Clark Griswold

Saw these from a FB page: Vought MiG. I think this was a real proposal but went nowhere back in the 80s. From what I found, it was to update and outfit as aggressors for the Navy 21’s and maybe 23’s One more: Czech A-159B Sokol attack design from the late 60s Google translation but the backstory: At the end of the 1960s, the Aero Vodochody company started a team around the designer Ing. Jan Vlček to work on two projects of light fighters. One of them was the L-159 (also A-159B) Sokol project. He set himself the goal of producing a supersonic fighter plane that could represent a replacement for the Su-7b fighter jet. Work on it apparently began in 1967. The machine was to be powered by two engines with a thrust of 19.6 kN, located in nacelles on the sides of the rear fuselage. The arrow wing was supposed to have teardrop-shaped additional tanks at the ends. High-wing, mid-wing and low-wing layouts were considered. Priority was given to the last option. An interesting feature was the design of the main landing gear, which was supposed to have two wheels arranged in tandem on each leg, which was supposed to facilitate the required operations from unpaved surfaces. The armament was to be carried on one under-fuselage and six under-wing racks. The machine was supposed to reach a maximum speed of approx. 1500 km/h (Mach 1.4) and its reach was to be around 15,000 m. A model L-159 (A-159B) was built for tests in the VZLÚ wind tunnel, but the project was stopped in early 1970. Only the presented model, which has a length of 605 mm, a width of 335 mm and a height of 175 mm, has been preserved to this day. The model was acquired for the collection of VHÚ Prague by purchase from a private person in 2022.

Inefficient is not not necessarily ineffective though Referring to last and biggest joint venture ever, the F-35, there are problems however one can argue it’s effective Could it be better or also have been executed better of course Not to derail on a chat about the F-35 Why did countries (Russia and at one time the USA) develop interceptors? They had a vast operational area to cover, Russia their northern approaches from our bombers over the pole and vice versa, sounds a lot like the Indo-Pacific region. The speed and range either destroyed the launching platform or gave them a shot at the stand off weapons they launched. The same is true today with the benefit of longer operational ranges giving the bases used by them a little more stand back range also. Wiki says Typhoon has a 750 NM range with 10 min on station in an air defense mission, a clean sheet design would be nice but I see no reason why the Typhoon could not be adapted for this. No weapons bays but you can’t get everything you want. Still in production, stretch add conformal tanks, focus on range, CCA control and add conformal capability to hold 3 AIM-174s. 0.01 % chance. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guilty as charged I’ll agree I’m a fan / zealot for new or retro mod iron but in this case of Indo-Pacific contingencies what we have now just has an Achilles heel that could best be addressed IMHO with a new platform(s) That could be the fighting platform(s), support platform(s) or both Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I post in good faith no troll or shit posting Is it the joint or the interceptor part or both of this tangent you find a problem with? Interceptors of late have found some success and one of our competitors (China) clearly thinks they’ll be of value with their J-20. That’s an interceptor all but in name. The Russians have scored a few kills (unfortunately) with the MiG 31 and the R-37 with BVR shots. I’m not saying build a large platform with no EM Theory influence or to make this a substitute for a Raptor 2.0 / NGAD but look into it at least. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your skepticism is not unwarranted but light a candle. We could learn from the past debacles and keep it fairly straight forward for the joint basic part of the aircraft with X percent up to each nation to customize as they want. Airframe, engines and flight systems all standard. Sensors, weapons and mission gear build what you want. Open architecture with capacity to accommodate different requirements. Delta wing for fuel, speed and high altitude performance. Twin engine for payload. Twin weapons bays for range and endurance. Interceptor and stand-off strike / patrol platform.

Let them know that if you run to Massachusetts that’s where we look last, I bet it’ll take two months for that policy to change Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was good Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From a friend at Spirit 7 bullets in all penetrated that they have found. Two made it into the flight deck; one behind the captain and one that almost breached near the FO's ankle. One hit an engine. One went into the computer that regulates fuel. The FA B got hit with fiberglass from the door and slide panel. Holy shit Batman Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.foxnews.com/us/spirit-airlines-flight-from-florida-hit-gunfire-while-trying-land-haiti Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. If a Viper can have one a tanker could probably have at least 2 Link together and bring back combat box formations to jam and laze together for threats that get thru the HVAA drone defenders New interceptors with adaptive cycle engines would do nicely, IMHO this new hypothetical interceptor would not need to get to Mach 3.69 but would be built to supercruise better than anything else and dash as required (accelerate and hold Mach 2.0 for 5 minutes say to cover 100 NM, shoot or evade) Still, a new type is likely financially prohibitive right now with the programs already in motion but if you could get partners and share equally the design and manufacturing with the other likely interested nations (Japan, Aussies, maybe Canada and other Arctic allies for anticipated problems with Russia/China there) for a very long range fighter interceptor you might get a program that could be shoehorned in

Concur with this too It’s been a while since I passed gas to another jet but doing it in an LO platform and doing it EMCON smart seems challenging, not impossible but it sounds like trying to extend a concept beyond it’s logical conclusion A small LO platform (unmanned) that comes with the right amount of fuel to the right receiver at the right time dynamically sounds better vs a manned large LO platform refueling in the WEZ A 46 or other manned platform in AR is still relevant and necessary but as we are resource constrained, a manned LO tanker is likely a bridge too far Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As to a stealth tanker, concur. If money grew on trees then maybe… You may be right but I would argue that whatever level of survivability or capability is offered by 6 gen, even if it’s unmanned it’s probably unaffordable unless you let that crowd out other missions We will just accept risk and some attrition as will the opposing side(s). To be effective as a family of systems (NGAD) it’ll have to be the right mix of manned / unmanned / autonomous, low observable / reduced signature / dgaf about signature

Probably but IDK either As crazy as it sounds not restarting but developing a Raptor 2.0 is probably better / feasible vs developing a new type gen 6.9 while simultaneously acquiring other new platforms, my historical reference would be the Hornet to Super Hornet. Not a perfect evolution of a platform but pretty good and it got done… a Raptor 2 with mo’ gas, range, bigger weapons bays, etc… would be expensive, likely $200 mil a tail, but possible methinks. Gen 6 fighter with our acquisition process seems like a pathway to hell while shoving money into a nuclear furnace https://www.twz.com/11728/study-on-restarting-f-22-production-has-finally-arrived-heres-the-verdict $44 billion quoted in the article but that’s just for 194, go all out get above the original min 380 something, around 600+ but with a plan to use this as a replacement for F-15Cs, Strike Eagles, some percentage of the oldest F-16s, the A-10 (would replace at some ratio not 1:1 with 35s focused on attack mission set, do not try to do A-X) and maybe keep the F-15EX buy modest The strategy of this COA is to get to fewer high end types but ultimately more of them by trying to get economy of scale in a Gen 5 and Gen 5+ An AD CAF composed of F-22As and F-22Cs, F-35s, F-15EXs and CCAs. Other platforms in the AD CAF but that’s the offensive line… The ARC would get hand me downs from this process (Strike Eagles) and would take over the majority of the Viper enterprise, maybe getting into light fighters but with as many Vipers that might come available they might not need too And others… RIP T-1, E-8, E-3, KC-10, RQ-4… soon to be following the B-1 and A-10s

So the AF has gotta make some choices probably… https://www.twz.com/air/crisis-brewing-over-air-forces-future-air-dominance-plans-which-it-cannot-afford Retire the Raptor to try to get NGAD? Not mentioned in the article but as Willie Sutton said “that’s where the money is” Or pick another system that has several billion dollars of money to reprogram but it’s gonna have to have some juice to be worth the squeeze We’re now seeing what has been warned of for years, a wave of new iron requirements coming due all at once and the door that is the budget not being wide enough to let them all thru at once, so something has to give What do we give up / redirect funds assuming no budgetary grow above the inflation rate?

Yup Who’d a thunk a design to incorporate into one of its variants a giant lifting fan dead center of a medium weight fighter would be a problem? Obviously the Chinese did All that said I’d still rather be in our 35 vs theirs when the ballon goes up, not that it won’t be a threat but with all the party tricks ours has it will fare better methinks What will make their 35 particularly concerning I think will be its price, their propensity to sell it aggressively to their clients and allies and therefore how ubiquitous it might be. Probably more of a threat to our allies than us (thinking Iran vs KSA, Pakistan vs India, NK vs SK)