Quoted: Wind Tunnels? Is there just no interest in building them?

Everyone would like to have more wind tunnels, but they are expensive to build and maintain.  On top of that little detail, we (the US) have been hemmorhaging tunnels as they have been taken out of service.

By the way, when I said access to tunnels above, what I mean is scheduling time in a tunnel is difficult, particularly when you are on a tight schedule.  Then when you get there, something breaks, setting everyone back, sometimes for months.

Quoted: Quoted: Two years?? The design of what was eventually to emerge as the McDonnell F-4 Phantom began in August of 1953. The YF4H-1 prototype made its maiden flight on May 27, 1958, taking off from Lambert-St. Louis Municipal Airport. Initial carrier trials were carried out by BuNo 143391, (fourth production F-4 built) which was first launched and recovered aboard the USS Independence (CVA-62) on February 15, 1960. Board of Inspection and Survey trials began at NATC Patuxent River in July of 1960. The last US built Phantom was delivered on Oct. 25, 1979 (Phantom No. 5057). Wasn't the F14 flying in about two years since it was conceived? I know the U2 was, not sure about the F15 and F16 but I assume it was close to that amount of time. What about the SR71? I don't claim to be an expert when it comes to military aviation, so if I've made errors above, please educate me.

Not even close; none of these airplanes were conceived, designed, and constructed in 2 years.  Design work on the F-15 began in 1967, and that was after the design studies that caused that configuration to be selected. When the A-12(SR-71) was turned on, the Skunkworks had already been studying similar configurations and missions for at least 4 years and so had an idea of how they needed to proceed.

These are extremely complex machines, with complex parts, plus the airframers are at the mercy of the various suppliers of which there are few now compared to just a few years ago.  To aggravate the parts supply problem, we can't machine anything in house anymore, at least not in St. Louis.  If you want to install a carry through bulkhead that is machined from a forged billet 18 months from now in a brand new airplane, I hope you ordered it 12 months ago, otherwise you are going to have a late jig load.

Quoted: I wasn't saying the F-15 with the ATF engines was a bad airplane.  Although I didn't work that project, I heard that it met almost all the performance metrics (and that the ones it missed, it didn't miss by much).  But, the USAF wanted stealth.  Did they absolutely need it?  Maybe not.  But if you think politics doesn't play a part in a multi-billion dollar program, you are mistaken.  The USAF got ticked-off at MDC for peeing in their pool with the unsolicited F-15XX option.  It's not hard to imagine the same thing happening in a battle between a stealthy Super Hornet and the JSF.  That was my only point.

The F-15XX was unsolicited (except perhaps at the request of the F-15 SPO, whose members are just as interested in holding jobs) and was not submitted to answer the RFP - MDC marketing along with Advanced Design shopped it around.  There was no excuse for firing the head of F-15 Advanced Design who was a Chief Engineer level employee following the direction of his bosses.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Two years?? The design of what was eventually to emerge as the McDonnell F-4 Phantom began in August of 1953. The YF4H-1 prototype made its maiden flight on May 27, 1958, taking off from Lambert-St. Louis Municipal Airport. Initial carrier trials were carried out by BuNo 143391, (fourth production F-4 built) which was first launched and recovered aboard the USS Independence (CVA-62) on February 15, 1960. Board of Inspection and Survey trials began at NATC Patuxent River in July of 1960. The last US built Phantom was delivered on Oct. 25, 1979 (Phantom No. 5057). Wasn't the F14 flying in about two years since it was conceived? I know the U2 was, not sure about the F15 and F16 but I assume it was close to that amount of time. What about the SR71? I don't claim to be an expert when it comes to military aviation, so if I've made errors above, please educate me. Not even close; none of these airplanes were conceived, designed, and constructed in 2 years.  Design work on the F-15 began in 1967, and that was after the design studies that caused that configuration to be selected. When the A-12(SR-71) was turned on, the Skunkworks had already been studying similar configurations and missions for at least 4 years and so had an idea of how they needed to proceed. These are extremely complex machines, with complex parts, plus the airframers are at the mercy of the various suppliers of which there are few now compared to just a few years ago.  To aggravate the parts supply problem, we can't machine anything in house anymore, at least not in St. Louis.  If you want to install a carry through bulkhead that is machined from a forged billet 18 months from now in a brand new airplane, I hope you ordered it 12 months ago, otherwise you are going to have a late jig load.

Now as an addendum, it also be noted should also note that the airframe itself is much less of a factor in performance than it used to be. Performance used to be based largely on engine power and airframe design. Nowadays, the avionics matter a whole lot more, and those can be upgraded mid-life or mid-production run. Compare the new digital A-10's to the original, or a block 50 F-16 with the first production models - it's night and day. It may be a 1970's airframe, but the engines, radar, weapons and other equipment are only 5-10 years old. The way I see it, airframe design is stagnating relative to avionics and engines, so it makes sense to keep airframes around longer and just swap in new gear as necessary.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Two years?? The design of what was eventually to emerge as the McDonnell F-4 Phantom began in August of 1953. The YF4H-1 prototype made its maiden flight on May 27, 1958, taking off from Lambert-St. Louis Municipal Airport. Initial carrier trials were carried out by BuNo 143391, (fourth production F-4 built) which was first launched and recovered aboard the USS Independence (CVA-62) on February 15, 1960. Board of Inspection and Survey trials began at NATC Patuxent River in July of 1960. The last US built Phantom was delivered on Oct. 25, 1979 (Phantom No. 5057). Wasn't the F14 flying in about two years since it was conceived? I know the U2 was, not sure about the F15 and F16 but I assume it was close to that amount of time. What about the SR71? I don't claim to be an expert when it comes to military aviation, so if I've made errors above, please educate me. Not even close; none of these airplanes were conceived, designed, and constructed in 2 years.  Design work on the F-15 began in 1967, and that was after the design studies that caused that configuration to be selected. When the A-12(SR-71) was turned on, the Skunkworks had already been studying similar configurations and missions for at least 4 years and so had an idea of how they needed to proceed. These are extremely complex machines, with complex parts, plus the airframers are at the mercy of the various suppliers of which there are few now compared to just a few years ago.  To aggravate the parts supply problem, we can't machine anything in house anymore, at least not in St. Louis.  If you want to install a carry through bulkhead that is machined from a forged billet 18 months from now in a brand new airplane, I hope you ordered it 12 months ago, otherwise you are going to have a late jig load. Now as an addendum, it also be noted should also note that the airframe itself is much less of a factor in performance than it used to be. Performance used to be based largely on engine power and airframe design. Nowadays, the avionics matter a whole lot more, and those can be upgraded mid-life or mid-production run. Compare the new digital A-10's to the original, or a block 50 F-16 with the first production models - it's night and day. It may be a 1970's airframe, but the engines, radar, weapons and other equipment are only 5-10 years old. The way I see it, airframe design is stagnating relative to avionics and engines, so it makes sense to keep airframes around longer and just swap in new gear as necessary.

The other way to look at this is that airframe design (in any meaningful way that can affect performance) has been perfected, at least for non-LO airplanes.

It is a total package, becoming more and more heavily dependent on instant situational awareness plus accurate communication with everyone in the fight.

Quoted: The other way to look at this is that airframe design (in any meaningful way that can affect performance) has been perfected, at least for non-LO airplanes. It is a total package, becoming more and more heavily dependent on instant situational awareness plus accurate communication with everyone in the fight.

i agree with the 1st statement insofar as the 4th gen airframes are outstanding in their chosen regime, but then the LO aspect becomes yet one more item on the series of compromises that any fighter design comprises.  

look at the ideas behind the ATF competitors.  while many design elements were shared, there was significant divergence in the point of compromise between pure flight performance and planned tactical employment, to which LO was inherent.  even the choice of highest performance parameters was different, with the -22 leaning towards maneuver and the -23 leaning towards speed.

i just don't think one can 'decouple' the LO aspect of design from the performance aspect.  i think it is simply another variable (perhaps the variable) in airframe design.

your second point is spot on, IMO.

Quoted: Quoted: The other way to look at this is that airframe design (in any meaningful way that can affect performance) has been perfected, at least for non-LO airplanes. It is a total package, becoming more and more heavily dependent on instant situational awareness plus accurate communication with everyone in the fight. i agree with the 1st statement insofar as the 4th gen airframes are outstanding in their chosen regime, but then the LO aspect becomes yet one more item on the series of compromises that any fighter design comprises.   look at the ideas behind the ATF competitors.  while many design elements were shared, there was significant divergence in the point of compromise between pure flight performance and planned tactical employment, to which LO was inherent.  even the choice of highest performance parameters was different, with the -22 leaning towards maneuver and the -23 leaning towards speed. i just don't think one can 'decouple' the LO aspect of design from the performance aspect.  i think it is simply another variable (perhaps the variable) in airframe design. your second point is spot on, IMO.

I agree with your comment about compromising sparkling flying performance for LO, and that is precisely what has happened to airframes to this point - what we have to learn how to do now is integrate the LO details without giving up any other aspect of performance.  In other words, LO is a new variable that we must figure out how to integrate efficiently.

I guess I should rely less on the History Channel for information but it still boggles my mind why it has taken over 15 years to get the F22 in service, when the aforementioned planes were flying in a third of that time or less in some cases.


I've said it before, but I guess the seemingly bottomless pockets of the DoD in the Cold War years are long gone. Perhaps even truly revolutionary designs, at least ones we could actually build (in numbers), fly, and do it all affordably.

Quoted: I guess I should rely less on the History Channel for information but it still boggles my mind why it has taken over 15 years to get the F22 in service, when the aforementioned planes were flying in a third of that time or less in some cases. I've said it before, but I guess the seemingly bottomless pockets of the DoD in the Cold War years are long gone. Perhaps even truly revolutionary designs, at least ones we could actually build (in numbers), fly, and do it all affordably.

Northrop was also a secondary parter on the F-18, which saw some sales. Are they still involved after the sale of McD to Boeing? They getting a cut of the Super Hornet pie?

Yep.

Northrop Grumman gets $3.2B F/A-18 Super Hornet production contract By: North County Times wire services EL SEGUNDO - Northrop Grumman Corp. won a $3.2 billion, multi-year contract from The Boeing Co. to continue production work on the F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft, it was announced Thursday. About $650 million is funded for fiscal 2005. The F/A-18 program accounts for more than 1,400 jobs at Northrop Grumman in El Segundo and about 10,000 more jobs at hundreds of other companies in California. As Boeing's principal subcontractor for the U.S. Navy's frontline carrier- based strike fighter, Northrop Grumman produces the center/aft fuselage and twin vertical tails and integrates all associated subsystems at its El Segundo facility. The company delivers the fuselage shipsets to Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems facility in St. Louis, Mo., for final assembly. It is Northrop Grumman's second multi-year production contract for the Super Hornet program and covers procurement of 210 shipsets at the rate of 42 during each of the fiscal years 2005-2009. Also, the contract provides the flexibility for the Navy to increase that quantity by as many as six per year. Deliveries will begin in 2006. "This award reflects the confidence of the Navy and Boeing in Northrop Grumman's role as a systems integrator," said Gary W. Ervin, sector vice president of the Air Combat Systems unit in the company's Integrated Systems sector. Of the 210 shipsets being produced, 56 are earmarked for the EA-18G, an electronic-attack variant of the F/A-18 that is expected to begin replacing the Navy's EA-6B Prowler aircraft by the end of the decade. Northrop Grumman also is principal subcontractor for the EA-18G and, under a separate contract, is the airborne electronic-attack system integrator. In March, Northrop Grumman delivered the first center/aft fuselage section for the EA-18G. Northrop Grumman has delivered more than 1,700 shipsets since the original F/A-18 program began in the 1970s, and its work is expected to continue into the next decade on the Super Hornet and the EA-18G. http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/05/13/business/news/22_00_105_12_05.txt

Quoted: Northrop was also a secondary parter on the F-18, which saw some sales. Are they still involved after the sale of McD to Boeing? They getting a cut of the Super Hornet pie?

I'll keep it simple...

The original YF-22 (the experimental aircraft) was a hand built prototype that used unproven technology in both the airframe and avionics, plus it was planned using "vaporware" or "wishware".

The YF-22 flew for the first time in 1990, crashed in 1992 and flew for the last time in 1992.

The first EMD F-22 didn't fly until 1997.

In the time inbetween the YF-22 and the F-22 the aircraft underwent a major revision, plus the manufacturing was coming on line and the avionics (computers) were being developed.

A lot of the technology that was developed for the F-22 was used for other aircraft.  

From 1997 to 2005 when the first operational F-22 was delivered a lot more stuff was developed, and in fact is still being developed/installed/upgraded.


The biggest factor was money, money and money.
Congress, the DOD and the USAF kept tossing just enough money to keep the program alive, but not enough to fund it to get the program running balls to the wall.

If enough money had been tossed at the F-22 program I'll bet that the overall development program would have been cut well in half.

Even the F-16 took a long assed time to develop.

The YF-16 was designed and built at Fort Worth under the direction of William C. Dietz and Lyman C. Josephs, with Harry Hillaker as chief designer. The General Dynamics Model 401 had studied in models, mockups, and wind tunnel testing dozens of different configurations before the final configuration was chosen. ***No attempt was made to push individual technological advances to their limits,*** with proven systems and components being used in those areas where the development of new technology was not required. Components and detail assemblies were designed for ease of manufacture, using low-cost conventional materials where possible. In order to keep costs down, many of the components were designed to have commonality with existing or projected aircraft. However, new technology was to be used in those situations where it would have the greatest effect in meeting performance goals. The prototype YF-16 (serial number 72-1567) was rolled out at Fort Worth on December 13, 1973. It was powered by a Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 (JTF22A-33) turbofan, rated at 23,830 with full afterburner. Maximum takeoff weight was 27,000 pounds. ***The YF-16 carried no radar, and the aircraft had analog flight controls with no computer software.*** On January 13, 1975, Air Force Secretary John McLucas announced that the YF-16 had been selected as the winner of the ACF contest. On June 7, 1975, armed with the assurance of a USAF commitment to the type, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway announced that they had agreed to acquire the F-16 as a replacement for the F-104G. A total of 348 were in the initial production contract. The manufacture of the first production F-16 began at General Dynamics's Fort Worth plant in August of 1975. The Belgian production line opened in February of 1978, with the Dutch line opening in April of 1978. The first F-16 to be delivered to Europe arrived at Gosselies on June 9, 1978. It was a Fort Worth-built machine, and was used for assembly tests at the SABCA plant. Large-scale production for the USAF began with FY78 funds, and the first full production F-16A coming from the Fort Worth production line flew for the first time in August of 1978. The first flight of a European-built F-16 took place on December 11, 1978 from Gosselies. This was a two-seat F-16B, flown by Neil Anderson and Serge Martin. The first Fokker-built F-16 (J-259, 78-259) flew for the first time on May 3, 1979. The first F-16A/Bs were delivered to the 388th TFW at Hill AFB in Utah in January 1979. The same month, the first F-16A/Bs were delivered to the Belgian Air Force. The first Fighting Falcons were delivered to the Royal Netherlands Air Force in June of 1979. Deliveries to Denmark, Norway, and Israel began in January of 1980.

The F-16 had the benefit of being sold to other nations, that brought in a big chunk of money for General Dynamics, plus it was also being manufactured in another country.

The F-16 used a lot of "current" technology when it was first being built, it broke no real new grounds in technology.

Finally, Uncle Sugar dropped serious cash into the F-16 program right from the get-go.
15 years is about right when you factor in the fall of the commies and the 8 years of President Clinton.

Quoted: I guess I should rely less on the History Channel for information but it still boggles my mind why it has taken over 15 years to get the F22 in service, when the aforementioned planes were flying in a third of that time or less in some cases. I've said it before, but I guess the seemingly bottomless pockets of the DoD in the Cold War years are long gone. Perhaps even truly revolutionary designs, at least ones we could actually build (in numbers), fly, and do it all affordably.

Quoted: I agree with your comment about compromising sparkling flying performance for LO, and that is precisely what has happened to airframes to this point - what we have to learn how to do now is integrate the LO details without giving up any other aspect of performance.  In other words, LO is a new variable that we must figure out how to integrate efficiently.

isn't MiG still working on the radiative plasma approach for just this reason?  what is your opinion on the feasibility of that technology?

Plasma stealth?  Doesnt' plasma give off a signature? How do you use your radar? I think plasma stealth is more myth than anything right now.

Quoted: Quoted: I agree with your comment about compromising sparkling flying performance for LO, and that is precisely what has happened to airframes to this point - what we have to learn how to do now is integrate the LO details without giving up any other aspect of performance.  In other words, LO is a new variable that we must figure out how to integrate efficiently. isn't MiG still working on the radiative plasma approach for just this reason?  what is your opinion on the feasibility of that technology?

No one has breathed a word about this technology in 8 or 9 years, at least that I'm privy to.  There are lots of hurdles to incorporating plasma fields.   The end.  

At any rate, plasma introduces new problems that bring similar structural compromises to the airframe.

We're getting there, the trick is to keep the costs out.

Quoted: Quoted: I wasn't saying the F-15 with the ATF engines was a bad airplane.  Although I didn't work that project, I heard that it met almost all the performance metrics (and that the ones it missed, it didn't miss by much).  But, the USAF wanted stealth.  Did they absolutely need it?  Maybe not.  But if you think politics doesn't play a part in a multi-billion dollar program, you are mistaken.  The USAF got ticked-off at MDC for peeing in their pool with the unsolicited F-15XX option.  It's not hard to imagine the same thing happening in a battle between a stealthy Super Hornet and the JSF.  That was my only point. The F-15XX was unsolicited (except perhaps at the request of the F-15 SPO, whose members are just as interested in holding jobs) and was not submitted to answer the RFP - MDC marketing along with Advanced Design shopped it around.  There was no excuse for firing the head of F-15 Advanced Design who was a Chief Engineer level employee following the direction of his bosses.

You are absolutely correct.  When the customer gets ticked, someone will take the fall.  It is never the one who is responsible - only the one without enough clout to deflect the blame from himself.  


AeroE - You sound like a good guy.  Very knowledgeable about the business.  Wish I'd known you while I was there.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The other way to look at this is that airframe design (in any meaningful way that can affect performance) has been perfected, at least for non-LO airplanes. It is a total package, becoming more and more heavily dependent on instant situational awareness plus accurate communication with everyone in the fight. i agree with the 1st statement insofar as the 4th gen airframes are outstanding in their chosen regime, but then the LO aspect becomes yet one more item on the series of compromises that any fighter design comprises.   look at the ideas behind the ATF competitors.  while many design elements were shared, there was significant divergence in the point of compromise between pure flight performance and planned tactical employment, to which LO was inherent.  even the choice of highest performance parameters was different, with the -22 leaning towards maneuver and the -23 leaning towards speed. i just don't think one can 'decouple' the LO aspect of design from the performance aspect.  i think it is simply another variable (perhaps the variable) in airframe design. your second point is spot on, IMO. I agree with your comment about compromising sparkling flying performance for LO, and that is precisely what has happened to airframes to this point - what we have to learn how to do now is integrate the LO details without giving up any other aspect of performance.  In other words, LO is a new variable that we must figure out how to integrate efficiently.

I think the F-22 has done a good job of meeting the LO requirements without sacrificing performance.

Another point regarding the lack of advancement in (conventional) airframe design is that these are piloted vehicles.  As far as maneuverability is concerned, the man in the cockpit is pretty much the limiting factor.  A piloted aircraft just isn't going to pull 20 g's.

Quoted: Plasma stealth?  Doesnt' plasma give off a signature? How do you use your radar? I think plasma stealth is more myth than anything right now.

IIRC, they use a plasma generator to hide the large phased array in the nose only… big radar reflector.

ANdy