avoided creating an expensive failure by never building anything more expensive than the scale models!

Here's how the system was supposed to look, except mounted on a hydrofoil instead of a carrier. It sure isn't the most elegant-looking contraption ever conceived of.

Sunday Punch posted:

So in the 1970s the US Navy was interested in VTOL fighters to operate from the carrier fleet. One of the proposed modes for VTOL operations was VATOL, for Vertical Attitude Take Off and Landing. Vertical Attitude meaning the aircraft would be standing on end when landing or taking off. Now most of the proposed aircraft using this mode weren't designed to actually land vertically straight onto the flight deck, rather they would land belly-first on a vertical platform hanging over the side of the ship. This way the platform and accompanying aircraft could be rotated back to horizontal for servicing, and it avoided the problems associated with jet exhaust blasting directly into the deck.

But landing an aircraft while lying on your back and staring into the sky is a bit tricky, so one of the proposed solutions was tilting the entire cockpit and nose area of the plane forward by 90 degrees. Since nothing like this had ever been attempted before some design studies were in order. NASA-Langley built scale models of the F-16 and F-17 with the hinged cockpit for wind tunnel testing. They determined that the idea was workable, but the accompanying weight penalties meant it never went any further than the initial round of tests.

YF-17 scale model with rotating cockpit module (click for full size):




Would have been quite something to see an aircraft carrier with a flock of fighters perching bird-like off the side.

Sunday Punch posted:

Flanker posted:

Okay I will need this but with a semi rigid Zodiak style inflatable boat and a B70 Valkyrie bomber vertically mounted. And the B70 has to do that pitch/toss bomb maneuver when it reaches its target. The genius of my strategic vision is undeniable.

SyHopeful posted:

also make it so the B-70 flaps its outer droop wings

slidebite posted:

I have a B70 book and there is a cartoon of that very image in it. I'll see if I can scan/photo it for you if you like.
Edit: Flapping, but not off a zodiac.

daskrolator posted:

But hey, at least you'll have a Next Generation Bomber in the mid 2020 timeframe!

slidebite posted:

I thought I knew quite a bit about fighters (conceptional or not) post WW2 and I never even heard of that. Thanks for the write up!

ThisIsJohnWayne posted:

here is something that caught my eye:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Su27gun.htm

Does someone know any more about the 'movable gun installations'-idea?
I've only heard of some German WWII experiments (and of curse the flexible soviet gun pods) before. Have there been any American projects? And what could have stopped the concept from actually getting implemented?

E: the interesting part:
____________________________________

in parallel with tests of these improvements, theoretical research was carried out in the OKB to substantiate the concept of gun armament for the Su-27. Essential help was provided by experts from NIIAS MAP (Scientific Institute of Aviation Systems of the Aviation Industries Ministry). As a result of this research and mathematical modelling carried out by employees of Department №6 from NIIAS, it was shown that in a dogfight a mobile (steerable) gun installation on a fighter has a big advantage. The efficiency of such an installation in comparison with a fixed gun was about 3-4 times greater, since in a dogfight the mobile gun became, in effect, an "all aspect" weapon.

By 1977 work on determining the form of the Su-27 gun armament with the TKB-687 gun was practically finished. It was only necessary to approve those solutions officially. For this purpose Sukhoi OKB released a proposal concerning the updating of the technical data of the gun armament of the Su-27 fighter.


On September 7th, 1977 KBP was officially entrusted by the VPK (Military Industries Complex) to develop a new 30 mm gun intended for installation in the Su-27 on a steerable mounting, and for the MiG-29 and Yak-41 in a fixed mounting, and also for the replacement of NR-30 guns on aircraft such as the Su-17M and to equip gun pods. The development of the gun by KBP was authorised by a departmental order of the MOP (Ministry of Defence Industries) on September 28th, 1977.


In the autumn of 1977 mock-ups of two versions of the gun installation for the Su-27 were demonstrated:

- VPU-687 – built-in fixed gun installation with gun angle installed at 0° to the axis of the aircraft (i.e., firing straight ahead) and an ammunition load of 200 cartridges contained in a cartridge box (designed as a steep shaft between frames 17a-18);

- PPU-27 - moving gun installation in the same layout volume as the VPU-687, with the gun being steerable through +5 ° in the horizontal plane and 0-15° in the vertical plane, upwards from the axis of the aircraft, with an ammunition load of 150 cartridges.
____________________________________

Pablo Bluth posted:

But manned aircraft are so passé, lets just skip forward and productionise Teranis.

Sunday Punch posted:

Yeah the F-111 was a victim of being designed to fill too many roles, and being designed at a time when multirole aircraft were a new and unknown quantity.

priznat posted:

Needs more Avrocars with recoilless rifles

iyaayas01 posted:

You mean the project that until recently was called the "2018 bomber" and is now (notionally) projected for the mid '20s (and which we'll probably get around 2035)?

Okay, so we'll have like half a squadron of those to replace all the B-1s, the B-2s will still be around and of course we'll have a couple squadrons of elderly BUFFs tottering around the skies, refueled by KC-135s that are as ancient as they are because the KC-X program hit a few unexpected snags.

America's Air Force: No one comes close (because they can't find us since we only have 50 aircraft).

SyHopeful posted:

make it into a gif and i will love you

daskrolator posted:

Too many unknown requirements as well. We'll see!

McNally posted:

I remember reading in Bud Anderson's book that he was part of an experiment with "parasite" fighters. Some engineer figured out that an aircraft with free-floating wing panels ended up being more fuel efficient (somehow) and subsequent testing revealed that hooking up two fighters onto the wingtips of a larger aircraft (and then having them shut down their engines) resulted in all three aircraft flying along and the mothership ending up using less fuel than it would have on its own.

Ultimately, the whole project was scrapped for two reasons:

1) Air-to-air refueling was developed
2) The piloting skills required to make the hook-up and then maintain your position while connected were crazy high.

iyaayas01 posted:

Too lazy to pull up a picture on this lovely Army LSA connection, but look up the XF-85 Goblin. It was designed to operate from the gargantuan B-36 bomber. Basically the early USAF (USAAF when the proposal first dropped) designed the B-36 to be able to bomb Germany from the continental US during WWII. This meant after the war they had a huge (but relatively slow) bomber that had a very long range. Unfortunately, its slow speed meant it couldn't be expected to penetrate unescorted but its very long range made escort fighters unfeasible. The solution was to rig up a mini jet fighter that would fit into one of the bomb bays and be mounted on a trapeze. The fighter would takeoff and land in the bomb bay of the bomber, only launching during flight to fight off enemy fighters. The project was dropped after there were difficulties hooking up to the bomber and longer range jet powered escorts were developed to fill the role. Also, the fighter's mediocre performance didn't help things.

There were only two prototypes built: one is on display at Wright-Pat at the National Museum of the USAF, the other is at the SAC Museum outside of Omaha. I've been to the SAC Museum numerous times, and the Goblin really is a goofy looking aircraft...it's basically a flying egg.

To tie it in with this post and the one after it, FICON was developed as an alternative to this program after it was canceled.

iyaayas01 posted:

You mean the unmanned manned nuclear capable non-nuclear bomber that will be F-111 sized but maybe actually be closer to the B-2 and will be 100% strike but will also have ISR capabilities? Nah, the requirements are all hammered out with that one.

To be fair, there has been some public statements that indicate they've started to head a direction with it, but I'll eat my shirt if at least half of those don't change 180 degrees between now and the actual "choose a manufacturer" stage.

daskrolator posted:

I heard Major general David Scott, who establishes policy for operational capabilities-based requirements for USAF, speak last week about it. He didnt say much. He talked about it being optionally manned, a ballpark # of a/c, and it being a "system of systems." Oh and he wants it ALCM capable, and affordable. Let the shaping begin.

JoeCL posted:

The Soviets also experimented with the parasite fighter concept back in the 1930s, called the [html=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zveno_project]Zveno Project[/html]. Rather than using a unique parasite fighter they just used modified I-5s or I-16s strapped onto TB-3s. Apparently they actually used them operationally a couple times too.

Ygolonac posted:

Parasite aircraft have a long history.

Ygolonac posted:

Parasite aircraft have a long history.

Ygolonac posted:

Parasite aircraft have a long history.

Cyrano4747 posted:

Wouldn't mounting external stores on it like that effectively gently caress its low-profile radar signature straight to hell, though? I mean, what's the point in having a next-gen stealth fighter if you're just going to load a bunch of last-gen weapons on hardpoints on the outside and gently caress up its radar profile?

Wouldn't it be way more effective to just keep using dedicated ground attack aircraft based around current airframes like the F-15 with large external stores?