Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Phaser11 on July 10, 2006, 06:06:15 AM
-
The new name.
Lighting II
What a great name!
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=181420
Hello,
and welcome
to last week.
-
the name is the best ive seen so far so im glad it won
-
Originally posted by rpm
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=181420
Hello,
and welcome
to last week.
OK SO I'M A BIT BEHIND THE POWER CURVE THIS WEEK:furious
I also heard the space shuttle might launch soon!
"Where is my rock, I want to get back under it."
-
im guessing they added the II to stop confusing people that file paper...
everyone will call it a Lightning still, but if they didnt call it a II on paper, some moron in an office would confuse the P-38 and F-35.
-
Pictures from a friend who works at Lockheed Martin of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter just out of the paint shop.
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/165609486.jpg)
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/165609489.jpg)
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/165609493.jpg)
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/165609501.jpg)
-
one pretty interesting thing from my frmr carreer field is the fact that this is the firs USAF plane to have a Martin Baker ejection system in about 20 or 30 years.
-
I think the T-6 beat the JSF back to MB seats by a few years... Could be wrong but that's what I remember.
-
Why is the rear view so poor in this plane?
-
It's not all THAT bad, but it's probably because of the space required to fit the lift fan assembly. They'd have to really mess with the geometry to put the seat higher and still have it come out right, with the fuselage depth required for the lift fan, single engine, internal weapons bays, etc. all competing for space.
The Boeing entry into the JSF competition had a higher seat and it looked terrible. No plane that ugly could ever be permitted to win a USAF contract, because half of our deterrent capability is based on how cool we look :)
Seriously, it's a well known fact in the military that because a well-done military task looks very cool, anything that doesn't look cool must be a colossal foul-up and is to be avoided at all costs. If you look like a clown, you must actually BE a clown. If you look cool, chances are you're doing things right and nobody's going to question what you're really doing.
Guns knows what I'm talking about... When you're looking for someone who's not doing things right, you don't have to spot the actual mistake or error. You just look for the one person who's different or somehow "clownish" in appearance or demeanor. That's usually the one person screwing everything up, and you can solve an awful lot of real problems with 1/10th the effort by simply identifying the clown acts and correcting them.
When you see a dude with his kevlar helmet on backwards, chances are his gas mask doesn't fit either and he tucked his chem suit into his boots. It isn't exactly rocket science, so looking cool is quite often the natural result of doing things right.
The Lockmart JSF entry looked (relatively) cool, the Boeing one didn't. I can't say that this affected the contract award, but the retarded look of the boeing entry sure didn't help.
That said, I think a little better rearward visibility would be nice but it's not really all that bad compared to an F-4 or F-14, and both of those planes were REALLY cool.
-
Originally posted by eagl
I think the T-6 beat the JSF back to MB seats by a few years... Could be wrong but that's what I remember.
I wasn't counting the T-6. The T-38 doesn't use an ACES II either but they are modding the fleet for a new MB seat.
I hope this is like the old ones where you don't need a dam crane to takem out. Would be nice to be able to remove the seat with out taking off the canopy as well. Personally I don't think they built this with my concerns in mind but it does look like a cool new addition.
-
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/f35/f16-f35-f22.jpg)
-
Err, a french flag on it?
-
Dutch. And a turkish flag.
France:
(http://www.theodora.com/flags/fr-s.gif)
The netherlands:
(http://www.theodora.com/flags/new8/netherlands-s.gif)
Luxembourg: (I was confused the 1st day I got here... flags everywhere, I thought they had been invaded by Holland overnight)
(http://www.theodora.com/gif4/lu.gif)
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Err, a french flag on it?
Funny, I don't see a white flag it at all. ;)
-
lol eagle guess thats why the USAF hates the a10 so much!
-
Originally posted by eagl
anything that doesn't look cool must be a colossal foul-up and is to be avoided at all costs. If you look like a clown, you must actually BE a clown. If you look cool, chances are you're doing things right and nobody's going to question what you're really doing.
how do you explain this: -
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/yf-22-01_300.jpg)
over this bad boy: -
(http://public.carnet.hr/~dzagar/planes/unsorted/YF-23_3.jpg)
-
I'll admit, the other one does look cooler. What made em pick the 22 over the 21? (I think it was the 21?)
-
its a 23.
YF23 looked like something out of a sci fi movie... was so cool.
i heard it actually outperformed the 22 but was much more expensive, why they opted for the 22.
i am probably wrong though and im sure mr.eagl will correct me ;)
-
The YF-22 didn't look quite as cool as the 23, but they both looked cool enough that the actual qualities of the plane and contract made the decision.
I read that the YF-22 favored maneuverability over stealth, sort of opposite of the YF-23, and that factored into the decision. The YF-23 did not have thrust vectoring and with that v-tail probably would not have had quite as aggressive of a flight envelope.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I'll admit, the other one does look cooler. What made em pick the 22 over the 21? (I think it was the 21?)
IIRC, the F-23 had a tendency to leave vapor trails off the wing-tips during high G maneuvers. Was a bit of a give away.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
IIRC, the F-23 had a tendency to leave vapor trails off the wing-tips during high G maneuvers. Was a bit of a give away.
Yea but Sandy, if you should be DEAD before you ever get that close to one!
:)
When I met Chuck Yeager, he autographed an 8x10 glossy of him in front of one of those.
Found it (sorry for size...too cool to size down tho!)
(http://www.checksix.net/yeager1.jpg)
-
Well... if we're going with long range weapons, still gotta love the F-14.
-
Not if your shooting at fighters.
-
I guess the problem with long range weapons on modern airframes is stealthing. It takes an already difficult radar equation and turns it into a two body problem. Carrying a stealth phoenix under a wing would seem to be verrrrry difficult, considering the radar reflection areas that would create, afaict.
I've like to see a new long range missile system, though. My fantasy for this would probably be mounted on an AWACS for defense or launched from a bomber via a rotating dispenser. Imagine something like 4 or 5 AMRAAMs (with datalink) mounted at the nose of a booster stage. It's probably 6 feet or so of heavy booster then a sustainer is built between the missiles, so it's roughly the size of a Tomahawk (but a bit fatter). Your AWACs or ELINT finds the target planes, the launching plane drops it and fires it. The booster pushes the cargo into a high ballistic trajectory, separates, and the sustainer fires. When it is done, the missiles disconnect and either fire or coast and fire later (depending on the situation) up around 120k-150k feet and begin heading towards their targets. With something like this, you could trade maneuverability/accuracy for range (eg, have the missiles fire to boost the ballistic arc then glide in towards targets versus thrust vectored terminal guidance) as needed.
Death from above!
-
Originally posted by eagl
The YF-22 didn't look quite as cool as the 23, but they both looked cool enough that the actual qualities of the plane and contract made the decision.
I read that the YF-22 favored maneuverability over stealth, sort of opposite of the YF-23, and that factored into the decision. The YF-23 did not have thrust vectoring and with that v-tail probably would not have had quite as aggressive of a flight envelope.
Air force secretary Don Rice said the choice was based on "confidence in the ability of the Lockheed team and Pratt and Whiney to produce the aircraft in it's engine at projected costs". He also stated that the YF-22 offered better reliability and maintainability. Neither design was significantly more maneuverable or steay than the other.
-
Rip,
A few guys who were involved in the decision on the flying-test side said that the eval pilots liked the F-22 flying qualities better. It was more maneuverable, has a better view of the outside world, etc. Yea that may not look good on paper since both met the technical requirements, but the inputs of the evaluation pilots can still have an effect regardless. It just means they have to be careful about how they write the press release.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Rip,
A few guys who were involved in the decision on the flying-test side said that the eval pilots liked the F-22 flying qualities better. It was more maneuverable, has a better view of the outside world, etc. Yea that may not look good on paper since both met the technical requirements, but the inputs of the evaluation pilots can still have an effect regardless. It just means they have to be careful about how they write the press release.
Eagl,
I heard a different story from the ground. Many of those that I talked to at Edwards said that the 23 beat the 22 hands down. Not to mention they had a 22 crash during testing (landing gear collapsed)
IMHO I think the statment about Lockheed being more capable of handling such a project holds alot of weight.
Either way it's kind sad not to see such an interesting air frame be developed for anything other than just to see it.
-
Am I the only one who finds the F-22 hideously ugly? The vertical stabs are goofy looking, along with the nose of the plane.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Am I the only one who finds the F-22 hideously ugly? The vertical stabs are goofy looking, along with the nose of the plane.
I dont find it smurfy, but it sure isnt pretty either. the jsf looks better. Im no aviation enthusiast either so i find very few jets pretty.
-
you'll both be happy in your pretty planes right up until the raptor pwns you.
maybe one of your skull fragments will crease it's skin in as it imacts your debris at 1000kts.
:O :O :O :O :cool: :cool: :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Shows how much you know. F-22s were beaten by British Typhoons in dogfights. The F-22 missle truck only has the advantage at long range.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Shows how much you know. F-22s were beaten by British Typhoons in dogfights. The F-22 missle truck only has the advantage at long range.
Prove it. Id like to read that
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Shows how much you know. F-22s were beaten by British Typhoons in dogfights. The F-22 missle truck only has the advantage at long range.
Eurofighter a shooting star in clash with US jets
IT might be over budget and years late but the Eurofighter Typhoon has shown that it can shake off America's best fighter plane and shoot it down.
A chance encounter over the Lake District between a Eurofighter trainer and two F-15 aircraft turned into a mock dogfight, with the British plane coming off best - much to the surprise of some in the RAF. The episode was hushed up for fear of causing US blushes.
source (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=673262005)
15E's not 22's
-
Wow, the eurofighter beat a 35 year old plane. Amazing.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/165609493.jpg)
Could scrub the union jack off that JSF, British are very close to pulling out over America's refusal to share technology with us.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/itar-fallout-britain-to-pull-out-of-f35-jsf-program/index.php
-
I guess we havent forgiven em for giving the Russians a "sample" jet engine...which they in turn copied and stuffed into that nimble lil thing called the MiG-15
:cool:
-
Originally posted by Furball
Could scrub the union jack off that JSF, British are very close to pulling out over America's refusal to share technology with us.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/itar-fallout-britain-to-pull-out-of-f35-jsf-program/index.php
two other countries are also considering doing the same.. for different reasons tho
-
Im sure there's more to it than what I just read...but insisting on the software source code that runs the aircraft...that is dicey. How does the USA know that by turning over this intellectual property wont be used for other projects in the UK? Or whomever the UK decides to share it with?
It'll be interesting to see what they do to solve this issue.
-
I see that problem LePaul.
The thing is that all the nations seen on that plane are paying for the development of the planes. Not all are customers (yet). LM wants the money and the contracts to sell, but does not want to share technology meet thier end of the deal. In our case, and the dutch they have not yet met their end of the finanical deal (buy-back/production deals)
There are 4 companies that are cometing for the deal to sell us planes in a few years when we retire the F16s, and LM are the only company we pay money to for the development, but the only one that has not met the conditions set by out government. They have always been the favorites to win the contracts but the way they do business and make actuall threats against Norway if we dont buy may cost them the deal.