Would anyone like to talk about Prototypes Aircract that had

File: lockheed_F-16U_wind_tunnel_model.jpg (70KB, 750x250px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 750x250px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Et0IfWHw8

>>31809446
The F-20 lost out to the F-15 because it didn't have enough bells and whistles.

>>31809750
The F-20 never competed against the F-15. In point of fact, it could launch Sparrows, something the F-16 was unable to do at that point in time.

>>31809446
I've always wondered about that ability to take off in a minute. Is there any data for how long other fighters would take to go from zero-to-airborne?

This particularly catches me as I wonder what would happen if someone magically got past radar and did an airbase attack like the one in Ace Combat 5 (where the bombs are dropping as F-5s are just taxiing out of the ramp) and whether that sort of situation (getting off the ground under attack and driving off the attackers) would work in real life.

Guess I'll post a video of the mission just for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn2XVQ0f9pQ (air raid siren starts at 1:26 if you want to skip the cutscene.)

File: 1474509013583.jpg (143KB, 1600x673px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1600x673px

Maybe not amazing potential as anything except the stated role of a patrol plane that fires Phoenixes at bombers. Cute though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1NixSpFA8s

>>31809446
no, it makes me too sad.

File: 1473981350284.jpg (103KB, 800x393px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 800x393px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_YA-7F

File: Mirage 4000.jpg (124KB, 1500x1111px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1500x1111px

A brighter era when companies could develop whole airplanes on their own funds before finding any prospect.

File: JaguarM carrier trials.jpg (149KB, 1113x709px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1113x709px

>it's another "Dassault Ruins Everything" episode

>>31812229
This is usually classified and all depends on what state of rediness the air force of that specific nation is in.

But for example, a Gripen C can land, be refueled, rearmed (including missiles) and be airborne again in under 8 minutes.

All thats needed is a truck and five conscripts.

File: F-5 shockwaves.jpg (242KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1024x576px

>>31813180
Wasn't it, though?

File: naa-f-15-b.jpg (275KB, 1400x1044px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1400x1044px

What the F-15 could have looked like had it gone to Rockwell.

File: naa-fx.gif (45KB, 1555x879px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1555x879px

Do I have to explain how hard my dick is for the Rockwell....................

>>31812229
>I've always wondered about that ability to take off in a minute. Is there any data for how long other fighters would take to go from zero-to-airborne?
Sheeit. I had a book that showed a list of take speeds/ length for every modern fighter. I would have been more than happy to transcribe that.

>>31815421

That looks uncomfortably close to being a Su-27........

File: grum-xf12f.jpg (15KB, 360x209px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 360x209px

>>31816386
It's funny you should say that because the Grumman model looks awfully close to a Mig-25.

>>31809750
Actually the F-20 was rejected by the US force because they were stuck on the idea of needing two engines on their aircraft. And if the US wanted that so did any other nations that bought aircraft from the US.

Which now they're going against that practice with the F-32 Joint Strike Fighter which has a single aft engine.

>>31816492
The MDD model looks awfully close to the MiG-25 already.

File: f-16_his5_l[1].jpg (142KB, 1280x834px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1280x834px

>>31816600

>Actually the F-20 was rejected by the US force because they were stuck on the idea of needing two engines on their aircraft.

nigga wut

>>31816704
F-16 being the exception and only the air force use it. The Navy went with F-14 and then F-18, twin engines. The F-15 was the primary air power aircraft for years and even the F-22 Raptor was an upgraded design of the F-15. They have almost the same profile.

Even the original aircraft the F-20 was built on the F-5 had twin engines. The F-16 was used primarily as an interceptor. Now days they want aircraft that can perform all roles, from interception, air superiority, ground attack. They're forgetting the rule of Jack of all trades, master of none. Role specific weapons generally always out perform generic all purpose weapons.

File: 1474159583255.png (192KB, 501x445px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 501x445px

>>31816787

By numbers, the F-16 is the most used fighter by the USAF and has been for a long time.

>>31812229
>This particularly catches me as I wonder what would happen if someone magically got past radar and did an airbase attack like the one in Ace Combat 5 (where the bombs are dropping as F-5s are just taxiing out of the ramp) and whether that sort of situation (getting off the ground under attack and driving off the attackers) would work in real life.
Doesn't really matter how fast you can take off, the enemy is already in the air and can just mow you down on the ground or before you can get your speed/altitude up after take-off.
The attackers would have to be retarded to not prioritize taxiing aircraft before they can get airborne.

File: happy plane.jpg (73KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x533px

>>31816787
>this entire post
I don't even know where to start

>>31816969
Such a happy plane

>>31809446
It's nice having the only F-20 on display here in LA

>>31809499
I thought that was the F-16XL

>>31816787
>what is the A-4, F-8, A-7?

>F-22 being anything like an F-15

>>31816787
>Role specific weapons generally always out perform generic all purpose weapons.
Yeah, but general purpose cheap weapons like the F-5 or F-20 are always the cutest.

Though I guess I've got the F-5 pegged as dogfighter and the A-4 as "light bomber that can fight if an F-5 jumps it."

Unless that's role specific to "cheap"

File: YF23.webm (2MB, 930x704px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 930x704px

Eternal planefu.

>>31809446
>F-20 Tigershark
IT'S NOT FUCKING FAIR

FUCK PIERRE SPREY

REEEEEEEEE

File: GrummanATFConcept 9 painting.jpg (342KB, 800x523px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 800x523px

Grumman sure had some interesting ideas about forward swept vertical stabilizers

>>31809446
>F-20
>Potential
It wasn't chosen precisely because it didn't have much potential.

File: 13414947_2006062012391417756100.jpg (241KB, 1328x846px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1328x846px

Here's one you probably never heard of, the Shenyang J-8III. It was to be a joint US/Chinese project that would modify the Chinese J-8II interceptor with a modified frame, canards, FBW controls, Israeli Elta EL/M 2035, new engines, new glass cockpit with MFD HUD, but the project sputtered out after Tiananmen Square massacre and the US pulled out along with a program that was putting American AN/APG-66(v) radar into J-8IIs

File: 89eb0daa.jpg (54KB, 434x812px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 434x812px

>>31818638
Neat, any other pics?

>>31818592
It had plenty of potential as designed. It got fucked because the F-16 was approved for export and didn't have the stigma of being a cheapo plane for third world dictators.

>>31816600
Nigga what

The f-20 failed because the US government was interested in promoting the f-16 the to foreign governments and no one wanted to by a jet that was seen as second rate compare to the f-16. In order to stop Northrop to stop competing with their f-16 golden child they where offered the contract for the b-2 if they agreed to kill the f-20 and tear up any existing contracts.

>>31812229
With out going into details like >>31813248 said it comes down to alert status and whether or not the get jet requires rearming, refueling, if any maintenance needs doing, how many bodies you can throw at it and how fast the pilot can go through his start up procedure

>>31819029
>The f-20 failed because the US government was interested in promoting the f-16 the to foreign governments
Was it not that GD lobbied for export restrictions to be lifted on the F-16?

Also I recall that Taiwan wanted it, but then that went to hell somehow. (I think the US government may have been to blame, but I forget.)

>>31819047
The Charter admins export polices prevented the F-16 for being sold to other governments. Regan changed this polices when he came to office offering the f-16 the countries that where considered close allies with everyone else having to get the f-20. As a result the F-20 came know as a second rate jet for second rate countries.

Northrop did eventually sign a couple contracts but before any deliveries could be made the US gov offered them the b-2 contract if they agreed to kill the f-20.

File: he100.jpg (38KB, 744x467px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 744x467px

>>31809446
[spoiler]It hurts[/spoiler]

>>31816787
Alright I'll reply
>F-16 being the exception and only the air force use it
Literally the most produced 4th generation fighter jet that is used in air forces across the world. If you mean just the US military, using a non-carrier aircraft for carrier operations doesn't really make sense when you can make a whole new jet for the cost of navalizing the F-16
>The Navy went with F-14 and then F-18, twin engines
The F-14 firstly was picked due because duel engines help kinetics better and the Navy wanted to use all the engines they ordered for the failed navy f-111. The F-18 was quite cheap to develop and was duel engine simply due to at the time a single engine fighter couldn't get off the deck, as shown with the failed F-111 being too heavy with two engines.
>The F-15 was the primary air power aircraft for years
The F-15 was introduced in 76 and F-16 in 78
>the F-22 Raptor was an upgraded design of the F-15.
really no, the F-22 used a similar profile after the choice to have forward swept wings was cancelled after the x-29 showed that forward swept wings are kinda hard to have since maintenance on them is enormous
>Even the original aircraft the F-20 was built on the F-5 had twin engines
The F-20 was made for foreign customers, like the F-5
>The F-16 was used primarily as an interceptor
It was a lightweight fighter made in large numbers initially (read pierre spray's wet dream but mutated with radar and missiles)
>Now days they want aircraft that can perform all roles, from interception, air superiority, ground attack
Simply not economical to have a specialized fighter in the age of low level conflicts, some Jets like the A-10 haved stayed since they are cheap
>Role specific weapons generally always out perform generic all purpose weapons.
The F-35 beat F-15s without a lose in eight simulated dog fights
https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/27/f-15e-strike-eagles-unable-to-shoot-down-the-f-35s-in-8-dogfights-during-simulated-deployment/

Get good and lurk more

>>31820261
>due to at the time a single engine fighter couldn't get off the deck
It probably could've. (I mean the navy had plenty of single-engined fighters in the past.) Wasn't it primarily twin-engine just for the canard that it's safer for overwater operation + the navy really wanted to assert independence so picked a different fighter?

That's my vague recollection of the situation, but mostly what comes to mind now (on topic for the thread) is that Northrop had a non-naval F-18 design (the F-18L) but ended up competing with McDonnell Douglas with the naval F/A-18 and eventually just sold them the rights when they realized nobody was buying it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet#Northrop.27s_F-18L

File: 1468301364018.jpg (60KB, 473x650px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 473x650px

>>31820617
[Transcribed text since it's quite small and blurry in the image]
This is the land-based version of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps F-18 Hornet. It was designed by Northrop specifically for the land-based air force that doesn't need a carrier-based fighter.
The F-18 provides dogfight and attack capability superior to any tactical aircraft in Navy and Marine Corps inventory. F-18 reliability is projected to be three times that of the aircraft it replaces.
In the land-based F-18, Northrop has eliminated the weight and complexity required for carrier operations. As a result, multi-role performance is increased even beyond that of the Navy's Hornet. The land-based F-18 provides greater acceleration, turn rates, payload, and range. It is also less costly to operate and maintain.
Northrop and McDonnell Douglas are associated in the F-18 program. McDonnell Douglas is the prime contractor to U.S. Navy for carrier-suitable F-18s. Northrop is the prime contractor for versions of the F-18 designed specifically for land based operation.
The land based version of the U.S. Navy's F-18. From Northrop. The logical choice for the land-based air force.
[/Transcription]

There's something almost passive aggressive about this ad that I love. It almost feels like it should end with "So there!", and I've also got to enjoy the clear balance between "See, the US Navy uses our plane!" and "But don't buy from McDonnell! They suck! Buy our one it's better!" in light of the fact the Navy technically uses McDonnell's plane. (Which to be fair, is still Northrop's plane really. Muh YF-17.)

File: ah-56-photo3.jpg (118KB, 1200x871px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1200x871px

Too awesome for this world.

File: Ah-56.webm (3MB, 634x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 634x360px

>>31820944
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycXEgIRWGqs

>>31818340
>Concorde bomber
This would have ended up an expensive boondoggle.

File: northrop_p_530_cobra_full_scale_mockup_by_fighterman35-d98zvif.jpg (111KB, 1024x697px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1024x697px

>>31820662
>Muh YF-17
>Hi, everybody!

>>31821013
One has to wonder. I could see it working as a missile truck (except the obvious problem everyone ignores in "why don't we make an airliner a bomber" hypothetical, which is that airliners aren't designed to drop their payload in flight and that doing so puts stress on the airframe.) but obviously it'd be of limited utility at actually getting close to the target the minute doctrine changed from high-altitude approaches (which iirc by this time it had.)

I guess if you wanted to go full Perfidious Albion you could insist it was really honestly seriously just a goodwill flight with the Queen aboard, then fire everything 70 miles from Moscow. Even then one has to remember Nimrod AEW3 and realize how horribly wrong things could go.

>>31816600
>F-20 was rejected by the US force because they were stuck on the idea of needing two engines on their aircraft

Retard post of the day.

The F-15 is the USAF's "high" fighter, it is expensive as fuck and completely dolled out. The F-5/F-20 was a competitor for the light weight "low" fighter which was meant to be less expensive, but the F-16 got that role instead. The USAF has NEVER worried about needing twin engines, it's the US Navy that used to prefer a backup engine on their jets (because there is less margin for error), however modern engine refinements have lead to substantial increases in reliability and have negated this requirement.

Read a book

File: 11969579_219051.jpg (112KB, 800x460px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 800x460px

>>31818672

File: 634983702295543559J12.jpg (33KB, 700x374px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 700x374px

>>31821122

Another failed Chinese prototype is the Nanchang J-12, it was supposed to be an alternative to the J-7 (their Mig-21 copy) but it turns out it wasn't as good and the project was scrapped

File: j-13.jpg (16KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x300px

>>31821138

Another Chinese plane that didn't make it was the Shenyang J-13, an attempt to build a light single engine fighter jet.

Using a secretly bought MiG-23MS from Egypt in the late 70s, the Chinese tried to use this as a basis for new fighter jet to match other new fighters coming out of the US and Soviet Union in the 1980s, like the MiG-29 and F-16. Eventually the project was dropped after rival firm, Chengdu was deemed to be making better progress with their fighter program which would go on to become the J-10

File: 303.jpg (31KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x375px

Let me just add this last image showing all of the Navy's VFX program to decide the F-14.

>>31818646

>high agility
>observable class C

WE ACE COMBAT NOW

File: j9-fighter-china-01.jpg (66KB, 590x329px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 590x329px

>>31821176

The J-10 has it's origins in the Chengdu J-9 (and of course the Lavi, it took some time but after reading about it from Chinese sources the Chinese definitely looked at the Lavi in person and had copies of its plans), a single-engine interceptor that lost out to the J-8 because it was too advanced for Chinese industry to actually mass produce at the time

>>31815558
Looks like the soviets copied it for the mig29

>>31818531
This was the superior aircraft. It lost because Dick Cheney's wife was on the board of directors at lockheed. I read some thing by one engineer that was at a lot of the trials that Cheney had attended and said his mind was absolutely made up before he knew anything about the capabilities of either aircraft and also the biggest douchebag he's ever met.

>>31820944
the rotating gunners seat was a stupid gimmick. they were onto something with the pusher prop. the only good thing to come out of that is it scared the crap out of the Air Force so bad that they thought they might lose their CAS roll and the money that goes with it and we got the A-10 as a result.

>>31821287
Seriously are the Americans fucking retarded having the A-10 in the USAF instead of the Army? Does service branch lobbying really override real world needs that much?

File: Q-6_model.jpg (68KB, 1024x784px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1024x784px

>>31821199
That seems to be a common trend with China until very recently. They had another frankenstein project - the Q-6 - that was supposed to be a mashup of MiG-23 parts with an all-new nose fitted with electronics developed from downed F-111s.

Problem was, Chinese industry literally couldn't make the electronics small enough at the time.

File: lavi_03.jpg (71KB, 800x463px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x463px

The Lavi fighter or the other F-16

>>31809750
>>31816600
>>31816787
Sprey/Riccioni pls go

>>31821367
blame the 50's and 60's. the Army didn't want the Air Force making it's own standing army (supposedly), and the Air Force didn't want the Army to have it's own attack planes. There is an agreement (I don't know if it's law or just policy) but the Air Force won't stand up large "ground units" for combat and none of their helicopters can have fixed forward firing weapons. The Army for it's part won't develop fixed wing attack (CAS) aircraft, but can develop attack helicopters. The Army had alot of tactical cargo planes up into the 60's that could land on short dirt strips, but the Air Force pitched a fit and said they should be incharge of those aircraft. Congress agreed and force the Army to turn those aircraft over. As soon as they got them, the Air Force said they were obsolete/couldn't be maintained etc, and got rid of them, chaining the Army to air craft that needed large fixed runways, yes the C-130 can handle dirt strips, but none as short as the old airplanes. The Army only recently got some of this capability back with the C-23 Sherpa, and I guarantee the generals in the Air Force hate them. Supposedly the Air Force was looking to scrap the A-10 and the Army was talking about just having the transferred along with every pilot and enlisted maintainer that want to, over to the Army.
>you will never be a Army warrant officer flying a Warthog in support of your fellow soldiers.

>>31822020
>Supposedly the Air Force was looking to scrap the A-10
I meant to say .."back before 1991.."

File: Hillaker_F16_01_12678.jpg (41KB, 750x330px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 750x330px

Here is the Boeing concept for the F-16.

File: NAA NA-295 VAL low res.jpg (212KB, 1600x1386px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1600x1386px

Pic related could have become the A-7

>>31817252
Thanks for reminding me that I still haven't gone down there and seen the "new" museum, I need to go do that sooner or later.

Apparently there's also a museum down in Torrance or something that has one of the YF-23s on display.

>>31821182
Woah, is that an F-14 with conventional wings on the right? That's surprisingly sexy.

Also interesting that the only recognizable F-14 in that picture is the one without VG.

File: tumblr_mmiugaLUzr1s9d2ieo1_540.png (167KB, 540x473px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 540x473px

>>31809446

File: tumblr_mmiugaLUzr1s9d2ieo2_540.png (202KB, 540x697px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 540x697px

>>31823302

File: tumblr_mmiugaLUzr1s9d2ieo3_540.png (101KB, 540x347px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 540x347px

>>31823318

>>31821225
I saw RC model of the YF23 and even though it was running on electromotors the model was stupidly fast.
Great design that never made it.

>>31818606
I can't read whats there. I that a central vertical engine in a Vtol F-22

File: Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter Demonstrator.jpg (108KB, 970x767px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 970x767px

>>31824472
Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter VTOL demonstator - predecessor to the JSF program where Lockheed proved that their VTOL system actually made the whole program viable.

File: p1226.jpg (57KB, 780x520px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 780x520px

CAS harrier

File: 1216-2a.jpg (18KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x300px

>>31825573
Yeah! I have it identified as a Hawker. Just how far along was this plane?

>>31825803
Just the drawing board as far as I know, would've been interesting to see it fly though

File: Sukhoi TTX-4.jpg (1MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1944px

Slav here. Shilling one of Sukhois more interesting projects.

The T-4 was what the Soviets termed "Reconnaissance bomber" (razvedyvatelnyy bombardirovshchik). Intended to hunt Carrier Battle groups, preform long range Reconnaissance and Strike, and other duties that filled the roles of multiple large aircraft, the most conventional of these was the Sukhoi Project 100; internal designation T-4. The project saw submissions from the typical Soviet aircraft design firms; Tupolev submitted the Tu-135, and Yakolev with the YaK-35 and YaK-38, but Sukhois would win out.

The design was a relatively large aircraft, weighing 55,600kg empty, 44.5m long, 11.2m high, and 22.7m wingspan, powered by a quadruplet of RD36-41 each developing 16,150kgf of thrust. The mostly titanium aircraft is associated with several hundred patents for engineering, metallurgy and design. The design utilized a droop nose to improve pilot viability upon landing, similar to the Tu-144. The aircraft first flew in 1972.

Cruising speed was an assumed 900km/h subsonic and is listed as 3000km/h supersonic, but I think this is probably a mistranslated from an original source somewhere. The top speed was 3,200+ km/h; it is thought a final production aircraft would be able to reach higher speeds; though I have nothing more than a guess on what speeds these would be.

The aircraft could carry a pair of experimental Kh-45 hypersonic air-to-surface cruse missiles, or a set of 8 Kh-15 AGMs, and likely would have been able to carry a payload of 21,000 kilos internally

The aircraft were individually valued at 1.3bn RUB each initially-about on par with american dollar at the time (1976); about 2.75bn USD in today's money. The state originally ordered 250, but later reduced this to 120, before canceling the order and ordering development ceased to focus on the development of the Tu-160.

Still, several variations were proposed.

File: Sukhoi TTX-4I-Project 100I.png (43KB, 576x600px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 576x600px

>>31826304

This is one such variation, the T-4M, or Project 100I. Using a swing wing design, the aircraft had a longer range by some 1,000 to 3,000km (unsure), and had a slightly higher combat load. It had a 10,000kg higher maximum takeoff weight.

File: Sukhoi T-4MS.png (40KB, 535x599px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 535x599px

>>31826343

And the last major variation is this pancake looking thing. A bit far ahead of its time, the T-4MS looks closer to what proposals today for modern long range bombers like the PAK-DA. This version had a length of 41.2 meters, 8 meters height, and a wing area of 22.8m at full sweep/40.8 extended. With a mass of 123000kg, the T-4 would have a maximum takeoff weight of 170,000kg, carry 4 Kh-45s or 24 Kh-15s. Powered by four SC-101 engines developing 20,000 kgf each, the big fatty would have had similar speed to the T-4.

Im not sure WHY its considered a variant to be honest. I think the designer was the same; Naum Semenovich Chernyak

File: Chyeranovski-BICh-26.jpg (88KB, 637x451px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 637x451px

>>31809446
Mach 1.7+ tailless fighter dating back to 1947.

>>31826304
>Naum Semenovich Chernyak
>>31826343
>>31826395
Cool projects

File: 1474658167885.png (310KB, 595x496px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 595x496px

>>31816600

File: Dornier Do-31.webm (2MB, 726x400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 726x400px

>VTOL transport in the 1960s
>faster than the V-22 Osprey, with almost twice the range

File: p-61 black widow.jpg (137KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1920x1080px

>>31816787
>They're forgetting the rule of Jack of all trades, master of none. Role specific weapons generally always out perform generic all purpose weapons.

Why don't we build role-specific night fighters anymore, anon?

>>31826897
> cost vs effectiveness

>>31826881
DELETE THIS

>>31826999

>t. Boeing-vertol

File: NF87B.jpg (270KB, 900x1166px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 900x1166px

It still hurts.

>>31821367
>Does service branch lobbying really override real world needs that much?
yes

>>31821199
Did they just fucking copy the Viggen?

File: cdf67b4483458f19042e49b57feaf8fe.jpg (82KB, 640x320px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 640x320px

still in pain

>>31829521
I'm like 90% sure it was just a proof of concept/prototype for the real stealth helis.

File: 1470138980442.jpg (260KB, 1800x1195px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1800x1195px

Could've had BRRRRRRRRRRT mounted to this instead of the A-10.

Instead got another Northrop dud. Pretty cute one, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQsnuM-lZKw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YA-9

>>31826417
>Mach 1.7+
Designed for 600 mph
Never flew

>>31809750
Hi Pierre!

>>31827194
This would have been something to see!

>>31825573
Those wings.

MyPenisCanOnlyGetSoErect.flv

>>31826304
Sexy!

File: HIMAT.jpg (48KB, 516x324px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 516x324px

Rockwell's HIMAT testbed, while not intended to be a prototype for any specific aircraft or role, investigated high maneuvrability concepts such as thrust vectoring and various wing shapes.

File: 1452696760071.jpg (294KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1600x900px

TSR-2
No dreams. Only tears now.

File: harrierbeachcrash.gif (1MB, 291x217px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 291x217px

>>31826881
>ten engines

>>31826304
>The aircraft could carry a pair of experimental Kh-45 hypersonic air-to-surface cruse missiles, or a set of 8 Kh-15 AGMs, and likely would have been able to carry a payload of 21,000 kilos internally
I'm wondering how they could carry it internally if the massive engines are in the way.. Also with 4 engines close together what happens if one engine explodes it would likely damage 2 others

>>31826881
>Dornier Do-31
They could build that today and arm it with Hellfires missiles.

File: p1154-rn1.jpg (56KB, 800x214px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x214px

Speaking of VTOL. There was a plans for a mach 2 Harrier in the 70s.

>>31833134
sorry I meant the 60's

>>31825881
Theres flyable models for x-plane

>>31810128
The Sparrow is a shit AAM, though

>>31818694
Pure sex

>>31821093
>I guess if you wanted to go full Perfidious Albion you could insist it was really honestly seriously just a goodwill flight with the Queen aboard, then fire everything 70 miles from Moscow.
Exactly what I had in mind

>>31826881
German overengineering: the plane.

>>31820261
>duel engines
Do they fight each other?how is that a good thing?

>>31822561
Looks like a fat F-86, I like it.

File: Single Seat A-6 Mockup.jpg (274KB, 1600x1459px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1600x1459px

>>31835402
It was actually derived from the Super Sabre - pretty much an F-100 with a TF30 slapped in it and an attack radar slapped under the nose. It was for the competition that the A-7 won.

I liked Grumman's contender the most though.

>>31830845
I know your pain.

File: avmig21_1_02.png (13KB, 344x464px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 344x464px

>>31826395
>Im not sure WHY its considered a variant to be honest.

Probably the same old Soviet model number trickery. It was easier to get projects approved and funded if you convinced the brass and politicians that you were working on an "upgrade" or "variant" of an existing model instead of developing a new one. This even made it as far as widespread service a few times, like with the Tu-22M, which was a completely different plane from the Tu-22. (Not that this was totally limited to the Soviets - look at the Grumman Panther and Cougar being "F9F" but obviously different planes, and even the Super Hornet basically being a totally new aircraft compared to earlier F/A-18s.)

OKBs also really liked to submit a whole pile of designs at the start of a project too, and I'd guess that maybe that stealth looking thing was an alternate proposal. Those got built sometimes too, for example MiG built these two versions of the "same" aircraft for the same project, the one on the right eventually became the MiG-21.

>>31816787
>all this Spreyniggershit
I'm not the biggest fan of Lockheed's shilling or the F-35, but Jesus fucking Christ.

File: Dornier_Do_19_in_flight_c1938.jpg (322KB, 906x626px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 906x626px

>>31835736
Prototype for a German four-engined strategic bomber built in the 30's.

Kind of makes you think.

File: 1477529150880.jpg (2MB, 2092x1569px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2092x1569px

Think I just found my favourite proposal ever, the Douglas A4D-6. I think it was proposed for the thing the A7 eventually won.

Navy: "We need a new attacker. Design us one."
Douglas: "Okay, here."
Navy: "That's a Skyhawk. We said we wanted a new plane. You're not going to fool us that easily."
Douglas: "No, look at the measurements, it's bigger."
Navy: "Did you really just take the blueprints for the Skyhawk and change the measurements?"
Douglas: "No."
Navy: "Why are the extra hardpoints drawn on in red crayon?"
Douglas: "That's a cost saving measure."
Navy: "What necessitated the giant pilot's seat?"
Douglas: "...Comfort."
Navy: "Why does the title still read A4D-2?"
Douglas: "That's a rounding error."
Navy: "...Hey, North American Aviation! What've you got for us?"

>>31818580
does it shoot dogs?

>>31826881
Don't forget the Flash Gordon aesthetics

File: Super Tomcat 21.gif (13KB, 523x437px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 523x437px

The Super Tomcat 21. Died with the F-14, sadly.

>>31826881
Only 1/3 the payload, though.

File: F-108Artwork2[1].jpg (37KB, 1024x699px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1024x699px

>>31809446

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=XqOF7ssWHCY

When you gotta go fast, accept no substitutes.

File: 1464073641679.jpg (213KB, 1600x1218px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1600x1218px

It had the potential to be really cool, and that's all that matters.

File: Lockheed-Short CL-704.jpg (74KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x480px

>>31839785
>only 4 lift jets

File: mi-24_super_agile_hind_on_ground_20061.jpg (147KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1280x960px

Not sure if anyone bought it.

File: 1472697543265.png (1MB, 1440x1787px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x1787px

>>31839860

.........

File: NATF-1S.jpg (213KB, 700x480px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 700x480px

Naval F-22 concept for the NATF program that never really kicked off.

File: 1455148162831.jpg (36KB, 800x259px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 800x259px

Proposals were made for COD versions of the DC-9, 737, 727 and Fokker F-28.

Pretty cool.

File: 1472374723545.jpg (197KB, 579x463px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 579x463px

>>31840522
737

File: 1459269357402.png (76KB, 1200x827px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1200x827px

>>31840529
F-28

File: F8U-3.webm (2MB, 622x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 622x480px

>>31827194

File: 1462557819157.jpg (515KB, 1000x1377px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 1000x1377px

>>31839785
*psh* you are but a little baby
watch THIS

File: 307353main_EC96-43780-2_full.jpg (958KB, 3000x2368px) Image search: [Google]

958KB, 3000x2368px

The sexiest plane I ever laid my eyes.

>>31818546
Blame Jimmy Carter. He fucked Northrop over.

>>31820261
>The F-35 beat F-15s without a lose in eight simulated dog fights

You expect us to believe the F-35 beats the F-15 but loses to the F-16?

>>31821367
>what is the Key West Agreement

>>31826897
P-63 was inferior to P-38M.

>>31827194
I love the Crusader, but that thing only had a payload of three missiles.

>>31833403
It's what was available at the time.

>>31841847
>P-61 was inferior to P-38M.

FTFM

>>31839927
damn, imagine how expensive this would be. Take the most expensive aspects of the F-22, add in the most expensive aspects of the F-14.

>>31816386
Think you mean Mig 29

>>31835736
Everything I can find says it's an FJ-4 with a TF30.

File: SR177.jpg (223KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 640x427px

This is the SR177. it's a British Jet / Rocket hybrid interceptor. It was the frontrunner by a long way for the new Luftwaffe fighter competition. With the rest of NATO waiting to follow their decision.

Then it was announced to almost everyones surprise that the F104 starfighter had won. and NATO followed suit and bought that.

it later emerged that Lockheed had bribed german officials to adopt their inferior plane. Robbing the world of a Cold war jet / rocket interceptor.

With NATO following Germany, the RAF pursuing the Electric Lightning the project became too expensive for the RN who wanted a rocket interceptor for their carriers, the project was cancelled.

Thanks lockheed.

File: MAKS.png (140KB, 900x491px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 900x491px

Not military but
>tfw literally never ;^(

File: NAA-VF-Super-Fury-05.gif (206KB, 1239x960px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1239x960px

>>31842267
Oh yeah you're probably right. I think I mixed it up with pic related

File: f15.png (677KB, 644x398px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 644x398px

>>31841083
seconded

>>31809446
Well at least the genes of the F-5 and F-20 live on in the F/A-18.

>>31842908
Oooooh. Pretty. I think the F-100 is ugly as sin, but that looks sleek as fuck.

File: F-14IMI.jpg (28KB, 612x304px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 612x304px

>>31838125
Can you help a brother out? Is this the same as the proposed F-14 Interceptor?

Which really looked cool!

File: USAF_ADCOM_Grumman_F-14_Tomcat_proposed_interceptor_-_1972.jpg (338KB, 2141x733px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 2141x733px

>>31843759
The Super Tomcat 21 was a Navy concept. Your pic is the USAF interceptor model.

>>31843759
It is not. Super Tomcat 21 never made it to the mockup stage. I have seen a model, but I don't know if it is pre or post cancellation.

File: F-16XL_loaded_with_500lb_bombs.jpg (180KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1024x1024px

>>31817574

Negatory.

File: atf_lockheed_concept.jpg (19KB, 480x320px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x320px

Early concept drawing of Lockheed's proposal for the ATF program, circa 1986. Legend has it this design was actually disinfo and it fooled the Soviets as an inspiration for the general layout of the MiG-1.44. And the title screen of F-29 Retaliator for MS-DOS.

>>31844359
And it fooled the chinese into making the J-20.

File: 1467086962821.jpg (27KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x480px

Proposed carrier-based EE Lightning. (Sea Lightning FAW.1)

Model was converted from a land-based trainer kit, but it was a genuine proposal, though I don't envy anyone who'd try to land one on a carrier.

>>31844359

A nice illustration of BVR combat.

File: 1376291030530.jpg (71KB, 1024x731px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1024x731px

YF-23 is an ugly piece of shit. Go shove it up your ass. F-22 master race.

>>31844372
I said it was legend. Though it might have not been completely improbable in the days when planes were planes were designed from the outside in, i.e. simple concept drawings to working prototypes.
I also heard that the F-15 was a direct response to the MiG-25, which NATO mistook as an agile dogfighter. They are externally kinda similar, but while the MiG-25 is not an air-superiority fighter, the F-15 is the best there is.

>>31844410
>YF-23 is an ugly piece of shit.

This is what LockMart fags actually believe.

File: 1409987845012.jpg (1MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1200px

>>31844602

>muh hipster plane

REAL man's plane coming through.

File: 1462075094614.jpg (58KB, 743x347px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 743x347px

Surprised this wasn't posted yet. It had potential: The potential to be cool as fuck.

>Nuclear powered airborne aircraft carrier

>>31842329
that thing would have had propably even higher accident rates since germany would have used it as a fighter bomber as well. the mirage or draken would have been their best choice

>>31809446
>f-20
I want to buy one.

>>31845445
We ACE COMBAT now?

>>31839860
>what u want?
>I want the Hind, but uglier
>I got u pham

>>31839927
>>31842235
It would have been expensive as hell, but so incredibly awesome.

File: 7253c2c7ef07.jpg (25KB, 500x240px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x240px

Seahawk

>>31845546
>I want to buy one.
You probably could

File: Seadart.jpg (310KB, 800x644px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 800x644px

The Convair delta wings were the sexiest planes America ever made.

>>31846564

ugly, delete

>>31841733

Article actually says it's completely unverified. The F15Es appear to be involved in networked strike sims with the F35s from what it says.

I'm more surprised they had all 8 not broken downat the same time.

File: 1473100373223.jpg (37KB, 750x422px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 750x422px

Proposed fighter for weaponising banter and shitposting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_P.1081

>>31841733
The F-16 wasn't a mock combat. They were testing something completely different - not sure what - but spreyfags siezed upon it and twisted it to suit their agenda. Even then it was conducted well before the F-35 achieved initial operations, so it's probably not representative of the bird as it is now.

>>31819123
>The Charter admins export polices prevented the F-16 for being sold to other governments. Regan changed this polices when he came to office offering the f-16 the countries that where considered close allies with everyone else having to get the f-20. As a result the F-20 came know as a second rate jet for second rate countries.

Original plan was to sell proper F-16's to NATO members, Israel and Iran. Monkey model with J79 engine to others like friendly neutral countries and friendly 3rd world shitholes. Policy changed long before Raygunz took office. Most of early delivery Israeli F-16's were originally sold to Iran. The fuck load of cash money Obama send to Iran a while ago was mostly US dept from those undelivered weapons deals from before mudslime chimpout.

>>31820617

Northrop was nearly bankrupt after failing to sell YF-17, largely due to that Navy didn't want to take a risk with them and basically forced them to become subcontractor for F-18. Also air force and Carter admin wanted Northrop to focus all their resources on Advanced Technology Bomber aka B-2 Spirit. Carter didn't cancel B-1A because he was hippie, it was cancelled in favor of B-2. Reagan re-started B-1 program because he had promised to do so.

File: iu.jpg (69KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x480px

A complete prototype was never built. Dick Cheney cancelled the program.

File: iu-3.jpg (905KB, 2200x1640px) Image search: [Google]

905KB, 2200x1640px

Imagine how different our carrier fleet would look if the A-12, Super Tomcat, and NATF were built.

>>31850169
Let's be realistic here, the Arrow was supposed to be a heavy interceptor, it would have been already obsolete by the time it would have been fielded.

>>31850169
I still think Canada should kill the F-35 just to build this and get it out of their system. Geography ensures that America will protect them in any actual war and for peacetime "stick your finger up at a TU-95" flights the arrow would be sufficient (though perhaps she'd need a more transparent canopy.)

>>31850181
Slap some long range missiles on it and you have a MiG 25 in the 50s, which is what Canada needed considering 65% of the country is tundra

>>31839927
it's like porn

>>31850191
Stop with that "America will protect Canada xD" that mentality is the reason Canada is the way it is now.

File: mig23pd-1.jpg (12KB, 600x296px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 600x296px

MiG-23PD, early VTOL prototype of the MiG-23.

Of course they later abandoned VTOL capability, went with swing wings instead of delta-wings and new intakes based on the design of captured South-Vietnamese F-5's.

>>31850191
>build this and get it out of their system.
The savages in the government ordered everything to be destroyed. Plans, tooling, data, parts, everything. It's gone.

>>31850229
It does seem kind if silly that they destroyed everything after the Soviets had already copied everything they wanted from the program.

>>31846123
>only built 2
>You probably could

>>31845596

I feel like helicopters should be ugly though. They're brute force and ignorance: the vehicle.

File: F-20_cockpit_mock-up.jpg (350KB, 1432x1800px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1432x1800px

>>31851187
Three. Out of which two crashed.

>>31846564
What the fuck is that thing in the background?

>>31851425
Nevermind the F-20, then. Just buy an F-5

File: Tacit_Blue_in_flight.jpg (44KB, 512x400px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 512x400px

>>31851804
Looks like the Northrop Tacit Blue aircraft:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Tacit_Blue

>>31851804
It's a testbed, I believe.

File: 800px-T-6-1_NTW_5_93.jpg (105KB, 800x526px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 800x526px

>>31850210
>VTOL
No. STOL. MiG and Sukhoi ran parallel programs for different concepts to reduce takeoff lengths for their newer designs (the Su-24 and MiG-23), looking at both swing-wings and lift-jets. The MiG-23PD was developed in parallel with what became the MiG-23, just like the lift-jet-equipped T-6-1 (pic related) was developed in parallel with the T-6-2 that became the Su-24.

File: Su7bkl_mob2.jpg (890KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

890KB, 1600x1200px

>>31852437
Oh okay. I guess then they just said "fuck it, let's just make the landing gear sturdy as fuck so it can take off from grassy fields, like every plane we ever build. Maybe add skids, make it a ten-wheeler or use caterpillar tracks even".

>>31851804
Space Winnebago

>>31852534
Somewhat. From what I understand, the Soviets got worried about their second-gen fighters and strike aircraft requiring such long takeoff rolls that they would be very vulnerable in a first-strike scenario (because you'd only have to hit a couple airfields to disable the VVS in the theater). NATO had similar fears, launching the NBMR-3/4 program for a VTOL fighter, strike aircraft, and transport in the late '50s, but the Soviets surprisingly enough seem to have had a more realistic approach - just work to shorten takeoff rolls and make everything capable of taking off from rough fields.

You see the epitome of this with the MiG-29 - the thing can take off from grass fields if need be, and it's got special intake doors that close the intakes and open up slots on the top of the aircraft to provide airflow.

>>31812246
I really really like these declassified movies from the 60's America. I don't know, even as a european, it feels nostalgic.

>>31851804
The father of every US modern stealth aircraft.
Show some respect.