did the world stop turning or is it only us??

[warchild]

Not long ago, India ordered 144 SU-35s from Russia, China who has been using the shenyang versions of the Laavi for some time are now building their own stealth fighter; the J-12, 13 and 14 All around, i see the worlds airfoces moving forward, and yet where are we? Still making stuff that was obsolete 20 years ago.
Cant any of us get our heads out of the past and start making todays aircraft?? Are we stuck in our politics to the point we cant recognize aircraft that are worthy of re-creation? What is wrong with us? I'd really like to know.
Pam

 

[IanP]

I don't think it's politics, Pam, so much as the aircraft that we like!

Someone around here has the tagline "Tomcats by choice, Hornets by Mandate", which sums it up perfectly. Give me a Phantom, a MiG-21 or even a MiG-29 over a SU-35 any day.

 

[jdhaenens]

Fortunately, or unfortunately as the case may be, we've got no credible enemies that are worthy of increased R&D in the aviation field. Make no mistake, there is a skunk works somewhere with an absolutely new super-plane in the works but even the F-35 JSF project is slipping in popularity. The last major bruhaha in the military aviation world was about a US manufacturer not getting the contract for replacing a refueling aircraft that has a 40 year old airframe design.

President Obama has consciously pulled back from the on-going conflicts to the point that he won't let his folks even say "War on Terror", so figure the odds that there will be money in the stimulus package for newer/better hardware.

NASA is strapped and their big PR is in space, not in aviation development.

Like it or not, it just seems to be that time in the political/socio-economic cycle.

EDIT: Rereading this, it sounds a bit political. It's not really meant that way.

Best,

Jim

 

[txnetcop]

Pam something else that plays a key role in modern fighter aircraft is the new avionics and weapons systems that you can strap on to a 30-50 year old fighter or bomber and turn it into a real bogie killer. There was still plenty of fight left in the F-14 Tomcat when they scraped it-ask any Navy pilot. The F-4 Phantom is perfect example of an old airframe that can take on a new role and still be effective in a modern army by various nations. Panavia Tornado Air Defence Variant introduced in 1979 as still not outlived its usefulness. The B-52 which entered service in 1954 is scheduled to remain in inventory for a good many years yet because of modern avionics and stealth missle technology and weapons strap-ons. The latest upgrade to the FA-18E/F Hornet put it right back in the 21st century, as it is now designated the Super Hornet.
Ted

 

[kilo delta]

F-22 and F-35 ain't obsolete, plus as Jim has pointed out....you can be sure that there are some "black" projects that are either flying operationally or at an advanced stage of development. Wether these are manned or uav remains to be seen.:gossip:

 

[IanP]

Eurofighter - of which there have been a couple developed by various people for FS - is still only just entering service.

Everyone who has flown that so far has been happy with it - the only people who aren't are the politicians, because it costs money that otherwise they could waste on their expense claims.

 

[EgoR64]

Here is a Cool Fishing Boat -> :friday:

Progress -

USS Independence (LCS) Triple Hulled - Weapon-Laden Monster -

We've been hearing rumblings about the U.S. Navy's triple-hulled ships, but here's one that was launched last month, the U.S.S Independence ... Built by General Dynamics, it's called a littoral combat ship (LCS), and the trimaran can move huge weapons around faster than any ship in the Navy. Ironic that with all that high tech built in, the ship reminds us of the Merrimac ironclad from Civil War days.

Littoral means close to shore, and that's where these fleet-hulled babies will operate, tailor-made for launching helicopters and armored vehicles, sweeping mines and firing all manner of torpedoes, missiles and machine guns.

These ships were designed to be relatively inexpensive.This one's a bargain at $208 million and the navy plans to build 55 of them. This trimaran is the first of the new fire-breathing breed, ready to scoot out of dry dock at a rumored 60 knots. It's like a speedy and heavily-armed aircraft carrier for helicopters.


View attachment 73776View attachment 73777View attachment 73778View attachment 73779View attachment 73780


Cheers !!

 

[stiz]

the only people who aren't are the politicians, because it costs money that otherwise they could waste on their expense claims.

and dont forget the pay raises that they get to "vote" for

anways :focus:

 

[Bjoern]

Here is a Cool Fishing Boat -> :friday:

Progress -

USS Independence (LCS) Triple Hulled - Weapon-Laden Monster -

We've been hearing rumblings about the U.S. Navy's triple-hulled ships, but here's one that was launched last month, the U.S.S Independence ... Built by General Dynamics, it's called a littoral combat ship (LCS), and the trimaran can move huge weapons around faster than any ship in the Navy. Ironic that with all that high tech built in, the ship reminds us of the Merrimac ironclad from Civil War days.

Littoral means close to shore, and that's where these fleet-hulled babies will operate, tailor-made for launching helicopters and armored vehicles, sweeping mines and firing all manner of torpedoes, missiles and machine guns.

These ships were designed to be relatively inexpensive.This one's a bargain at $208 million and the navy plans to build 55 of them. This trimaran is the first of the new fire-breathing breed, ready to scoot out of dry dock at a rumored 60 knots. It's like a speedy and heavily-armed aircraft carrier for helicopters.

My goodness, that's one butt-ugly ship.

General Dynamics should take some design lessons with the swedish FMV. They make their ships stealthy *and* pleasant looking.

 

[Lateral-G]

As has been said upgrading avionics and weapons systems is where it's at. The Russkies may have some sexy airplanes but without the requisite electronics and weaponry all they're good for are airshows.

Folks lament about the passing of the Tomcat...it was a great plane no doubt. But all aircraft are life limited. carrier environments are HARD on airframes. The point is the Tom-Kitties were at the end of their airframe service lives. Without major (very major.....and very expensive) airframe mods it just wasn't practical to keep them.

The Marines asked us a few years ago what it would take to revive the AV8 line (they'd like some replacements to ones they've lost plus upgrade to the larger engine and night attack capability). They about choked when they saw the initial cost estimate. The tooling needed has long ago been scrapped or sits in a storage lot deteriorating. You can well imagine what sort of estimate NG gave the Navy regarding keeping Tomcats flying.

Right now the Air Force is re-winging their fleet of A-10's to keep them around. Talk about low tech... But it does a fantastic job for a 30+ y/o design. Fortunately the structure isn't all that exotic as to make re-man cost prohibitive. (The AV8 cost for line re-start involved lots of tooling to make the CF wings and fwd fuse.....the robot machine that drilled the wing structure no longer exists and would need to be built totally new)

The reality is combat aircraft, especially those operating from carriers, can only go so long before they break and need replacements. Boeing and LM can't keep production lines open indefinitley. The cost is just way to much. The T-45 line is shutting down late this year. The Navy isn't even looking for a new trainer until 2012. To keep the production line open until then isn't a cost they're willing to accept.

it all comes down to money....

-G-

 

[spotlope]

All I can say is, I want to live in whatever fjord that is in the pic! What a gorgeous location. Sorry, now :focus:

 

[Bjoern]

Bill, this *could* be somewhere along the Göta-canal.

 

[harleyman]

I want to live there too...Beautiful....Only if the ugly boat comes with it...bit I think its sorta sharp looking in a way....

 

[Marlin]

The F-22 and the F-35 might have their heads cut off, we'll have to see what the current administration does.

Check this US boat out.
Stilleto

 

[Marlin]

and the navy plans to build 55 of them.

This should have been, "The Navy HAD planned to build... But due to congress, mainly the House, where all the money comes from…”

On July 14, 2008 Senator Susan Collins, a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, commented on the news report that the Navy plans to discontinue the Zumwalt Class DDG-1000 program: “The decision by the House Armed Services Committee to slash funding for the DDG-1000 has triggered a review within the Department of Defense on the future of the new destroyer. During the past several weeks, I have had extensive discussions with the Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Roughead, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, and Defense Assistant Secretary John Young about the future of the program, which Navy officials have repeatedly testified provides much-needed capabilities. Funding for a third destroyer was in the FY09 budget request sent to Congress by the Navy. The Senate version of the Defense Authorization legislation fully funds the $2.6 billion request, while the House version fails to provide funding to build any surface combatant at all, thus creating a terrible gap in work for BIW. If the Navy is considering changing its shipbuilding requirements, I would expect the CNO to work with me and other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to ensure a stable, well-funded shipbuilding plan that meets the need for expanded capabilities and keeps our skilled shipbuilding workforce strong."

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

 

[OBIO]

Is it me or did most people not get the point of the original post in this thread? I think what warchild was asking/commenting on, was the fact that the majority of planes being modeled for FS are from days gone by....still tons of vintange prop planes being created, but very few modern jet fighters being done. While I personally have no interest in modern military planes, there are those who do....and unfortunately, it seems that those who possess the ability to model aircraft aren't among those who like the new stuff.

There are payware companies that are doing some of the newer planes, but freeware modelers seem to have an affinity for the older planes. That and modeling the modern super-advanced avionics for a flight sim would take a ton of work...heck, just imagining what it would take to get the vector thrust capabilities of the F-22 to work in a flight sim is enough to make me crawl into a corner and hide.

OBIO

 

[Warrant]

Not long ago, India ordered 144 SU-35s from Russia, China who has been using the shenyang versions of the Laavi for some time are now building their own stealth fighter; the J-12, 13 and 14 All around, i see the worlds airfoces moving forward, and yet where are we? Still making stuff that was obsolete 20 years ago.
Cant any of us get our heads out of the past and start making todays aircraft?? Are we stuck in our politics to the point we cant recognize aircraft that are worthy of re-creation? What is wrong with us? I'd really like to know.
Pam

Agreed

(though i have to say the "obselete" stuff looks great, and is much appreciated here as well. It is always great fun to fly oldies)

 

[Warrant]

I don't think it's politics, Pam, so much as the aircraft that we like!

Someone around here has the tagline "Tomcats by choice, Hornets by Mandate", which sums it up perfectly. Give me a Phantom, a MiG-21 or even a MiG-29 over a SU-35 any day.

Meaning for FSX?

For FSX i'd like to see the modern state of the art machines as well.
As for real life, those SU-35's (and beyond) are the poor man's future. We'll see a lot of them in future missions/operations.

 

[spotlope]

Speaking only for myself, I just don't have the time and patience to learn how to fly a modern warbird. An old oily, smoky prop is about all I can deal with in the limited time I have for flying.

 

[Lionheart]

Pam,


We have some awesome birds.. We had Aurora flying over 10 years ago. We have some exotic stuff.

The problem is, it will be slow to get out to airbases because SOMEONE SPENT ALL OUR MONEY in the past several years!!!