User Panel
Posted: 8/28/2013 9:54:42 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
You understand the main limiting factor in a fighter is the on-board pilot yes? "Flying pred" should be done with drones or UCAVs. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Price tag? Price of comparable UCAV F35? Fify You understand the main limiting factor in a fighter is the on-board pilot yes? "Flying pred" should be done with drones or UCAVs. You have no idea of what you're claiming. Airplane performance is not limited just by pilot tolerance. Not by a long shot. Besides that, that hard turning, afterburners burning dogfight is a tiny corner of the operations envelope, and it's getting smaller. As for the cost, don't worry, the Pentagon will dictate the price and the profit if such an airplane was put into production. NOT what the market will bear. Don't hold your breathe waiting on the Great Takeover of Unmanned Air Vehicles That Replace Every Airplane Carrying a Person, you'll turn blue. Quoted:
"Derp" |
|
|
|
I can see where the EF-18G fleet would be in line for those conformal fuel tanks. Free up more pylons for HARM missiles in place of external fuel tanks to make it more lethal to enemy air defenses.
|
|
Super duper ultra jefe grand mal assraping hyper double plus good mega bug.
I like it for its simplicity. |
|
|
Anyone else catch the comment about the landing?
"Beautiful landing! Like a butterfly with sore feet" |
|
Quoted:
View Quote so ... which part were you responsible for? |
|
Quoted:
You have no idea of what you're claiming. Airplane performance is not limited just by pilot tolerance. Not by a long shot. Besides that, that hard turning, afterburners burning dogfight is a tiny corner of the operations envelope, and it's getting smaller. As for the cost, don't worry, the Pentagon will dictate the price and the profit if such an airplane was put into production. NOT what the market will bear. Don't hold your breathe waiting on the Great Takeover of Unmanned Air Vehicles That Replace Every Airplane Carrying a Person, you'll turn blue. View Quote Just on an aside. What do you think of the feasibility of the squire/knight model. Where the UAV's are used with Piloted craft to carry additional ordnance, and are linked into his avionics so that its seemless to him. The pilot gets alerted if he OR the drones have a firing solution and the Pilot presses the button, the weapon is released by the craft (either the Pilot/Knight or the UAV/squire) with the best chance of destroying the enemy as determined by the software. It seems like a plausible way to bolster our manned combat fleet without going whole hat into the ethical territory of autonomous platforms firing weapons without a man in the loop. I've heard it discussed that the technical difficulty in the avionics of getting the Drones to maintain formation based on the manned aircraft are less thorny then the latency speed of light issues that crop up with distant remote pilots. |
|
what's the new top speed? clearly that's a larger frontal area presenting itself to airflow
|
|
I'd like to see what an advanced cockpit is like with modern technology. I'm betting the ability to get information to the pilot in a readily processable way is by far more important than the amount of gees it can pull.
I'd also like to understand its capabilities with passive sensors. Do they could tap into the 9x sensors or have its own on-board IR sensor suite? Can it land with AMRAAMS on all 10 (11?) weapon stations? |
|
Quoted:
so ... which part were you responsible for? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes None, directly. I worked on the production F-18 for exactly 30 days in 1992, worked on the HARV a little about '89, and salvaged some parts while I was a co-op in '82. There are no doubt parts on there that contain evolutions from other jobs I've worked, but I don't know the extent. |
|
Quoted:
so ... which part were you responsible for? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes He makes all the pointy bits pointy. Cutting edge, even. He leaves the round bits to Union labor/outsourcing to some guy named Bob in Dayton, OH. |
|
Quoted:
None, directly. I worked on the production F-18 for exactly 30 days in 1992, worked on the HARV a little about '89, and salvaged some parts while I was a co-op in '82. There are no doubt parts on there that contain evolutions from other jobs I've worked, but I don't know the extent. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
so ... which part were you responsible for? None, directly. I worked on the production F-18 for exactly 30 days in 1992, worked on the HARV a little about '89, and salvaged some parts while I was a co-op in '82. There are no doubt parts on there that contain evolutions from other jobs I've worked, but I don't know the extent. Yep. A super POINTY version of the F-18. |
|
Quoted:
Just on an aside. What do you think of the feasibility of the squire/knight model. Where the UAV's are used with Piloted craft to carry additional ordnance, and are linked into his avionics so that its seemless to him. The pilot gets alerted if he OR the drones have a firing solution and the Pilot presses the button, the weapon is released by the craft (either the Pilot/Knight or the UAV/squire) with the best chance of destroying the enemy as determined by the software. It seems like a plausible way to bolster our manned combat fleet without going whole hat into the ethical territory of autonomous platforms firing weapons without a man in the loop. I've heard it discussed that the technical difficulty in the avionics of getting the Drones to maintain formation based on the manned aircraft are less thorny then the latency speed of light issues that crop up with distant remote pilots. View Quote Look up the term "forward air controller" it's nothing new. |
|
The Super Hornet is a fantastic aircraft, especially when you consider all you get for the money invested. It is the least expensive, advanced multi-role non 5th generation fighter aircraft the western world has to offer. The conformal fuel tanks have addressed the short legs issue. Now it just needs the EPE engines to give the damn thing some acceleration. A carrier air wing composed of advanced Super Hornets, the F-35 and whatever the production variant of the X-47B ends up as will pose a most formidable threat for any potential opponent.
|
|
Can't see the link right now. If they put Camaro tail lights on it like they did to the new Vette, I'm gonna be pissed! |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Just on an aside. What do you think of the feasibility of the squire/knight model. Where the UAV's are used with Piloted craft to carry additional ordnance, and are linked into his avionics so that its seemless to him. The pilot gets alerted if he OR the drones have a firing solution and the Pilot presses the button, the weapon is released by the craft (either the Pilot/Knight or the UAV/squire) with the best chance of destroying the enemy as determined by the software. It seems like a plausible way to bolster our manned combat fleet without going whole hat into the ethical territory of autonomous platforms firing weapons without a man in the loop. I've heard it discussed that the technical difficulty in the avionics of getting the Drones to maintain formation based on the manned aircraft are less thorny then the latency speed of light issues that crop up with distant remote pilots. View Quote Missile and bomb caddies seem like they'd have a lot of advantages. |
|
|
Quoted:
Open images in new browser to see the larger images. http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_001.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_002.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_003.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_004.jpg View Quote It looks like a fat chick. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Open images in new browser to see the larger images. http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_001.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_002.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_003.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_004.jpg It looks like a fat chick. |
|
So how hard would it be to give it thrust vectoring? That would be a Super Duper Bug.
|
|
|
I guess every little bit helps on a crowded flight or hangar deck, but with relatively small amount of the wing folding on the bugs and super bugs, I wonder if it's worth the added complexity and weight to have the folding mechanism at all.
|
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Open images in new browser to see the larger images. http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_001.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_002.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_003.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_004.jpg It looks like a fat chick. Oh yeah - built for comfort right there... |
|
Quoted:
Open images in new browser to see the larger images. http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_001.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_002.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_003.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_004.jpg View Quote Conformal fuel tanks? |
|
|
Quoted:
I guess every little bit helps on a crowded flight or hangar deck, but with relatively small amount of the wing folding on the bugs and super bugs, I wonder if it's worth the added complexity and weight to have the folding mechanism at all. View Quote Yes. On the Superhornet the wing length is 44.7 feet spread, 32.6 feet folded. Take 32.6 from 44.7 and you get 12.1 feet. You can now put 4 Superhornets with the wings folded in the same space as three Superhornets with the wings spread. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Open images in new browser to see the larger images. http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_001.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_002.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_003.jpg http://www.vaq34.com/junk/advanced_superhornet_004.jpg Conformal fuel tanks? Didn't read the linked article that AeroE posted I see. |
|
seems like the weapons pod would cut down on the payload the hornet can carry?
|
|
|
Quoted:
It looks like the pylons can be put back on for more conventional payloads View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
seems like the weapons pod would cut down on the payload the hornet can carry? It looks like the pylons can be put back on for more conventional payloads If you're flying "stealth" you're going to carry your weapon of choice in the pod. If you're a bomb truck you remove the stealth pod and hang the regular pylons. It's all explained in the video. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.