|
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.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 01:50 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 14:34 |
|
mikerock posted:I want that as a shirt Holy poo poo. I want this woman to have my children. http://dianathorneycroft.com/portfolio-seven-awkward.php
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 02:03 |
|
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
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 09:31 |
|
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. That would make me sad. Also why did Russia do this? What was going to happen exactly?
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 09:34 |
|
Laser Cow posted:That would make me sad. Also why did Russia do this? What was going to happen exactly? Why did Russia do what? Put the Bear up and drive it near someone else's airspace? Dozens of potential reasons, ranging from "Putin being a dick and wanting to flex some muscle to remind everyone they're still there" down to "routine testing of response times of nearby fighter defenses by the Russian Air Force." gently caress, for all I know they could have some of those bears kitted out with electronic surveillance equipment and be using them the same way that we do similar aircraft, like the one that got hit by that Chinese fighter a few years ago. Regardless, Bear intercepts are a long and noble tradition. Assuming you were from a family with a tradition of fighter pilot service, it would be quite possible for a grandfather, father, and son to have all intercepted Bears.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 10:31 |
|
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. Edit for bonus VTOL action: What do you get when a C-130 and a CH-47 have a baby? Uhhh... Sunday Punch fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Mar 2, 2011 |
# ? Mar 2, 2011 17:03 |
|
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. This to me is just more evidence that the 1970s were a terrible, terrible decade. Why? Well judging by what you posted, the Navy entirely forgot about the last few times they tried the whole idiotic "stand a plane on its rear end" idea. Except this time they managed to find the one approach that was even more absurdly dangerous and needlessly complex method for creating an expensive failure.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 17:29 |
|
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.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 17:42 |
|
It still seems like an awfully pointless thing to try when the Brits just invented this thing called the Harrier which can take off vertically without needing a bunch of stuff stolen from John Ringo's Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Mar 2, 2011 |
# ? Mar 2, 2011 17:54 |
|
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! That looks like the sort of thing I"d doodle in my trapper keeper when I was 12.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 17:58 |
|
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. 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!
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 19:23 |
|
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.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 19:30 |
|
Needs more Avrocars with recoilless rifles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 19:32 |
|
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. ____________________________________ ThisIsJohnWayne fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Mar 2, 2011 |
# ? Mar 2, 2011 20:41 |
|
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. also make it so the B-70 flaps its outer droop wings
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 20:44 |
|
SyHopeful posted:also make it so the B-70 flaps its outer droop wings 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.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 20:52 |
|
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. make it into a gif and i will love you
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 21:10 |
|
daskrolator posted:But hey, at least you'll have a Next Generation Bomber in the mid 2020 timeframe! 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). slidebite posted:
Yeah, I had never heard of that completely harebrained idea and I'm pretty familiar with harebrained aviation ideas. ThisIsJohnWayne posted:here is something that caught my eye: I had not heard of that Soviet program before...interesting stuff. As for U.S. movable guns/turrets on fighter aircraft, the only one I am aware of is the WWII era P-61 Black Widow night fighter which featured four .50 machine guns in a turret on the top of the aircraft. The F-89 interceptor (the jet powered design that was supposed to replace the P-61) was supposed to have a nose mounted turret with 4 20mm cannons, but this was removed when development proved too difficult. As for why it why it wasn't further developed, I would think such a design would prove unfeasible at the speed jet fighters conduct within visual range combat. You would need a serious degree of automation to make the design work.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2011 00:29 |
|
poo poo, the whole "turrets on fighters" concept was largely abandoned by just about everyone in the 30s because of issues having one guy aim the damned things while the other was maneuvering around enough to keep them alive. The RAF's early-WW2 Boulton Paul Defiant is a good example of this - it got loving SAVAGED during the Battle of France and was quickly relegated to night interception duties during the Blitz, since there wasn't much maneuvering involved in that, and spotlighted bombers at night are easier prey than maneuvering fighters during the day. It's also worth noting that the P-61 was built from the ground up as a night fighter as well, and also had the turret commanded by secondary crew (either the gunner or the radar operator - both had controls for it). Hell, the P-61 was a fighter in the most technical sense - it closer resembled a stripped down medium bomber with a bunch of early radar equipment rather than payload capacity. Anything else you care to name that's even vaguely "fighter-ish" and has a non-forward firing MG is basically a ground attack aircraft with a tail gunner. By the time that computers got small enough to handle auto-aiming turrets and taking out the need for multi-crew aircraft for them things had long sense moved on to missiles. Interestingly enough, now we're kind of drifting back the other way, with some of the more advanced gun systems in modern fighters being able to slew the gun in a cone-shaped arc to make fine aiming adjustments using the on-board aiming devices (radar, forward tracking IR, whatever the gently caress the airplane's slinging) to maximize lead on target during dogfights, ground attacks, etc. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Mar 3, 2011 |
# ? Mar 3, 2011 00:42 |
|
Pablo Bluth posted:But manned aircraft are so passé, lets just skip forward and productionise Teranis. ...Although this time, it's actually a lot less ridiculous. e/ 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. rossmum fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Mar 3, 2011 |
# ? Mar 3, 2011 04:25 |
|
^^^The Mosquito was indeed pretty awesome. Maybe we need go back to making planes out of wood Since you guys liked the NB-36 and Bell nuclear powered helicopter concept, here's another proposed atomic aircraft. So if you want to fly your fully loaded C-5 Galaxy transports to the other side of the world, you need multiple fuel top-ups from tanker aircraft right? Well, the guys at Lockheed-Georgia thought that was bullshit and that it would be a better idea to use this: That would be a gigantic nuclear powered seaplane towing 2 C-5s. It makes them look pretty dinky because it has a 150 metre wingspan and weighed almost 900 tons. It was designed as a seaplane as it was considered too risky to fly over land in case of a crash, plus there wouldn't of been any runways of handling the beast anyway. And the C-5 pilots would have to be careful not to bump into each other, which may have been tricky in bad weather. Now while the concept seems completely insane at first glance, it actually plays pretty well to the strengths of a nuclear powered vehicle. After hooking up the Galaxies, they could shut off their engines and let the tug tow them anywhere on the planet, nonstop. And since they wouldn't have to carry nearly as much fuel they could carry significantly increased payloads. But the craziest thing about this idea? It was proposed in 1977. Not in the golden age of nuclear powered family cars (1950s) or even the waning years of atomic powered aircraft like the ill-fated Project Pluto (1960s), but the year Star Wars came out. You would have thought they'd have known better by then.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2011 08:33 |
|
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.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2011 09:43 |
|
Sounds like one of the FICON (Fighter Conveyor) projects. That's Tip Tow, a B-29 joined up with 2 F-84s on the wings. There were also several tests done with the B-36. priznat posted:Needs more Avrocars with recoilless rifles Don't let ricers near the Avrocar or they'll nail a stupid wing to the back If it was a colour photograph you could see the underbody neon It's really too bad the Avrocar was a complete and utter failure because it looks totally awesome. Who wouldn't want to tool around in a flying saucer?
|
# ? Mar 3, 2011 10:14 |
|
Army Trains Patriot Missile Crews Via iPhone http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/theres-an-app-for-that-army-trains-patriot-missile-crews-via-iphone.php
|
# ? Mar 3, 2011 15:37 |
|
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)?
|
# ? Mar 3, 2011 17:35 |
|
SyHopeful posted:make it into a gif and i will love you Sorry, I'm too dumb to know how to make it into a gif, but when I get home tonight I'll scan it for you.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2011 20:31 |
|
daskrolator posted:Too many unknown requirements as well. We'll see! 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.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2011 00:43 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2011 00:51 |
|
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. Wkipedia Using a B-29 for trapeze-hookup testing. End result for a failed trapeze test. (There's video of this, but I can't dig that out at work.) More Still more
|
# ? Mar 4, 2011 19:54 |
|
The "secret weapons" addon for battlefield 1942 had a Goblin in the game along with some wacky flying wing bombers and such, it owned.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2011 19:55 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2011 20:34 |
|
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. Wait, I hope he means "ALCM" in a generic way, not specific to the AGM-86, because the -86s are gonna be out of service by around 2020, so the chances of them being utilized by this new bomber are...slim. But we're already in the process of getting rid of the ACM, and there's not a new nuclear capable cruise missile on the horizon, and I would hope it'd be able to carry a JASSM seeing as how it's small, and that's the only other cruise missile I can think of, so I really have no idea what he was talking about.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2011 07:22 |
|
The Soviets also experimented with the parasite fighter concept back in the 1930s, called the Zveno Project. 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. Edit: messed up the stupid url tags. Strasburgs UCL fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Mar 7, 2011 |
# ? Mar 6, 2011 08:15 |
|
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. Parasite aircraft have a long history.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2011 07:44 |
|
Ygolonac posted:Parasite aircraft have a long history. Zeppelins never existed, what are you talking about?
|
# ? Mar 7, 2011 15:25 |
|
Ygolonac posted:Parasite aircraft have a long history. The hangar for that thing is loving MASSIVE!
|
# ? Mar 7, 2011 15:35 |
|
Ygolonac posted:Parasite aircraft have a long history. PUT THE SPURS TO 'ER, CHUCK! Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE2t6Sg_H74 I loving love this movie. NosmoKing fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Mar 8, 2011 |
# ? Mar 7, 2011 16:48 |
|
Here's a free-flight wind tunnel model of the F-22 with a two seat canopy and a bunch of external stores. I can see a potential F/A-22 Strike Raptor variant looking something like this, just with GBUs. This configuration with air to air armament and drop tanks looks like it could be for long range escort or something.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2011 14:53 |
|
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?
|
# ? Mar 8, 2011 15:23 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 14:34 |
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? Have you checked out the F-35 thread in GiP?
|
|
# ? Mar 8, 2011 15:30 |