B-21, is this for real? Well i guess after the F-35, stupidity knows no boundaries. Might as well ditch the complete designation system.
I agree F-35 and Belgium, however being “better” is not always important. If the evaluators are professional they come up with a list of technical requirements and check each a/c against that list of requirements; not against each other!
If an a/c passes all technical requirements then typically other issues comes into play, including economics, ToT, offsets, and politics.
Who knows; perhaps Rafale, Typhoon and F-35 all three pass the requirements in Belgium. If they do, then F-35 will most likely still be winner. And if they set requirements higher then perhaps only F-35 will pass. Or if they set requirements lower perhaps Gripen E will pass together with Typhoon, Rafale and F-35. In any case the best bet is the F-35 will win in Belgium since this will be the main plane for the US, and also for most other NATO countries as mentioned above.
What’s the Belgian position regarding nuclear sharing? If they want to keep the B61s, all except F-35 are out by default. Rafale could be made compatible I guess, but would they really go down that road for 35 aircraft?
Looking good. But please don’t call it the SU-50. No idea what designation the Russian AF is going to allocate (Su-41?), but it won’t be an SU-50. Not unless they’re doing it US DoD style…
A-20 Havoc
A-26 Invader
A-10Plus, of course –
A-1
A-7Plenty of A-s flown by the USAAF & USAF.
Flown yes, but how many aircraft got the A- designation assigned by the USAF?
A-37 and A-10 (plus A-29) come to mind.
In fact, wiki says about the A-45, the last A-aircraft under to old pre 1962 designation system: “It was originally designed as a bomber for the United States Army Air Forces under specification V-8237-1 and was designated XA-45. The “A” ground attack classification was eliminated the next year, and the XB-51 designation was assigned instead.”
From A-1 to A-12 under the new system, only A-9/A-10 were Air Force projects. Then there are the out of sequence examples A-26, A-29, A-37 with the A-29 not in USAF service and the A-37 of course a convenient redesignated T-37. I guess calling it an F-37 would have been too much.
The A- designation was mainly a Navy thing and B- was for SAC’s strategic bombers. So F-105/F-111 was logical. Those weren’t the only aircraft of the time with an F designation lacking fighter capabilities. Basically, USAFs TAC had tactical bombers and interceptors using the F designation, SAC had strategic bombers. USAF didn’t do fighters until the F-15 – the F-110 Spectre/F-4 Phantom II was also a Navy plane.
I’ve seen this many times before, but may as well ask now. Why is the AMRAAM on the wingtips and the Sidewinder under-wing? Reducing the load as you move away from the fuselage should lower the bending moment on the wing and improve fatigue life. What gives?
To reduce flutter.
See here or here.
AIM-9X is only cleared on stations 2/8 btw.
That picture depicts a very strange load-out with almost no fuel. You would expect an F-16 operating without drop tanks to at least have the conformal tanks fitted.
Doubtful if that cgi is supposed to be representative. Looks very much like a Block 52 model akin to the ones f.e. Poland is flying. No AESA radar, no internal jammer, none of the Block 60 humps and bumps.
A new built F-16V might look more loke this:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241060[/ATTACH]
But that is exactly the point. Designers of the SuE had no way of knowing about all the crap we want to hang to aircraft in 21st century, and accordingly did not design it with any spare growth room for decades to come.
Aircraft are designed to requirement, and generally do not have big empty voids inside in the case that more internal volume is needed 30-40 years from now. For example, in case of F-16, adding new equipment means sacrificing internal fuel capacity, combined with new engines to restore or improve t/w, it means that more fuel is needed -> hence CFT’s, and so on…
That is not correct, all F-16s with the same number of seats have the same internal fuel load.
Also, it is not uncommon for aircraft to have empty spaces for later growth like the Super Hornet for example. Even the F-16 added quite a bit of capabilities before the F-16C Block 25 i.e. the first version with airframe changes.
For example. F-16C vs F-35A? they are similar enough to be *roughly* compared on wing loading alone. They have similar layouts, (probably) ballpark similar Clmax and L/D curves, so any ratio between them will at least indicate the performance difference. With little difference between T/W, T/D, Wing loading and other criteria, difference will logically be small.
But are they similar? Wing loading is comparable beause the F-35 has a huge fuselage. F-35A area of wings only ie without fuselage is roughly 24.5 m2, compared to the F-16s 20.5 m2. That’s a mere 20 percent increase for a 55 percent or so weight increase. Fuselage lift probably is less effective than wing lift isn’t it?
hi there Y-20 Bacon, we are actually discussing basic maneuverability i.e. wvr, gun fight.
F-5N wins.
They have the shark nose and enlarged LERX for increased maneuverability. Plus iirc some weight savings thanks to their role like deleted guns.
it would be good to know the logic (unless its an indication that 2019 is becoming 2020 something).
If the tornado force is to be in constant use over Iraq and elsewhere then a few 10s of millions on enough kit to support some of the jets is not bad.
They could always use Jaguar GR3A systems :very_drunk:
Aren’t the British Tornados running out of flight hours? So an extension seems unlikely or rather expensive.
Seems to be fairly accurate, probably less than a year old, so make 2 dark purple into red and for some reason I don’t see South Africas 26 Gripens. And I recall there being 1 Gripen D in UK as well.
Yellow: destroyed or dismantled,
Green: to be rebuilt to C/D (has already happened)
Pink: storage, to be sold or dismantled
Thanks.
It shows only the original order for the Swedish AF which was for 204 jets. South Africa got new/additional jets, unlike all the other current users. The 2nd crashed Hungarian jet isn’t a loss iirc and the ETPS Gripen is only on lease but should be among those 204.
Isn’t there 5 dead Gripens so far ?
The graphic isn’t up to date, don’t know the exact date but it certainly doesn’t include the latest Gripen crash.
This might help. Maybe someone with a better understanding of the Swedish language can translate what it says about the 24 pink, 10 green and 32 yellow examples.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]238556[/ATTACH]
Currently part of the squadron is in Europe. Oregon ANG was slated to lose some of its F-15 inventory ( 123rd or 142nd or both) with the planned cut to roughly 179 (moving target) birds.
Currently the procurement plans don’t even have all those, previously known as “golden eagles” getting APG-63 (v3) and epawss for quite some time. With 60+ already having the AESA.
There will have to be some consolidation and cuts besides the Lakenheath squadron, which was supposed to stand down soon and will definately go when the F-35 beds down there in the ’20’s. Obviously, the recent events in Europe may save some F-15 units and numbers near term.
According to AFMs April issue, Klamath Falls 173 FW is about to gain 9 Eagles. California ANG 144 FW, Florida ANG 125 FW, Louisiana ANG 159 FW, Massachusetts ANG 104 FW are to get 2 more Eagles each. 142 FW isn’t mentioned. But if I had to guess, they will lose the F-15. Aside from being the only unmentioned F-15 ANG wing, Portland IAP is more crowded than Klamath Falls, which is also the F-15C training base. I think that one will stay for quite some time.