Doesn't this fighter
- Thread starter Concordia
- Start date
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
eh'
those 1940's designs were of the same concept as the b2, but not THE b2. THE b2 design does not go back to then.
though some of todays fighters are much older than the 70's.
the b52 was ISSUED in 1954.
and designed at the turn of that decade... just post ww2.
(thats the oldest i can think of...)
the LFP was solicited in 1972
(same time the HFP was solicited, i.e. f15)
and the yf-16 won contract in 1976, beating out the yf-17 (f-18 predecessor)
it was combat ready in 1980
but its design (THE specific f16) was actually done in 1966!
typical design->ready time is 5 to 10 years. although in the cold war some designs were rushed through 1 or 2 years. its needless to say, we don't hear much about them today.
amusingly, some of our 'high tek' aircraft, have black and white pictures you can dig up on them.
-scheherazade
oh yah, i forgot, the f14 was already flying in the 1960's.
(~5-10 year dev would put it just 10-15 years after ww2)
reached operation capacity in 73.
those 1940's designs were of the same concept as the b2, but not THE b2. THE b2 design does not go back to then.
though some of todays fighters are much older than the 70's.
the b52 was ISSUED in 1954.
and designed at the turn of that decade... just post ww2.
(thats the oldest i can think of...)
the LFP was solicited in 1972
(same time the HFP was solicited, i.e. f15)
and the yf-16 won contract in 1976, beating out the yf-17 (f-18 predecessor)
it was combat ready in 1980
but its design (THE specific f16) was actually done in 1966!
typical design->ready time is 5 to 10 years. although in the cold war some designs were rushed through 1 or 2 years. its needless to say, we don't hear much about them today.
amusingly, some of our 'high tek' aircraft, have black and white pictures you can dig up on them.
-scheherazade
oh yah, i forgot, the f14 was already flying in the 1960's.
(~5-10 year dev would put it just 10-15 years after ww2)
reached operation capacity in 73.
Shaggy
Vice Admiral
Delta wing planes are in regular use, albeit not in very much in the US. The French Rafale and Mirage series use delta wings( with a few Mirage exceptions.) The Eurofighter 2000 uses a delta wing as well. All of these have exceptional handling at high and low speed, thanks mainly to fly by wire systems. Without computer aided stability a delta wing fighter is extremely unstable at high speeds, but is a great low speed fighter.
There is even a proposed design for an F-22, it's notF/A , bomber variant that is fifteen feet longer, has no tail, and uses single delta wings. The design was drawn up and submitted as a replacement for the B-52, even though there are upgrades plannned to keep it running till like 2010.
There is even a proposed design for an F-22, it's notF/A , bomber variant that is fifteen feet longer, has no tail, and uses single delta wings. The design was drawn up and submitted as a replacement for the B-52, even though there are upgrades plannned to keep it running till like 2010.
Shaggy
Vice Admiral
Yeah the 52 is probably the absolute best bomber ever created. At least for a good old fashioned carpet bomber.
The FB-22 concept hasn't even gone beyond artist renderings and some basic figures. They haven't even drawn up a formal design for it yet. But the idea is that it would be cheaper and easier to adapt the Raptor's frame and than to continually modify the B-52 or design an all new system, which I think was slated for 2015-20.
I read about it in a Popular Mechanics issue last week. The issue was an older one, and I can't recall what it was dated, but it made some good points.
The idea for the FB-22 would mate the modified airframe with the new small diameter bomb systems, which the F-22 can carry. The bombs are about half the size of the Mk82 500lb. bomb but are much more accurate. THey use a similar tracking system to the JDAM but you can fit something like six SDBs in the space a 1,000lb JDAM would take.
It was actually a pretty cool idea.
The FB-22 concept hasn't even gone beyond artist renderings and some basic figures. They haven't even drawn up a formal design for it yet. But the idea is that it would be cheaper and easier to adapt the Raptor's frame and than to continually modify the B-52 or design an all new system, which I think was slated for 2015-20.
I read about it in a Popular Mechanics issue last week. The issue was an older one, and I can't recall what it was dated, but it made some good points.
The idea for the FB-22 would mate the modified airframe with the new small diameter bomb systems, which the F-22 can carry. The bombs are about half the size of the Mk82 500lb. bomb but are much more accurate. THey use a similar tracking system to the JDAM but you can fit something like six SDBs in the space a 1,000lb JDAM would take.
It was actually a pretty cool idea.
Shaggy
Vice Admiral
Yeah, I checked out the Lockheed Martin website and they have it listed as the F/A-22. But that is the first time, in an official publication, I have seen it by any other designation since the original contract competition.
Even the press releases the Air Force and LM sent out after the contract was made listed it as the F-22. So it was an honest mistake.
Even the press releases the Air Force and LM sent out after the contract was made listed it as the F-22. So it was an honest mistake.
Originally posted by PopsiclePete
Where do you see any ressemblance again ?
If you look at the drawings of the WC1 Claw Marks rapier, you'd see it. It's mostly the shapes of the wings. The resemblance is just basic. Although, the F-108 rapier was intended to have canards originally, they removed them before they arrived at the final-design. Although, to be honest, the design looks like the F-108 Rapier and the Firefox from the movie "Firefox" put together. In fact, it looks more like the Firefox.
Originally posted by Worf
Heh, that looks like it got some inspiration from the ill-fated Avro Arrow (late 50's/early 60's)... (which I wouldn't be surprised, since it appears that wind tunnel testing was carried out by the US military because they had the wind tunnels
The F-108 Rapier had no relation to the CF-105 Arrow, although the Arrow was a kickass design.
Did you know it featured full fly-by-wire? It was analog, but still. It technically fit the definition of using electrical signals to make actuators move the control-surfaces. It had full-feedback as well. It did have a conventional mechanical back-up system for emergencies (it was all-hydraulic), but it was meant to be flown full fly-by-wire. It also featured a stability-augmentator system which was actually very effective. You could pull the CF-105 into a vertical climb, cut an engine and experience no yaw... It was that fast. Today it's standard-tech... in fact it's probably pretty advanced even today. You would expect this design on a '80's fighter, or early 21'st century, but not from 1958!!! That was 20 years before I was even born.
It also featured very advanced engines: The Orenda Iroquois, which was all-titanium. Very unique. It was years ahead of it's time and produces approximately 25,000 lbs of thrust! This was 45-years ago. We have fighter-sized engines that produce more thrust than that. The F-119 produces like what? 42,000 pounds of thrust?
1980's? Nah! Try 1960's
The F-108 Rapier was designed alongside the XB-70 Valkyrie, which was a high-speed, Mach-3 supersonic bomber designed to replace the B-52.
It was a large white plane, with a long, slender fuselage, and large delta-wings. The plane was powered by six engines (J-93's), all mounted in a central box with a wedge-splitter type inlet system to slow the airflow to subsonic speed at the engine-face (all supersonic aircraft have inlets of some sort), each of these engines produces over 31,000 lbs of thrust on full-afterburner. The plane featured a canard, which was used to trim the aircraft, and featured folding wing-tips which enabled the plane to ride it's own shock-wave (off the splitter actually).
The tips would be level at takeoff and landings, and low-speed flight, lowered to 25-degrees for transonic flight, and lowered to 65-degrees for high-speed supersonic flight.
The F-108 Rapier was an airplane which was designed as both a high-speed escort to the XB-70 and an interceptor, utilizing many of the same parts including the engines. The plane carried a crew of two: 1 pilot, and 1 weapon's system's officer. Both pilots are contained in their own-cockpits with clam-shell type ejection-seats designed for an ejection at 2,000 mph.
The plane was originally designed with a canard in the pre-mock-up stage, but it was removed prior to the final-design. The F-108 was an 89-feet-long airplane, with a delta-wing featuring a 65-degree sweep with a 45-degree-sweep where the wings tilt-downward. It's total wingspan was 57.4-feet, with a total-weight 102,000 lbs. The plane featured a single vertical-tail, and two ventral-fins, located at mid-span for directional-stability above Mach-2. It's range was listed as 2,000 miles.
The plane was to use the AN/ASG Fire-Control-System and Radar. The radar was a 48-inch radome with a range of over 300 miles. The plane was to utilize the AIM-47 Super-Falcon Air-to-Air Missile. The missile was a semi-active radar-homer, it weighed over 900 lbs, had a 100-mile range and was actually to be fitted with a 250 kiloton thermonuclear-warhead to eliminate the possibility of a miss. They also probably wanted to take-out bomber-formations with a single-shot. The plane would carry four of these babies internally, on a rotary-rack located in-between the inlets. The plane could only drop one at a time but it was irrelevant; the radar could only engage one target at a time anyway. The plane also carried 4 x 20-millimeter-cannons, and is supposedly capable of carrying 108 x 2.75-inch unguided-rockets. I don't know if that's in conjunction with AIM-47's. It could also carry 4 x 1,000 lb bombs.
The F-108 Rapier was cancelled on September 23, 1959 while still in the Mock-up stage.
Some good came out of it though, it wasn't a total waste. The AIM-47 evolved into the AIM-54 Phoenix.
-Concordia
Last edited by a moderator: