|
Coldwar timewarp posted:Why are conformal fuel tanks an afterthought on aircraft? If the engineers thought the aircraft needed more permanent fuel capacity, they'd design it with larger internal reservoirs in the first place. Some air forces also aren't interested in having conformal fuel tanks at all. It's a question of doctrine. If you expect you can safely refuel on the way, then perhaps you don't need to bother with CFTs. Drop tanks are faster to add or remove, and in case of need they can be jettisoned.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
The F16 at least was never really meant for the roles it is most commonly used in nowadays. It was originally conceived as a lightweight, cheap, air to air, daytime fighter. Everything else has been bolted on since. I imagine the end of the cold war changing priorities has a lot to do with it as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:If the engineers thought the aircraft needed more permanent fuel capacity, they'd design it with larger internal reservoirs in the first place. I agree, they would design it with more in the first place. The question is why they didn’t. The F-35 attempts to address this problem, as it’s an obvious one. Some airforces don’t want them at all, true. I would say that’s likely more budget related than choice related. The Israelis are less constrained by budgetary concerns and they want CFT’s in the F-35 as well. It seems like a no brainer to me. The Turks have them too. It seems like if you want to use your airforce and they are an option, you choose that option. With that in mind, why didn’t the designers see that the greatest limitation their aircraft had was the easiest to solve. They seem to add more fuel for less drag, and the only clean fighters you see seem to be for air shows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
Coldwar timewarp posted:I agree, they would design it with more in the first place. The question is why they didn’t. Why didn't they design the aircraft with something they didn't think was necessary while designing the aircraft?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Like many dreams there's always the chance of it turning nightmarish, like Bombardier spending the GDP of Atlantic Canada to build a modern Tu-28 Fiddler out of modified CRJs This sounds cool and good actually
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
Coldwar timewarp posted:I agree, they would design it with more in the first place. The question is why they didn’t. The F-35 attempts to address this problem, as it’s an obvious one. Conformal fuel tanks usually can't be dumped in-flight like drop tanks. They're plumbed directly into the airplane and are designed to minimize the performance penalties to carrying them rather than fall away cleanly. Even if they were designed to be jettisoned you'd probably get some exciting releases with the things trying to merge back into the air envelope around the plane. Designing something to be bolted to an aircraft and something that should fall away from it are two very different things. Even if you design it to fall away (like a drop tank or bomb or missile etc) you can gently caress that up, as the Youtube blooper reels of airplanes getting hit by their own released ordinance shows. It's all a trade off no matter what you do. If you don't care about performance as much as you do range then conformals are a way better solution than just permanently keeping drop tanks bolted on, as you loose less performance in the bargain. If you want long loiter time but the option to go full performance mode when poo poo gets serious you want drop tanks. It's just a more flexible option. Note that there are also differences in how clean an airplane is. Dumping all the ordinance you can muster if you actually square off against an airborne threat you need to worry about is par for the course. We don't see it much these days, but flip back to WW2, Korea, or even Vietnam and you'll find fighters jettisoning not only drop tanks but bombs when they need to go deal with an A2A threat. Ideally at that point you've got enough internal fuel to get back to base after you're done surviving the attempted intercept. Your mission might be a wash, but better than trying to dogfight your way through carrying all that extra poo poo. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Jan 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Coldwar timewarp posted:I agree, they would design it with more in the first place. The question is why they didn’t. The F-35 attempts to address this problem, as it’s an obvious one. The weight & drag penalties for conformal tanks are so minimal in SLUF that they seem like a no-brainer, but once you start needing the aircraft to turn and pull Gs, those penties are greatly magnified: a clean/A2A loaded F-15C will spank a Strike Eagle with an A2A load in a turning fight most times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
https://defence-blog.com/news/russian-tu-22m3-crash-expert-says-instrument-landing-system-to-blame-hard-landing.html"Defence Blog posted:“The rate of descent is much too high for a landing, this suggests the pilot did not know what his attitude was on finals – visibility was really poor so this was clearly a blind ILS letdown. Not surprise the jet snapped in half on impact.,” said expert.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
Coldwar timewarp posted:Why are conformal fuel tanks an afterthought on aircraft? Another thought: How many of the aircraft that now have CFTs are still rocking the same engines as when the airframe was initially designed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 08:24
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Speaking of impossibles, it occurs to me that if Canada did things like most other nations, it would have two fighters: a jack of all trades, and a long range interceptor. That pattern seems to hold fairly well during the Cold War: Mr. Chips posted an old news broadcast on Canada's 1970s fighter replacement, and it mentioned Canada buying a shitload of F-5s so it would have lots of air-frames to 'surge' to Europe in case of a conventional war in Europe. Before that, we had the Starfighter and the Voodoo as interceptors, and before that, the all weather clunk (CF-100.) Imagine a universe where the Arrow happened and wasn't catastrophically dumb (IE sourcing sub-components from America) and going with that in modern times still makes sense. Gripen and F-15x! i am really curious why you think that Canada has a requirement for two separate fighter aircraft in 2019
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:i am really curious why you think that Canada has a requirement for two separate fighter aircraft in 2019 Lol, it doesn't. Just me dreaming aloud. e: KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:for me at least you still haven't coherently answered the question of why any smaller country needs an independent domestic X industry other than Well, the point that using defense spending as an economic stimulus is really stupid I feel has been covered, so let me respond to this, because this is a good question. In short, Canada tried the total free market way twice, and it didn't work. First we tried it before World War 2, only to discover ourselves in bad need of stuff but without the means to make it. Second, in the 1990s with the neo-liberal liberals, where the stated policy was to buy internationally, but Canada's occultist procurement practices and cowardice/cheapness on the part of the pols made it unworkable. WW2 for Canada showed that some domestic capacity in defense was good, while ----- hm. Scratch that, we learned nothing the second time. So, IF you accept that having some industrial capacity in defense is good, as a kind of insurance policy against shall we call them supplier issues, then you have a case for something like the NSS. Of course, the devil is in the details: I'm still tepidly for the NSS - even though I'm now firmly on team "just buy some Korean destroyers already" because it aims at keeping a sustainable naval shipbuilding capacity long term. Of course, we've made lots of stupid decisions while going about it, and I'm generally against "industrial offsets" as baksheeh unless it's coming from a capacity we already have, (like buying new Buffaloes for fixed-wing SAR). Of course, if you think having such a hedge is needless, well, yeah, go free market. Just buy from other people already and pocket the savings to spend on real economic growth. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 14:20
|
|
"it might be nice and could come in handy at some point"
|
That's all interesting and good for the next 25 year plan but the CF-18 was bought to replace F104s. This is like if your air force was still made up of Mig-21s in the 1990s - maybe just buy something/anything already? Canada should definitely have both a VVS and a PVO tho.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
VKing posted:Another thought: How many of the aircraft that now have CFTs are still rocking the same engines as when the airframe was initially designed? Not many. F-15s and F-16s have been updated to the F100-PW-200 or 220/220Es. Both have conformal tanks. F/A-18's were updated to the F404-GE-402 and the Superbugs got all new 414's. The conformal tanks for the Bugs look awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
If there is such a thing as a nonsexy conformal fuel tank I haven't seen it yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:If there is such a thing as a nonsexy conformal fuel tank I haven't seen it yet. The one on the Tiffies look like some type of growth. Not really a fan.  The ones on the F-15 and Super Bugs look like they were there from the start (Well they kinda were on the Mud Hen), the F-16s look kinda wonky too. But not as bad as the Tiffy's. The Russians never really did CFT's. They just throw huge tanks in the airframe and make it look like poo poo like the Mig-29 UPG. This is also the reason the Fullback looks like a platypus. The entire area behind the cockpit is fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
The Israeli f16 conformals combined with the spine is a really sorry look, and the euro fighter tanks are just sad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The Israeli f16 conformals combined with the spine is a really sorry look, and the euro fighter tanks are just sad. The funny thing is Turkey bought into that look as well. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fvTOt86uu...%25285%2529.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
I'm afraid to say, it's cancer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Yeah It looks like a bus
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:The one on the Tiffies look like some type of growth. When your neighbor is washing his ugly-rear end luxury car in his driveway and thinks you're impressed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:The one on the Tiffies look like some type of growth. I had to look up four different pictures at different angles just to be sure that wasn't a photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
The Vipers, while awkward, are tolerable and they offer 50% more fuel for like 10% of the drag of the drop tanks so I can give them a pass, the Typhoons look like rear end through and through
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
Still the best looking plane with a hump. Nah, I know its not fuel, its avionics. But still... I only got a few PIC hours in the Scooter... but drat it was fun. http://www.a4skyhawk.info/sites/default/files/images-buno-160022-160045/160045.jpg http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com/a-4m_skyhawk_02.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
Explosionface posted:I had to look up four different pictures at different angles just to be sure that wasn't a photoshop. Honestly... so did I.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
Stolen from the A/T Spaceflight thread:Hexyflexy posted:The whole thing is on the internet archive here. Thanks for that, I'd never have known it existed! Also conformal tanks look like rear end. Drop tanks or go home 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Typhoons look like rear end through and through Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
dubzee posted:Drop tanks or go home Drop tanks, then go home. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Drop tanks, then go home. Didn’t they catch like ultra-cancer from this, or some poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:Didn’t they catch like ultra-cancer from this, or some poo poo?  I don't see any drop-tanks used here 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:Didn’t they catch like ultra-cancer from this, or some poo poo? I doubt it. At least no more so than anyone who works with jet fuel for a living. I mean I wouldn't use one as a water tank, but rinse it out pretty well and you're probably pretty good to go. Doubly so if it's been sitting with the top cut open like that, exposed to the elements for a couple years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
NYT has details on the case against that Huawei exec. Don't read to the end (modern politics) but it's pretty interesting none the less. TL;DR Huawei has been acting like a cyberpunk villain
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:NYT has details on the case against that Huawei exec. Don't read to the end (modern politics) but it's pretty interesting none the less. TL;DR Huawei has been acting like a cyberpunk villain  (nobody ever)evil_bunnY posted:The Israeli f16 conformals combined with the spine is a really sorry look, and the euro fighter tanks are just sad. Does the spine contain EW stuff, or is there some sort of Palestinian pacification weapon housed within?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Does the spine contain EW stuff, or is there some sort of Palestinian pacification weapon housed within?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, those are slung on hardpoints under the wings. Nice
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:NYT has details on the case against that Huawei exec. Don't read to the end (modern politics) but it's pretty interesting none the less. TL;DR Huawei has been acting like a cyberpunk villain https://twitter.com/TheresaAFallon/status/1089916262749298690 From the CanPol thread Real mature, debbie!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
some former Intelligence Community guys at my work were ridiculously happy that Huawei/Meng is getting prosecuted and refused to explain to me why, lol Maybe they know something? Hard for me to tell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:some former Intelligence Community guys at my work were ridiculously happy that Huawei/Meng is getting prosecuted and refused to explain to me why, lol It's been standard practise to not use their poo poo in anything I've been involved with, especially in the domains I specialise in which can be a bit sensitive to the whole "China just stole all our IP documents". From what I've heard on the grape vine that doesn't surprise me even slightly. Nobody has trusted them for a very very long time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
I’m happy they are getting some measure of pain for all the poo poo they pulled. They were a not insignificant part of why Canadian tech giant Nortel died an ignoble death from all their espionage. Wasn’t the only reason (poor leadership being #1) but definitely didn’t help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
priznat posted:https://twitter.com/TheresaAFallon/status/1089916262749298690 Hey it's my favorite Chinese idiom! It's just a Chinese way of calling someone a hypocrite but it sounds super extreme when directly translated so I make sure to use it all the time. Edit, just saw this: Hauldren Collider posted:some former Intelligence Community guys at my work were ridiculously happy that Huawei/Meng is getting prosecuted and refused to explain to me why, lol You know all those things you hear about China stealing everything not nailed to the floor when it comes to tech stuff and documents? They're underselling how aggressive these companies are and how the companies are basically in the pocket of the CPC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
I understood that they were happy about that but I meant they hinted that they knew some very specific things that they then refused to divulge. Teases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:07
|
|