Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: CaptJosh on October 04, 2005, 05:45:42 pm
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
didn't know you grandfather made the mean missile :D
Allways loved the F-14 and everything it came with.
Well, he was on the design team. He also helped with the Maverick and TOW missiles.
He was actually the guy who came up with the idea to use standard rectangular circuit boards against the inside of the missile body in missiles that shape their charges on impact because at that point, it doesn't matter if the electronics get ripped up.
Up til that point, missiles used custom circular platter circuit boards, and the initial idea was ring shaped boards. Such boards would be too small, though, and missiles didn't have the room for the wires to connect such boards together, much less room for enough ring shaped circuit boards to replace the circular platters they had been using.
My grandpa hit on a common sense solution because he wasn't a trained engineer, and so did not overthink it the way the rest of the team he was on did. He had learned design engineering by actually engineering things. Not exactly a popular method for doing things these days.
As for your appreciation of the Tomcat, well, I have to say it's my fave air superiority fighter. I wish people still made games with it as the primary aircraft to fly. This is why I'd like the a feature for missiles that are not fire and forget. It would be a step toward making a game involving atmosphere fighters using the SCP. As I stated in my earlier post, another feature that would be required is lift physics, as well as fuel consumption, air to air refueling instead of rearming, and on top of that, gravity itself.
-
F-14s are my favorite aircraft as well. the tv series 'robotech' got me hooked on them. too bad they are being retired in like a year
-
F-14s retired in a year? Not unless they've produced enough F-22s to replace them already. The F/A-18 Hornet, aka the "plastic bug" just isn't good enough to take over from it. Doesn't have the range or payload capacity.
-
What about the superhornet e and f? they are pretty close performence wise with the f-14 right?
-
Not even close. Ask a naval aviator. While they're more maneuverable, they just don't have the legs. Fuel endurance is the biggest complaint. And even the super-Hornet can't carry as much ordinance. Or as good ordinance. The ONLY plane in service that can use the AIM-54C is the F-14.
The only other plane that could have used the Phoenix missile and its current development is the F-111, and that's completely obsolete. Barring museum exhibits or friendly countries having been sold surplus aircraft that they are still maintaining for some reason, the F-111s are all in the boneyard.
And no, the F/A-18 and its variants cannot be modified to use the AIM-54C Phoenix. Even if the hardpoints could be made compatible, the combat systems are not.
-
Originally posted by CaptJosh
Not even close. Ask a naval aviator. While they're more maneuverable, they just don't have the legs. Fuel endurance is the biggest complaint. And even the super-Hornet can't carry as much ordinance. Or as good ordinance. The ONLY plane in service that can use the AIM-54C is the F-14.
The only other plane that could have used the Phoenix missile and its current development is the F-111, and that's completely obsolete. Barring museum exhibits or friendly countries having been sold surplus aircraft that they are still maintaining for some reason, the F-111s are all in the boneyard.
And no, the F/A-18 and its variants cannot be modified to use the AIM-54C Phoenix. Even if the hardpoints could be made compatible, the combat systems are not.
I think the Navy sort of wants to phase the AIM-54C out as well. Neat weapon but of less use these days. I think the Super Hornet was the ideal solution for them...they get one plane that can replace most of the other types on the deck that has reasonable capability (its fairly capable overall). I think the longer legs thing is not an issue. The Tomcat was designed to shoot down bombers before they could attack the fleet. Now the bombers don't fly anywhere near the fleet and toss missiles at it. So what you want is something closer in and shooting missiles at bigger missiles.
What we'll probably see is the F/A-18E/F's equipped with that next generation long range missile. Similar range to the Phoenix but smaller, considerably faster (scramjets I think) and more manueverable.
-
There's also something to be said for shooting down an enemy fighter from 150 km (80 nautical miles, which is over 92 standard miles) away, well outside said enemy's engagement envelope.
As for people lobbing missiles at our fleet, who's going to do that?
The Russians? They can't affort to start anything.
The Chinese? They're not that stupid. They may have an army of 200 million officers and enlisted men all told, but they don't have the ability to fight us. They're even more locked in to the old Soviet combat model than the old Soviet Union was. No initiative allowed. And their navy in strictly a brown water operation. Coastal entirely.
The terrorists? Where are they going to get that kind of firepower?
I acknowledge that we're in the business of maintaining a very high tech edge over any possible competition, and our AEGIS ships are nice for missile defense, but really, there's nobody left to challenge us on the seas. The powers that could are long-standing allies. Well, sort of. I mean, the French...Um...It's hard to call them allies. But even if they were an enemy, and not simply the most unfriendly friend we have in the world, they're the only country left with a carrier for standard fixed wing aircraft and what we consider standard carrier ops instead of Harriers and helos only. Said carrier took them over 11 years to finish building. So...
Finally, in response to endurance not being an issue, that's a crock. Forget about bombers. Think air to air combat. We don't want to be like the Russians and have fighters with legs for only a single engagement before having to refuel.
-
Not an SCP topic. Off to Hard Light with you!
-
The terrorists? Where are they going to get that kind of firepower?
The Russians. :D
I acknowledge that we're in the business of maintaining a very high tech edge over any possible competition
That very high tech edge has many advantages, but it also has many weaknesses that can easily be exploited.
The Chinese? They're not that stupid. They may have an army of 200 million officers and enlisted men all told, but they don't have the ability to fight us. They're even more locked in to the old Soviet combat model than the old Soviet Union was. No initiative allowed. And their navy in strictly a brown water operation. Coastal entirely.
You're forgetting 2 big factors. One of them is the people, the other is geography. Occupying a nation that is physically as large as the US is extremely difficult. Also pacifying a nation of 1.3 billion people (many of whom are very nationalistic) is damn near impossible. People here might not like the party, but they really would not like a foreign invader.
-
Incidentially, Phoenix was retired from service around 9 months ago. The last F-14 will be retired in 2006.
Australia is the only present operator of the F-111.
-
Go Australia!! If you annoy us, prepare for a blistering assault with outdated equiptment!!!
...And if you really get us mad, we've got crack squad of Longbowmen out back ready to kick some tail...!
...On a more topic related note; will the JSF-35 see naval action, or is it a strictly ground-based affair?
-
The F-111 is still an excellent aircraft; it's a bit of a stretch to call it 'outdated'....
There are three variants of the F-35, one CTOL, one STOVL (for Marines and RN) and one carrier based variant.
-
I first up going to admit a pretty huge ignorance of this subject but was the F16 not a replacement or evolution on the F14 design (apart from the variable delt wing)?
At the least its a better air-to-air combat plane? Definately saw that on discovery unless they were yanking my crank.
-
And now I'm going to validate the first sentance of my last post.
Sorry got mixed up between the f15 and 16.
Just had a read of fas.org and Im a bit more up to speed now.
-
F-14 has always been my favorite, knew it was gonna go soon but not this soon. :(
OT: It's still too bad they scrapped the Comanche I mean tell me this thing isn't bad ass.
(http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/rah-66_1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by CaptJosh
There's also something to be said for shooting down an enemy fighter from 50 miles away, well outside said enemy's engagement envelope.
As for people lobbing missiles at our fleet, who's going to do that?
The Russians? They can't affort to start anything.
The Chinese? They're not that stupid. They may have an army of 200 million officers and enlisted men all told, but they don't have the ability to fight us. They're even more locked in to the old Soviet combat model than the old Soviet Union was. No initiative allowed. And their navy in strictly a brown water operation. Coastal entirely.
The terrorists? Where are they going to get that kind of firepower?
I acknowledge that we're in the business of maintaining a very high tech edge over any possible competition, and our AEGIS ships are nice for missile defense, but really, there's nobody left to challenge us on the seas. The powers that could are long-standing allies. Well, sort of. I mean, the French...Um...It's hard to call them allies. But even if they were an enemy, and not simply the most unfriendly friend we have in the world, they're the only country left with a carrier for standard fixed wing aircraft and what we consider standard carrier ops instead of Harriers and helos only. Said carrier took them over 11 years to finish building. So...
Finally, in response to endurance not being an issue, that's a crock. Forget about bombers. Think air to air combat. We don't want to be like the Russians and have fighters with legs for only a single engagement before having to refuel.
Killing an enemy fighter at 50 nm is still a difficult proposition for a Phoenix and its getting more difficult. Although I believe it was within the ability of the missile to potentially shoot down enemy fighters, the real target for those missiles were bombers.
The new weapons they are working with aren't much bigger than the AIM-120 is (they are bigger but not massively so) and are likely to be more versatile. The AIM-54 has had its day...
Also don't discredit the French for taking 11 years to build an aircraft carrier...its about the same for the various Nimitz class ships being built or having entered service in the last while.
I believe its French owned Thales that is building a very advanced and sophisticated next generation carrier for the Royal Navy and French Navy. But its not likely to see any of those navies fighting each other.
If we're talking about post Cold War thinking...the Pentagon is interested in keeping things cheap and cost effective. The Super Hornet offers the ability to replace the F-14, F-18A through D, A-6, and the EA-6B. I have no illusions that it completely replaces any of those but it can do their roles and in some cases it does them better or with more flexibility. In terms of the overall air wing...you definately get more flexibility in the types of missions you want to run and how many aircraft are allocated to the type of mission.
But I see the USN wanting, at least in the short term, the F/A-18E/F and subsequent models and modifications to be operating alongside the F/A-35C and I don't see the Hawkeye or Viking going anywhere for a while yet.
-
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Incidentially, Phoenix was retired from service around 9 months ago. The last F-14 will be retired in 2006.
Australia is the only present operator of the F-111.
Hrmm...Maybe they'll let people buy disarmed surplus F-14s now. I'd love to get my hands on one of those just to fly it...
-
Since you mention it, someone is already trying to purchase disarmed F-14s Clicky (http://www.alert5.com/2005/09/oceana-air-show-2005-pre-show-notes.html)
Not F-14s, but look who is in town this weekend.... (Pics taken Friday)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/San%20Francisco/Blue%20Angels/IMG_4024.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/San%20Francisco/Blue%20Angels/IMG_3906.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/San%20Francisco/Blue%20Angels/HeadOn2.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/San%20Francisco/Blue%20Angels/Vorticies3.jpg)
-
:eek:
The Feds!
-
Originally posted by Swantz
F-14 has always been my favorite, knew it was gonna go soon but not this soon. :(
OT: It's still too bad they scrapped the Comanche
(http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/rah-66_1.jpg)
Hmm, you would not think that way when you hear them flying around outside at night.
Why would the be flying them in the mountains of Alabama, I have no clue, but it's them.
They only fly on clear nights with no moon, and they only run two very small lights, none blinking like a normal copter, and they have a sound unlike anything else you have ever herd. They are also very fast. They don't really fly around that much anymore, but I assume that they will once again start flying this winter.
Wether anyone belives me or not, you have never seen these things flying for yourself.;)
-
They will not be flying at all. The RAH-66 "Comanche" program for building a new scout/light attack helo was scrapped. Which is stupid because the Kiowas are really starting to show their age.
As for the different sound, they have a 5 bladed rotorary wing instead of a 4 bladed one, and the tail rotor is a ducted design made by Bell aircraft, IIRC, and it's called fantail. It's designed to cut back on noise by eliminating the way a normal tail rotor chops through the wash of the rotary wing. And they are fast. They can get about 165 knots before they start having issues with blade stall. The main reason they were cancelled is that someone decided that 65 million per bird was too much. Yet they'll pay a billion a plane for the B-2 "Spirit" bomber. Congresscritters ain't any to bright sometimes...
-
Not to mention 6 billion per F-22. The chairforce is allowed to spend money up the wazoo but the Army doesn't get squat.
-
Now that's really strange...:eek2:
Let's face the facts - this program was developed by the US military for more than 10 years and was supposed to be the next generation multi-purpose strike/recon helicopter utilizing stealth technology extensively... And now suddenly the funding is suspended...
This doesn't really make sense because so many money went i it!
Even if each helo was supposed to cost 65 mln dollars the money spent on the RAH-66 Commanche programme wouldn't be wasted at all considering the high-tech development possibilities of the whole programme... They could simply reduce the number of craft to enter service or postpone the active service entering date if the defence budget was so tight...
My country doesn't have such problems as the Mil Mi-24 D Hind will still be it's main attack helicopter for quite a while ;)
Given the fact the defence budget is WAY lower than in the US...
( don't even ask for a comparison :nervous: )
-
Commanche was more in line with the Havoc or Hokum designs...
The Apache is still the best gunship around but for other helicopter duty...the Russian birds are now the best designs around. Pretty impressive in terms of speed, manuerability, aerobatics and even firepower.
-
Comanche was never supposed to be a gunship. It was primarily to be used as recon, with the ability to suport Cobra and Apache gunships in a light attack role when using the EFAMS winglets.
It also was supposed to have enough teeth to be able to fight its way out if a hairy situation developed during recon, a major improvement over the OH-58 Kiowa, even the D varian that had some weapons.
Furthermore, it had an artillery spotting role.
It wasn't as good in the low observability dept as some folks wanted, but it was a damnsight better than Apache ever dreamed of being. Apache was designed as a heavy attack role. With that in mind, low observability ends up going out the window. Even so, Apache has a smaller radar cross section than any rotary wing aircraft its size.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Not to mention 6 billion per F-22. The chairforce is allowed to spend money up the wazoo but the Army doesn't get squat.
:wtf:
What have you been smoking?
-
Originally posted by Shrike
:wtf:
What have you been smoking?
Exactly what I was thinking too.:lol: 100-200 million apice DB.;)
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
F-14s are my favorite aircraft as well. the tv series 'robotech' got me hooked on them. too bad they are being retired in like a year
I still weap when I remeber the Super Tomcat project was abandoned.. that would have been one mean, mean machine..
Meh..A F-14 beats a hornet every day of the week.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
You're forgetting 2 big factors. One of them is the people, the other is geography. Occupying a nation that is physically as large as the US is extremely difficult. Also pacifying a nation of 1.3 billion people (many of whom are very nationalistic) is damn near impossible. People here might not like the party, but they really would not like a foreign invader.
I think you're confusing defending from an atack from China and invading it.
Now China couldn't stand a chance if it tried to attakc the US.. What would it do?
Put billion people in boats and make a mass invasion of hte US soil? What doesn't drwon by the Pacifc would be wiped from the face of the world by the US Navy.
now, if US would to invade china - the sheer number of chineese would make it extreemly difficult. Not that the US lacks the tech or the know-how, but the democratic system and ground troop size are a hinderance...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I think you're confusing defending from an atack from China and invading it.
Now China couldn't stand a chance if it tried to attakc the US.. What would it do?
Put billion people in boats and make a mass invasion of hte US soil? What doesn't drwon by the Pacifc would be wiped from the face of the world by the US Navy.
now, if US would to invade china - the sheer number of chineese would make it extreemly difficult. Not that the US lacks the tech or the know-how, but the democratic system and ground troop size are a hinderance...
He is referring to the US invading China.
The US doesn't have 1.3bn people. 'the party' is also the Communist party, being the only party. Plus he's currently in China, which is sort of important for the 'here' part.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Exactly what I was thinking too.:lol: 100-200 million apice DB.;)
And less the more procured. A lot of that cost is due to the high fixed R&D costs that need to be amortized. As more airframes are bought the per-unit cost will go down.
-
The price is gonna decrease over time as the price of the materials drop as well.
However, I think they need to buy less Raptors and by more of these.:D Best looking fighter since the F-15.
(http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/images/for_site/corporate/f35.gif)
-
The JSF that lost the competition? :p
Admitedly it looks better than the Boeing one. Gods, what an ugly fighter.
-
I still think the Harrier looks better than either of those 2 ones, anyways.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
The JSF that lost the competition? :p
Admitedly it looks better than the Boeing one. Gods, what an ugly fighter.
That's the Lockheed one... the one that won.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/JSF_competitors.JPG)
x-32 (loser) on left.
-
Now the X-32 might well qualify as the ugliest fighter ever produced. The thing looks like a pregnant sow. :p
-
For me the best looking fighter is either:
(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5836/f14119nj.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Or
(http://www.framedphoto.com/planephotos/planephotos/planewebimages/F-18Above-1-12-02web.JPG)
-
The X32 has insufficient greebling to make it acceptable to any modern airforce, even the Stealth bombers have more Greebling than that!
-
Whoops. Looked at the wrong price... That was one of the developmental costs... :nervous:
-
No, this is the most beutiful aircraft to ever take to the skys.:cool: And had the performance, and weapons to match it.
(http://www.ilexikon.com/images/a/a3/Usaf.f15.eagle.750pix.jpg)
-
hey how bout the one plane from "Stealth"??? The FA 37 Talon?
-
The Plane from that deplorable movie 'Stealth' may have had the looks, but it was pure flight-of-fancy (Pun intended)...
Now, the ultimate flying machine, the Gotha Go 229...!
(http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/810/gotha2pq.jpg)
Although she never got off the ground, and development was still underway when the war ended (I am aware of the problems the design was having at the time), this baby could have had an untold affect on Allies' air-superiority...plus, she just plain looks cool...:D
-
fars i heard of, that "talon" was a prototype!
-
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/a-10_03137a.jpg)
Could have swore I stuck that one in my previous 2 someone messed with my post :nervous:
Seriously whats not to like about the old A-10?
It'll rip a tank to shreds.:D
-
Not a very pretty plane, but then again, it isn't in the looks of the plane, it's what it can do, as that 30mm cannon will tell you.;)
-
The basically built the plane around that gun. IIRC, the barrel runs most of the length of the fuselage. And this is why it don't need no steenkin missiles to kill a tank. Imagine the muzzle velocity on thas sucker!
-
Originally posted by CaptJosh
The basically built the plane around that gun. IIRC, the barrel runs most of the length of the fuselage. And this is why it don't need no steenkin missiles to kill a tank. Imagine the muzzle velocity on thas sucker!
Which is all well and good, until the pilot holds down the trigger for too long and the plane all but stops mid-air...:doubt:
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
Which is all well and good, until the pilot holds down the trigger for too long and the plane all but stops mid-air...:doubt:
Not that you really need to hold it down
http://www.danshistory.com/a10strafe.avi
-
SHOOT!
And I thought the 3 rocket launcher guys in Iraq getting shot by the Apache's main cannon was overkill...
-
We get A-10s flying over my house all the time because of the local naval base (which the bastards at BRAC decided to close in a few years :mad: ); they may be ugly as hell, but they're great planes. I just caught a special about them on the Discovery Channel; these things can lose major chunks of the wings/tail and still keep flying, plus their fuel tanks are self sealing. Seriously tough stuff. All of the pilots they interviewed said, "If there were any plane I would want to be flying while being shot at, this would be it." They also feature some very good low-speed maneuverability and some serious power from those engines; it's always cool to see the local National Guard unit flying a mock combat operation at the annual air show. :D
-
Possibly the coolest bomber ever built:
(http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/29/us.kosovo.military.01/b1b.lancer.big.jpg)
... although this one takes the 'meanest-looking' prize:
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/B2.jpg)
-
B1- Lancer and the B2 Spirit..
I prefer hte Lancer myself. one hell of a payload and excellent speed..not to mention sweeping wings :D
-
F-14 and A-10.. the two greates planes that ever graced teh skies..
If you could somehow merge those two into 1 it would be the greatest thing ever...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
If you could somehow merge those two into 1 it would be the greatest thing ever...
F-14 + A-10 = The F/A-24 (http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/1285/picture2vl.jpg)
:D
-
What video codec does that file use. It's only playing audio on mine computer. And I have both DivX and Xvid.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
SHOOT!
And I thought the 3 rocket launcher guys in Iraq getting shot by the Apache's main cannon was overkill...
The 30mm Avenger cannon on the A-10 was designed to (and does) cut tanks in half. It uses pure kinetic force and weight of fire to melt tanks armor and destroy them completely. Although the Maverick missile is the anti-tank weapon of choice (at say 10-4 miles range) the Avenger is superb as a close in weapon.
Its sort of unweildy as anything except an anti-tank or anti-vehicle weapon.
As for my favorite plane of all time:
(http://www.hawkertempest.se/photos/permann-1.jpg)
Hawker Tempest Mark V
Arguably the fastest and most powerful tactical fighter available to the Allied forces in the last two years of World War II. Its not fast like these new modern jets are...but a maximum top rated speed of 435mph and nearly 400mph at sea level was impressive.
And I like the Spitfire too (XIV especially)
(http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/milestones-of-flight/aircraft/images/1944/thumbs/1944-p016701-SM-Spitf-XIV.jpg)
-
I'm rather fond of the F-4U1 Corsair and P-51D Mustang...
-
No, this is the coolest bomber ever built, to bad the scraped it.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf37.htm (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf37.htm)
-
Originally posted by CaptJosh
What video codec does that file use. It's only playing audio on mine computer. And I have both DivX and Xvid.
Open it in windows media, yea it's kinda dumb:doubt:
Speaking o bombers.
B-52 pwns j00 all!
http://www.aircraftjunkie.com/fixedwing/gallery/video/B-52%20Bomb%20Drop.wmv
IMO the most elegant plane ever constructed SR-71.
(http://misc.kitreview.com/bookreviews/images/sr71walkaroundreviewrk_back.jpg)
-
(http://www.military.cz/british/air/war/fighter/hurricane/hurri_bank.jpg)
The plane that really won the BoB.
-
Ahhh... the Hurricane iirc? Joint built English/American venture.
They were lovely planes, I still think the Spitfire had the edge in combat performance, but they were expensive and slow to build, so there were a lot more Hurri's in the air than Spitfires :)
-
I knew there was something I forgot to mention about the A-10: the first one was put into service in 1975, and the latest plans have it staying in service until at least 2028. How's that for longevity? :D
Edit: And may I say that that B-52 vid kicks extreme amounts of ass?
-
I did open it in WMP. Right after Winamp only played sound. And I still only got the sound. Now, back to my original question, what codec does it use?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
(http://www.military.cz/british/air/war/fighter/hurricane/hurri_bank.jpg)
must have been realy good pilots to have painted all them bullseyes on there plane and take it into combat like that. :)
-
lol!
(http://www.veafotoaqui.com/PENDIENTE/Galeria/f_16_falcon_image_04.jpg)
I love the Falcon.
-
:lol: @bob
-
Originally posted by Swantz
IMO the most elegant plane ever constructed SR-71.
(http://misc.kitreview.com/bookreviews/images/sr71walkaroundreviewrk_back.jpg)
Swanz wins. :D
I like the YF-23:
(http://archive.cs.uu.nl/pub/AIRCRAFT-IMAGES/YF-23_two_shipper.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
must have been realy good pilots to have painted all them bullseyes on there plane and take it into combat like that. :)
Aye, we're just that good.
(to be fair, IIRC the top Ace in the BoB was a Pole.....)
-
Ahh, the good old days...
These were my babies before they got scrapped:
(http://www.picture-newsletter.com/missile/bloodhound-64_01h7z.jpg)
-
Does that missile have missiles?
-
You're all wrong. Nothing compares to the sublime elegance of the Super Guppy.
(http://www.alaska.faa.gov/fai/images/Aircraft/SGUP-c.jpg)
Is she sexy or what?
-
Ahh, the Super Guppy; a 747 with a nasty infection.
-
The Super Guppy is based on the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, actually... :)
There is the "Mega Guppy" coming soon, thoguh...
(http://www.fly-net.org/aeromedia/b747gup1.jpg)
-
Damnit, you start worrying when your in-game spaceships need more polygons than real life planes....
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
You're all wrong. Nothing compares to the sublime elegance of the Super Guppy.
Is she sexy or what?
Eew, it looks like a *****! :p
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I like the YF-23:
http://archive.cs.uu.nl/pub/AIRCRAFT-IMAGES/YF-23_two_shipper.jpg
Yeah I agree with you there, the YF-23 was and looked awesome.
This was another awesome airvraft that was scraped.
(http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-31/Small/EC92-04233-9.jpg)
Check out this movie, this was probley the most manuverble aircraft ever made.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/X-31/Medium/EM-0036-05.mpg (http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/X-31/Medium/EM-0036-05.mpg)
-
Me... I like the F-4U Corsair :D
-
WeatherOps, I did an internship at Nasa Dryden where the X-31 and the XB-71 are kept, and I know they weren't scrapped they were only experimental airframes. IIRC The XB-71 was discontinued because I believe they had a prob with the wingtip vortices interfering with the vertical stabilizers to the popint of it either cracking or snapping completely off during flight. The thrust vectoring nozzles on the X-31 are what gave us the f-22 and JSF. Even better is a billion dollar F-15B called the F-15 Active. Not only is it based on the best looking airframe ever designed, they stuck a couple canards forward of the intakes and it has full 360 thrust vectoring, unlike the f-22 which is just up and down.
(http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/F-15ACTIVE/Small/EC98-44511-1.jpg)
this is prob the coolest looking airplane ever designed to study one of the most boring subjects: laminar airflow
the f-16 xl
(http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/F-16XL1/Small/EC97-44354-2.jpg)
(http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Fleet/Small/EC97-44293-1.jpg)
-
Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking. But, yeah the F-15 Active was a very cool fighter. Would loved to see it in a showdown against the F-22.
Yeah, the XB-71 caused a F-104 to be sucked into it, crashing both it and the fighters, and also I think it got canceled because it would be very expensive to montain.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Ahhh... the Hurricane iirc? Joint built English/American venture.
They were lovely planes, I still think the Spitfire had the edge in combat performance, but they were expensive and slow to build, so there were a lot more Hurri's in the air than Spitfires :)
Hurricane as a joint American/British venture? What? I never heard that part of the story.
The Hurricane was designed by Sydney Cam and built by Hawker aviation. It was the answer to a RAF request for a modern monoplane fighter. It was the first of a new generation of aircraft...at the time only just slightly behind the Spitfire in performance and very reliable.
Almost 2/3rds of RAF fighter squadrons in the Battle of Britain were Hurricanes. Many of them were given the anti-bomber duties as the Spitfire was the more equal match to the Bf109E. Nonetheless, Hurricanes did do battle with 109s and the battles were always hard fought for both sides.
The Spitfire design had far more potential (which was later realized). The Hurricane was the right plane for the right job at the right time with the right numbers available.
-
Maybe that's where I got confused, I wasn't sure if it was a joint venture or whether it was a commissioned design, guess I picked the wrong option ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I like the YF-23:
(http://archive.cs.uu.nl/pub/AIRCRAFT-IMAGES/YF-23_two_shipper.jpg)
Me too. I was going to post that photo.
IIRC, at least one of the 'photos' of the YF-23 were fake. Can't remember if that one was.
So, the F-15 Active actually existed? It turned up in 'Day of the Cheetah' under the name F-15E, codenamed Cheetah.
-
Well, the F-15E is a real variant. It's called the "Strike Eagle" and IIRC, it's a mod for ground attack.
-
The F-15 Active was quite real, but it was designed to test advanced propulsion and control technologies. It was never intended to be a production aircraft.
Curiously, there are rumors flying around about Northrop bringing the F-23 backto life as a tactical bomber: Link (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=39204&highlight=23)
-
the f-14 is a heavy fighter for the navy not air supiriority fighter. the f-15 is a air supiriority fighter, which is going to be replaced with the f-22.
the f-18 and its varients are going to replace the f-14.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
Possibly the coolest bomber ever built:
(http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/29/us.kosovo.military.01/b1b.lancer.big.jpg)
... although this one takes the 'meanest-looking' prize:
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/B2.jpg)
the b52 is the meanest ugliest big daddy of them all. hell the plane can practically land sideways!
-
Technically, the F-14 is a strike fighter whose roles include air-superiority, ground attack and fleet air defense. I'm not sure you can really pigeonhole any military aircraft in that sort of way, to be honest.
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
hell the plane can practically land sideways!
What the heck does that mean? :wtf:
-
Who knows?
The BUFF is a pretty cool aircraft (it has its place in the Mighty 8th despite being severely out of date) but I wouldn't say it's manoeuverable enough to land sideways. The damned thing requires a huge runway just to land normally.