DARPA seeks high-tech alternatives to armor

[rhoenix]

Your second image is broken, unfortunately. Could you give me a reading source for all these shenanigans? All I saw in the wikipedia article on the A-12 just mentioned the CIA's influence on the project, and not really the USAF's, that I saw.

[Batman]

The F-12 was cancelled because there was absolutely no need for it. Why build an extremely expensive (if, that far I'll agree, definitely technologically viable) high-altitude Mach 3+ interceptor when your enemy steadfastly refuses to build bombers you'd need them to intercept?

Plus unlike the A-12/SR-71 the YF-12 was butt-ugly.

[rhoenix]

The F-12 was cancelled because there was absolutely no need for it. Why build an extremely expensive (if, that far I'll agree, definitely technologically viable) high-altitude Mach 3+ interceptor when your enemy steadfastly refuses to build bombers you'd need them to intercept?

Plus unlike the A-12/SR-71 the YF-12 was butt-ugly.

I don't know about that; it has a pressed-in looking nose, but it doesn't make the plane look ugly.

Besides - given the current design at the time, couldn't the USAF have just adapted the design as a long-range strike fighter/interceptor with extra missiles? Or were the powerful engines of that design a detriment to doing so?

[Batman]

The altered bow layout of the YF-12 completely ruined the otherwise good (A-12) and beautiful (SR-71) looks of that aircraft family. I don't see how you could have turned her into a strike fighter (Mach 3+ at 75,000ft and up isn't really conductive to ground attacks including indiscriminate carpet bombing, especially with 1960s hardware) and while the bird would have made an awesome interceptor, it would have made an awesome interceptor costing massively more than existing and upcoming airplanes perfectly capable of doing that job.

[rhoenix]

The altered bow layout of the YF-12 completely ruined the otherwise good (A-12) and beautiful (SR-71) looks of that aircraft family. I don't see how you could have turned her into a strike fighter (Mach 3+ at 75,000ft and up isn't really conductive to ground attacks including indiscriminate carpet bombing, especially with 1960s hardware) and while the bird would have made an awesome interceptor, it would have made an awesome interceptor costing massively more than existing and upcoming airplanes perfectly capable of doing that job.

All fair points; if there's an equally-effective design that costs quite a bit less, then yes, it does make the prospect much less attractive. Still, the idea of SR-71 type planes being used as missile boats is an intriguing thought.

[Lys]

High altitude, high speed flight greatly enhances the engagement envelope of air-to-air missiles against slower, lower flying targets. Moreover the ability to quickly gain speed and altitude is extremely important in the home defence role, as it increases response times against incoming enemy aircraft. There was no need for a large fleet of F-12 interceptors, which is why they were only going to build 93 of them, but a small fleet of them would have served a useful strategic role in homeland defence. It's true the F-12 was indeed unsuitable for the strike fighter role, but not because it flew high and fast, the B-70 had similar performance and would have been an excellent bomber. Rather its weapons bays were too small, having only space for three missiles, but that's not an issue because for a dedicated interceptor like the F-12 strike capability is irrelevant.

[Josh]

SO.. when did this stop being about ARMOR, and turn into a Best Airplane pissing contest?

I'm not arguing "Best airplane", but rather prettiest. And it's all Bats' fault for bringing up X-29.

I'm going to get called a heretic for this, and I know this in advance. I also don't care.

Nah, the Blackbird is a fine choice. Now if you were arguing in favor of the F-100 that'd be a different matter.



That is just one ugly duckling of a fighter no matter how you try to pretty up the paint job.

[rhoenix]

...Wow. Yeah, that plane must've been designed with the strong influence of reality-altering substances.

[Lys]

Hardly the so, the F-100 is actually a fairly sensible design. Sure the nose looks weird, but it's a good way to get supersonic performance out of a nose intake jet, and of course Josh picked the absolute worst angle for it. It's a little odd looking, but it's not insane by any means. Here's a better angle:




And here's an actually insane aircraft:

[Josh]

Even side-on that nose still looks whack, sorry. It's the one member of the 100 series that I'll forever disagree with you on.

[Lys]

If I ever get to make my dream Ace Combat game, I'm going to make sure the starting plane is an F-100D, and the game will be so good that you'll be unable to resist playing it until you learn to love it.

[Josh]

I'll take the Starfighter, thanks.

Plus for their actual combat usage in Vietnam they were totally outperformed by A-1 Skyraiders, which were single-engine prop birds that could carry more ordinance on one wing than the F-100s full load.

[Batman]

The Starfighter? Seriously? You mention the Super Sabres inferior combat loadout but you prefer the Starfighter. A quartet of Sidewinders as its main armament (in an era when the only thing you could count on them hitting was the ground-eventually, and usually in pieces) and a combat endurance that essentially didn't exist. Not to mention that the only configuration that looked even remotely like a warplane (as opposed to some really incompetent artist's idea of a small scale rocketship) traded two of those for wingtip tanks so the plane could at least actually get to the target area.
And given you like the looks of the Rhino, you are in no position to criticize the Super Sabre. At worst, that bird looks boring. (Unless painted in bright primary colours in a futile effort to make it look attractive, in which case it looked silly).

And technically, I never mentioned the X-29.

[Josh]

Starfighter had the whole "Missile with a man in it" thing going for it. And that super zoomy altitude even if yes, it pretty much had to come zooming back down because it was running on fumes by the time it got there.

Plus the name.

It was pretty much the biggest deathtrap of the 100 series, though. There was even a special club for pilots who actually managed to successfully deadstick one in.

[Lys]

I love the Starfighter, sure it has a number of shortcomings but its performance in the air is simply amazing for its time and remains respectable to this day. But like I said I love pretty much the entire Century Series. It's interesting how the F-104's reputation varied widely among the various countries that used it. The Germans and Canadians had horrifying attrition rates and as such they hated the things, and while America's loss rate was not much better it was the Thunderchief that got stuck with the bad reputation (undeservedly) on account of Vietnam. In Italy they managed to not crash them that often, having an attrition rate comparable to the F-102, which was still pretty bad but better than any of the aforementioned operators, and consequently they loved their Starfighters to the point that the last ones were retired in 2004. Meanwhile, in Spain their pilots are apparently such badasses that they managed to avoid losing even a single one.

[Josh]

One pilot's retrospective comment on the Starfighter went something like this: the term 'missile with a man in it' had a very different meaning back in the sixties compared to the eighties. Back in the sixties, 'missile' to a pilot was an unreliable device that went very fast in unpredictable directions and had a tendency to explode at all the wrong times.

[Batman]

One reason the Italians had more success with it was probably that they actually used in in the role it was designed for ,as an interceptor (up to and including giving it radar-guided AAMs). I don't know about Canada but the Luftwaffe, in their infinite wisdom, employed the Starfighter primarily as a low altitude fighter-bomber.