Question for the Tronmiester General...........

[red indian]

.......we had a very good programme on the telly last night called "Battle of the X planes" which was about the fight between Lockheed and Boeing to design and manufacture the next generation of fighter planes for use by both the U.S. and U.K. armed forces. The competition is run by the pentagon and a winner will be announced after extensive air trials.

Just wondered what your view was on the two options? what i can say is they are both ugly looking birds, but the Boeing one is the worst, it looks like a shoe box with wings.

 

[Neutron]

I'll Get Back To..

You. I'm somewhat busy right now.

Tron

 

[Neutron]

My Opinion..

The real quickie. They look funky because in todays day and age stealth is a lot more important than speed. To get stealth you need a bunch of relecting angular features, thus the boxy shape, which is really just a bunch of small angled plates.

I think the Brits and US both believe the day of the dogfighter is over, being able to project power is a lot more important than pure speed. In modern warfare where missiles routinely fly at Mach 6 to 8 speed in an airplane is meaningless. You'll never get a plane to fly Mach 8 and even if you do it can only do so for seconds. Therefore it's more important not to be seen.

What you'll see is Air Forces will go to stealthier planes like the F22 and the F35 (proposed Eurofighter) because an Airforce is expected to project power and strike strategic targets.

The US Navy will design something fast, and non stealthy because a stealth plane can't take off from a carrier anyways. The US Navy air mission is different, less strategic based. Also the carrier must move after a launch so the planes need to get away quick, strike then get back quickly.

Thats my quick take. Sorry it took so long.
By the way I was incorrect on something in another post. The Harrier is a Brit developement, not US,


Tron

 

[BigJim]

Just out of interest, why can't stealth take off from a carrier? Is it impossible to have a VTOL or STOVL craft, or one strong enough to withstand catapault launches and wire landings?

 

[Dave2112]

And why not just use repulsorlifts?🙄

 

[BigJim]

And why not just use repulsorlifts?🙄

Too damn expensive, and besides.......

The guy who deals in them is a relative of Han Solo. It'd be like buying reliable Al Samoud missiles from "Abdul the friendly second hand arms dealer" in a Baghdad back alley.

 

[Neutron]

Simple

A stealth craft has to minimize fuselage penetrations. VsTOLs have extra ones. VSTOLs take up a LOT of fuel taking off. A stealth is a power projection platform. In other words it has to be able to fly a long way. A VSTOL can't do that, it's more a local control support type plane, vice something you send on missions deep into enemy territory.
Also, a carrier take off is a controlled crash, as is a landing. The catapult puts enormous stress on the wings, which cause minute cracks. A crack on a stealth ends up allowing a bigger radar image.

The stealth platform doesn't lend itself to speed. A carrier operation involves launching, then getting away to a recovery point. During the operation the carrier is vulnerable. So you need craft that will get in and out fast.

Tron