russian planes appreciation thread

[SteeleResolve]

Jaguars are cool as fuck. I love that they have weapons rails on the top of the wing for the air to air missiles.











They're kind of lacking in weaponry for a ground attack aircraft though.

When I joined the RAF, we were taught all the systems on the jag at RAF Cosford, with redundant a/c. Good times.

All a bit wasted as I have never actually touched them as operational a/c, and they were decommissioned shortly after I left, and I was on fucking Tristar avionics.....

Oh well at least I put 8 years of my life working on MRA4 after that.... oh wait...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Nimrod_MRA4

TL;DR they cancelled it

[Corwyna]

Jaguars are cool as fuck. I love that they have weapons rails on the top of the wing for the air to air missiles.











They're kind of lacking in weaponry for a ground attack aircraft though.

When I joined the RAF, we were taught all the systems on the jag at RAF Cosford, with redundant a/c. Good times.

All a bit wasted as I have never actually touched them as operational a/c, and they were decommissioned shortly after I left, and I was on fucking Tristar avionics.....

Oh well at least I put 8 years of my life working on MRA4 after that.... oh wait...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Nimrod_MRA4

TL;DR they cancelled it

It looks nice. The engines in wings design is kind of UK flavour? I think I've seen something like that only on UK designs.

[elmicker]

It's because the Nimrod airframe is the same age as my granddad.

[Me]

Add rockets. Prepare for awesome. Plane explodes. Still awesome.

Apologies if this vid has bad music, just skip to 35s in. I'm at work and can't hear it anyway.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_Sport

Well since the problem was pilot error firing the rockets too soon they should have kept at it.

[Corwyna]

It's because the Nimrod airframe is the same age as my granddad.

Quote from wiki "Hawker Siddeley Nimrod... First flight May 1967".
My dad was born in 1950. You are a pikey?

Edit: " It is an extensive modification of the de Havilland Comet... First flight 27 July 1949". Nope, still a pikey.

[elmicker]

Well, not quite my granddad, but the comet design has got a good 11 years on my dad.

[Dogbeast]

Are jags some sort of special low flying jet? Or are they just used by nations where their is space to film them flying low?

Yeah, they're ground attack/CAS aircraft like the A-10. Except smaller and faster, their primary role was actually to deliver tactical nuclear weapons at incredible speeds and low altitudes. In the case of the RAF we replaced them with the Tornado because the weapon load on the Jag is kind of anaemic.

This is also the reason why they have weapon rails on the top of the wing, you can't really launch an air to air missile from 75 feet from below the wing, it'd probably just crash.

This makes me wonder why don't most aircraft have rails above their wings, or above the fuselage?

From what I understand, the rails below the aircraft allow the munition to drop then fire off their motors, or just let gravity do the work in the case of bombs. But Air to Air missiles can surely be fitted to the top of the aircraft.

It's a bit counter aerodynamic to have your pylons on the top of the wings.

So why not above the fuselage? On some planes like the F-15, SU-27, and MIG-29, the only thing that is usually situated above the fuselage and behind the cockpit would be air brakes, and even those are mostly fitted towards the rear of the plane itself.

[Larkonis Trassler]

Need to find the story of the 'Jag Killer'

[Me]

Are jags some sort of special low flying jet? Or are they just used by nations where their is space to film them flying low?

Yeah, they're ground attack/CAS aircraft like the A-10. Except smaller and faster, their primary role was actually to deliver tactical nuclear weapons at incredible speeds and low altitudes. In the case of the RAF we replaced them with the Tornado because the weapon load on the Jag is kind of anaemic.

This is also the reason why they have weapon rails on the top of the wing, you can't really launch an air to air missile from 75 feet from below the wing, it'd probably just crash.

This makes me wonder why don't most aircraft have rails above their wings, or above the fuselage?

From what I understand, the rails below the aircraft allow the munition to drop then fire off their motors, or just let gravity do the work in the case of bombs. But Air to Air missiles can surely be fitted to the top of the aircraft.

It's a bit counter aerodynamic to have your pylons on the top of the wings.

So why not above the fuselage? On some planes like the F-15, SU-27, and MIG-29, the only thing that is usually situated above the fuselage and behind the cockpit would be air brakes, and even those are mostly fitted towards the rear of the plane itself.

Same reason. Modern jets are essentially all wing and they get lift (and instability in the case of unstable fly by wire planes which most (all?) modern fight jets are) off the fuselage shape, that's why they have such odd shapes compared to Spitfires and other older planes.

[Rans]

Because it would ruin the aerodynamics? Airflow over the airplane is extremely important on Russian jets for example.

[Larkonis Trassler]

Are jags some sort of special low flying jet? Or are they just used by nations where their is space to film them flying low?

Yeah, they're ground attack/CAS aircraft like the A-10. Except smaller and faster, their primary role was actually to deliver tactical nuclear weapons at incredible speeds and low altitudes. In the case of the RAF we replaced them with the Tornado because the weapon load on the Jag is kind of anaemic.

This is also the reason why they have weapon rails on the top of the wing, you can't really launch an air to air missile from 75 feet from below the wing, it'd probably just crash.

This makes me wonder why don't most aircraft have rails above their wings, or above the fuselage?

From what I understand, the rails below the aircraft allow the munition to drop then fire off their motors, or just let gravity do the work in the case of bombs. But Air to Air missiles can surely be fitted to the top of the aircraft.

It's a bit counter aerodynamic to have your pylons on the top of the wings.

So why not above the fuselage? On some planes like the F-15, SU-27, and MIG-29, the only thing that is usually situated above the fuselage and behind the cockpit would be air brakes, and even those are mostly fitted towards the rear of the plane itself.

Same reason. Modern jets are essentially all wing and they get lift (and instability in the case of unstable fly by wire planes which most (all?) modern fight jets are) off the fuselage shape, that's why they have such odd shapes compared to Spitfires and other older planes.

I think there's a lot of the whole multirole aspect that a lot of newer planes are supposed to provide. It's a bit difficult to drop a 500lber from an above wing/fuselage pylon.

[Me]

Are jags some sort of special low flying jet? Or are they just used by nations where their is space to film them flying low?

Yeah, they're ground attack/CAS aircraft like the A-10. Except smaller and faster, their primary role was actually to deliver tactical nuclear weapons at incredible speeds and low altitudes. In the case of the RAF we replaced them with the Tornado because the weapon load on the Jag is kind of anaemic.

This is also the reason why they have weapon rails on the top of the wing, you can't really launch an air to air missile from 75 feet from below the wing, it'd probably just crash.

This makes me wonder why don't most aircraft have rails above their wings, or above the fuselage?

From what I understand, the rails below the aircraft allow the munition to drop then fire off their motors, or just let gravity do the work in the case of bombs. But Air to Air missiles can surely be fitted to the top of the aircraft.

It's a bit counter aerodynamic to have your pylons on the top of the wings.

So why not above the fuselage? On some planes like the F-15, SU-27, and MIG-29, the only thing that is usually situated above the fuselage and behind the cockpit would be air brakes, and even those are mostly fitted towards the rear of the plane itself.

Same reason. Modern jets are essentially all wing and they get lift (and instability in the case of unstable fly by wire planes which most (all?) modern fight jets are) off the fuselage shape, that's why they have such odd shapes compared to Spitfires and other older planes.

I think there's a lot of the whole multirole aspect that a lot of newer planes are supposed to provide. It's a bit difficult to drop a 500lber from an above wing/fuselage pylon.

Drop the bomb before step 3.

[Larkonis Trassler]

Are jags some sort of special low flying jet? Or are they just used by nations where their is space to film them flying low?

Yeah, they're ground attack/CAS aircraft like the A-10. Except smaller and faster, their primary role was actually to deliver tactical nuclear weapons at incredible speeds and low altitudes. In the case of the RAF we replaced them with the Tornado because the weapon load on the Jag is kind of anaemic.

This is also the reason why they have weapon rails on the top of the wing, you can't really launch an air to air missile from 75 feet from below the wing, it'd probably just crash.

This makes me wonder why don't most aircraft have rails above their wings, or above the fuselage?

From what I understand, the rails below the aircraft allow the munition to drop then fire off their motors, or just let gravity do the work in the case of bombs. But Air to Air missiles can surely be fitted to the top of the aircraft.

It's a bit counter aerodynamic to have your pylons on the top of the wings.

So why not above the fuselage? On some planes like the F-15, SU-27, and MIG-29, the only thing that is usually situated above the fuselage and behind the cockpit would be air brakes, and even those are mostly fitted towards the rear of the plane itself.

Same reason. Modern jets are essentially all wing and they get lift (and instability in the case of unstable fly by wire planes which most (all?) modern fight jets are) off the fuselage shape, that's why they have such odd shapes compared to Spitfires and other older planes.

I think there's a lot of the whole multirole aspect that a lot of newer planes are supposed to provide. It's a bit difficult to drop a 500lber from an above wing/fuselage pylon.

Drop the bomb before step 3.

Dice tossing is great, but it's probably a bit too technical for pilots loitering around for six hours hopped up on 'go pills'. It also negates a lot of the stealth capabilities of those newer aircraft having external weapons and all.

[dpidcoe]

Are jags some sort of special low flying jet? Or are they just used by nations where their is space to film them flying low?

Yeah, they're ground attack/CAS aircraft like the A-10. Except smaller and faster, their primary role was actually to deliver tactical nuclear weapons at incredible speeds and low altitudes. In the case of the RAF we replaced them with the Tornado because the weapon load on the Jag is kind of anaemic.

This is also the reason why they have weapon rails on the top of the wing, you can't really launch an air to air missile from 75 feet from below the wing, it'd probably just crash.

This makes me wonder why don't most aircraft have rails above their wings, or above the fuselage?

From what I understand, the rails below the aircraft allow the munition to drop then fire off their motors, or just let gravity do the work in the case of bombs. But Air to Air missiles can surely be fitted to the top of the aircraft.

It's a bit counter aerodynamic to have your pylons on the top of the wings.

So why not above the fuselage? On some planes like the F-15, SU-27, and MIG-29, the only thing that is usually situated above the fuselage and behind the cockpit would be air brakes, and even those are mostly fitted towards the rear of the plane itself.

Same reason. Modern jets are essentially all wing and they get lift (and instability in the case of unstable fly by wire planes which most (all?) modern fight jets are) off the fuselage shape, that's why they have such odd shapes compared to Spitfires and other older planes.

I think there's a lot of the whole multirole aspect that a lot of newer planes are supposed to provide. It's a bit difficult to drop a 500lber from an above wing/fuselage pylon.

Drop the bomb before step 3.

Dice tossing is great, but it's probably a bit too technical for pilots loitering around for six hours hopped up on 'go pills'. It also negates a lot of the stealth capabilities of those newer aircraft having external weapons and all.

Who said anything about tossing dice, I thought we were tossing bombs

Most of the radar is coming from the bottom anyway, so the bombs won't even be getting hit by it.

Also, if that's too technical, just skip steps 1 and 2.

[Dogbeast]

Are jags some sort of special low flying jet? Or are they just used by nations where their is space to film them flying low?

Yeah, they're ground attack/CAS aircraft like the A-10. Except smaller and faster, their primary role was actually to deliver tactical nuclear weapons at incredible speeds and low altitudes. In the case of the RAF we replaced them with the Tornado because the weapon load on the Jag is kind of anaemic.

This is also the reason why they have weapon rails on the top of the wing, you can't really launch an air to air missile from 75 feet from below the wing, it'd probably just crash.

This makes me wonder why don't most aircraft have rails above their wings, or above the fuselage?

From what I understand, the rails below the aircraft allow the munition to drop then fire off their motors, or just let gravity do the work in the case of bombs. But Air to Air missiles can surely be fitted to the top of the aircraft.

It's a bit counter aerodynamic to have your pylons on the top of the wings.

So why not above the fuselage? On some planes like the F-15, SU-27, and MIG-29, the only thing that is usually situated above the fuselage and behind the cockpit would be air brakes, and even those are mostly fitted towards the rear of the plane itself.

Same reason. Modern jets are essentially all wing and they get lift (and instability in the case of unstable fly by wire planes which most (all?) modern fight jets are) off the fuselage shape, that's why they have such odd shapes compared to Spitfires and other older planes.

I think there's a lot of the whole multirole aspect that a lot of newer planes are supposed to provide. It's a bit difficult to drop a 500lber from an above wing/fuselage pylon.

Drop the bomb before step 3.

Well, I was thinking the same lines as the Jaguar and have Air to Air missiles above and Air to Ground ordinance below.

Here is another question going back to the Mid-Air refueling planes...why does NATO and every branch of the US Military use 1 form of refueling, except the the US Airforce continue to use their own independent version?

And here are some A4 Skyhawk pictures. Always seemed like a cool aircraft, being able to carry so much ordinance on such a small airframe.

[Qwert]

Quick read of wiki says that the flying boom method has much higher flow rates and depends less on good piloting by the receiver, but is limited to serial filling. Probe+drogue is slower, but allows parallel filling.

It is fairly simple to add probe+drogue to turn a plane into a tanker, so a boom tanker can be fit with drogue pods for combined operations:


I get the impression that the airforce was worried about bombers first, and fighters second (specifically, keeping Chrome Dome operational). Filling a single bomber very fast is easier with a boom, while filling a 4 man wing of fighters is faster with drogues. Boom is also safer for bomber pilots flying 48 hour missions.

[dpidcoe]

Here is another question going back to the Mid-Air refueling planes...why does NATO and every branch of the US Military use 1 form of refueling, except the the US Airforce continue to use their own independent version?

Because it's frigging cool is why:

[Right Rudder]

In reference to the pylon on top of the wing thing, it also makes jettisoning your stores difficult in a situation like airframe damage where you do not want to have to risk rolling inverted and pull of aerobatics just to get rid of potential explosives. Fairly common to get rid of all your shit onboard before a gear up landing you are forced into due to combat/collision/turbulence related damage.

[Destoration]

SR-71 makes it ultra super cool:

[Skidrowpunk]

SR-71 makes it ultra super cool:

IIRC when on ground, the SR-71 leaked fuel, and only really sealed up once at altitude, due to the extreme design of the airframe.