JoeinTXWell, the Phantom was really an original in many respects….the first of the true “superfighters” and more so the absolute original multirole aircraft.
Being envisioned as a high-speed, high-alititude interceptor in the late 1950s, the idea with the airframe was all out speed and controllability at said speed. The understanding of Mach speed was still being debated at this time, but, one thing agreed upon was the compression of divertable air around an airframe at high speed. As true speed increased, the amount of controllable air around the airframe decreased…..essentially what is known as the “shock cone.” Within this cone there is air which has not yet been affected by the penetrating force of the aircraft and thus it is still manageable. However, at Mach 2 plus speeds, this cone tended to shrink within the acceptable circumference needed for conventionally length/structured control surfaces to have any effect….they were essentially outside of the cone and forced into compressed, less controllable air. To remedy this, the idea of anhedral/dihedral came about in order to keep as much of the aircraft’s control surface within the controllable layer of air within the ever shrinking shock cone surrounding it’s exterior. Thus, the bent wings and sagging tail of the F-4.
Other aircraft have exhibited the same philosphy: the SR-71 and it’s inward canted horizontal tails…the F-104 with it’s exremely short wings and low, long horizontal tail….etc.
Aerodynamic knowledge and aircraft design progressed beyond this need to a good degree as the F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, Tornados, 2000s, and so on were able to forge a compromise between Mach controllability and low speed agility.
But, probably the single greatest “bending and beating” job concerning the Phanton has to do with poor idea of shoe-horning the larger Spey engine into an aircraft not designed for them. Theoritically more powerful, the increased drag created by the larger fuselage needed to contain them negated any increase in performance as well as harming fuel usage and increasing their cost. Maybe this is what your friend is referring to….?
JoeinTXI get your cheekiness, DanRH, and it appears you see my argument here.
I agree wholeheartdly, 100% with Dubya….
The V-22 has been a colossal waste of time and money-18 years, untold billions, cuts in orders……and we have a specilaized mission aircraft that cost as much as an F-35. Unbelievable…. The S-92 or EH/US-101 offers a serious increase in capabitlity versus the Sea Knight and is dramtaically more cost-effective.
My suggestions:
1. Cancel the CTOL version of the F-35 and concentrate on V/STOL and navy versions.
2. Initiate the purchase of the Boeing 767 as the primary tanking and AWACS airframe of the future for the USAF. Nothing else really comes close, regardless of petty political squabbles. Commit to an order of 600 or so aircraft and don’t look back…
3. Continue the integration of the U.S. Navy and U.S.M.C air components as well as command and control.
4. Commit to the development of the intermediate range strike aircraft-derived from the F-22 or former F-23-and the future long range strike aircraft to replace the B-52/B-1/B-2.
5. Continue LRP of the F-16 Block 52 and F-15E to provide aircraft for the ANG and AFRes. 200-300 E’s and 300-400 -52s will be sufficient in providing these services with the aircraft for future needs.
6. A new all-purpose ballistic missile system capable of single or multiple warhead capacity should be ordered,
7. U.S. Army and U.S.M.C should integrate helo assets to a much greater degree.
8. Integrate basic and flight skills training of all the armed forces into one esential command. Learn to fly combat aircraft or transport aircraft or helos…and then the individual branch will customize your advanced training for their purposes. Example: all pilot trainees learn in the same classes at the same bases, train in the same basic aircraft…and then move to specialized training per their branches needs.
Just some ideas….
JoeinTXIt is obvious to all that the US will remain the dominant air power in the world for at least the next thirty years probably longer, but it is at the moment suffering from financial constraints and a rapidly changing mission. To counter this I have a few rather radical proposals (although it is realy to late for some of them)
1) Disband the air national guard, all USAF squadrons should be full time regulars.
2)cancel all except fo the carrier based JSF (so no VSTOL variant or USAF variant)
3)reduce overall size of the USAF, but equip all units with F/A22s (with continued spiral upgrades [specifically in the area of A2G]) over a long period of time.
4)Merge the marine aviation units with the navy units to produce a a USNAA (United States Naval Air Arm) end the usage of fixed wing aircraft by the marines and the deployment of such aircraft on LPH’s, marines will only operate helos.
5) Cancel cobra upgrades and replace it with apaches, form a joint attack helicopter force shared between the marines and the army. (standardization)
6) Form a joint transport command responsible for all transport aircraft.
7) Retire B52 and B1B, mothball future bomber projects but restart B2 production (with slightly uprated engines and systems aswell as the new stealth tiles all over)
Although the above is far from everything I would do, I do feel that this would offer a very good capabilityand better handling of the budget.
But, large numbers of personnel would have to go and the airframe numbers reduced. US military aircraft Industry would suffer, as the raptor (initially at least would have limited export potential)thoughts?
Yeah, not a very good proposal overall….
1. Full time forces cost more to operate than part-time, reserve forces. You may have an overall smaller regular full-time force, but it will not be a significant cost savings.
2 & 3. Completely upside down, backwards, and wrong. Are you seriously suggesting the entire tactical air component of the USAF consist of around 600 F-22s? Remember, the F-35 will replace the F-16 and A-10 as well. No matter how good the Raptor may be, that simply isn’t anywhere near enough aircraft to physically be every U.S. air power will need to be. Consider that likely at least 100 of those would be involved in training and conversion, so that leaves maybe 500 actual F-22s available for service. That means about 6 1/2 72-aircraft wings availabe: 3 in the continental U.S., one in Europe, one in the Pacific, and one in ? Again, simply not enough airplanes to be everywhere and do everything…
4. USMC and Navy air components are being assimilated to a degree, but I don’t too big a problem with the idea. Unless command issues are involved….?
5. Cobra is a cheap, simply, and effective aircraft still perfectly tailor-made for Marine purposes. Honestly, the U.S. Army should reconsider the aircraft considering the types of use today.
6. Well, that is sort of already the case-Air Mobility Command is responsible for the vast majority of military air transport regardless of the branch. The Navy and Marine Corps have small transport forces, but they primarily logistic services rather than true heavy-lift duplicates of the AMC.
7. Another bad idea. The B-52 (especially) and B-1 already provide much better value for the money than spending $100 Billion on enough B-2s to replace them.
The best idea by far is the common large support aircraft. If you could standardize on one airframe for all tanker and transport duties, and if it could do them sufficently, then go for it. The only airplane that comes to mind now is the C-17. But if this turns into another large scale, cost-inflated, from scratch airplane that becomes to expensive to buy in the numbers needed….then no.
JoeinTXThis is always a very interesting subject for speculation….
Yes, I have also heard that the name “Aurora” referred to either the B-2 or to a general aircraft development aircraft program that was unknown. Either way, I really doubt the Pentagon (or CIA) would allow a program’s name, as it is known within the establishment, to come anywhere close to a potentially public document. “Aurora” may have referred to Tacit Blue or a forerunner of the Bird of Prey or early unmanned development for all that we know. This is why I generally don’t like to consider Aurora and any actual hypersonic aircraft testing which may have been conducted as one or the same.
Again, as to high-speed aircraft and the retirement of the SR-71, I won’t rule out that what was witnessed might not have been a potential Blackbird successor in the works. As the -71 was being retired, there may have been an air-breathing craft slated as it’s “black” replacement, but it may have felt the axe of the early 90’s “peace dividend” while it was decided that U-2s and satellites could provide what was needed. This might explain it’s activity ending in the early-mid 1990’s as well…? But, this would make one wonder why the Sr-71 has been kept in a ready state for quick service all this time. Either the new aircraft was too expensive to use, not far enough along in it’s development to be considered operational, or it didn’t offer enough improvement over the -71 to make it a realistic option…?
JoeinTXNo problem, sferrin…..it’s in jest anyhow.
As to Utah however, I really see no evidence that anything is happening there. There are a sizeable number of “watchers” who have gravitated to the area since the first rumours several years ago, but there’s nothing to come of it so far. I know the speculation has been floating around for years but I’ve yet to see the tell-tale signs of a large operation in the southern part of the state or around the Dugway Grounds. If you have something to the contrary, please share….
JoeinTXWell, I’ll put on my “foil hat” for this one…. 😉
It appears likely that an aircraft possessing some high performance qualities existed in the late ’80s-early 90’s and did see many flights-anyone remember the sonic boom trail recorded by seismic sensors across the Californina coast into the interior along about this time. Also, the “donuts on a rope” contrail, which was witnessed and photographed on more than one occasion, indicating a pulse-detonation type of propulsion which would be highly exotic indeed. There would seem to be enough anecdotal evidence to indicate that “something” existed, but whether it was the tag-lined Aurora is another question altogether.
Whatever it was, there haven’t been any eye/ear-witness reports of anything like the sort of those in the early 1990s in many years.
Personally, I do believe it probably was a high-speed testing vehicle that had either achieved it research purposes or was, for whatever reason, deemed no longer safe to operate and it was retired away. I do not believe that it or anything similar is operating routinely today. As to it being manned or unmanned, it could go either way. Considering that it ostensibly operated from 1987-1994, it would have had to have been designed in the early 1980’s at very latest. As with most X-aircraft of that time, it seems most likely that it would have been a manned platform. However if it’s job was simply to take-off, flight in a reasonably straight line for a few hours, and then land again…..I suppose that was well within computer and communications ability at the time. So….. :confused:
JoeinTXI believe what you have there in Pic #10 is a B-23 Dragon, rather than the B-18. The Dragaon had a slimmer, pointier nose and a more streamlined appearance than the dumpier Bolo…
JoeinTXYes, these are pure fantasy created by an individual that I’m familiar with and first posted on another board that I frequent.
Interesting….detailed…semi-professional looking. But, zero chance of reality. Honestly, why unilaterally initiate an entirely new advanced program to take the place of a current advanced home-grown program that is deemed as too epxensive and wasteful…?
The Japanese are saving their money for the F-22……
JoeinTX“Agreed that 3 carriers in service might mean 1 in refit and 2 operational. But that is a pretty good scenario for the next few years, IN would be quite happy. Again, I agree that Indian defence procurement progrms seem to take forever, but I choose to be optimistic…”
Yes, I think you are being very optimistic on this point. India is a long way from having 2 fully operational ships whilst one sits in port for refit…like 15 years or so.
In 3-5 years the ex-Ghorshkov sets sail hopefully….at which point you have two.
I don’t see IOC for the new boat until atleast 2010, maybe a little later. As soon as it makes it’s maiden ops voyage, the Viraat comes home for a rest….and I seriously doubt that it ever sails as a warship again. Why? By then you’ve got a 50 year old ship and 30 year old aircraft costing a bundle a operate while you’re two newer vessels are: A) Newer and have already cost a lot to get to sea and therefore will get the majority of funding. B) They are operating similar air wings making training and operations easier. C) The idea of sending this ship back to sea with dissimilar aircraft and it’s ever growing cost of operations will make it economically necessary to retire it, it’s aircraft, and save the money for other naval aviation projects which will be more effective.
Hey, this is an “outside looking in” perspective based on economic realities. I don’t have any emotional ties to this, thus I make my statements. I have to conclude that any serious naval planning would conclude the same….and it really is for the better of the force. What good is a money, time, and resource bleeding item like the Viraat/Sea Harrier when your navy is moving forward with newer and better equipment? What real good will come from milking an extra cruise from this aging combo when the funding can better be spent on the next generation or on simple improvements to your existing force of two carriers which are already dramatically more capable?
JoeinTXWanshan is dead-on with regards to my comments about India having any number of operational carriers anytime soon.
Sure, I suppose India could have three carriers officially in possession in three years if everything goes right….in various states of construction, disrepair and operation. But, that’s not the same as three combat ready in-service vessels which can be counted on for use. The ex-Gorshkov might be under trial by then, I don’t know. The Viraat likely will be operating at it’s limited pace unless something mechanical or structural has threatened it. And, the new carrier may be taking shape in the dockyard, but. Considering the speed at which so many Indian programs run, who can really say when their latest boat will be finished..?
As for CTOL from the Viraat, a Mig-29K would be pretty limited operating STOL from the limited deck space of the ex-Hermes. You would need to once again reconfigure the ship (i.e. even more time in dock and not at sea) for conventional use and all the necessities…..arresting gear, launching gear, all of the associated signalling and operating systems, etc. Why put a 40 year old ship up for not-so-minor refitting when it’s useful life is so short rather than just allowing it and it’s aircraft to spend their last few years of service at sea and producing something? Pouring any more resources and money into this ship than that which is absolutely required to keep it afloat and operating as it is with some effectiveness seems like a temendous waste that could be much better spent on other things….
JoeinTXTheoritically, I suppose the F-18 “could” operate from the Foch/Sao Paulo, but it would be pushing the limits of what the Brazilians are able to handle. Higher landing speed, higher take-off speed, higher weight, etc versus the A-4 or F-8 or Rafale.
As for MIg-29s operatiing from the Viraat, it ain’t gonna happen. That ship is pure V/STOL these days and there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to convert a 50 year old ship to CTOL ops when it’s about to reach the end anyway. The Indians will be good to have three carriers in service at the same time, much less five. In twenty years, the Indian Navy will have three operating simultaneously and I dont’ know how much more than that you can realistically hope for in the foreseable future.
JoeinTXWell, Scooter, I think that the Harrier was the real ground layer in naval aviation. Never before could someone cheaply and effectively operate airpower from a ship with such success as the Harrier was able to do.
The F-35 will be a success….because it has to be. It’s an inheritantly more complex machine than the Harrier however. I was and still am supporter of the X-32….simpler design and all. But, the the F-35 came to life for a number of reasons and it will be the standard bearer of naval aviation for the decades to come. Everyone using a Harrier today will buy it because it’s the only option they have. Personally, I thing the F-35 is going to be a good airplane. A tremendous amount of research had gone into it and when you’re asking one basic airframe to do the job of four others….I think you have to respect it for what it’s able to do.
For those who can afford it, the F-35 will dramatically upgrade their carrier airpower without a doubt.
JoeinTX“LOL
you gonna exchange a 32.000 ton carrier for a 19.000 ton midget hibrid, crammed cruiser……….????
and claim that will do better?? in the future
okay that’s the joke of the year
for those not to smart, you can put anything that can land on a 19.000 ton CVL on a 32.000 carrier…..”
Well now, no reason to be nasty :confused: …..but I don’t think you’re getting the point.
In 2018 the Brazilians aren’t going to have just a whole lot of options for replacing the Sao Paulo, so if they want to keep a carrier in the navy they’ll have to take what they can get, see.
When you think of it, just exactly how much less capable would an ex-RN ship be versus the curret S.P.? The Brazilians are generally operating no more than a dozen A-4s from it at any one time along with 4-6 helicopters. The Trackers will be decrepit by that time anyway, so what’s the point in finding something that can handle them? The retired Invincible carrying 10 Harrier IIs and 6 choppers doesn’t sound like too much of a real loss in capability as far as how the Brazilians are using the ship anyway.
IF the old Invincibles can be had cheaply (???), they are always going to be 20 years younger than the comparable Sao Paulo and newer in design and equipment. I think you could expect them to be cheaper and simpler to operate…especially when you’re contemplating your future with a 60 year old ship in 2020. And, since we’re having so much trouble thinking of good potential homes for these ships after their retirement, something marginally more than scrap value just might get one for you.
JoeinTXAhh…
They have for now…I’m talking upwards of 15-20 years in the future.
I say that ex-Invincibles are possibilities in the future,not now…
“Brazil is a interesting case and surely not the norm. Regardless, the Sao Paulo and the ex-Kuwaiti Skyhawks will have make do for another 10-15 years at least. After that its a “BIG” question mark! The old French carrier is rather small and can’t carry many of the newer generation Naval Aircraft. Further, only a very few countries build such naval fighters. (Russia, US, and France)..”
Yes…the huge question mark.
It can’t carry on much past 2020 nor can it’s aircaft….as much as I love the Skyhawk. It hinges on the government commitment to naval aviation at that point. If it’s good…..Ex-RN is a very viable option.
JoeinTXJust giving my $ .02…..
The ex-Foch, even with the refit, is a ship which is not long for this world. It is going to become prohibitivley expensive to operate in a decade or so and it’s A-4s are no spring chicks either.
If the Brazilians commit to a carrier navy, which I’m not certain of, I can see them becoming interested in a retired “Invincble” in the 2015 or so timeframe. The Sao Paulo will be a headache and the A-4s will be literal museum pieces by that time. The ex RN ships will appear to be very tidy ways to continue the carrier option and likely cheaper in their older years than the boat they’ve got. Buy a dozen or so ex-Spanish/USMC Harrier IIs or GR.7s and you’ve a credible little air wing to go with it. I dunno, just thinking out loud….
Other nations I can see nosing around old Invincible ships:
Australia. Yes, they’ve committed to the idea of greater naval air power and so far to the idea of two new air capable ships. But, who knows what the economies and budgets of the next decade will bring? Australia recognizes this need, but if in 2015 the fiscal environment does not permit the luxury of this plan, what looks inviting in the short term to them? Ex-RN boats would be number one in my book.
Taiwan. Yep, Taiwan. Not a traditional carrier player, but they may certainly see the need to battle Chinese naval power far from their shores by this time period. If China continues to add submarines at this rate and continues to add to its “blue water” capabilities, the ROC may see the need to increase it’s at-sea ASM and anti-shipping force. One or even two ex-Invincible class stocked with anti-sub shoppers and a handful of combat aircraft would dramatically increase their ability to control their regional waters and war time sea lanes. Think about it…
Sign In
