The Official "Jet Planes Are Effin' Boss" Thread

[G.Irish]

Yeah honestly if I was the SecDef I'd dramatically curtail the JSF program and push for some high performance drones to fill the gap. It might take 10 years for a super drone to come online but each one could potentially cost a lot less than a F-35. You could build it to turn way harder than any human pilot could endure and you could build several of them for the cost of one F-35. If I were China I would be feverishly be trying to be build such a drone right now.

[CaptainHenreh]

Yeah honestly if I was the SecDef I'd dramatically curtail the JSF program and push for some high performance drones to fill the gap. It might take 10 years for a super drone to come online but each one could potentially cost a lot less than a F-35. You could build it to turn way harder than any human pilot could endure and you could build several of them for the cost of one F-35. If I were China I would be feverishly be trying to be build such a drone right now.

Well, if I were SecDef, I'd use this Trillion Dollar Overrun Too Big to Fail project to mask the costs of an F35-based combat drone.

With all the (admittedly pretty advanced) electronics in the F35, seems like it would be child's play to drone-ify and have the first Air Superiority/Interdiction Drone ready to fight. A "combat team" of 2 manned F35's and 3 remote-flown drones would be AWESOME.

[CaptainHenreh]

Boeing touts fighter jet to rival F-35 — at half the price

[CaptainHenreh]

Speaking of boeing, oh what could have been...

[G.Irish]

Yeah sucks for Boeing that they lost the F-22 and JSF competitions to Lockheed Martin. Of course they didn't even have their VSTOL prototype flying for the competition so as big a disaster as the JSF program has been, I suspect it would've been worse if they had gone with the X32.

[JustinG]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-says-resume-f-35-flights-023609209--finance.html?.tsrc=samsungwn&.sep=table">http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-says-res ... .sep=table</a><!-- m -->

[BLINGMW]

Boeing touts fighter jet to rival F-35 — at half the price

That's awesome. Our plane *only* costs $15,346 an hour to fly! hock:

[CaptainHenreh]

Boeing touts fighter jet to rival F-35 — at half the price

That's awesome. Our plane *only* costs $15,346 an hour to fly! hock:

yeah, but when you consider that the F35 target is 31000 dollars per hour to fly...damn.

Also, I think Boeing's JSF entry would have been superior. While the VTOL/STOL system they chose didn't work *either*, it was at least built on a proven, "We've done this before" system. The F35's central mounted turbofan, while more efficient in theory...doesn't actually work yet in practice. Oh well, the Rock thought it was Worth The Risk.

Honestly I think 10B or so thrown at Superbugs to reduce IR signature, enhance some stealth elements, and add in a state of the art avionics suite... (and, lol, ok, some conformal fuel tanks) and you could easily give an F35 a run for it's money on performance per dollar.

[G.Irish]

Boeing touts fighter jet to rival F-35 — at half the price

That's awesome. Our plane *only* costs $15,346 an hour to fly! hock:

yeah, but when you consider that the F35 target is 31000 dollars per hour to fly...damn.

Also, I think Boeing's JSF entry would have been superior. While the VTOL/STOL system they chose didn't work *either*, it was at least built on a proven, "We've done this before" system.

Boeing was still dicking around with the tail fin configuration very late in the competition, they had a 2 fin design like the YF-23 to start, but they decided to switch to a 4 post design at the last minute. I don't think they even got a prototype done with the 4 post design.

The F35's central mounted turbofan, while more efficient in theory...doesn't actually work yet in practice. Oh well, the Rock thought it was Worth The Risk.

I'm not sure what you mean, they've already got prototypes taking off and landing vertically on amphibious carriers.

[Apoc]

Less words. More pictures.

[G.Irish]

Yeah sucks for Boeing that they lost the F-22 and JSF competitions to Lockheed Martin. Of course they didn't even have their VSTOL prototype flying for the competition so as big a disaster as the JSF program has been, I suspect it would've been worse if they had gone with the X32.

Actually I'm wrong, Boeing did have their STOVL variant flying for the competition, but they did have some problems meeting all of the requirements with it. Apparently in STOVL configuration the X-32 couldn't go supersonic (says Wikipedia). I saw a documentary on all of it but it was probably 4 or 5 years ago.

[G.Irish]

Less words. More pictures.

Fine:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE</a><!-- m -->

[Apoc]

Less words. More pictures.

Fine:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE</a><!-- m -->

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[G.Irish]

They're moving pictures

[CaptainHenreh]

Less words. More pictures.

Fine:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE</a><!-- m -->

Notice what this video does NOT have:

Short takeoff, "transform" to standard config, break the sound barrier, return.

[CaptainHenreh]

How do you guys feel about SAABs?!






The Saab JAS 39 Gripen (Griffin)

Multirole fighter, similar to, say, F16 or F18. In fact, let's compare! Since the F16 and JAS 39 both have a single engine, we'll compare those.
Crew: 1
Payload: 5,300 kg ()
Length: 14.1 m
Wingspan: 8.4 m
Height: 4.5 m
Wing area: 30.0 m²
Empty weight: 6,800 kg[180] (12,600 lb)
Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb)
Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,100 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf)
Maximum speed: Mach 2 (2,204 km/h, 1,372 mph) at altitude
Combat radius: 800 km (500 mi, 432 nmi)
Ferry range: 3,200 km (2,000 mi) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
Wing loading: 283 kg/m² (58 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.97

F16:
Crew: 1
Length: 49 ft 5 in (15.06 m)
Wingspan: 32 ft 8 in (9.96 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A204 root and tip
Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,570 kg)
Loaded weight: 26,500 lb (12,000 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (19,200 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × F110-GE-100 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 17,155 lbf (76.3 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 28,600 lbf (127 kN)
Performance
Maximum speed:
At sea level: Mach 1.2 (915 mph, 1,470 km/h)[51]
At altitude: Mach 2 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h[1]) clean configuration
Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nmi, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 2,280 NM (2,620 mi, 4,220 km) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft[1] (15,240+ m)
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s)
Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft² (431 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.095


They're pretty close on paper, the Saab is a little faster, the F16 can carry a few more bombs.




<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXCP0-r0-m8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXCP0-r0-m8</a><!-- m -->

Anyway, I think the Saab has kind of a "classic Jet" look, and I like it. Thought I'd share.

[BLINGMW]

Kind of interesting how the F16 is roughly the same size (~10% larger?) but it weighs 50% more. That seems like a whole different ballpark. I guess the materials used have gotten that much better from '70s to '90s? :dunno: The Saab sounds like my kinda plane, especially at a bargain basement of $4,700 / hr to fly! :thumbup:

[CaptainHenreh]

boss.

[Mike]

saabs tickle me so much.

[G.Irish]

Just to mutilate a dead horse:

Test Pilots: Stealth Jet’s Blind Spot Will Get It ‘Gunned Every Time’

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/">http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03 ... lind-spot/</a><!-- m -->

Yet another part of the aircraft's design that has gotten fucked up by the USMC's requirements.

The limitations of the F-35′s canopy are “partially a result of designing a common pilot escape system [a.k.a. ejection seat] for all three variants to the requirements of the short-take-off and vertical landing environment.” In other words, the Joint Strike Fighter’s windshield is constrained by the need to fit a standard ejection seat and the downward-facing engine of the Marine Corps variant, which allows that model to take off and land vertically and is located directly behind the cockpit.