Concept aircraft

[Breckey]

Honestly what you guys need to be investing in is quality boots, socks, and underwear.

So 1980s Fulda Gap Part II. The lack of realistic chance of success for PR in a Western Europe scenario was what kneecapped Rescue until nearly 2000. Even in ALLIED FORCE they sent AFSOC rather than the CAF units because the defensive system consisted of an ALQ and a chaff bucket.

[Lawman]

So 1980s Fulda Gap Part II. The lack of realistic chance of success for PR in a Western Europe scenario was what kneecapped Rescue until nearly 2000. Even in ALLIED FORCE they sent AFSOC rather than the CAF units because the defensive system consisted of an ALQ and a chaff bucket.

Whether it’s the treat environment or the tyranny of distance or some combination of the two (look at early Syria for example), the idea that getting home after riding the silk is just a quick helicopter ride is insane. The limiting factor isn’t going to be whether we send a helicopter/tilt rotor and how current it’s SIRFC is, or whether it’s got 4th or 5th Gen support to get it in. The limiting factor is gonna be based whether or not you can keep the isolated evader alive and hidden while you crack the egg on where and how to get them. The best way you keep Joe Oklahoma fighter pilot alive 8 minutes (or 8 days) after his feet touch the ground in a country where he doesn’t look or sound like the locals is getting him somewhere to hide and sending some friendly locals to stash him somewhere to buy time.

Threat/distance/both will result in more time that evader needs to remain an evader to facilitate a successful recovery. At the same time with high threat, we are going to see a lot more possibility for evaders become active in theatre. Now you’ve got your JPRC playing triage of what is worth sending limited assets after in an environment where some are just flat out of reach.

Everybody likes talking about successful recoveries like Vega because the stories are sexy, but look at for example Desert Storm where a lot of guys were for lack of a better word “abandoned to their training” because fact of the matter was the air recovery option was neither actionable nor would it be smart/effective.

So I put to the room, would you rather the military spending bazillions of dollars on stuff that might stand a more survivable chance of coming for you, or do you think it’s more useful to cultivate those clandestine options and give you equipment to make you a better evader. There is a reason during evasion scenarios and SERE training you don’t get “rescued” out of the hide site by some Pavehawk or Chinook doing a training flight to support the school houses. Read the theatre spins, know your EPA, get good socks and a quality boots and train in them. That’s gonna mean a hell of a lot more than whether or not the supporting CSAR elements are running with 60Gs or the new Whisky hotness. And it would be nice since this is technically stuff I need to do my job, if the shoe clerks and bean counters that figure out what uniform items to provide actually thought about that requirement instead of crap like whether your boots are the right color of green/tan, 1 piece vs 2 piece, fire resistance at 780 vs 450 degrees. Taking me back to my original point, let’s invest in some quality skivvies, uniforms, and boots you could hike around in the hills with whatever guys needing you to not be a burden on them trying to keep you alive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Enough politics and bullshit for the day, it's time to talk about planes the USAF will never get or will likely ever get built...

Continuing the discussion on STOL or VTOL in this case and potential for a CSAR fixed wing platform capable of operation in contested airspace:

https://newatlas.com/aircraft/samad-aerospace-q-starling-vtol-jet/

Reminds me of the Ryan Vertilift 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9903/ryan-aeronautical-had-big-plans-for-the-vertifan-jump-jet

 

Hypothetical profile for a CSAR mission in contested battlespace:

Fly nap of the Earth at 100' AGL or lower at 300 KIAS with a dash up to 450 KIAS when the survivor is located and pickup coordinated.  On mission the platform flies with unmanned wingmen as decoys/jammers and/or suicidal sentries against threats.

As Lawman said, they're will be a lot of customers probably too many but some can/should be picked up or just a bridge too far in the world of SA-22s and 400s?

Edited January 7, 2021 by Clark Griswold

[jazzdude]

What if the CSAR platform was unmanned?

https://www.flightglobal.com/military-uavs/cormorant-uav-aces-medical-evacuation-trial/128285.article

Have a similar drone to the one in the link navigate to the CSEL position, and have the isolated person crawl into the back and hit the "go home" button. Added bonus for not putting additional personnel into harm's way, though that ride home could get exciting for someone who's already had a bad day.

[Clark Griswold]

21 hours ago, jazzdude said:

What if the CSAR platform was unmanned?

https://www.flightglobal.com/military-uavs/cormorant-uav-aces-medical-evacuation-trial/128285.article

Have a similar drone to the one in the link navigate to the CSEL position, and have the isolated person crawl into the back and hit the "go home" button. Added bonus for not putting additional personnel into harm's way, though that ride home could get exciting for someone who's already had a bad day.

Yup, that's a viable COA.

I'm a fan of platforms that can be manned or unmanned, if the risk is too great send it unmanned and hope for the best for the survivor.  Unmanned could be autonomous or directed by an MCE if the electromagnetic environment allows.

[norskman]

21 hours ago, jazzdude said:

What if the CSAR platform was unmanned?

https://www.flightglobal.com/military-uavs/cormorant-uav-aces-medical-evacuation-trial/128285.article

Have a similar drone to the one in the link navigate to the CSEL position, and have the isolated person crawl into the back and hit the "go home" button. Added bonus for not putting additional personnel into harm's way, though that ride home could get exciting for someone who's already had a bad day.

shack....sadly

-Helicopter Pilot

[uhhello]

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/09/15/the-us-air-force-has-built-and-flown-a-mysterious-full-scale-prototype-of-its-future-fighter-jet/

[Clark Griswold]

6 gen concept art, flat and no tails:

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/rAlodO

Not sure if this would be 6th gen but an LO UCAV needs to be here:

And just because, an updated Attack platform, still built around the gun:

[VMFA187]

On 1/23/2021 at 7:01 AM, Clark Griswold said:

6 gen concept art, flat and no tails:

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/rAlodO

 

 

I like this one and feel there would be a large advantage to having the intakes on the top of the fuselage especially when countering advanced SAMs.

Now how do we get the S/A munitions to release from the top to minimize door swing exposures to SAMs...

[Lawman]

I like this one and feel there would be a large advantage to having the intakes on the top of the fuselage especially when countering advanced SAMs.
Now how do we get the S/A munitions to release from the top to minimize door swing exposures to SAMs...

Boosting/launch charges under the similar principle to launching from VLS or compartments on ships.

I have no doubt if you dictate the flight profile with reasonable freedom of maneuver vs limits to weight/space of such a device you could find a way to lob a Paveway or similar away and clear of the aircraft vertically.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

6 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

I like this one and feel there would be a large advantage to having the intakes on the top of the fuselage especially when countering advanced SAMs.

Now how do we get the S/A munitions to release from the top to minimize door swing exposures to SAMs...

Maybe a class of munitions that are LO themselves with what RAM can be added to the interior of the weapons bays, that with the fast cycling of the doors (not sure if the 35's doors are as quick as the Raptor's but have heard a Raptor pilot describe it as really fast) could mitigate employment signature spike.

Like @Lawman's point or maybe pooping them out the rear like the A-5 was designed to but with improvements, read it had problems and was discontinued during the A-5's service life, not just due to reassignment to reconnaissance platform.

Employ before the escape turn as you attack a well defended surface target?  LO front aspect attack run, release from the rear port then escape turn...

On the subject of the A-5...

Modernized concept

And a proposed mach 3 super interceptor

    

 

[VMFA187]

15 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Maybe a class of munitions that are LO themselves with what RAM can be added to the interior of the weapons bays, that with the fast cycling of the doors (not sure if the 35's doors are as quick as the Raptor's but have heard a Raptor pilot describe it as really fast) could mitigate employment signature spike.

F-35 doors are not quick. 

21 hours ago, Lawman said:

Boosting/launch charges under the similar principle to launching from VLS or compartments on ships.

I have no doubt if you dictate the flight profile with reasonable freedom of maneuver vs limits to weight/space of such a device you could find a way to lob a Paveway or similar away and clear of the aircraft vertically.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not interested in Paveway weapons - You have to get way to close to support them.

Maybe I'll hop in the sim and test out a high altitude inverted pop attack... 😆

X miles from the target you pull into a 45* climb, roll inverted, target a 2G inverted pull back towards the horizon while simultaneously pickling. Not sure if it'd be enough to pull away from the weapon that you're lofting but it'd hide the doors.

Can't wait to start teaching kids this stuff!

[Clark Griswold]

On 1/28/2021 at 11:02 AM, VMFA187 said:

F-35 doors are not quick. 

Roger that

Switching gears, operational concept of the proposed 50's British fighter/interceptor the Saunders Roe SR53 with jet and rocket power, yeah baby!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders-Roe_SR.53

https://modelingmadness.com/scott/korean/uk/xperimental/p177.htm

 

[Clark Griswold]

Phantom Tuesday

Phantom pregnancies: F-4 variants that never were | Hush-Kit

Dedicated Air to Air version (T model)

YF-4E PACT demonstrator with canards

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/197971/mcdonnell-douglas-yf-4e-phantom-ii/

Single seat concept Phantom with WSO replaced with F-15's avionics

F-4T Phantom II by Bud Sliger (aircraftresourcecenter.com)

And a conformal belly mod for weapons, cm and fuel

The Phantom Phacts: Conformal Weapons Carriage and the F-4

[VMFA187]

I actually like the render of a WSO-less F-4... But then why not just take the F-8 Super Crusader at that point? Of course that is my Navy/Marine Corps background speaking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF8U-3_Crusader_III

The F-4 with canards is interested and reminds me of the F-15 STOL / Active which had baby Hornet tails as canards. Beautiful aircraft. 

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/f-15-active-this-frankenstein-fighter-was-better-than-the-eagle/

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

I actually like the render of a WSO-less F-4... But then why not just take the F-8 Super Crusader at that point? Of course that is my Navy/Marine Corps background speaking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF8U-3_Crusader_III

The F-4 with canards is interested and reminds me of the F-15 STOL / Active which had baby Hornet tails as canards. Beautiful aircraft. 

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/f-15-active-this-frankenstein-fighter-was-better-than-the-eagle/

As to the selection of the Phantom vs the Super Crusader, I think the twin engines and twin crew of the Phantom plus its multi role capability sold it over the Super for the Navy.  Also, I don't think the Crusader had too many fans for bringing it aboard the boat.  Seems like the pilots loved it in BFM and its speed but it was a particularly challenging plane to land on the boat.

SeaWings documentary on the Crusader:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyY0MRj8TWg

Go to the 13:00 mark and some of the pilots give an honest assessment on carrier ops.  Super Crusader is at the 23:50 mark.

From the wiki on the Super:  However, the solitary pilot in the XF8U-3 was easily overwhelmed with the workload required to fly the intercept and fire Sparrows which required constant radar illumination from the firing aircraft, while the Phantom II had a dedicated radar intercept officer on board …

In addition, with the perception that the age of the guns was over, the Phantom's considerably larger payload and the ability to perform air-to-ground as well as air-to-air missions, trumped Vought's fast but single-purposed fighter..^[1]

With the analog tech of the time, I imagine radar intercepts were as much art as procedure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpgIfQxqIvU

Go to the 12:10 mark for the part on instruction on using the radar for intercepts, old school tech, love it.

It is curious as the USAF was flying 102s and 104s, both single seat interceptors, and I don't remember reading critiques on those planes having an overwhelming cognitive load but as they were designed/planned to intercept a bomber or bomber formation, they may not have required a solo pilot to demonstrate simultaneous engagement of multiple targets.  No idea, but just a WAG.

Thought the same about the PACT F-4 and the STOL/MTD F-15.  Video game render of an operational Agile Eagle:

[brwwg&b]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a35865601/f-36-kingsnake-air-force-next-fighter-jet-concept/

[Clark Griswold]

Love the ideas from Hush Kit, Top Gear for aviation 

The Ultimate What-if: British Aerospace Super Lightning | Hush-Kit

[Clark Griswold]

BUFF with 787 engines

[CharlieHotel47]

BUFF with 787 engines

It could probably fly with just two


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Clark Griswold]

21 hours ago, CharlieHotel47 said:

It could probably fly with just two

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

No doubt at 81k lbs of thrust per motor if the pylons could take that.  With that it would have another 25k lbs of thrust to deliver freedom with no telling how much lower fuel burn.

Avgeek page on re-engine stuff on ye old BUFF:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usaf-materiel-command-history-office-releases-graphics-of-historical-efforts-to-re-engine-the-b-52-strategic-bomber/

[pbar]

19 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

No doubt at 81k lbs of thrust per motor if the pylons could take that.  With that it would have another 25k lbs of thrust to deliver freedom with no telling how much lower fuel burn.

Avgeek page on re-engine stuff on ye old BUFF:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usaf-materiel-command-history-office-releases-graphics-of-historical-efforts-to-re-engine-the-b-52-strategic-bomber/

I asked a TPS grad who was a BUFF EWO about the re-engine thing a long time ago and he said the four engine thing was kinda out because there wasn't enough rudder authority to counter the asymmetric thrust from an engine-out situation, or something along those lines, IIRC.  Let the smarter people chime in...

[Breckey]

I asked a TPS grad who was a BUFF EWO about the re-engine thing a long time ago and he said the four engine thing was kinda out because there wasn't enough rudder authority to counter the asymmetric thrust from an engine-out situation, or something along those lines, IIRC.  Let the smarter people chime in...

Correct, that's why all of the proposals from GE, P&W, and Rolls-Royce are all low bypass turbofans from business/regional jets. It also keeps the ground clearance issues relatively simple.

[Bode]

I asked a TPS grad who was a BUFF EWO about the re-engine thing a long time ago and he said the four engine thing was kinda out because there wasn't enough rudder authority to counter the asymmetric thrust from an engine-out situation, or something along those lines, IIRC.  Let the smarter people chime in...

To my understanding the rudder was changed years ago because it had too much authority and caused a tail to fall off at some point. At least that’s what I remember my CC saying on Friday, I was a few beers in though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Breckey]

The vertical stabilizer was shortened in the G/H BUFFs to decrease structural loads during low-level flight. The tactics change was to increase survivability and drove other modifications like the EVS. 

Quote

To reduce aerodynamic loads on the rear fuselage in low-level flight there was a 91-inch reduction in the height of the vertical stabilizer. This stubbier fin had been tested on the first B-52A. In practice, the short fin combined with spoilers-only lateral control induced a tendency to Dutch-roll and low level handling was more sensitive than on earlier B-52s.

— Davies, Peter E., Tony Thornborough, and Tony Cassanova. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Crowood, 1998.