Hypotetical question: What would happen if you took an old-ass

File: F-4 %22Rafale Eater%22.jpg (101KB, 450x517px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 450x517px

>>33225776
As well as I can judge, Phantom's airframe is more than adequate to perform on-par with 4th-gens. With modern engines it's thrust-to-weight would nearly double, and it's radome is big enough to house a quite capable radar. Wing loading actually isn't all that bad compared to RECENT (heavier) variants of 4th-gen fighters. Add a modern RWR, ECM, AMRAAM capability, and a full cockpit rework (glass panels and an actual HUD) and you'd have quite an ass-kicking 4th-gen fighter. Fly-by-wire couldn't hurt either, though you'll have a hard time achieving relaxed stability without the addition of canards.

But seeing how it doesn't have VLO I just can't see it ever holding a candle to any 5th-gen.

>>33225776
At that point why don't you just build an entirely new fucking plane.

>>33225978
As I said - hypotetical question.

But then again, if you still got tons of airframes even such a major update on every level would - perhaps - be still cheaper than a completely new plane.

>>33225976
Yeah, thats exaclty what I thought about. Glass cockpit, FBW, modern armament integration and some kickass engines that are not only much more powerful but have greatly reduced thirst.

I mean, look at the Phantom: Every Version had fucking J79 turbojets. Now imagine what a modern low bypass turbofan would do to its range. Hell, maybe it would even become supercruise capable

>>33225976
The F-4 would run into issues around tail heating (modern engine exhausts would likely damage it), plus it's a stable aircraft, so it would never be as agile as an F-16 or F/A-18.

>>33226125
Couldnt you prevent this by adding heat shields of some kind??

>>33225776
It would likely be less manoeuvrable than jets designed with fly-by-wire in mind (like the F-16).

Other then that it would likely be a fine 4th gen interceptor. However basically all new jets are designed with some stealth in mind - either pure stealth like F-22/35/PAKFA etc. or heavily reduced RCS like Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafaele (I think) and others. Bringing down the RCS of the F-4 would require a heavy redesign.

>>33225776
That's basically what F-16 MLU, Kfir and Mig-29 SMT basically are

It would fare shit, just look at the F35.

OP here, so basically such an idea would - in general - lead to a more or less decent plane that still aint that maneuverable because old planes were designed to fly stable, right?

>>33226398
Yep. This and the fact that your plane was designed before anything thought of RCS and many of the fancy doodads woulf have to be carried in pods under neath the plane (unless we're talking a major redesign)

File: Phantom_FG1_of_892_NAS_is_launched_from_USS_Independence_(CV-62),_November_1975.jpg (916KB, 1525x1141px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 1525x1141px

>>33226109
>look at the Phantom: Every Version had fucking J79 turbojets.
Not true, FG.1 and FGR.2 Phantoms used by the Royal Navy were fitted with Rolls Royce Spey turbofans.
>Now imagine what a modern low bypass turbofan would do to its range.
Maybe 10-15%.
>Hell, maybe it would even become supercruise capable
Not likely. Turbojets are better than turbofans for supercruise. Just look at the Tu-144.
>>33226125
>>33226337
Relaxed stability/fly-by-wire shouldn't have much impact in subsonic flight, though in the transonic/supersonic regime it certainly would. One of the Phantom's well-known limitations was the inadequacy of it's small stabilators at overcoming mach tuck during hard transonic maneuvering. You certainly wouldn't want to tangle with an F-16 at high altitude with a Phantom. But down low, at subsonic speeds and with modern engines and all that extra thrust, you might hold your own.

Of course, you could always introduce relaxed stability by adding additional surfaces forward of the CG like the YF-4E CCV did, or (less easily) by shifting the CG aft.

>>33225776
why dont they bring these back into service for ground attack roles against insurgents in the desert like yemen iraq syria libya etc

File: McDonnell-Douglas-YF-4E-CCV.jpg (497KB, 1115x744px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1115x744px

>>33226448
YF-4E for reference

>>33226458
Too expensive to keep an old worn out airplane flying compared to the zillions of newer planes we already have.

>>33226178
Sure, but that's more weight.
>>33226448
Stability has a massive impact in subsonic flight; it's what allows you to use your tail as an additional lifting surface and allows you to reach higher pitch rates.

Also, I think >>33226109 was talking about how a modern turbofan (eg F119, F135, F414) could give it supercruise, not a turbofan J79 equivalent.

And yes you could shift the CG / CL, but that's a structural and aerodynamic redesign; which goes against the spirit / concept of bringing back an old design.

>>33226458
That's basically what the A-10 is. It's long past its prime for "Big War" applications, but for COIN and goatfucker ops, it's still cost effective enough to keep it from retirement.

>>33226490
>>33226448
Good to see some guys here who really know their shit.

>was talking about how a modern turbofan (eg F119, F135, F414) could give it supercruise, not a turbofan J79 equivalent.

Exactly. I dont know about the limitations of the engine diameters - dont know how much thicker an F119 compared to a J79 is, but I thought and think that if it is possible, it would PERHAPS give a Phantom supercruise-ability and/or a greatly enlarged combat range.

Muh dick

>Take all the A6s from the boneyard
>new wings
>new engines
>F15E Radar & fire controls
>political incorrect noseart.jpg
>Insurgentfucker, here we go

File: F-4 Colonial Navy.jpg (73KB, 726x580px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 726x580px

>>33226490
>it's what allows you to use your tail as an additional lifting surface
Not exactly what I'd call massive, but yes...

>and allows you to reach higher pitch rates.
You sure about that? High pitch rates on an unstable aircraft is a recipe for an upset/departure.

>Also, I think >>33226109 was talking about how a modern turbofan (eg F119, F135, F414) could give it supercruise, not a turbofan J79 equivalent.
Still not very likely. Bypass air reduces specific thrust, which can be advantageous for TSFC but increases thrust lapse rate and is thus detrimental for supercruise operation. That's a large part of why the F119 has such a tiny bypass ratio (even for a "low bypass" turbofan), and why the F135 (which was not designed to supercruise) has a fairly large one. Sure, technological advancement may make up for this to a small extent, but even still. Even the F-22 doesn't supercruise as fast as the Concorde or Tu-144 did with their respective (60s-era) turbojets.

>>33226601
>dont know how much thicker an F119 compared to a J79 is
Lots, but so was the Spey. Maybe there's hope.

Still, I'd set my sights on something more akin to the F100 or F110. Give yourself a respectable bump to dry fuel efficiency, and have buckets of reheat thrust to spare. Forget about supercruise, you're not gonna have the fuel to do anything useful with it, nor the RCS to be dicking around at high altitude anyways.

File: a313f3cfcfae12eac21ebe0c3821bc8c[1].jpg (30KB, 510x640px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 510x640px

>>33226682
The F-22 and F-35 have negative stability (not as negative as the F-16 though), have high pitch rates and can hold high alpha; it's just about having the right tail surface size, fast enough actuators, well tested control laws, etc.

Also, as for advantage; see the pic of an F-16 and F-4 turning (those are min radius turns too, not them pulling a sustained turn [where T:W would have a real impact]).

Also in regards to engines, the F119 has a larger bypass ratio than the F414 (which powers the Super Hornet and Gripen E/F). The Concorde / Tu-144 also didn't supercruise, they were running in continuous afterburner when flying supersonic (but they had plenty of fuel and were designed to afterburn more efficiently than a typical fighter of the time, so it wasn't an issue).

>>33226476
Sure, tell that to the USAF. Most of their B-52's, B-1's, C-5's, C-130's and KC-135's that were made in mid to late 20th century are still in service with constant updates to their shit 50's-early90's technology.
Source: I am Aircraft Maintainer.
You would think that newer aircraft is cheap, but if it ain't completely broke then it's still good under Air Force logic.

>>33226476
i just figure out of the thousands of planes they have and all the parts they could have enough parts to put together a small squad of 10 or 12 to use for just fucking up AK47 wielding hajis, it wouldnt cost them anything but manpower because they already have all the parts and planes in storage or boneyards. seems cheaper than building new F35s or risk losing an F18 superhornet even

>>33226615
>A6s
>Not bringing back based F111s

Jf17 is basically an upgraded Mig17

>>33226720
>see the pic of an F-16 and F-4 turning (those are min radius turns too, not them pulling a sustained turn [where T:W would have a real impact]).
Keep in mind that's an F-16A, which was CONSIDERABLY lighter than modern F-16Cs. Also both are contrailing, which puts them at high altitude, which in turn puts them most likely well into the transonic regime where the F-4 begins to fall short on pitch authority due to mach tuck. Down low, subsonic, and stall-limited, it'd be a bit of a different picture.
>the F119 has a larger bypass ratio than the F414
No, it doesn't, though I will acknowledge the F414's bypass ratio is quite low as well.
>The Concorde / Tu-144 also didn't supercruise, they were running in continuous afterburner when flying supersonic
Wrong. Both the Concorde and the TU-144M remained in dry thrust during mach 2+ cruise. Afterburners were only used during takeoff and climb/acceleration.
The EARLY TU-144s used afterburner for cruise, but that's because they were equipped with NK-144 turbofans which were incapable of supercruise (and had nearly double the fuel consumption as a result).

Maybe you're thinking of the SR-71...?

>>33226745
Notice how all of those jets have one thing in common? They're big, slow aircraft that don't experience anywhere near as much stress as a fighter. Even then, the B-52s and B-1s are going to have their workload lightened with the B-21, new C-130s continue to get bought and replace older C-130s, C-5s are maintenance nightmares and are to be replaced in the next couple of decades, KC-135s are being replaced with KC-46s.

>>33226757
A lot of F-4s were converted to QF-4s and blown up or flown long enough to go through a bunch of spares.

>>33226827
Newer F-16Cs have considerably more powerful engines. I'm also not certain they were at high altitude; they were performing those turns specifically to compare turn rates, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were just using smokewinders.
>No, it doesn't
The F119 has a bypass ratio of 0.3, the F414 has a bypass ratio of 0.25 (http://www.mtu.de/engines/military-aircraft-engines/fighter-aircraft/f414/)
>Wrong. Both the Concorde and the TU-144M
My bad there; I was originally thinking of the SR-71, but I could've sworn (though apparently not) that the Concorde's engines operated similarly (though to be clear, I didn't think it had a bypass quasi-ramjet mode like the SR-71).

>>33226745
>Most of their B-52's, B-1's, C-5's, C-130's and KC-135's that were made in mid to late 20th century are still in service
Over 700 B-52s were built. Less than 80 of those are still in service. Over half of the C-5 fleet has also been retired, including almost all of those manufactured prior to 1980. I don't have numbers for the others but I can tell you that the B-1B (which really isn't all that old) is now cheaper to fly than the creaky old B-52 despite being much more complex, and a new C-17 costs pennies next to an old C-5 and even gives a C-130 a run for it's money.

File: F-16vs.F-4.jpg (55KB, 640x485px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x485px

>>33226875
>Newer F-16Cs have considerably more powerful engines
Like you mentioned before, that won't affect turn radius.
>I'm also not certain they were at high altitude
Contrailing generally only occurs above 25,000' or so. Anyways, pic related.
>they were performing those turns specifically to compare turn rates
And in particular, to make the F-16 look good. These demonstrations took place during the prototype fly-off phase, so it was important for GD to demonstrate the advantages of relaxed stability, so obviously they put the two jets in a flight regime where the difference would be most pronounced (pic related).

I also have to correct myself; it's actually a YF-16, not the F-16A. So you're looking at a Viper that's a good 40% lighter (empty) than the ones they fly today.

>>33226745
Half of those planes are falling out of the sky.

Maxwell AFB, which is near me, just recently replaced their C-130s which were zombies by now.

>>33226764

Guess they can't bring any of them back

A-6A from Vietnam war were at the end of their life.

Newer airframes were converted to a mix of EA-6A,EA-6B,could be wrong but also to early A-6E and KA-6D

EA-6A airframes were then retired and partially used during exercises as aggressors/jammers

KA-6D were replaced by Vikings straight after Desert Storm

Early A-6E were no more I think straight after Eldorado Canyon Ops

EA-6B received whatever spare parts was left

A-6E Trams were replaced before Allied Force by F/A-18D as the Navy retired them after Desert Storm

A batch of A-6E Tram received newer composite wings and newer pylons,possibly after their retirement they flew for R&D squadrons till the end of their operative life

Can't say a word about EA-6B as I think they pulled a Tomcat out of them,most if not all of them had upgraded engines and composite wings

Now for F-111s

F-111A were no more,some of them converted into EF-111A and retired after Desert Storm.E as next for being the oldest with FB-111A

FB-111A good chunk of them sold to Australia which buried them in the desert,possibly all spare parts went to them as C and G were kinda similar but only C variant received major upgrades in terms of weapon compatibility,the G was kinda used as trainer,shows and stuff so it was just a dumb mud mover with the ability to fire or toss nukes

Don't know what happened to D and F airframes other than they got retired due maintenance costs and F-15E.

Mach 2 is cool and shit but their mission profile was obsolete and during Desert Storm the F-111 killed more tanks than the A-10 plinking them from afar with their PGM

>>33225776
>haha lol let's just build an entirely new plane but force it to be in the shape of an ugly obsolete plane xD
How many fucking times are you going to make this thread, you abominable fag?

>>33227604
>>haha lol let's just build an entirely new plane but force it to be in the shape of an ugly obsolete plane xD

Basically this.

What's the point? If you're building a new plane, just build a new plane.

>>33227604
>>33227619
I dont know wether someone else already made this threads but this was my first time!

And, as more than half of /k/s threads, it was out of curiosity.

Also: Calm the fuck down guys. If you dont like a thread, RMB and "hide thread"