StarDestroyer.Net BBS

starfury · Post by **starfury** » 2002-11-12 03:31pm

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-6.htm

this article on the JSF is quite intersesting, the new aircraft seems to be nothing more then a stealthy, slightly enlarged version of the F-18/C , not the F-16/C. more bomber then fighter.

also commented that the new euroFighters are also more bomber then fighter.

indeed, the middle/light fighters of the world seem to vary in quality far more the relatively expensive and rare heavy fighters.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-11-12 03:36pm

Pretty much. JSF is the jack-of-all-trades fighter due to replace a bunch of aircraft. It looks like a superb craft for that mission role, though not perfect.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-11-12 03:40pm

starfury wrote:http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-6.htm

this article on the JSF is quite intersesting, the new aircraft seems to be nothing more then a stealthy, slightly enlarged version of the F-18/C , not the F-16/C. more bomber then fighter.

also commented that the new euroFighters are also more bomber then fighter.

indeed, the middle/light fighters of the world seem to vary in quality far more the relatively expensive and rare heavy fighters.

Thats because while a few nations can afford a heavy weight fighter period, and fewer still can devlope one. On the other hand a nation the size of Iran can devolope a late third generation fighter.

The F-35 will be excatly whats needed.

starfury · Post by **starfury** » 2002-11-12 03:45pm

then the dogfighting ability of the F-16 seem to truly unique, as it still a excallent VMR fighter and very cheap, most other mediun/light fighters are far less agile, with the exception of the mig-29 of course.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-11-12 03:58pm

starfury wrote:then the dogfighting ability of the F-16 seem to truly unique, as it still a excallent VMR fighter and very cheap, most other mediun/light fighters are far less agile, with the exception of the mig-29 of course.

The Phantom first flew in 1953 and is still highly capable as a strike fighter in several nations air forces. Hell the USAF was using them as front line aircraft through the early 90's.

Course nothing can beat the worlds 20,000 MiG-21's and clone hoard for long lasting service, and the fourth generation Fishbeds, when fitted with modern AAM's and electronics they've still managed to compete with F-16's in trials!

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2002-11-12 04:48pm

I don't buy that.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-11-12 05:04pm

Howedar wrote:I don't buy that.

That's nice, I don't give a damn.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2002-11-12 05:14pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Howedar wrote:I don't buy that.
That's nice, if you'd rather not listen to the IAF or Or bother to compare the maneuverability specifications of the MiG 21 2000 I don't give a damn.

The Mig 21 has a more restrictive view from the cockpit, even with a bubble canopy, it's totally designed for speed, the IAF just wants to make money, it's only a viable solution for countries that already field Mig's and finally it exist's for over 30 years, everybody knows it's limitations and ways to take him down.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-11-12 05:37pm

Oh! Is this the plane that's gonna have LASERS?

I love lasers!

Dirty Harry · Post by **Dirty Harry** » 2002-11-12 05:49pm

Cyril wrote:Oh! Is this the plane that's gonna have LASERS?

I love lasers!

That makes two of us then

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2002-11-12 05:58pm

Cyril wrote:Oh! Is this the plane that's gonna have LASERS?

I love lasers!

That's the ABL plane, a converted 747.

We're talking about the Joint Strike Fighter

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-12 06:00pm

That's the ABL plane, a converted 747.

We're talking about the Joint Strike Fighter

Two different things. There is a laser in development for the JSF. Its been discussed on the board before. The 747 program is it own animal.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2002-11-12 07:17pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Howedar wrote:I don't buy that.
That's nice, I don't give a damn.

Thats too bad, cause you're spewing horseshit. The electronic fit is not the only determining factor for fighter performace; IAI could put a Culture Mind in a MiG-21 and it would still turn worse than a F-16.

starfury · Post by **starfury** » 2002-11-12 07:20pm

don' t putting in complex electronic suite often greatly increase aircraft size

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2002-11-12 07:32pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
That's the ABL plane, a converted 747.

We're talking about the Joint Strike Fighter
Two different things. There is a laser in development for the JSF. Its been discussed on the board before. The 747 program is it own animal.

Yeah, right. I've read the site were it's announced that. Like the militaries would loose the advantage of more fuel for putting a 100 kW laser.

The technology is still in it's infancy, and the only workabble is on a 747. It's going to take decades for them to even propose that contract.

Nah, scrap that ideia, stick to missiles.

Side note: back in the late 70's, early 80's, when seecking new proposals for a strategic bomber (that would turn out eventually in the B-2), there was a concept (I don't remember which company) to stick a laser turret in the tail, like a stinger laser, to shhot down incoming missiles.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-12 08:37pm

The main reason the JSF looks like a fighter-bomber is because that's what it was designed to be. It's a replacement primarily for the F/A-18, AV-8B, and A-10 in the light attack/close air support role. It's supposed to work in tandem with F/A-22s (yes, the designation has officially changed), with the Raptor providing air superiority and light strike while the JSF is a slightly heavier strike aircraft with better ability to use inferior airfields due to its VTOL capability (for the Marine variant).

Personally, I don't think the laser will be feasible for at least 10-15 years. Even if they get over the problems of space and heat, there is still the problem of charge time. Today's targeting lasers take quite a bit of time to charge up for a pulse (longer than you would expect), and a weapons-grade laser would take longer than a targeting laser unless a very powerful energy transfer and electronics cooling system was developed.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-11-12 11:01pm

The other thing with teh JSF is that it is suppossed to replace the lost medium-strike capacity of the A-6. Since they went out of service the Navy hasn't had the ability to do deep interdiction with anything other than F-14s (the -18 is slower carries less and has a shorter range). The JSF has the range and payload to take over those missions.

Personally I would love it if the DoD canned the Super Hornet, rebuilt the F-14 program and built an -E or -F model to bring the systems fully up to spec because the basic airframe is still one of the best interceptors and deep interdictors out there. It doesn't have the manueverability of the -18 but with the JSF coming online you leave the tight corners work to it with the -14s staying high and loose for cover and BARCAP. Still that's just me.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-12 11:03pm

CmdrWilkens wrote: Personally I would love it if the DoD canned the Super Hornet, rebuilt the F-14 program and built an -E or -F model to bring the systems fully up to spec because the basic airframe is still one of the best interceptors and deep interdictors out there. It doesn't have the manueverability of the -18 but with the JSF coming online you leave the tight corners work to it with the -14s staying high and loose for cover and BARCAP. Still that's just me.

They can't build any more F-14s. The government didn't want to pay to store the necessary dies to strike the parts, so they were scrapped. The F-14s we have now are the last ones that will ever be built. It's a shame, too, since a Tomcat can outfight anything that's out there right now if it's got a halfway decent pilot.

starfury · Post by **starfury** » 2002-11-12 11:05pm

well considering that the F-14D was already almost as advanced as the most modern Eurofighters, then yes, the F-14 should still be in production for heavy work.

that and that the F-14D was only giving the plane the engines it was intially designed for.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-11-12 11:08pm

The Dark wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote: Personally I would love it if the DoD canned the Super Hornet, rebuilt the F-14 program and built an -E or -F model to bring the systems fully up to spec because the basic airframe is still one of the best interceptors and deep interdictors out there. It doesn't have the manueverability of the -18 but with the JSF coming online you leave the tight corners work to it with the -14s staying high and loose for cover and BARCAP. Still that's just me.
They can't build any more F-14s. The government didn't want to pay to store the necessary dies to strike the parts, so they were scrapped. The F-14s we have now are the last ones that will ever be built. It's a shame, too, since a Tomcat can outfight anything that's out there right now if it's got a halfway decent pilot.

Oh I know, Phong and I have had this discussion many a time. It just pisses me off that we would give up the best damn interceptor out there for something that is slower, can't carry as much ordnance, cannot carry as long range ordnance, and doesn't have but half the legs. Really the only thing truly wrong with the F-14 was that its max landing weight exceeded the specs for most of the cable systems unless they came back unarmed to loading up the sukers with missiles meant ditching them on the way back, I would bet a mdoern redesing could save enough weight to make landing with white on the rails possible.

starfury · Post by **starfury** » 2002-11-12 11:13pm

yeah, Hornets are only really good for turning fights, the F-14 is superior in every other respect, the abilty of the F-14 to use the phoenix missile is a abilty no other standoff interceptor save the mig-31 can approach.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-11-12 11:14pm

The Dark wrote:The main reason the JSF looks like a fighter-bomber is because that's what it was designed to be. It's a replacement primarily for the F/A-18, AV-8B, and A-10 in the light attack/close air support role..

BULLSHIT.....they cannot replace the Warthog in the CAS role with such
an exotic jet as the JSF....CAS involves flying low and slow enough to
make out what's going on the ground, and being shot at by LOTS of
triple A....

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-12 11:16pm

CmdrWilkens wrote: Oh I know, Phong and I have had this discussion many a time. It just pisses me off that we would give up the best damn interceptor out there for something that is slower, can't carry as much ordnance, cannot carry as long range ordnance, and doesn't have but half the legs. Really the only thing truly wrong with the F-14 was that its max landing weight exceeded the specs for most of the cable systems unless they came back unarmed to loading up the sukers with missiles meant ditching them on the way back, I would bet a mdoern redesing could save enough weight to make landing with white on the rails possible.

Oh, sure, replace the F110-GE-400s with F119-PW-100s. Lighter and more thrust, about 8,000 pounds extra per engine. Replace structural elements with lighter, stronger alloys. I would say dump the gun, but some pilots like it as a last-ditch weapon. Should end up with a faster, lighter, more fuel-efficient jet. Although it probably wouldn't be much quicker, since the aerodynamics wouldn't allow for much more speed. Endurance is what the Tomcat really needs, since it guzzles fuel at high speeds.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-11-12 11:35pm

The Dark wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote: Oh I know, Phong and I have had this discussion many a time. It just pisses me off that we would give up the best damn interceptor out there for something that is slower, can't carry as much ordnance, cannot carry as long range ordnance, and doesn't have but half the legs. Really the only thing truly wrong with the F-14 was that its max landing weight exceeded the specs for most of the cable systems unless they came back unarmed to loading up the sukers with missiles meant ditching them on the way back, I would bet a mdoern redesing could save enough weight to make landing with white on the rails possible.
Oh, sure, replace the F110-GE-400s with F119-PW-100s. Lighter and more thrust, about 8,000 pounds extra per engine. Replace structural elements with lighter, stronger alloys. I would say dump the gun, but some pilots like it as a last-ditch weapon. Should end up with a faster, lighter, more fuel-efficient jet. Although it probably wouldn't be much quicker, since the aerodynamics wouldn't allow for much more speed. Endurance is what the Tomcat really needs, since it guzzles fuel at high speeds.

With that much redesign you may start getting into the price range of an entirely new aircraft design. Simply replacing the engines (and I'm not sure how well the F119 will integrate) is a non-trivial task, nevermind replacing the structural members.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-11-12 11:39pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:
The Dark wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote: Personally I would love it if the DoD canned the Super Hornet, rebuilt the F-14 program and built an -E or -F model to bring the systems fully up to spec because the basic airframe is still one of the best interceptors and deep interdictors out there. It doesn't have the manueverability of the -18 but with the JSF coming online you leave the tight corners work to it with the -14s staying high and loose for cover and BARCAP. Still that's just me.
They can't build any more F-14s. The government didn't want to pay to store the necessary dies to strike the parts, so they were scrapped. The F-14s we have now are the last ones that will ever be built. It's a shame, too, since a Tomcat can outfight anything that's out there right now if it's got a halfway decent pilot.
Oh I know, Phong and I have had this discussion many a time. It just pisses me off that we would give up the best damn interceptor out there for something that is slower, can't carry as much ordnance, cannot carry as long range ordnance, and doesn't have but half the legs. Really the only thing truly wrong with the F-14 was that its max landing weight exceeded the specs for most of the cable systems unless they came back unarmed to loading up the sukers with missiles meant ditching them on the way back, I would bet a mdoern redesing could save enough weight to make landing with white on the rails possible.

It's quite a pity, but the Navy doesn't have the money to keep the Tomcat fleet, as much as we'd all like it.

I would have preferred this as a carrier's airwing: F-14E, F/A-18E, A-6F, S-3, ES-3 (opt.) EA-6B, KA-6D, E-2C, but there wasn't enough money in the budget to do that.

JSF

JSF

Re: JSF