Most Impressive Jet Aircraft

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

First, the worlds fastest, and highest climbing jet, the SR-71 Blackbird.

nbeMb8RcAB8

Awesome piece of technology. Interesting how the CIA set up a phantom company to buy the titanium needed from the Soviet Union so we could take pictures of the Soviet Union. And it was good at that, capturing 100,000 square miles per hour (at normal cruising altitude of 80,000ft).

But it's not very versatile, and all of them have been retired, though it's still a technological marvel.

Next, the F-22 Raptor,

PyKYw_p1Hrc

Possibly the most maunuverable jet ever built, along with being one of the stealthiest fighters ever created.

That, however, is not it's biggest advantage. It was what's been nicknamed 'supercruise' so it can fly for over 4 hours at Mach 1, as opposed to conventional jet engines which would need to refuel at a fraction of that time. It's really a whole new concept, and a giant leap forward technologically. Of course, it also means the US will need less Air Force bases abroad but will retain the same striking power, if not more, but this isn't the place for that discussion.

Next up, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, particularly the model that is going to be used (first off) by the British Royal Navy and the US Marine Corps to replace their aging, and increasingly obsolete, Harriers:

_GjrPvSBGXE

Don't let looks fool you, it'll be flying at over 1000mph quite often.

The jet that made SAMs obsolete:

IdbpMOWGYGk

Extremely revolutionary design. Because of that, the aircraft is largely controlled by computer, and the pilot has much less 'control' then they normally would.

Including the development program, these things go for $2bn each. To see that amount of money burn look up 'b-2 crash' on youtube.


Anyway, these are only a few of the many. If you have any you know of which I didn't post, please post a vid. I didn't list any commercial aircraft, for instance, but feel free by all means.

[khad]

The jet that made SAMs obsolete:
Hilarious. Any fool knows that you can't build an airframe to be resistant to both high frequency and low frequency radars at the same time. Which is why Serbian SAMs raped 2 stealth jets in the Kosovo War. Improved detection techniques will soon render current stealth technology obsolete.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Hilarious. Any fool knows that you can't build an airframe to be resistant to both high frequency and low frequency radars at the same time. Which is why the Serbian SAMs raped 2 stealth jets in the Kosovo War. Improved detection techniques will soon render current stealth technology obsolete.

Though it was a bit of hyperbole, not by much.

First of all, that was a lone F-117 Nighthawk, which had design compromises, unlike the B-2.

But anyway, what the Serbs found is that by using 'obsolete' SAM technology they could detect F-117's because of the radar's longer wavelegnths. This issue does not exist with the B-2 and none of them were detected and threatened by the low-frequency SAMs the Serbs were using, and that lone Nighthawk has been the only stealth aircraft ever to be shot down.

Secondly, as for the theory that SAMs are going to make a comeback doesn't have much fact behind it in my opinion.

Any SAM that is turned on will have a missile coming to meet its radar signature immediately (something the US military learned from Kosovo). In other words, before the SAMs radar is even fully operational a missile is on its way.

In short, unless there's some pretty damn amazing 'improved detection techniques' that doesn't use radar, I highly doubt the SAM is going to be able to shoot down a 5th-generation fighter (Unless we're talking about Russia, who lost a dozen a day in the Georgian War LoL), largely because of design improvements that seem small increase stealth greatly, such as the all-internal muntions;or a B-2.

[khad]

First of all, that was a lone F-117 Nighthawk, which had design compromises, unlike the B-2.

Check your sources.

A second F-117A was damaged during the same campaign on 30 April. Although it returned to base, it was so badly damaged that it had to be scrapped.


But anyway, what the Serbs found is that by using 'obsolete' SAM technology they could detect F-117's because of the radar's longer wavelegnths. This issue does not exist with the B-2 and none of them were detected and threatened by the low-frequency SAMs the Serbs were using, and that lone Nighthawk has been the only stealth aircraft ever to be shot down.The B-2 flew a few dozen missions. That's hardly a representative sample.

Furthermore, that's 2 nighthawks put out of action permanently due to enemy fire.


Secondly, as for the theory that SAMs are going to make a comeback doesn't have much fact behind it in my opinion.

Any SAM that is turned on will have a missile coming to meet its radar signature immediately (something the US military learned from Kosovo). In other words, before the SAMs radar is even fully operational a missile is on its way. I think you don't understand how SAM batteries operate. No SAM commander switches on his units' radars all the time. Selective radar use and repositioning constantly are standard tools of the trade. And in a battery, if one launcher buys it, there are still half a dozen others ready to fire.


In short, unless there's some pretty damn amazing 'improved detection techniques' that doesn't use radar, I highly doubt the SAM is going to be able to shoot down a 5th-generation fighter (Unless we're talking about Russia, who lost a dozen a day in the Georgian War LoL), largely because of design improvements that seem small increase stealth greatly, such as the all-internal muntions;or a B-2.If you can't even get the number of losses right for Kosovo, don't bother trying your hand at other conflicts in which the United States wasn't even involved (aside from providing some advanced weapons). There were 8 air losses in that entire conflict, plus another 3 damaged. The majority of those (including all 3 damaged) were Su-25s which are tasked with low-altitude ground attack. IIRC, 6 A-10s were lost in Gulf War I, with much more overwhelming air superiority. The Georgian aircraft were actually more advanced with their western avionics packages than the 1980s-era scraps the Russian forces of the Caucasus region had to make do with.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why can't you use infrared instead of radar to detect incoming aircraft? All the fancy radar-absorbent material and deflective surfaces in the world won't help a damn if the engine exhaust has the aircraft lit up like a christmas tree... It also has the benefit of being a passive form of detection, unlike radar's "I'm right here, shoot me, shoot me!" active scanning.

[Dr Mindbender]

the Mig 25 foxbat belongs there too- the world's fastest ever armed aircraft.

Essentially it was an SR 71 hunter - armed with anti satellite missiles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izIClWYKK1o

[Salyut]

In short, unless there's some pretty damn amazing 'improved detection techniques' that doesn't use radar

Oh they exist - they just tend to be limited by the horizon. The Soviets had a model of the SA-11 that was wire guided of all things. :lol:

Also look up the Sprint missile for ubermissile porn. Mach 10 right out of the silo!

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

khad,

Fuck I had a response done before the computer crashed.

What I had taken a hella long time to say was that

1. The AGM-154 missile has knocked out dozens of SAM batteries that dared to turn on their radar tracking. Yes, SAMs can be moved but unless you're talking about a Stinger they aren't launch and leave weapons, generally, and the radar needs to be operating until the missile picks up the aircraft, by which time the plane is pretty much doomed anyway. Aside from the lone A-10 shot down in Iraq war II the US was very effective at keeping the Iraqi's away from fixed wing aircraft.

2. Obviously I was joking about the dozen jets lost a day. True, the Georgians had a newer SAM weapons system than what the US encountered in Iraq. However, Russia sent their jets into Georgia without any long-range air-to-surface missiles, advanced computers for calculating ground coordinates, and in the case of the Su-25s, radar sights. To say that demonstration by the Georgians shows that newer SAM technology is superior is like saying the US demonstration in Iraq shows how superior their Air Power is.

Anyway, more later. I'm hating my computer at the moment.

By the way, just trying to have a light conversation. Don't take me as a dick or anything.

[JimmyJazz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HByXYxYN7H4

http://songun-blog.blogspot.com/search?q=airplanes

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Why can't you use infrared instead of radar to detect incoming aircraft? All the fancy radar-absorbent material and deflective surfaces in the world won't help a damn if the engine exhaust has the aircraft lit up like a christmas tree... It also has the benefit of being a passive form of detection, unlike radar's "I'm right here, shoot me, shoot me!" active scanning.

You can, and it's been done.

The stinger missile is the most famous example, being shoulder-fired and gaining noteriety in the Soviets Afghan war, shooting down many Soviet helicopters (which the Soviets did utilize very well), until the Soviets got wise to it and developed counter-measures.

The most common way is simply using flares. Heat-seeking missile comes looking for a target so launch something hotter to draw it away.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The most common way is simply using flares. Heat-seeking missile comes looking for a target so launch something hotter to draw it away.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of a ground-based forward looking infrared (FLIR) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLIR) platform firing AA missiles guided by a laser that tracks and paints the target, so stuff like flares and chaff are ignored by the missile which homes in on the reflected laser light or rides the beam to the true target as detected by FLIR.

[Dr Mindbender]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nKuoNhihh4&feature=related

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You want cool planes? I got some right here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/YAL-1A_Airborne_Laser_unstowed.jpg/750px-YAL-1A_Airborne_Laser_unstowed.jpg

First up is the Boeing YAL-1 airborne laser. That's right, it's a plane armed with a friggin' laser beam. Designed to mission-kill Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBMs), if a test of this system this coming autumn is satisfactory, it could be coming into service by 2013. Whether any of the pilots will be called "Buck Rogers" remains to be seen.

http://www.airmodel.jp/collection/img/gain_su47_09.jpg

Here we have the Sukhoi Su-47 "Berkut". While only a technology demonstrator, the distinctive design shows a lot of promise. The forward-swept wings and contrasting colour scheme also give it a certain futuristic cachet.

http://www.aiaa.org/tc/vstol/31.jpg

Finally for this post we have the Dornier Do 31, the last word in retro-style overengineering. How do you get a fixed-wing transport aircraft to hover? Why, you slap eight downward-pointing jet engines on it, of course! Never let it be said that the Cold War induced a shortage of perverse ingenuity.

[Dr Mindbender]

How do you get a fixed-wing transport aircraft to hover?.

Did someone say hover?

http://www.tim-beach.com/shore01/harrier2.jpg

[pastradamus]

The Sukhoi PAK FA - Russia's answer to the F-22 Raptor.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/SU_PAKFA_pic_6.jpg/800px-SU_PAKFA_pic_6.jpg

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

That thing looks badass. Now if only the Russians can give them some radar sights and guided missiles before the Georgians shoot them all down...

And Ulster, check out the F-35 clip I had. Britain's going to replace all those Harriers, you'll see why ;)


First up is the Boeing YAL-1 airborne laser. That's right, it's a plane armed with a friggin' laser beam. Designed to mission-kill Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBMs), if a test of this system this coming autumn is satisfactory, it could be coming into service by 2013. Whether any of the pilots will be called "Buck Rogers" remains to be seen.

I thought they would just be re-directing lasers. How the fuck they gonna create that much energy on a jet :confused:

By the way, of topic, the US Navy is also looking at bringing back Nuclear Powered cruisers to deploy the larger, currently land-based lasers out at sea. By that time, it'll probably have a rail gun on it too.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I thought they would just be re-directing lasers. How the fuck they gonna create that much energy on a jet :confused:

The laser doesn't burn through or outright disintegrate the target. It heats the skin of the target missile, causing failure from flight stress. It's like heating up the tyres of a passing car, enough so they burst and put the vehicle out of action, instead of instantly vapourising it.

Given the size of the jet, I don't see how it's impossible to get a sufficient energy density to do the job. It's not like ballistic missiles have much in the way of armour.

[Psy]

The laser doesn't burn through or outright disintegrate the target. It heats the skin of the target missile, causing failure from flight stress. It's like heating up the tyres of a passing car, enough so they burst and put the vehicle out of action, instead of instantly vapourising it.

Given the size of the jet, I don't see how it's impossible to get a sufficient energy density to do the job. It's not like ballistic missiles have much in the way of armour.
The problem is the body of a aircraft acts like a huge heat sink, they are designed to spread the heat from air friction. Meaning if you fire a laser a aircraft their body would dissipate the heat across the entire body as aircraft bodies are engineered to transfer thermal energy, also at very high altitudes the air surrounding the aircraft is sub-zero and too thin to create much heat from friction against the body of the aircraft (meaning a laser would have to counter the fact that bombers would be much colder then equipment meaning the laser on the ground would probably over heat long before a bomber at high altitudes.

[Dr Mindbender]

And Ulster, check out the F-35 clip I had. Britain's going to replace all those Harriers, you'll see why ;)


My understanding was as a naval fighter only the Royal navy would be replacing the Sea Harrier with the F-35. I'm pretty sure the RAF is keeping their harrier squadrons.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem is the body of a aircraft acts like a huge heat sink, they are designed to spread the heat from air friction.

Firstly, the YAL-1 is designed to destroy tactical ballistic missiles in the boost phase, not aircraft in flight. TBMs are smaller than aircraft and thus have correspondingly less heat capacity.

Secondly, it destroys the missile by weakening the skin enough for the mechanical stress of the boost phase to break it up, destroying the missile. It doesn't have to heat up the whole missile (which is already pretty hot due to engine operation and air friction), just a small patch of it.


Meaning if you fire a laser a aircraft their body would dissipate the heat across the entire body as aircraft bodies are engineered to transfer thermal energy, also at very high altitudes the air surrounding the aircraft is sub-zero and too thin to create much heat from friction against the body of the aircraft (meaning a laser would have to counter the fact that bombers would be much colder then equipment meaning the laser on the ground would probably over heat long before a bomber at high altitudes.Ground-based laser? Are you sure you're not thinking of something else, like the THEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THEL)? Because the YAL-1 isn't ground-based.

[Salyut]

Lasers aren't really awesome until you get into the ten megawatt plus range. Then they become crazy awesome. :D

Now for more crazy engineering:


Third, China's ASBM MaRV is not a first-ever “wonder weapon” but rather reflects Chinese persistence in occupying a MaRV weapon 'space' that was vacated by the US after we pioneered it 45 years ago. The US has not run a hypersonic maneuvering flight-test program (other than the recent X-43) since the SWERVE (Sandia Winged Energetic Reentry-Vehicle Experiment) project by DoE's Sandia National Laboratory about 20 years ago.

But an even more audacious program was two Air Force MaRV programs over 1961-1964 that saw Mach 10+ vehicles doing sharp turns while approaching their targets. During this period, the US designed MaRVs that came in at such low altitudes (500-1,000 feet) on their final (one minute) low-altitude run-in to their target that they would have needed terrain-avoidance radar to keep them from hitting elevated terrain while approaching their targets. The US pioneered hypersonic control flaps, nosetips and homing sensors for such MaRVs. However, none ever made it into service despite impressive, rapidly paced flight tests