Concept aircraft

[skybert]

On 5/17/2021 at 10:51 PM, SurelySerious said:

Senior AF leaders imagining a “modern” cockpit


Every GA plane owner with $3k to burn

I agree

[Clark Griswold]

Gripen with F-107 influence

[Clark Griswold]

Single engine F-23 concept

https://www2.tbb.t-com.ne.jp/imaginary-wings/tenji/tenjif25.html

[Hacker]

On 6/6/2021 at 10:53 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Gripen with F-107 influence

Apparently they're not interested in high AOA maneuvering with that thing.

[Muscle2002]

13 minutes ago, Hacker said:

Apparently they're not interested in high AOA maneuvering with that thing.

They were…just high negative AoA. Apparently, they scoff at “no negative g gun jinks.”

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Hacker said:

Apparently they're not interested in high AOA maneuvering with that thing.

Yeah, that is / was my initial impression.  It's a dressed rendering of one of the original early designs that apparently had some advantages but lost out in the design process.  

From the interwebs so caveat emptor:

Maybe the LERXs on this design deflected turbulent but available additional air for the intakes to ingest, slow down and straighten out and send to the engine but that is just my not an aero engineer guess.

Just another guess but I suspect the in-field servicing issues with the high mounted engine might have been a bit costly in quick turn around and dispersed operations costs as that is a central concept with the Gripen so the Swedes took a pass on it. 

[Lawman]

Yeah, that is / was my initial impression.  It's a dressed rendering of one of the original early designs that apparently had some advantages but lost out in the design process.  
From the interwebs so caveat emptor:

Maybe the LERXs on this design deflected turbulent but available additional air for the intakes to ingest, slow down and straighten out and send to the engine but that is just my not an aero engineer guess.
Just another guess but I suspect the in-field servicing issues with the high mounted engine might have been a bit costly in quick turn around and dispersed operations costs as that is a central concept with the Gripen so the Swedes took a pass on it. 

Without some sort of direct support attempt to make specialized catwalk scaffolding or reinforcing the fuselage for structural platforms capable of holding 400-600 lbs top mounting engines like that would be a MX nightmare.

It would make any part or component not single hand carry size a major manipulation to move on/off the jet.

This is definitely one of those cases of engineers and the people that work on what they design not talking to each other, which is no surprise for anything coming out of Europe to anyone who has owned a European car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

23 hours ago, Lawman said:

Without some sort of direct support attempt to make specialized catwalk scaffolding or reinforcing the fuselage for structural platforms capable of holding 400-600 lbs top mounting engines like that would be a MX nightmare.

It would make any part or component not single hand carry size a major manipulation to move on/off the jet.

This is definitely one of those cases of engineers and the people that work on what they design not talking to each other, which is no surprise for anything coming out of Europe to anyone who has owned a European car.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur

Gripen turn around video, bit older but illustrates I think what you're talking about.  MX for effective dispersed basing and expeditionary recovery would need to be contained to what could be hauled / towed in a 5 ton or smaller vehicle, tools and equipment mostly one man carry and only need to be lifted to about 4-5 feet max.  Everything designed to quickly turn and scoot before being targeted while on the ground and static.

 

 

[MechGov]

Concur
Gripen turn around video, bit older but illustrates I think what you're talking about.  MX for effective dispersed basing and expeditionary recovery would need to be contained to what could be hauled / towed in a 5 ton or smaller vehicle, tools and equipment mostly one man carry and only need to be lifted to about 4-5 feet max.  Everything designed to quickly turn and scoot before being targeted while on the ground and static.
 
 

Now that’s ACE

[Clark Griswold]

Concept carrier based PA-48 Enforcer with dual-contra props:

 

[skibum]

On 9/5/2021 at 12:45 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Concept carrier based PA-48 Enforcer with dual-contra props:

 

Looks like someone's late night wet dream from a parallel universe. If only...

[Clark Griswold]

10 hours ago, skibum said:

Looks like someone's late night wet dream from a parallel universe. If only...

Concur - if only...

What a PA-47 in Euro camo might have looked like

And just to close the loop on Mustang what if's, found this guy's jet powered racing Mustang concept:

F-51 Mustang Concpet Airplane on Behance

Need to work on the exhaust layout I think but looks like good vaporware

Edited September 8, 2021 by Clark Griswold

[ATIS]

Come on…go big or go home:

 

 

ATIS

[Lawman]

Come on…go big or go home:

 

 
ATIS

Somebody with an ounce of awareness to current and emerging threats needs to make an updated model of these just to point out how ridiculously vulnerable they would be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

7 hours ago, ATIS said:

Come on…go big or go home:

 

 

ATIS

Yup, that one has made the rounds but is worth an encore

I like it but a two seater model / single seater with GIB spot with an extra fuel tank would have been better IMHO but still great

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Somebody with an ounce of awareness to current and emerging threats needs to make an updated model of these just to point out how ridiculously vulnerable they would be.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, but what is the requirement now post Iraq / Afghanistan for a LAAR? 

To be able to survive only the low threat environment or given the change in the operational environment / growth in grey zone conflict does it need to be able to survive / defend & retrograde against say SA-22 and greater threats?

Just my two cents, it's 4th gen capes without the 4th gen logistical footprint or operational support (AR) needs for missions requiring target development / post strike loiter.

If so, a light fighter optimized for attack / observation with as low as an RCS as can be made / sustained given the fiscally modest requirements this platform would have is the answer.

High bypass non-afterburning turbo fan, decent radar but not top o' the line, open mission systems, primarily designed for internal weapons carriage, organic EW system, etc...

The Northrop MRF-54E, the inspiration for the Russian Checkmate methinks, might be a good starting point:

 

[Lawman]

Yeah, but what is the requirement now post Iraq / Afghanistan for a LAAR? 
To be able to survive only the low threat environment or given the change in the operational environment / growth in grey zone conflict does it need to be able to survive / defend & retrograde against say SA-22 and greater threats?
Just my two cents, it's 4th gen capes without the 4th gen logistical footprint or operational support (AR) needs for missions requiring target development / post strike loiter.
If so, a light fighter optimized for attack / observation with as low as an RCS as can be made / sustained given the fiscally modest requirements this platform would have is the answer.
High bypass non-afterburning turbo fan, decent radar but not top o' the line, open mission systems, primarily designed for internal weapons carriage, organic EW system, etc...
The Northrop MRF-54E, the inspiration for the Russian Checkmate methinks, might be a good starting point:


 

There is no guarantee we can ever call something a “low threat environment.” That’s the problem with the mindset of some sort of nostalgia/sexy in regards to providing some kind of persistent ISR and Fires capes in the unimproved theatre fight, especially when that nostalgia is single engine.

It’s like we completely ignore the repeated lessons of history and the inevitable march of ever cheapening and miniaturizing technology. 50 years ago when the first truly portable Gen I MANPADS SA-7 showed up on a battlefield it effectively ended the reign of the held over WWII/Korea designs like Skyraider. Even with as technologically limited as that system was it would eat the envelope they lived in. We didn’t start making weapons like Hellfire and Maverick because we weren’t effectively killing the bad guys with iron bombs and gun pods, we did it because they started knocking us down at alarming rates with things like Gen I IR SAMs and radar directed AAA. So much has been written about the telephone pole vs strike jet/bomber fight and yet we forget a whole lot of the last 2 years of Vietnam in the low slow ugly aircraft fight we ignore a lot of painfully learned lessons.

We live in a world where systems with Verba capes or AHEAD capable systems are very real briefed in country threats. Anybody that remembers early ops a few years ago in Syria remembers how a half dozen systems had everybody in theatre going through all sorts of hoops. That problem only gets worse every day going forward as they proliferate. So to all these companies with 80s era fighter pilot retirees selling us something, yeah show me the crazy/sexy P-51 concept… just do it with 6-9000 lbs of bolt on federated/integrated threat protections like some form of IRCM and a buttload of expendables/jammers because that’s the world it lives in today.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[skibum]

[skybert]

3 hours ago, skibum said:

Carrier based?

[Clark Griswold]

On 9/8/2021 at 7:13 PM, Lawman said:

There is no gurrantee we can ever call something a “low threat environment.” That’s the problem with the mindset of some sort of nostalgia/sexy in regards to providing some kind of persistent ISR and Fires capes in the unimproved theatre fight, especially when that nostalgia is single engine.

It’s like we completely ignore the repeated lessons of history and the inevitable march of ever cheapening and miniaturizing technology. 50 years ago when the first truly portable Gen I MANPADS SA-7 showed up on a battlefield it effectively ended the reign of the held over WWII/Korea designs like Skyraider. Even with as technologically limited as that system was it would eat the envelope they lived in. We didn’t start making weapons like Hellfire and Maverick because we weren’t effectively killing the bad guys with iron bombs and gun pods, we did it because they started knocking us down at alarming rates with things like Gen I IR SAMs and radar directed AAA. So much has been written about the telephone pole vs strike jet/bomber fight and yet we forget a whole lot of the last 2 years of Vietnam in the low slow ugly aircraft fight we ignore a lot of painfully learned lessons.

We live in a world where systems with Verba capes or AHEAD capable systems are very real briefed in country threats. Anybody that remembers early ops a few years ago in Syria remembers how a half dozen systems had everybody in theatre going through all sorts of hoops. That problem only gets worse every day going forward as they proliferate. So to all these companies with 80s era fighter pilot retirees selling us something, yeah show me the crazy/sexy P-51 concept… just do it with 6-9000 lbs of bolt on federated/integrated threat protections like some form of IRCM and a buttload of expendables/jammers because that’s the world it lives in today.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

True the threats only grow but can you have survivability & relevance with affordability?  If you make it slower with better legs can you save enough overall to give it enough defensive capes to engage a defended target or moderate threat environment?

Rhetorical questions but I think possibly, just need to keep it focused on what it is supposed to do and not let it grow in mission(s).  Anyway, if we're bullshitting about remaking old airplanes into modern platforms then for light attack / observation I want the F-84F to get reborn with a new motor and systems:

Love the funky 50's jets.  

5 hours ago, skibum said:

[Clark Griswold]

Stealth A-10s

Not sure FSW and LO mix but keeps the original outline.

And on the Attack Aircraft theme another render of the Quiet Attack Aircraft concept from the early 70s

 

[hockeydork]

8 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Stealth A-10s

Not sure FSW and LO mix but keeps the original outline.

And on the Attack Aircraft theme another render of the Quiet Attack Aircraft concept from the early 70s

 

F*ck me, that looks so gnarly.

[Lawman]

Stealth A-10s


Not sure FSW and LO mix but keeps the original outline.
And on the Attack Aircraft theme another render of the Quiet Attack Aircraft concept from the early 70s

 

If you gets up in the 90s playing video games, you almost certainly had to fight that in one of the Ace Combat games…


It’s like all the futuristic airplane covers from Popular mechanics had a baby.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

5 hours ago, hockeydork said:

F*ck me, that looks so gnarly.

True

4 hours ago, Lawman said:

If you gets up in the 90s playing video games, you almost certainly had to fight that in one of the Ace Combat games…

It’s like all the futuristic airplane covers from Popular mechanics had a baby.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

True again.

FSW vaporware just doesn't look right, give the first design a straight or slightly swept wing and it might look feasible.  The engine pods should be moved further in, almost mounted on top of the fuselage, blended in.  Keep the screens I suppose like the 117 had.

[Clark Griswold]

The only logical choice for Boeing to develop:

 

[Clark Griswold]

Small stealth-ish in UKR colors