Your Nation's Air Force Mark III: Best Korea Edition

[Triplebaconation]

I'm sorry, what's your point? First steel-framed aircraft are too heavy to fly, now they're lighter than your pick 'em up truck?

My point is you picked an aircraft that is light by design to defend the use of steel framed aircraft in general. In general, aircraft shouldn't use steel for the frame to save weight. This becomes more obvious for larger aircraft and fighters.

How bizarre to mention the most successful trainer in history in response to a question about trainers!

There are plenty of welded-steel general aviation and aerobatic aircraft today suitable for initial and basic training.

R&C is just doing his thing now by the way.

[Danternoust]

I don't see why the Super Tucano needs two engines. It's meant as a low cost, reliable aircraft to support ground operations. I see no reason to put another engine on it and can think of several ways that would negatively impact the aircraft, not the least of which being the increased complexity and decreased weapons load.

To upgrade it into an A-10 at minimal cost.

While that can be done (it was on some Russian MiGs), I don't really see how it will be much better than other methods. Further, there really isn't any such thing as armor for aircraft. About the only armor aircraft ever really have is around the pilot's seat and the fuel tanks. That does very little against modern missiles so I would recommend saving weight and volume for more weapons, sensors, or countermeasures.

Self-sealing tanks isn't armor, neither are bulkheads. That's damage control.

I'm not sure what the purpose of the ammo statements is.

I felt it was relevant, but if I need to make it more relevant, perhaps my aircraft needs rear armor for the cockpit to be 10mm of hardened aluminum, backed by ceramics, backed by 5mm of soft aluminum.

[The Manticoran Empire]

I don't see why the Super Tucano needs two engines. It's meant as a low cost, reliable aircraft to support ground operations. I see no reason to put another engine on it and can think of several ways that would negatively impact the aircraft, not the least of which being the increased complexity and decreased weapons load.

To upgrade it into an A-10 at minimal cost.

So upgrade a capable aircraft into something that is incapable?

While that can be done (it was on some Russian MiGs), I don't really see how it will be much better than other methods. Further, there really isn't any such thing as armor for aircraft. About the only armor aircraft ever really have is around the pilot's seat and the fuel tanks. That does very little against modern missiles so I would recommend saving weight and volume for more weapons, sensors, or countermeasures.

Self-sealing tanks isn't armor, neither are bulkheads. That's damage control.

Actually that is EXACTLY what armor is for aircraft. Actually look up the armor scheme for planes in World War 2 and you will see that the armor is limited to the fuel tanks and the pilot's seat. The rest of the aircraft is effectively unarmored.

I'm not sure what the purpose of the ammo statements is.

I felt it was relevant, but if I need to make it more relevant, perhaps my aircraft needs rear armor for the cockpit to be 10mm of hardened aluminum, backed by ceramics, backed by 5mm of soft aluminum.

The better solution is to NOT get shot in the first place. Further, you basically described a fairly heavily armored World War II fighter.

[Danternoust]

Actually that is EXACTLY what armor is for aircraft. Actually look up the armor scheme for planes in World War 2 and you will see that the armor is limited to the fuel tanks and the pilot's seat. The rest of the aircraft is effectively unarmored.

I see, I see. Wet wings are bad.


To perhaps return a discussion over the viability of the SR.177 (something with similar performance characteristics to simplify explanation) as an airdefence fighter (except maybe not using a rocket engine), my IADS would require a response time of 16 minutes to respond to enemy high altitude supersonic bombers.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/foxhoun ... spy-plane/

I think orienting towards low altitude, but long range missile dogfighting is ideal for the "lo" fighter, and the high fighter must be able to dogfight, mainly because the transition from supersonic to subsonic must be handled carefully because the exterior is apparently 800 degrees centigrade.

I would assume this is the same for western aircraft, temperature problems and the like, which eats up much of the flight time presumably for simply loitering over a friendly airfield.

Perhaps I am coming to a solution before understanding the problem.
For Danternoust's unique needs for current aircraft, essentially there has to be:
-A low-cost short range interceptor to confirm and engage hostile targets. With JATO, will be capable of launching from a modified missile launcher, which often must be capable of handling thirty tonne loads to begin with.
-A high-cost quasi-stealth supersonic interceptor (generation 3.5).
-A carrier-capable STOL stealth fighter for expeditionary and semi-prepared runway purposes, plus downgraded variant where the reinforcements for catapult takeoff is removed for improved range.
-CAS aircraft capable of taking off from a carrier but not landing on a carrier for expeditionary purposes.
-Downgraded CAS aircraft for training and reconnaissance. Reduced armor, engines incapable of war emergency power / afterburning.


Maybe I could just use a JATO powered Ye-8 for the first requirement.



Does any aircraft like the MiG-41 exist in NS? Long-range air superiority fighters?

[The Manticoran Empire]

Actually that is EXACTLY what armor is for aircraft. Actually look up the armor scheme for planes in World War 2 and you will see that the armor is limited to the fuel tanks and the pilot's seat. The rest of the aircraft is effectively unarmored.

I see, I see. Wet wings are bad.

Well World War II fighters also tended to put their guns in the wings.

To perhaps return a discussion over the viability of the SR.177 (something with similar performance characteristics to simplify explanation) as an air defence fighter (except maybe not using a rocket engine), my IADS would require a response time of 16 minutes to respond to enemy high altitude supersonic bombers.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/foxhoun ... spy-plane/

In those 16 minutes, a supersonic bomber can travel about 5-6 kilometers. However, that requires an aircraft that can REACH those altitudes or SAMs with sufficient capability to reach those altitudes. As such, it would be far more efficient to use MiG-31s or similar Aircraft as opposed to an abortive mixed propulsion aircraft from the 1950s.

I think orienting towards low altitude, but long range missile dogfighting is ideal for the "lo" fighter, and the high fighter must be able to dogfight, mainly because the transition from supersonic to subsonic must be handled carefully because the exterior is apparently 800 degrees centigrade.

The "Low" Fighter is supposed to be a simpler, cheaper aircraft while the "High" fighter is the complex, expensive fighter. An example is the F-15, designed to fire complex radar guided missiles, and the F-16, primarily armed with simple heat seeking missiles.

I would assume this is the same for western aircraft, temperature problems and the like, which eats up much of the flight time presumably for simply loitering over a friendly airfield.

Not really. If you are loitering over your air field, that is because you are waiting for the rest of the squadron to take off. In terms of actual acceleration, the primary risk is less to do with temperature, at least on the pilot's end. Any supersonic aircraft is designed with the stresses of supersonic flight in mind. Moving from subsonic to supersonic and supersonic to subsonic is a process that most fighter pilots will do a thousand times and can be as simple as throwing your plane into a loop or popping the speed brakes.

Perhaps I am coming to a solution before understanding the problem.
For Danternoust's unique needs for current aircraft, essentially there has to be:

Let's go over these one by one.

-A low-cost short range interceptor to confirm and engage hostile targets. With JATO, will be capable of launching from a modified missile launcher, which often must be capable of handling thirty tonne loads to begin with.

Well you don't need a manned interceptor for this. A drone or a radar will work just fine. In terms of launching it, build something like a MiG or an F-16. They climb quickly and are fast enough to dogfight while being cheap.

-A high-cost quasi-stealth supersonic interceptor (generation 3.5).

Gen 3.5 isn't really going to have stealth interceptors. If you want Stealth, F-22 is all you can get. If you want something else, I would recommend MiG-31, F-14, or F-15.

-A carrier-capable STOL stealth fighter for expeditionary and semi-prepared runway purposes, plus downgraded variant where the reinforcements for catapult takeoff is removed for improved range.

F-35B or F-35C is pretty much all that is available in that case. Other options are the F/A-18 and F-14.

-CAS aircraft capable of taking off from a carrier but not landing on a carrier for expeditionary purposes.

Why launch from a carrier if it can't return? That defeats the whole purpose of putting it on a carrier.

-Downgraded CAS aircraft for training and reconnaissance. Reduced armor, engines incapable of war emergency power / afterburning.

Most CAS aircraft are either prop driven or are subsonic jet fighters. Personally, if you want a low cost CAS aircraft, I'd go with the Super Tucano.

Maybe I could just use a JATO powered Ye-8 for the first requirement.

Given the technical issues with the Ye-8, it would be next to useless in any role.

Does any aircraft like the MiG-41 exist in NS? Long-range air superiority fighters?

Some probably do. The MiG-41 is currently in the development phase in Russia and, given how the Pak Fa went, I'm not optimistic about its chances. However, long range air superiority fighters are probably pretty common on NS.

[Danternoust]

The "Low" Fighter is supposed to be a simpler, cheaper aircraft while the "High" fighter is the complex, expensive fighter. An example is the F-15, designed to fire complex radar guided missiles, and the F-16, primarily armed with simple heat seeking missiles.

I see, so I'm going for a more low - mid - hi approach.

In those 16 minutes, a supersonic bomber can travel about 5-6 kilometers. However, that requires an aircraft that can REACH those altitudes or SAMs with sufficient capability to reach those altitudes. As such, it would be far more efficient to use MiG-31s or similar Aircraft as opposed to an abortive mixed propulsion aircraft from the 1950s.

Well, the aircraft only needs to reach a radar horizon of 100 km within a few minutes as well, which isn't a very high altitude.
The rocket could be removed and replaced with JATO.

Well you don't need a manned interceptor for this. A drone or a radar will work just fine. In terms of launching it, build something like a MiG or an F-16. They climb quickly and are fast enough to dogfight while being cheap.

I think I'll use flares to compensate for possible jamming issues, or turn the aircraft around to use the kilowatt radar as a radio. But it still could cause confusion in communicating directions, so a missile that is essentially a long range inertially-guided flare with an inertial fuse firework-warhead might be simplest, even if it reduces the number of air to air missiles.
But yes, jamming is a sufficient concern to not use drones which require a bandwidth of at least one megahertz to convey useful tactical information.
"Uh, Bogey is firing fireworks at us, please advise."
On the ground: "You've loaded the wrong missiles!"
"The label was scratched off on the other one."

Gen 3.5 isn't really going to have stealth interceptors.

Only in shape, it won't have other stealth advantages.

Some probably do. The MiG-41 is currently in the development phase in Russia and, given how the Pak Fa went, I'm not optimistic about its chances. However, long range air superiority fighters are probably pretty common on NS.

Hmm, nothing that can carry multiple tonnes of missiles as payload and long range supersonic flight, if the news reports are right. I guess only Russia can surpass NS in size.

Why launch from a carrier if it can't return? That defeats the whole purpose of putting it on a carrier.

Simple, irrational judgement! The agreement to buy a refurbished carrier with a sufficiently long deck to land without arresting hooks fell through after it was hit in drydock during a war overseas. The purchase orders continued because of lobbyists and complex rationalizations that the aircraft would be useful to support a foreign ally during a war, using a carrier only for transport. It does result in the odd situation that carriers can't support an amphibious invasion to seize an airfield needed to continue the invasion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0jgZKV4N_A <- Admiral George Parr
But it can still land if the flight deck is cleared.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84 <- C-130 landing on a carrier.


For the remaining points I don't disagree or taking it as advice.

[The Manticoran Empire]

The "Low" Fighter is supposed to be a simpler, cheaper aircraft while the "High" fighter is the complex, expensive fighter. An example is the F-15, designed to fire complex radar guided missiles, and the F-16, primarily armed with simple heat seeking missiles.

I see, so I'm going for a more low - mid - hi approach.

I think you are still misconstruing what the "Hi-Lo" mix is.

In those 16 minutes, a supersonic bomber can travel about 5-6 kilometers. However, that requires an aircraft that can REACH those altitudes or SAMs with sufficient capability to reach those altitudes. As such, it would be far more efficient to use MiG-31s or similar Aircraft as opposed to an abortive mixed propulsion aircraft from the 1950s.

Well, the aircraft only needs to reach a radar horizon of 100 km within a few minutes as well, which isn't a very high altitude.
The rocket could be removed and replaced with JATO.

Radar horizon is not the same as altitude and the bomber doesn't need to reach your radar horizon to kill your radar. The AGM-88 can hit targets at 150 kilometers so a high altitude bomber can kill your radar before your radar sees the aircraft itself. Given that the missile will be out of your radar range for the first 50 kilometers of flight, your radar site will have 2 minutes 37 seconds to react.

Well you don't need a manned interceptor for this. A drone or a radar will work just fine. In terms of launching it, build something like a MiG or an F-16. They climb quickly and are fast enough to dogfight while being cheap.

I think I'll use flares to compensate for possible jamming issues, or turn the aircraft around to use the kilowatt radar as a radio. But it still could cause confusion in communicating directions, so a missile that is essentially a long range inertially-guided flare with an inertial fuse firework-warhead might be simplest, even if it reduces the number of air to air missiles.
But yes, jamming is a sufficient concern to not use drones which require a bandwidth of at least one megahertz to convey useful tactical information.
"Uh, Bogey is firing fireworks at us, please advise."
On the ground: "You've loaded the wrong missiles!"
"The label was scratched off on the other one."

Flares to compensate for jamming? While you can technically do it, jamming becomes less effective at short ranges due to a thing called burn through. All you need is a sufficiently powerful transmitter.

Gen 3.5 isn't really going to have stealth interceptors.

Only in shape, it won't have other stealth advantages.

Shape is only part of stealth. The shape alone isn't what provides the stealth effect. Materials also matter.

Some probably do. The MiG-41 is currently in the development phase in Russia and, given how the Pak Fa went, I'm not optimistic about its chances. However, long range air superiority fighters are probably pretty common on NS.

Hmm, nothing that can carry multiple tonnes of missiles as payload and long range supersonic flight, if the news reports are right. I guess only Russia can surpass NS in size.

Just because the proposed development will carry multiple tons of missiles doesn't mean the final design will. Designers have a habit of overhyping an aircraft to get funding and this is even more true for the cash strapped Russians.

Why launch from a carrier if it can't return? That defeats the whole purpose of putting it on a carrier.

Simple, irrational judgement! The agreement to buy a refurbished carrier with a sufficiently long deck to land without arresting hooks fell through after it was hit in drydock during a war overseas. The purchase orders continued because of lobbyists and complex rationalizations that the aircraft would be useful to support a foreign ally during a war, using a carrier only for transport. It does result in the odd situation that carriers can't support an amphibious invasion to seize an airfield needed to continue the invasion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0jgZKV4N_A <- Admiral George Parr
But it can still land if the flight deck is cleared.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84 <- C-130 landing on a carrier.

So essentially it a case of the politicians making decisions that don't make sense from a military perspective and completely ignoring logic of any kind?
That rather succinctly describes most of your military's equipment inventory.

[Danternoust]

I think you are still misconstruing what the "Hi-Lo" mix is.

Well, maybe I'm going for hi-lo-- local AWACS platform that can be launched from a ground vehicle.

Radar horizon is not the same as altitude and the bomber doesn't need to reach your radar horizon to kill your radar. The AGM-88 can hit targets at 150 kilometers so a high altitude bomber can kill your radar before your radar sees the aircraft itself. Given that the missile will be out of your radar range for the first 50 kilometers of flight, your radar site will have 2 minutes 37 seconds to react.

If only the earth was a flat featureless plain. And there was no such thing as overlapping, or even inactive radar coverage.

Shape is only part of stealth. The shape alone isn't what provides the stealth effect. Materials also matter.

A modest reduction versus a full reduction.

Flares to compensate for jamming? While you can technically do it, jamming becomes less effective at short ranges due to a thing called burn through. All you need is a sufficiently powerful transmitter.

I prefer signal flares. Can double as frontal aspect countermeasure for IR guided air-to-air missiles.
Burn through requires facing the right direction, and may require thinking about the nearest IADS command site.
Can't miss a thousand foot wide firework star. Notably nearly all fireworks don't reach higher than 1000 kilometers, and they can be seen for quite some distance.
Naturally it isn't the best communications channel.

So essentially it a case of the politicians making decisions that don't make sense from a military perspective and completely ignoring logic of any kind?
That rather succinctly describes most of your military's equipment inventory.

No, it is a case of generals acting like politicians and politicians acting like generals.

Edit: The short range interceptor should cost only $5 million by the way, which would allow for hundreds to be feasibly built and maintained.

[Gallia-]

Steel is also heavy and, unfortunately, weight is much more important than life time of the airframe. It doesn't matter how long it can theoretically last if it is too heavy to fly.

This explains why the Piper Cub needed 10 miles of runway before it finally lumbered off the ground.

Surface corrosion of aluminum protects the underlying aluminum from further corrosion (the same is true of copper). Which is unlike rust, which will continue to eat away at the underlying iron until the entire structure disintegrates.

Thus, while they might be ostensibly similar processes, their functional effects are vastly different.

Surface corrosion isn't a huge issue on aircraft. Aluminum is more vulnerable to galvanic and stress corrosion than steel, and the aluminum oxide layer actually makes it more susceptible to pitting. These are the biggest airframe killers on non-pressurized aircraft.

TIL Skyhawk is a lame boi.

[Austrasien]

Apropos a previous discussion,

B-2 Survivability Against Air Defense Systems

Contains an interesting discussion about acoustic sensors v. stealth aircraft, the limitations thereof, and contra claims made:

The real Air Force investigation involved a comprehensive experimental examination of aircraft acoustic signatures, acoustic propagation, and background interference phenomena. Actual field tests were run employing state-of-the-art acoustic detectors, electronics, and advanced signal processing schemes. Engineers and analysts developed a realistic view of available detection ranges for differing aircraft flying various speeds at high and low altitude

Everything from acoustic to cosmic ray interaction has been studied for their potential use against stealth aircraft. Including all the technologies which have and often continue to be touted as "counter stealth" by know-nothing clickbait (passive coherent location, bi-static radar, forward scattering, OTH radar, UWB radar, turbulence detection...). Those "alternative" techniques which showed potential merit (such as acoustic tracking) were studied in depth. All were found wanting.

[Axis Nova]

There really is no magic bullet that will render stealth technology useless. The best you can do is combine various methods to make it more difficult for them.

[Gallia-]

There really is no magic bullet that will render stealth technology useless.

The required quality control and manufacturing tolerances of VLO aircraft are doing this by themselves. Ever more sensitive radars such as holographic radars and photon computers will make stealth require fewer microns between panel gaps lest you present massive scattering that can be detected by your single to low double digit photon scattering sent out from 2060s super sensors. Oops, looks like someone assembled the F/A-69 Ass Clapper wrong. The only difference is that this sort of sensor technology requires a functional computer industry like the kind that exists in Europe, USA, and Japan. That is something Russia has never had, so it cannot be considered "anti-stealth technology", because it requires something beyond physical limitations of the manufacturers of the 1980s (but hardly beyond their dreams) radars pundits usually shill for and thus is invisible to people who think Grave Stone is a threat to F-35 (or F-15, for that matter).

Luckily this is a text-based game where you can have photonic computers that analyze radar return signals instead of RF microelectronics, giving you APG-77/81-esque performance in the 1980s and defeating F-117s and Fireflies all day.

As someone who shills for laser beams and railguns you should know all about this.

[Celitannia]

So is this F-15X purchase by the USAF because of Shanahan - who was reported to be the one behind the move, rather than the USAF brass - simply being a Boeing stooge?

Or is it an attempt supported by the USAF at large to sustain at least two sources of fighter aircraft in a rare display of long term planning?

I ask because I find it highly unlikely that it’s the stated and rather vague reason given by the USAF of increasing ‘capacity’, when that’s the entire goal of the F-35 program.

[The Akasha Colony]

So is this F-15X purchase by the USAF because of Shanahan - who was reported to be the one behind the move, rather than the USAF brass - simply being a Boeing stooge?

Or is it an attempt supported by the USAF at large to sustain at least two sources of fighter aircraft in a rare display of long term planning?

I ask because I find it highly unlikely that it’s the stated and rather vague reason given by the USAF of increasing ‘capacity’, when that’s the entire goal of the F-35 program.

The USAF does want to keep Boeing in the fighter business, at least sort of. It's why they won the T-X trainer competition, which will keep them building some kind of fast jet after the F-15 and F/A-18 lines close. Buying the Lockheed/KAI T-50 would have been cheaper as this is an existing aircraft but would have left Lockheed as pretty much the only manufacturer of fast jets in the US after the early-mid 2020s.

There's undoubtedly politics behind the move to suddenly buy dozens of F-15Xs, but Shanahan alone isn't the cause. Shakeups in DoD leadership have given the manufacturing lobby a greater weight and the Trump administration in general has been pretty cozy with defense contractors (despite Trump's public rhetoric about Lockheed and Boeing running overbudget). While the combat arms and strategic planners want more F-35s rather than more F-15s, there are other elements of the bureaucracy that would like to keep the lines running to maintain the availability of spares (the difficulty sourcing spares for F-22 is undoubtedly weighing on them). F-15 is in bigger trouble in this regard because heavy twin-engine fighters have a smaller export market than lighter single-engine fighters like F-16. F/A-18 is in trouble too but the Navy has generally been willing to step up with a small trickle of orders to keep it running (though perhaps not for much longer).

The USAF undoubtedly needs more jets. And the combat arms would prefer more F-35s, even if it might mean waiting a little longer due to the ramping up of production. Because they know that F-35's capabilities are worth the wait. F-15X will carry lots of missiles but it won't be VLO or even LO. But the manufacturing and MUH JOBS lobby are pretty strong now and with the current administration so obsessed with maintaining MUH FACTORY JOBS and looking tough on defense, buying a bunch of "new" fighters is a convenient way (in their minds) of killing many birds with a single stone. Shanahan has undoubtedly helped shape this narrative internally but the idea didn't start with him. Boeing has been pushing new F-15 variants at the Pentagon for decades.

[Celitannia]

Thanks for the quick reply. Feels good to have at least the notion that there's more than meets the eye to the F-15X buy vindicated, but then I suppose there's more than meets the eye to every procurement decision. It just seems particularly shady considering Shanahan is an ex-Boeing exec and he's only recently been made 'acting' Secretary of Defense. Combine this with the fact that the USAF have always wanted more F-35s and not too recently were almost willing to throw away the entire F-15C fleet to get them (AFAIK) and the decision seems quite politically motivated, as you've explained.

Anyhow, apparently this in no way affects the F-35 buy according to the Lockheed CEO, but logically the money has to come from somewhere. I suppose this is intended to placate Lockheed shareholders and is a bit of a porkie pie on her part?

[The Akasha Colony]

Thanks for the quick reply. Feels good to have at least the notion that there's more than meets the eye to the F-15X buy vindicated, but then I suppose there's more than meets the eye to every procurement decision. It just seems particularly shady considering Shanahan is an ex-Boeing exec and he's only recently been made 'acting' Secretary of Defense. Combine this with the fact that the USAF have always wanted more F-35s and not too recently were almost willing to throw away the entire F-15C fleet to get them (AFAIK) and the decision seems quite politically motivated, as you've explained.

Given the fact that Boeing is one of the DoD's largest contractors, the revolving door between industry and government, and the current administration's disregard for potential conflicts of interest, an industry-connected appointee was bound to rise to an influential position sooner or later. The Trump administration basically cares about three credentials: fame, a business background, and loyalty. There used to be a carve out for military service but after Trump found out that "his" generals weren't the yes-men he was expecting, the prospects for other veterans have dimmed somewhat.

Anyhow, apparently this in no way affects the F-35 buy according to the Lockheed CEO, but logically the money has to come from somewhere. I suppose this is intended to placate Lockheed shareholders and is a bit of a porkie pie on her part?

Of course they'd say that.

Whether it impacts F-35 purchases could be tricky to determine in a timely fashion because it's always hard to answer what-ifs. But the USAF wants to increase its F-35 deliveries to the range of 60+ per year and it seems unlikely to do so if F-15X is eating a slice of the pie unless Congress increases the procurement budget.

But even then, one of the reasons the USAF was eager to start retiring older jets early was to start retraining crews and pilots for F-35, so an increase in procurement funding won't magically solve the USAF's current (and worsening) shortage of pilots.

[Gallia-]

no one except boeing wants f-15x

it's literally shadman shilling for bonerring with usaf consent provided it doesnt eat the f-35 number

[Urran]

Think a Burke's hanger could hold an EC225?

[New Chilokver]

Think a Burke's hanger could hold an EC225?

Nope.

[Gallia-]

Think a Burke's hanger could hold an EC225?

Yes easily. Burke hangars are sized for SH-60, which is one of the bigger frigate helicopters in existence (short of absolute units like Merlin). Other helicopters that will fit: SH-3, NH90, SH-2, and AS365.

[Kassaran]

So, in the spirit of this article, anybody got some awesome paint schemes they want to show off from their nation's air forces?

C'mon, I know ya'll gotsta have them sick paint-schemes for your premier aircraft somewhere. While I know why these fell out of practice nowadays, what are some of the cooler designs you all have seen, made, or wanted to see be made?

[New Chilokver]

Think a Burke's hanger could hold an EC225?

Yes easily. Burke hangars are sized for SH-60, which is one of the bigger frigate helicopters in existence (short of absolute units like Merlin). Other helicopters that will fit: SH-3, NH90, SH-2, and AS365.

The EC225 is essentially comparable to the SH-60 in height, width and length, but neither it nor its military counterpart in the EC725 are designed to fold up for storage in a shipboard hangar. Without the folding tail, the difference in length comes to about 7 metres, which I believe would leave it poking out onto the helipad when stowed.

[Celitannia]

The AS332F Super Puma has a folding tail. I know that the H225M was originally advertised as having the capability too.

[Kassaran]

Just stumbled across this lovely little gem. As per usual, Raytheon gives a somewhat understandably sleek and well-packaged presentation on the basic capabilities of their new Special Mission Aircraft, but reasonably how many of these capabilities can be provided in a single airframe? Is it all-in-one, or do you think they actually made the aircraft more of a modular 'build-to-the-mission' design wherein the mission can dictate the arrangement of the sensors and systems installed? Also, how many of you guys have looked into the development and adoption of such aircraft and at what point is their introduction into the air force of your nation considered appropriate? I figured that while the individual capabilities of special mission aircraft have long been under-appreciated by many nations on here, I assumed that they might be relatively uncommon, but looking into the matter I've found they've been around for a long time acting as the first aviation assets likely employed by individual armies. By that same notion, is it then that reconnaissance missions can be considered as the first and original purpose of aviation operations, or is it simply the first venue explored in the implementation of aviation assets as it was not long after (within twenty years) that they began to be adapted to the bombing role, and within twenty years of that they became a means of effective transportation of military forces across vast distances within unheard of times?

[The Akasha Colony]

Just stumbled across this lovely little gem. As per usual, Raytheon gives a somewhat understandably sleek and well-packaged presentation on the basic capabilities of their new Special Mission Aircraft, but reasonably how many of these capabilities can be provided in a single airframe? Is it all-in-one, or do you think they actually made the aircraft more of a modular 'build-to-the-mission' design wherein the mission can dictate the arrangement of the sensors and systems installed? Also, how many of you guys have looked into the development and adoption of such aircraft and at what point is their introduction into the air force of your nation considered appropriate? I figured that while the individual capabilities of special mission aircraft have long been under-appreciated by many nations on here, I assumed that they might be relatively uncommon, but looking into the matter I've found they've been around for a long time acting as the first aviation assets likely employed by individual armies. By that same notion, is it then that reconnaissance missions can be considered as the first and original purpose of aviation operations, or is it simply the first venue explored in the implementation of aviation assets as it was not long after (within twenty years) that they began to be adapted to the bombing role, and within twenty years of that they became a means of effective transportation of military forces across vast distances within unheard of times?

"New."

Nothing about the Special Mission Aircraft is new. It's just a generic business jet that they've developed a presentation for, using a bunch of sensors that UAVs have already been carrying for a decade and larger manned aircraft have been operating for even longer. It's just a smaller JSTARS without the onboard command center. Or perhaps more accurately, a mini-E-10 MC2A, a concept Northrop Grumman was working on back in 2003. Raytheon doesn't actually have the capability to design and build a plane, they're just offering to tack their existing sensors onto any business jet a potential customer might select. Raytheon is just repackaging and selling a platform they already developed for the UK under the Sentinel program which used Bombardier Global Express airframes (which is also the stand-in for Raytheon's video).

Given the serious issues such an aircraft would have surviving in a high-threat environment, these sensors have been moving to drones like Global Hawk or RQ-170 which are a bit more expendable. But plenty of nations don't have the money for such bespoke systems whereas business jets are available rather cheaply so they have continued to proliferate. That didn't stop me from drawing one anyway.