Any Military Aviation nerds about?

[bleachit]

Originally posted by Blennidae

I think the only person who knows for sure which plane was most maneuverable is test pilot Paul Metz.

If thats true, wouldnt that kinda defeat the whole purpose of the design competition and flyoff?

[Sparq]

Originally posted by breg
Give me an A-10 anyday...

You read my mind

[Steelrat]

And they were actually going to replace the A-10 with a lightly modified F-16. Thank god common sense took hold. Sometimes the Air Force tends to forget that strategic bombing and CAS is their primary job. The marines aviators are the only group that, as a whole, seem to relish shifting mud.

I noticed a picture of the JSF someone put up. Whats everyone's opinion of that? Other than stealth, I'm having trouble seeing what, if any, advantages is has over the F-16. Speed isnt much greater, weapons load is dramatically reduced, and manueverability is roughly comparable. I mean, the F-22 is a dramatic improvement over the F-15 in stealth, manueverability, speed (supercruise), and electronics.

[bleachit]

The JSF probably has much updated avionics, similar to the F-22. Other than that, the USAF, USMC, USN, as well as the Brits will be flying one of the versions of it, so it should help keep production costs down. With that in mind, replacement parts should be relatively cheap too, since there are going to be so many of them.

The F-16 is going to be really old by the time the JSF gets into service, sometime around 2010 I think. The airframe won't be as strong anymore, and it will probably highly susceptible to the new European aircraft coming into service, and if any are made in significant numbers, the SU-37s from Russia. I think the F-22 and JSF will complement each other well.

edit: steelrat, the JSF is supposed to replace the A-10, F-16 and a whole lot of other combat aircraft in the USAF, USMC, USN, and the Royal Navy.

[RoadDawg]

USAF flyboy with a mag is a Air Force guy and if I'm not mistaken same with Duke of Lawnchair is too. Last AO meet I overheard USAF talking about the yf-23 or 22 (can't remember which). Sounded pretty cool. As for WWII planes I'm a B-17 fan. Modern day fighters I love the 16's. I can never get enough of the Thunder Bird shows.

[Blennidae]

Originally posted by bleachit


If thats true, wouldnt that kinda defeat the whole purpose of the design competition and flyoff?

You misunderstood what I meant. Paul Metz was a McDonnell Douglas test pilot during the competition. Once it was over, and the decision was made, he later became a Lockheed test pilot and got a chance to fly the winning design. Thus he had the unique qualification of being the only pilot to fly both the YF-22 and YF-23 prototypes.

I hope that makes it more clear.

[Blennidae]

I know the JSF version the Marines amd Royal Navy will be getting has V/STOL capabilities. So those 2 services will have a stealthy, supersonic, fighter and attack aircraft able to be deployed from smaller carriers and front line positions.

I don't see it being as big a leap over the aircraft it will replace either.

[bleachit]

Blennidae, I understand. But I would think that there is enough info on the flight characteristics of both planes so that someone can make the statement one is more agile than the other. meh, it really doesnt matter though

[ntn4502]

Military wanted a multitask plane that would be much more cost effective then previous aircraft...hence the F-35 was built

[Blennidae]

Bleachit: They probably did have numerical data, like turn rates and such, but what I was getting at was that only Paul Metz had actual hands on experience in each type to say which type had a better "feel". But like you said it doesn't matter much now.

[Steelrat]

If anyone thinks the F-35 is going to be some low-cost bargain, they are wrong. Remember when the F-15/F-16 were going to be a high/low mix, with the F-15 being the highly advanced interceptor, and the F-16 being the low cost/low tech "numbers" plane? The F-16 grew from being a simple no-radar fighter, to a multirole aircraft with radar and a host of other electronics the designers never really envisioned.

Every time the military thinks one plane is going to fulfill a variety of roles for every service, it ends up being a problem. The F-111 is a prime example. The last time I can think of that a plane managed to mostly do that, it was the mighty F-4 phantom, and it wasn't designed for every job. It was designed for the Navy, then adopted by everyone else once they figured out how good it was.

I mean, seriosly. Replace the A-10 with the F-35? Thats just plain stupid. Wheres the large ordinance load necessary for long loiter times over the battlefield? Wheres the armor plating? Where the tank busting gun? Wheres the low speed capability necessary for CAS? Remember the lessons of Vietnam, the inability of the F-4s to do nearly as good a job as CAS as the old A-1 Skyraiders. The F-35 is designed to go in and lob a couple of precision munitions, then leave. Dogfighting is considered secondary to that role It will be capable, though not in the same league as the F-22 or Su-35. It will also not have a radar as advanced as the F-22.

I would hate to see mission-specific capability sacrificed in the name of aircraft-commonality or cost avoidance.

[bleachit]

good point steelrat. I really dont want to see the A-10 go bye bye either, the only way you could really replace it would be with another A-10.

[breg]

Well, being an avaition nerd most of my self aware life:

I personally think that the A-10 will be around for a long time. If for no other resaon than it does what it does better than any other plane. That and the whole survival factor. It's a true example of function before form. The thing was designed around the 20 mm gun.
The piolt sits in a titanium "bath tub." It has triple redundant systems. The engins are designed to be able to suck up chunks of the body and still keep truckin'. Nothing fancy there, but a lot of fire power when it counts.

Now if you want to see some real cool aircraft, go check out the old WW II stuff. Personally, I think those old birds are works of art. My personal favorite being the B-29. I actually got to sit in the cockpit of Fifi, the last B-29 still flying. A close second is the B-17. It's amazing to realize that the glass on the nose is thicker than that skin of the aircraft.

Some of the WW II fighters are cool as well. I'm a big fan of the P-51 Mustang and the P-38 Lightening. Those were some amazing aircraft.

And, if you want to find some real interesting aircraft, check out a book called Warplanes of the Third Reich. That book was impressive. They had designs that blew me away. My favorite was the Junkers (pronounced "Yunkers") JU 88. There were so many operational variants of that plane that some of them becam know as the 188's. There also was the Mislten Project.

But, for modern aircraft, I also love the AC 130. This is an awsome friggin' gunship. I have a shell from the 40mm cannon on it.

[Konigballer]

That would suck to see he A-10 go. I know mission flexability for aircraft roles is all the rage and I understand the many advantages, but I really think that kind of mission flexibility lends itself mainly to fighting under developed militaries.

Its easier and more cost effective to try and cover all your "bases" adequetly with as few "players" as possible so it makes since that that has been our focus for awhile. I mean, we fight "militaries", and I use that word lightly, who are so far less powerfull and advanced than ours that its like fighting the retarded kid at school. However, one day we may not be that lucky in fighting such unformidable opponents and when that happens your going to need purebreads to fight the most effectively. When your combating a tough opponent, just using another plane to "cover your base" as best you can to complete your mission just isnt going to cut it.

The A-10 is a purebread at what is does. It does it's job better than any "adaptable", "stop gap", or "flexable" solution, in the form of another plane, could EVER do. It may not look pretty but it kills tanks, and anything else on the ground, like a champ. THATS what will matter in a "real war" against a competent enemy. "Enhancing mission flexibility" is often just another phrase for "dilluting the species". Unfortunately, the effects of this dillution will only be felt when a true test is faced, not against some 3rd rate airforce that cant figure out how to give a mig an oil change

[Collegeboy]

The problem with the A10, if you can do its job with an AH-64 Apache, with more stealth, or more hostile terrain, etc...

The a-10 is not going by the way side, it will be in the national guard and in the reserves.

I still want to see a comparison between the A-10 and the IL-2, using what it was designed for at that given time.