Favorite production Military Aircraft of 2012

[MigBuster 2,861]

You could put the same engines, radar, and missiles the F-15 has on an F-4 (ok, not literally, but...) but it still wouldn't be as good. Planes are designed around the capabilities of the time plus projected advances in the foreseeable future, and these 70s designed planes are far outside that range. Only because of their larger size making them less sensitive to weight changes are the Flanker and Eagle still going as strong.

 

What happens when you take a 70s design like the F/A-18A and overhaul it to be a more modern plane that fixes the worst problems with the original? You get the F/A-18E! Few countries are willing to go that route, and as we did it for the Hornet 20 years ago I don't think we'll do it again soon.

 

Well I've seen it written that the F-15A size was partly a function of the radar they wanted to put into it - so it got lucky in that sense.

 

As for modifying old designs - the FA-18E/F was not bad and is procured in numbers - but on the other hand you have the Mitsubishi F-2 which is enough to put anyone off.

[Stipe 56]

 

 

 

 

As for modifying old designs - the FA-18E/F was not bad and is procured in numbers - but on the other hand you have the Mitsubishi F-2 which is enough to put anyone off.

 

Yes it is enough but the cost for the Mitsubishi comes with a 108-127 million price tag witch is just too much for sutch an fighter, and yes it has an reduced radar cross section and its an 4.5 generation fighter but thats enough for it to show up on Russian, Korean and Chinese radars, and with all of them having 4th / 4.5th generation fighters and 5th being developen and flight tested the F-2 dont have mutch potential in the far east.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Stipe

[macelena 1,070]

I would go with the Growler or Typhoon.

 

On the other hand, i don´t feel in the mood to think about future air combat. I say get UCAVs with PGMs on the soft side of the stick and nukes on the other. No more effing around. A Super Typhoon-like sub with UCAV capability and SLBMs.

[RogerSmith 72]

I wonder how much impact a Growler would have on the battlefield and war

[JediMaster 451]

Considering half of what it can do is likely classified, hard to say. I will say that it will probably swing things heavily in its favor by its presence vs its absence. I mean, it doesn't really matter if an F-15, F-16, or F-18 drops the bombs, so if one or the other can't be there, no big deal. No Growlers or EA-6B's, though, and things are VERY different.

[MigBuster 2,861]

You have to conclude from the Growler that area Jamming is still effective I guess

 

Yes it is enough but the cost for the Mitsubishi comes with a 108-127 million price tag witch is just too much for sutch an fighter, and yes it has an reduced radar cross section and its an 4.5 generation fighter but thats enough for it to show up on Russian, Korean and Chinese radars, and with all of them having 4th / 4.5th generation fighters and 5th being developen and flight tested the F-2 dont have mutch potential in the far east.

 

I think this was more a move seen a beneficial to Japans aero industry more than anything else. Typical that 12 may have been scrapped after the Tsunami as well (wiki)

[Stipe 56]

Yes, but let's get back to the topic.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Stipe

[Stipe 56]

(Subject)

[JediMaster 451]

The Super Hornet and Growler are certainly still in production, but oddly few seem to like them other than their pilots.

[Stipe 56]

I dont know why, but the two things i realy don like about it the Hornet family is: the almost straight wings and their is a large gap between the vertical stabilizers and the engine nozzles?!.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Stipe

[MigBuster 2,861]

I dont know why, but the two things i realy don like about it the Hornet family is: the almost straight wings and their is a large gap between the vertical stabilizers and the engine nozzles?!.

 

Looks are almost always there for design reasons - with the wing they went for better low speed handling over outright speed and acceleration.

 

The vertical stabilizers must be at their optimum position for what they wanted - not sure of the reason though.

[Stipe 56]

Looks are almost always there for design reasons - with the wing they went for better low speed handling over outright speed and acceleration. (Quote)

 

Yes, but i dont understand why they went for that if the hornets is mostly used as a bomber and rearly for air combat, except for for the growlers thar are used for Jamming.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Stipe

[Copperhead 1]

Interesting take on things - might not have much luck against the Taliban airliners though :)

 

No one for any Russian stuff - MiG-29K, Su-35S, Su-34 ?

I like the Su-34 but i'm gonna have to say my favorite is the F-15e

[RogerSmith 72]

Yes, but i dont understand why they went for that if the hornets is mostly used as a bomber and rarely for air combat

 

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it

[Southernap 1]

Looks are almost always there for design reasons - with the wing they went for better low speed handling over outright speed and acceleration.

 

The vertical stabilizers must be at their optimum position for what they wanted - not sure of the reason though.

 

The seperate vertical stabs comes from the studying that the Northup Engineers way back in the 60's (yes the Hornet design is that old) based on what was needed to give the most manuverabilty and the most "flex" of the control surfaces at high angles of manuver and high speeds. The angles on the vertical stabs also are supposed to help aid in directional control if you loose an engine as well, at least according to an engineer I talked to once while dealing with the EA-18Gs, that at the angles placed the torque applied by the other engine and asymetrical effects of that lose of power on that side will lead to Remember the F-18A thru F was based on the YF-17 which was a direct competitor of the YF-16 for the lightweight fighter program for the USAF in the early 70's. If you honestly look at the segements of the YF-17 and F-18 you will see that it is born all the way back with the F-5A Freedom Fighter. The nose was rounded out, the engines spaced further apart to give better survivablity in case of a weapon strike based on lessons from Vietnam, the LEX's give better lift and better manuvering at higher angles of attack, better "digital" components in the cockpit (I say "digital" in this sense because in that era digital electronics were anything based on an intergrated chip, so a B-52 had digital electronics compared to the B-36 and B-47 it replaced, ditto with the F-4 vs the F-100 or even the F-101; and yet the YF-17 and the YF-16 has better digital electronics because they were using LSI or even some early VLSI IC electronics in thier systems vs just basic IC chips in some of the electronics suites. Oh you are still talking analog if your are using tubes still), better cockpit arrangements, etc. There were all sorts of design changes from internal Northup designs to increase the F-5 series capabilties into the future. Some of those same features were carried over in creating the F-20 Tigershark and again if you compare some things in the F-20 vs the F-17 and even the F-18 you will see some of the same characteristics carried over amongst all of the airframes.

[JediMaster 451]

A lot of the positioning of control surfaces is based on wind tunnel testing and actual flight testing. The Hornet's stabs are where they are so they wouldn't be "blanked" at high AOA by the vortices off the LEXs. With older fighters, high AOA wasn't an issue. As planes became capable of higher and higher ones, things that were never an issue on planes built in the 40s-60s become one. In addition, rear of the current attachment point the Hornet's fuselage gets even narrower. Twin fins need SOME distance between them after all. Look at the Su-27's T10 prototype...those fins were REALLY far forward, but that didn't survive testing.

 

As for the Hornets being bombers...they do everything. There is no other USN plane that is for AA ops OTHER than the Hornets and Super Hornets. Not until the F-35C enters service. The reason they've been used mostly as bombers in service is because the USAF has dominated the AA arena in every conflict, although a Hornet in ODS did prove the concept early by taking out a MiG en route to its bombing target.

 

Planes don't need highly swept wings necessarily. Notice the F-35's wings are very reminiscent of the Hornet's. Before that, remember the VERY straight and stubby F-104 wings! Straight wings of narrow chord aren't suited to speed (like the U-2 or Global Hawk), but if there's a very wide chord compared to the wingspan it is.