Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Re: Aircraft Carriers

Jeff Head said:

Her's what the A-12, the Avenger II, from the late 80s and early to mid 90s was going to look like before it was canceled.

Click to expand...

Mac has forgotten that airplanes are sposed to be purty.

---------- Post added at 10:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 PM ----------

TerraN_EmpirE said:

to get around the lack of a vertical tail the air craft would have too use some advanced thrust vectoring. presumably Boeing would also be aiming a variant of this concept the Air forces way...

You know every time I see a pic of that A12 I cant help but cringe at how close she looks too the old Horten H.IX

Click to expand...

That bird makes me cringe alright, somebody beat it with an ugly stick, IMHO.

Re: Aircraft Carriers

Air Force Brat said:

Mac has forgotten that airplanes are sposed to be purty.

---------- Post added at 10:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 PM ----------



That bird makes me cringe alright, somebody beat it with an ugly stick, IMHO.

Click to expand...

Looks more like an alien UFO version of a stealth plane to me.

Re: Aircraft Carriers

Equation said:

Looks more like an alien UFO version of a stealth plane to me.

Click to expand...

\

Right off the cover of the fall 1957 popular mechanics magazine. What wrong with those guys? And quite frankly any fighter aircraft without tailfeathers is dead meat, IMOH.
My wifey tells me I'm livin in the past, but not that far back~

Re: Aircraft Carriers

Air Force Brat said:

\

Right off the cover of the fall 1957 popular mechanics magazine. What wrong with those guys? And quite frankly any fighter aircraft without tailfeathers is dead meat, IMOH.
My wifey tells me I'm livin in the past, but not that far back~

Click to expand...

The A-12 was an all-weather, low observable (radar) attack aircraft. They were going to replace the A-6 and would have been very good at what they did. I have a brother who worked the program.

Would have carried a great load of precision munitions...much more than the Hornet can carry.

Wish we had that kind of carry weight on the carriers again...along with the loiter and ordinance capability for ASW of the S-3s, and the reach and extra AIM-54 range of a true Tomcat replacement.

Re: Aircraft Carriers

Well if you want a stealthy low altitude long range carrierborne strike aircraft, I personally would put the Buccaneer back into production! Fit new avionics and upgraded engiines and there you have it, the return of the plane that the USAF couldn't get a target lock on at Red Flag in the 70s because it flew SO low, gaining the nickname of the Underground Air Force! When they did flypasts of their carriers Buccaneers usually did so from below the level of the flight deck! Many have described it as more of a ground effect aircraft, because it was so comfortable at ultra low level (50ft at 500knots) and was the first aircraft designed to penetrate enemy radar by flying under the lobes. When the Tornado was being developed, the complete Tornado GR1 avionics set was installed on a trials Bucc and afterwards the general conclusion was we would be better off building new buccs with this kit that bothering with the Tornado (which had shorter range for starters...). The US did pay a sizable chunk of the development costs on the Bucc in the late fifties, so it's high time they got their money back!

Re: Aircraft Carriers

Obi Wan Russell said:

Well if you want a stealthy low altitude long range carrierborne strike aircraft, I personally would put the Buccaneer back into production! Fit new avionics and upgraded engiines and there you have it, the return of the plane that the USAF couldn't get a target lock on at Red Flag in the 70s because it flew SO low, gaining the nickname of the Underground Air Force! When they did flypasts of their carriers Buccaneers usually did so from below the level of the flight deck! Many have described it as more of a ground effect aircraft, because it was so comfortable at ultra low level (50ft at 500knots) and was the first aircraft designed to penetrate enemy radar by flying under the lobes. When the Tornado was being developed, the complete Tornado GR1 avionics set was installed on a trials Bucc and afterwards the general conclusion was we would be better off building new buccs with this kit that bothering with the Tornado (which had shorter range for starters...). The US did pay a sizable chunk of the development costs on the Bucc in the late fifties, so it's high time they got their money back!

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the design and looks of the Tornado is better than the Buccaneer in IMO.

Re: Aircraft Carriers

You need glasses more than I do! The Bucc is beautiful and curvaceaous, a naval thouroughbread. The Tornado is a EURO compromise, all boxy and blunt! The Bucc cut through the air molecules like a samurai sword' the Tornado bullies them out of the way! (pilots words, not mine!)

Re: Aircraft Carriers

Obi Wan, the pic below looks like it's been retouched ie photoshopped. And that appears to be on the USS Lexington (CV 16). Problem is some of the bow is missing!..the bridle catchers..

Re: Aircraft Carriers

Obi Wan Russell said:

Well if you want a stealthy low altitude long range carrierborne strike aircraft, I personally would put the Buccaneer back into production! Fit new avionics and upgraded engiines and there you have it, the return of the plane that the USAF couldn't get a target lock on at Red Flag in the 70s because it flew SO low, gaining the nickname of the Underground Air Force! When they did flypasts of their carriers Buccaneers usually did so from below the level of the flight deck! Many have described it as more of a ground effect aircraft, because it was so comfortable at ultra low level (50ft at 500knots) and was the first aircraft designed to penetrate enemy radar by flying under the lobes. When the Tornado was being developed, the complete Tornado GR1 avionics set was installed on a trials Bucc and afterwards the general conclusion was we would be better off building new buccs with this kit that bothering with the Tornado (which had shorter range for starters...). The US did pay a sizable chunk of the development costs on the Bucc in the late fifties, so it's high time they got their money back!

Click to expand...

Ironic given that the Buccaneer was supposed to be the RN's last carrier-borne bomber, and that the RAF itself never wanted it, but got stuck with it anyway. Turned out to be the best jet strike aircraft either the RN or the RAF has (or will) ever have flown.

Re: Aircraft Carriers

Jeff Head said:

The A-12 was an all-weather, low observable (radar) attack aircraft. They were going to replace the A-6 and would have been very good at what they did. I have a brother who worked the program.

Would have carried a great load of precision munitions...much more than the Hornet can carry.

Wish we had that kind of carry weight on the carriers again...along with the loiter and ordinance capability for ASW of the S-3s, and the reach and extra AIM-54 range of a true Tomcat replacement.

Click to expand...

I was being my normal obnoxious self, I enjoy the freedom to do that on Sino D, those boys over on Defense talk are more sensitive than long tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs, they love the thunderhogg and hate the raptor. I really don't care for tailess aircraft, the B-2 notwithstanding, as it's a rather glorious thing. I saw one in flight one evening at about 20k just North of STLLambert, wierd, looked like the bat plane, I have seen it at the Scott AFB, Airpower on the Prairie, in a flyby, it is gorgeous, those artists renditions of the Navy proposals are gorgeous, and they would likely make a decent, stealthy striker or missle launcher. I just don't see that being a raptor contender though, the reason the AF stays with a fairly conventional platform is performance, as beautiful as the YF-23 was and is, its just not the supermanueverable platform that raptor is. Love all your ideas guys, and we all have our favorites, I love the hawker sea-fury, I think that five blade contra rotating prop is the dogs bollocks. Kind of like a grumman bearcat with an attitude, but the grumman F7F Tigercat was also gorgeous.

Sorry Jeff, you know i love all the Head family and all their favorite airplane projects, the A12 like Boeings FX-32 kind of retro 50s styleis a little different. The F-14 was rather out of the Navy character as was the Hornet, both good airplanes, and the Hornet is a very manueverable capable airplane in the fighter rule, the SHornet the same!