|
Well, I wouldn't call it impossible that it had some political motivation, but that wouldn't be my first guess. Especially against Canada.
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2010 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
dangerz posted:
I agree there's no way the F-35 will be cancelled...but not for the reasons you listed. The only reason any other countries can afford the F-35 is economy of scale. The US is purchasing 2/3 of the current expected production run (2400 of just over 3000, something like that). If the US drops out...hell, if the USAF drops out, you're going to see smaller partners cancelling their orders and larger partners cutting theirs significantly. But, the F-35 has too much political momentum. The current administration (and to a lesser extent the previous) has made it the centerpiece of US airpower. They've taken too strong a stand in propping it up (justifying the demise of the F-22, among other "savings" elsewhere) to do anything but bend over further. To say the F-35's overruns are no different from other programs is ridiculous. A Nunn-McCurdy violation without mitigating circumstances (like an increased number of orders) is not a normal occurrence, nor should it be. The fact that R&D for one of the fundamental functions of the aircraft spiraled out of control due to technical and developmental problems shouldn't automatically be ignored. In this case there's not much choice...we need this airplane. Unfortunately there aren't enough options when it comes to designing the next generation of *insert almost any weapon system here*. The companies have little/no incentive to keep costs under control. The government will pay, and if they don't the program will get scrapped and another will start...and once again, there are only a handful of options.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Our radar displays only show two digit speed in tens and hundreds. Not sure how they got such a specific figure. Depends on the system. Ours reads down to singles, but nobody bothers reading that far because it's not accurate enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 22:42
|
|
|
TimingBelt posted:Early production Hind(A variant) Wow, that really looks terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2010 15:28
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Wait... so you went skydiving out of the bomb bay of a B-17? That's the new #1 thing on my "list to do before death." loving awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2010 05:30
|
|
|
If the F-20 had been offered instead of the F-5E, it would've had a chance. But being a maxed-out airframe vs a new design with tons of upgrade potential...Northrop brought it into the game too late to make a difference. Edit: Yeah, it would've been sick in a demo team though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2010 05:15
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:
Fun to watch, but sucks be in the plane for that. Anyone who has the slightest touch of motion sickness WILL vomit under those conditions. If you've got sympathetic pukers in the area, the situation rapidly deteriorates. I've been stuck next to a puker twice. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
meltie posted:It's strange; I still think of the F/A-18 as being new The original Hornet design competed (and lost) against the F-16 in the early 70s. The Super Hornet is a totally new design, with about as much in common with the old Hornet as the new Camaro has with the old. SHornets entered production in the mid-late 90s, they are new planes, and among the most advanced fighters in the world.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So out of curiosity, given that they are completely new planes, why did they keep the layout (and the name) of the old Hornet? Well, the Navy sold Congress on the idea that it was an upgraded version. It was based on the original Hornet, but there's little/no commonality among parts. The engines, radar, avionics, and airframe itself are all different.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now if the Air Force could get their heads out of their asses long enough to realize that fact, maybe we can focus on some redesigned F-15's/16's.  This is the thinking that led to the USAF getting it's rear end kicked early in the Korean War.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2010 21:43
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:The specific Hornet I photographed was built in the mid-'80s, and, according to the pilot, is getting close to triple the flight hours M-D designed it for (it was meant to last 3 and has over 8, but I can't remember if that's thousands or ten-thousands). Fighters are in the thousands, some heavies can make it into the tens of thousands. Vastly different stresses on the airframes. But there are modernization programs that can greatly increase a fighter airframe's lifetime, doubling it or more. I can see this happening to the Super Hornets eventually, since I don't think there will be a 6th generation fighter until at least the 2030s. The old Hornets will just have to survive until the F-35 really gets in service. Are you talking about the Silent Eagle? It's an upgrade...basically an F-15 with RAM coatings, V-tails, and instead of the F-15E (and newer) conformal fuel tanks, it stores missiles inside. I think it's flown yet, but it looks pretty neat with that V setup. Godholio fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Apr 18, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2010 13:49
|
|
|
Not necessarily. 4th gen fighters en masse would pose a significant problem for a total fleet of 180 F-22s (including training, depot maintenance, etc). Plus there's the whole "this airplane has to last us for at least 30 years like the last one" which kinda makes you wonder what might happen in the next 3 decades, since we're stuck with what we have now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2010 04:23
|
|
|
movax posted:The engine inlets also differ. One is more circular, the other more angular. I think the Super Hornet has the angular intakes. The Super Hornet has the angular intakes, but the C-model isn't a Shornet. Edit: Bastard!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2010 05:06
|
|
|
movax posted:D'aww, looks so The US considers it 4.5 or 4.5+ (there's really no difference), but some countries count generations differently. China, for example, considers the F-10 and F-11 5th generation fighters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2010 23:47
|
|
. I was googling to check for the differences between Hornet variants E/F (wasn't sure if the two-seater was training only), and came across this in the Google listing:
|
orange lime posted:Also, more research needs to be put into the linear aerospike engine, because it looks so drat cool: It looks like a loving spaceship landing thruster.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2010 23:20
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:drat, that's pretty. Shiny unpainted aluminum looks fantastic. Dumb question: are pyrotechnics common at American air shows? They're not uncommon. It depends on the acts-some events use pyrotechnics, some don't. I've been to probably 25 airshows in my life, and probably 10 of them had some kind of fire or explosions involved in one of the events. Now Russian airshows...that's a whole other topic...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2010 23:53
|
|
|
It's a T-38 Talon. Yup, a trainer...but it's almost identical to the F-5. The Air Force and Navy both use the T-38s for pilot training, and the Navy still uses them as aggressors (the AF just paints F-15s and F-16s in rad "bad guy" paint schemes).
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
Edit: Blah, nevermind.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 00:12
|
|
|
I think I can sum up the last few posts in just a few words: Reach for the skies, man! Just for the love of God, get it on video.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2010 02:54
|
|
|
I wonder if they wouldn't survive the desert as well as a "normal" aircraft. They've already been recalled once, though I don't expect them to come back again. Googling that tail number brought up some weird stuff.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2010 16:07
|
|
|
Are you sure they're NASA's F-5s and not Air Force or Navy T-38s? Both services use T-38s as aggressors. The Navy uses them more, but the AF routinely puts F-22s against T-38s. Small RCS, high maneuverability, and good acceleration offer a different set of challenges from fighting F-15s and even F-16s, even if the Talon doesn't have a radar.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2010 05:04
|
|
|
I've never heard that, but I doubt it. Wings are expensive, and a 9G limit is for the airframe, not for weapons. Most weapons can be damaged by that kind of force, so a 9G limit is usually only in a "clean" configuration. I don't see why Switzerland would spend that kind of money for a capability that can't be used except in airshows.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2010 14:50
|
|
|
Cool, so they did modify the frame. They'll still be subject to most weapons' lower g-limit though.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a much better explanation than my half-assed attempts. Although certain types of fuzes do have a limit, I don't have a specific example. I think they're all air-to-ground munitions.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2010 22:05
|
|
|
LOO posted:If they can replace #4 & #5 with one big engine (as pictured), they can replace them all. My understanding is that wasn't economically advantageous to do so. Probably because they spent the money on B-1 Lancers, and B-2 Spirits. It's all a money issue. The E-3 AWACS and E-8 JSTARS use the same engines and will continue to do so for the same reason. The AF doesn't have the cash for new engines, especially when there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of spares sitting around. The same engine used to be on the KC-135s (all re-engined with CFM-56 or retired) and C-141 (retired), plus a handful of other low-production aircraft. Edit: VVV 
Godholio fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jun 1, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2010 23:00
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:Thats why you equip it with 2 GE90-115's so it makes nearly double the thrust as the current configuration so if you lose one it can still land, take off, and fly a normal route on one engine. They'd probably have to redesign the wings to mount them further inboard to do something like that. I can see the Buff having severe control problems running on one engine anywhere near the current inboard engine location. It's still halfway out the massive wing. Edit: It will never have just two engines, I can definitely see 4 when the time comes for the B-52 to get reengined, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 00:16
|
|
|
LOO posted:I think four CFM56-5A @ 22000 to 26500 lbs thrust would do the trick. I wouldn't be surprised if a CFM56 variant is what finally ends up replacing the TF-33s. That's exactly what happened to the KC-135. And foreign military 707 sales (ie, foreign E-3s).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 05:08
|
|
|
LobsterboyX posted:I guess i took it a bit too far... No, I'd say you nailed it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 00:21
|
|
|
slidebite posted:This is the way airshows should be done, live ordinance and all. Hell yeah. I was at an Airpower Demonstration at Creech in 2007. It was hot as balls, but loving awesome to actually see something beyond the typical airshow demos. I'm sure I'll miss some of the aircraft represented, but there were F-117s, B-52s, B-1s, a B-2, (I think the B-2 was the only one that didn't drop), F-22s, a pseudo-intercept between F-15s and F-16s (all they launched were flares, but they were turning and burning right overhead low enough to see the aggressor paint scheme), A-10s launching rockets and firing the GAU-8 from overhead while a pair of HH-60s recovered a "survivor" about 100 yrds from the bleachers. Oh, and they had a live Predator feed from directly above, and the drat thing was too high to see. All in all, it was well worth the drive from Nellis (we were there for a Flag or something), and our near-death experience when our 15-pax lost all steering due to metal fatigue and the actual snapping of the steering rack minutes after leaving the interstate.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Yeah, and because of that and the fact that the pilot was on a training mission, and dead-sticked a U-2 on an uncharted runway in the middle of the night with no ground team guiding him in, it's safe to say that pilot was god damned AWESOME. That would explain the DFC.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
jandrese posted:
Please tell me you have a high-res of this. Even if you don't it's going to be my desktop at work.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2010 04:15
|
|
|
Manny posted:I bet those pilots have one of the best seats in the house. Obviously, since that's the photographer's wingman. Also F-15E means TWO of the best seats in the house! 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2010 14:13
|
|
|
Jesus. A new F-15 costs $100 million nowadays, yeah let's buy those since they're so affordable (vs the 130-180M per F-22).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2010 21:14
|
|
|
grover posted:A little of both. F-15E Strike Eagles are still in production, so we know what they cost- pretty much what a Eurofighter, F-35, F-22 or any other capable modern fighter costs. Modern fighter aircraft are simply extremely expensive. Stealth is a lot of the cost difference between the F-15 and F-22; the precision and techniques necessary to reduce the RCS are much more expensive than simple sheet metal and rivets. But the survivability stealth brings gives an exponential return on investment vs old technology. The F-15SE Silent Eagle is more expensive than a normal F-15, and really isn't very stealthy at all. Vectored thrust and the new RADAR add costs, too. I don't see any scenario where the US buys the Silent Eagle. Boeing's not even bothering to market it, and I think they're smart for it. But if I had the cash I'd totally pay $1M for a P-51. 
Godholio fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Jun 20, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2010 15:51
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Yeah, I posted it just because I found it interesting that congressional types took to the same ideas the thread did. I think you are overreacting a bit to report's findings, though. I know your feelings about the F-35, but it's not like one of the bullet points was "ELIMINATE THE NAVY." They want to cut a trillion dollars out of the defense budget not because they hate freedom but because the USA's largest expenditure is defense, and you guys spend 50% more on defense now then in 1986. And that's a date after Regan's big military spending increase, and the opponent was the USSR and the Warsaw pact. So if you are interested in reducing government spending in any way, the logical place to start is defense. Absolute dollars is a pretty lovely way to compare spending now vs decades ago. I'm not sure if you're doing that, or including the cost incurred by two active wars.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2010 22:49
|
|
|
grover posted:Using absolute dollars, or even inflation-adjusted dollars can be misleading; % of GDP is much more meaningful as it reflects that our nation is far wealthier now than in years past. By % GDP, Obama is spending more on defense than Clinton, yet less than virtually any other time since before the Korean war, and doing so while actively fighting two wars. Percentage of GDP is how I measure it, too. Does that chart include the war supplemental funding, or is it the annual budget?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2010 02:58
|
|
|
Jimmy Smuts posted:"Bear", "Freestyle", "Foxhound", and "Flanker" make up for those. Though it's too bad the Freestyle went nowhere. Cock and human being would like to have a word with you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
If it was, I missed it too. My reaction wasn't too different from his wife's. Yikes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 01:32
|
|
|
There are few planes that get me excited like a camo F-4. One of my best (and earliest) Air Force moments was just a couple of days after reporting to my first assignment, Tyndall AFB. US 98 runs right through the middle of the base, separating the flightline from the rest of the base. Tyndall is home to a unit that flies QF-4s (literally remotely piloted F-4 Phantoms) in combat simulations...manned fighters will actually engage and shoot them down so pilots get to actually experience real missile launches and whatnot. The QF-4s are painted grey and orange. But there's one F-4 they bring out for the airshows, and actually use a pilot to fly, and it's in full up camo paint. At the time, Tyndall was also the home of the F-15C schoolhouse, although over the past couple of years that pipeline has been moved to Oregon so the F-15s are gone. Tyndall is also where the F-22 schoolhouse is. So I was at a red light at the gate about to leave the non-flightline side to get on 98, and I see an F-4 take off...the camouflage one. AWESOME! About 15 seconds later a pair of F-15Cs go roaring after it. YES! Then a pair of F-22s.  All in the span of one red light.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2010 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:That's some beautiful camo. Is it real? If so, what's it for? The Aggressors (they pretend to be the bad guys in exercises) up in Alaska. The Aggressors at Nellis use similar paint schemes, but different colors. I'll try to dig up some pics. Edit:  Click here for the full 1373x915 image. I also love the Aggressor colors. Godholio fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Jul 4, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2010 02:29
|
|