Aircraft civil to Military

[Jetfreak]

________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Aircraft civil to Military​

​

I made this tread to cover this well devised topic it's due as well as to respect Jetfreak's art tread​

Hellkite
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
​

The USAF's Red Flag is characterized by aggressor squadrons, which play the enemy in air combat exercises over the Nevada desert. To add realism, their planes also emulate the elaborate camo schemes of potential hostile countries.

"Schooled"

The Viper one-ups the heavyweight Eagle!

 

[Hellkite]

"Very Schooled"

The is F-15 good at long range but the F-16 is build for the close range dog fight

 

[Starfox1701]

I remember the day that we started sending planes over preparing for the second gulf war. I was in Sumter merching and we were driving past Shaw AFB and there was a full squadron of A10s taking off together in formation when out of the blue a pair of Falcons jumped them and the whole squadron broke dumping flairs and chaff everywhere. Scared the crap out of me. Pics got the same energy Good job Jet

 

[Jetfreak]

Talk about lopsided, F-16's are no pushover despite being the smallest fighter in the US inventory. Definitely not a lawn-dart in the hands of the experienced!

 

[Hellkite]

Oh you can say that again

It all depends who has thier hands on the stick

 

[Starfox1701]

Always prefered Tomcats myself but then again who wouldn't want phoenix missiles

 

[Hellkite]

First off Navy

The f-14 was a beautiful bird I'll consed that, but to way heavy "like the f-15" for a close range dog fight

As to the AIM-54 Phoenix a bit dated compared to the AIM-120 AMRAAM in fact the AIM-54 Phoenix were rated minimally effective by 1990 "Due to Soviet countermeasures " and the The US Navy retired the Phoenix in 2004 and went to the AIM-120AMRAAM

That and the AIM-120AMRAAM as "Home on Jamming," that the AIM-54 Phoenix simple did not have .

 

[Starfox1701]

True but imagine if the AIM 54 had gotten upgraded; mach 5 and diving on targets and the range of those beasties was fierce.

 

[Jetfreak]

Service rivalries aside, the original F-14A was a bit of a dog. As a cost saving measure, it inherited the TF-30 engines from the maligned F-111B - which was "good enough" but not really up to par. Until the introduction of the F110 engines via the F-14B/D in the late 80's, USAF Eagles routinely smoked the anemic F-14A's in DACT.

But the F-14 will be fondly remembered for its variable geometry wings - which seem straight out of sci-fi to the layman. Ironically, this very system was a deciding factor in its retirement. VG wings are quite difficult to maintain, especially aboard a CV.

"Desert Cat"

Another Ace Combat piece, an Osean F-14 on patrol over the contested Futuro front, circa 1995.

 

[kjc733]

Hey, at least the Navy got the F14, it could have had the Navy Interceptor version of the F111 instead...

 

[Hellkite]

Don't knock the aardvark it filled the roles of strategic bomber, aerial reconnaissance, and electronic-warfare aircraft and pioneered the technology of variable-sweep wings

So no aardvark no tomcat

​

 

[Jetfreak]

Definitely, the F-111 played to its strengths when it came to AF service and it served admirably. Even the Aussies put their Aardvarks to good use, serving until 2010 at last count.

 

[kjc733]

No argument from me... I like the aardvark and wish we'd stuck to getting the K after cancelling TSR2.
All I'm saying is that (if I recall correctly) the aardvark was originally to be a joint project between USAF and USN, until the USN realised the F111 probably wasn't the best idea for a carrier fighter. So even the A model F14 must have been an improvement.

 

[Hellkite]

Well the parliament infighting over the TSR2 did lead the UK to the Tornado

 

[Jetfreak]

I've been doing some reading on the RAF's procurement back in the 60's-70's and I'm surprised how much politicking BS the aircrafts had to go through. I can see some parallels with our own fighter situation - wishy-washy government, slipping schedules and lack of commitment always leads to compromise.

"All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right."

 

[Hellkite]

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is the case study on the political effect on air craft

 

[kjc733]

Having worked in aerospace (and suffering from government customers), I have a degree of sympathy with Lockheed Martin. They have been tasked to build a single engine, supersonic, stealth aircraft, cheaper and as capable as an F16, and capable of conventional carrier operations and VTOL operations, all in one airframe, whilst carrying the single most advanced suite of avionics ever crammed into a fighter. All whilst having the face of the customer change every couple of years, each wanting to make his/her own mark on the programme (and thus changing requirements) in an uncertain political environment made more complex by the massive international arena and the lack of political backbone to stick to procurement numbers.

Now that is one hell of a tall order. It makes TSR2 and Eurofighter look simple. And to be fair, they haven't done a bad job with the hand they've been dealt (development issues aside which you will always get when trying to integrate this many toys). But there was never, ever going to be any chance of it being a cheap super fighter.

Now for the idiocy.

There is no need for a common airframe!!! A common airframe (and lets face it, the three variants, whilst similar, are not the same) really does not buy you cost savings, nor does it reduce your logistics. Having a common set of "guts" does.

Had they gone with three different airframes (Conventional, VTOL and carrier) that shared avionics, engines, cockpit design, undercarriage, interfaces etc, the programme would probably have worked out slightly cheaper and each variant would be optimised to do what it was designed to do. Unfortunately, the politicians see three different aircraft and don't understand that the cost of developing three which share bits costs the same as developing one that doesn't. Unfortunately, they won't remember this lesson, so prepare to see JSX in the not so distant future...

The big question on my mind is LRS-B. Having designed a powerful engine and advanced avionics suite for the F35, will they reuse that to drive costs down? Sadly, my well developed sense of cynicism tells me No!

Jetfreak - you want to see a ridiculous story, look up the Eurofighter on wiki! Now that is a political mess. Another lesson we never learn, international collaborations add time, cost and complexity to a job. It never makes it cheaper!!!

 

[Jetfreak]

It's a poignant observation kjc, and I've read similar opinions on the F-35 situation - which is the current whipping boy of the fighter industry. The commonality of internal parts rather than the airframe should have been a priority.

F-35's core concept is fundamentally flawed - mainly having a VTOL optimized plane and turning it into CTOL and CATOBAR ones. It may have looked good on paper, but the end products are compromised jets. I think the 80% of the projected fleet (F-35A and F-35C) are inherently suffering because of the F-35B very special needs. In other words, the Marine Corps get the jet of their dreams, at the expense of the other services.

One certainly shudders how the LRS-B and the F/A-XX will fare in the next decades. I hope I'm not overstepping boundaries, but something I've observed about Americans - they love their redesigns. Everything has to be "new", with minimal regard of anything prior.

Logically, F-35 should have been easier and simpler with all the F-22 experience. There's also updating the older fighters to newer tech - much like the Russians do with their Flankers. Boeing's Super Hornet is a decent case study - within budget and a hefty production run.

---

I'll certainly brush up on the Typhoon history later, but I do remember the Germans nearly pulling out in the late 80's with post-Cold War drawdown. I think lack of German support nearly derailed the Typhoon back then.

And there's the French, in the typical fashion they went it alone and made the Rafale. Which by some miracle entered service earlier and even had a carrier based model to boot!

 

[kjc733]

Speaking of Rafale, the Rafale display at Yeovilton this year was a thing of beauty. Sadly I'm no photographer so didn't get any good pictures. Similarly I didnt get any pictures of the (once in a lifetime!) formation flyby of a Sea Vixen, two Vampires and a Vulcan! But it was an epic experience. Watching the Vulcan by itself is always a sight to see, the airfield went quiet as everyone stopped what they were doing to watch.

Also saw a Scorpion, which I don't really know much about but I think I need to dig into as its a nice little jet.

Finally, we had another unique experience this week as the AW609 dropped into our site. Gave us our own private display but weren't allowed to take pictures (It was maybe 50m away ). Saw it again at Yeovilton - but if was too far away to get some good pictures. But today we had a Family Day at work - so finally managed to grab some pics and get up close. It is a weird thing to watch, incredibly quiet in the cruise (and I mean incredibly, almost snuck up on me several times but the hairs on my neck sensed it) and remarkable stable and agile in helicopter mode.

 

[kjc733]

Was digging through my picture archives and found some pics from Farnborough 2010 (wow was it that long ago!!! ), most of my pics turned out badly - I'm useless with a camera, but I managed to get a few from the Boeing UAV stand.

I've got some from an internal work show somewhere, will have to dig them out.

(hehe just seen the knew McVities advert, uses the Airwolf theme.)

 

[Rifraf]

Since I posted the X-Wing pic from our local air museum, here's some more hardware grounded in reality. They don't have a lot there, but it was s nice way to spend a few hours

 

[kjc733]

Wow, that's quite a collection. Gotta love the B1, is that an A-model though? You've got me stumped with photo _022, which doesn't happen often.

 

[Jetfreak]

Pretty sad seeing the F-14 alongside all those Cold War relics. She went away before her time!

 

[Hellkite]

Wow, that's quite a collection. Gotta love the B1, is that an A-model though? You've got me stumped with photo _022, which doesn't happen often.

It's a
McDonnell F-101 Voodoo

 

[Rifraf]

Had to double check, but pic 022 is actually the Republic F-105 Thunderchief. I never liked the look of it though. Quite the ugly duckling.

pic 015 is the Voodoo. Always loved the look of that one, I don't really recall any mention of it in history really. Just served then was gone, but I loved the proportions and style

 

[kjc733]

Yeah, I got the Voodoo. Never seen a Thud before though, read about them, the original Wild Weasel, supposedly had a small frontal RCS, which I can well believe looking at that.

Pretty sad seeing the F-14 alongside all those Cold War relics. She went away before her time!

I'd love to get my hands on an F14. So much space, wonderful things could be done with that airframe if one were so inclined!

 

[kjc733]

Had an unusual guest visit the site last week. Look at that tail rotor blade! They don't make them like they used to (probably a good thing in helicopters!).

 

[Hellkite]