[Fantasy] Carlo Kopp's 1984 Stealth Fighter impression

[hesham]

Hi,

here is the Carlo Kopp stealth fighter proposal which
was designed in 1982.
http://www.ausairpower.net/abstracts.html

 

[Rickshaw]

I've been friends with Carlo for about 17 years. He's one smart cookie.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I mean this in all seriousness. With respects to real aircraft development... who is Carlo Kopp, and why should I care?

 

[sferrin]

I mean this in all seriousness. With respects to real aircraft development... who is Carlo Kopp, and why should I care?

Basically he's an Australian aviation journalist. He's had a few rides in fighter planes, written a bunch of articles, has opinions, and has gotten on some people's nerves. He's not an aircraft designer.

http://www.ausairpower.net/index.html

He's always seemed fairly reliable to me but some hate him with a passion.

 

[Orionblamblam]

He's not an aircraft designer.

Well, that's sort of the heart of it right there.

It's a nifty looking plane, but... in the end, it's just a doodle, not even a "project." Like any of a myriad of aircraft granted design patents to Just Some Guy.

 

[sferrin]

He's not an aircraft designer.

Well, that's sort of the heart of it right there.

It's a nifty looking plane, but... in the end, it's just a doodle, not even a "project." Like any of a myriad of aircraft granted design patents to Just Some Guy.

Yep. Like all those Gunston "designs" back in the 80s.

 

[Rickshaw]

I mean this in all seriousness. With respects to real aircraft development... who is Carlo Kopp, and why should I care?

Carlo is basically the best air strategist we have in Australia at the moment. He has written a myriad of very serious articles not only on the hardware (which we all love) but also the strategy of how to conduct air warfare. He is presently persona non gratia with the senior echelons of the Australian Defence Forces and in particular the DoD and RAAF because he blew the whistle on their plan to retire the F-111s early. He pointed out that they were using airline maintenance schedule data to justify the retirement instead of the airforce (USAF and RAAF) maintenance schedule data which they had used the previous 30 years in each year's Senate Estimates hearings. The change over had produced a sudden leap in life costs for the F-111, despite them having just all undergone a massive and complete refurbishment programme which had seen their analogue avionics replaced, their airframe returned to zero hours and their engines refurbished. While the RAAF has pushed ahead with their early retirement plans (which might be put off by the recent announcement to review the decision to lease F/A-18Es by the newly elected government), most people now realise its both a bad decision and one based on bullshit reasons.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Renamed topic.

I understand Scott's reservations but it is a serious attempt at imagining what a stealth fighter should look like, at least as much as say Bill Gunston or Bill Sweetman's drawings. If nothing else it should remain here, tagged with [Fantasy] tag, to avoid anyone actually confusing it with a real design.

 

[avatar]

it's funny how these things happen .. i am a pretty frequent visitor to kopp's site and have seen this 'project" before .... I did not post this on SPF because of the "notoriety" of the creator . In anycase even though I am a little tired of his unflinching advocacy of the F-22 (even though it has not been cleared for export yet) ... I must say that some of his non- raptor related pages are pretty informative .. he also has some pretty rare pictures .

 

[sferrin]

it's funny how these things happen .. i am a pretty frequent visitor to kopp's site and have seen this 'project" before .... I did not post this on SPF because of the "notoriety" of the creator . In anycase even though I am a little tired of his unflinching advocacy of the F-22 (even though it has not been cleared for export yet) ... I must say that some of his non- raptor related pages are pretty informative .. he also has some pretty rare pictures .

Yep. If you can overlook his quirks (and who doesn't have them?) he's got some good information.

 

[avatar]

especially stuff on more basic stuff like SAR, PGMs , SAMs etc

 

[GTX]

Carlo is basically the best air strategist we have in Australia at the moment.

Oh, please!!! As someone who has worked in the RAAF (including in a war planning role) and the industry for sometime now, I have to vehemently disagree with this statement.

His comments over the years regarding the F-111 are a joke, especially some of the justifications he has made to keep them - anyone remember his suggestion that the F-111s be armed with AMRAAMs to defend against waves of supersonic Backfire bombers coming over the horizon at Australia?.

Having worked closely with the F-111 over the years, the decision to replace the F-111s was a sensible one. People don't realise just how much the RAAF relied on the USAF's operation of the F-111. As soon as the USAF decided to retire theirs, the RAAF's ones time was limited. It simply is not cost effective to be the only operator of a small fleet. If the RAAF had a 100 airframes, maybe.

He is presently persona non gratia with the senior echelons of the Australian Defence Forces and in particular the DoD and RAAF because he blew the whistle on their plan to retire the F-111s early.

That's a load of rubbish too - the reason he is treated the way he is, is because after a while you get sick of listening to rubbish! This sort of conspiratorial story also comes from his F-111 buddies Peter Goon and Peter Criss!

despite them having just all undergone a massive and complete refurbishment programme which had seen their analogue avionics replaced, their airframe returned to zero hours and their engines refurbished.

The avionics upgrade which was years late???
No, I repeat NO zero-lifing! - in fact the fatigue of the airframe is a constant concern to the RAAF.
Engines get the standard overhaul all the time but to imply this is a completely refurbished and thereby significantly different engine is not the case.

Mods/folks - I'm sorry for the rant, but I cannot stand by and have the contents of this board severely damaged by comments such as above. Post his stuff as fantasy fine, but please leave it at that.

Regards,

Greg

 

[Deino]

I think in short he's quite obsessed by the Raptor !!!

... the best example is his AIR International "comparison" of the latest Flankers vs. the "all-mighty" F-22.

Deino

 

[Rickshaw]

Mods/folks - I'm sorry for the rant, but I cannot stand by and have the contents of this board severely damaged by comments such as above. Post his stuff as fantasy fine, but please leave it at that.

Regards,

Greg

Carlo certainly excites passions. As I said, I've known him for about 17 years. When we first encountered each other back in the days of USENET, we fought like cats and dogs. Since when I've read a great deal more of his stuff and come to admire his reasoning. I suspect we shall just have differ in our opinions on his work. His strength IMO lies outside of the scope of this forum, as its in air strategy, rather than aircraft design. So, we should perhaps leave it at that. You're entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong and I am to mine. :lol: I've seen Carlo's ideas develop pretty quickly from being a dilettante to an expert. I still believe the DoD's treatment of him has been childish and shabby. Instead of isolating and shunning him, they'd be better off with him on the inside of the tent, pissing out, rather than on the outside, pissing in.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Criticism of the concept is fine, but please don't let it get personal.

 

[CFE]

I think the illustration shows that Dr. Kopp was on the right track during the 80's in terms of what a hypothetical stealth aircraft would look like, with no tails and top-mounted inlets. His concept art is along similar lines to what appeared in the Bill Gunston and Bill Sweetman books of the period (plus the Testors' model, designed by John Andrews.) But they were all probably shocked when the F-117 was unveiled to the public.

Dr. Kopp's promotion of the F-111 reminds me of the F-14 advocates who didn't want to see the Tomcat replaced by the Super Hornet. The 'Vark and the Tomcat were amazing airframes that could do things Super Hornet drivers only dream of. But the airframes are getting old, spares are harder to find, and it's harder to keep them airworthy. The Super Hornet has more than its fair share of weaknesses (shorter range than the A-6, slower speed than the Tomcat, wing drop, etc,) but it's cheaper to operate and easier to maintain. In these times of fiscal austerity, these are very important qualities in a combat aircraft.

 

[flateric]

I'd like to enter a discussion with asking a question - would it be good if Dr.Copp never was at the scene? I'd prefer that we could listen to various opinions making our own suggestions. For me, I found much interesting stuff in his writings and interviews, while do not agree with ma...some of statements. While most of us sitting on our armchairs, consuming information, someone must produce something to disturb our minds, argue pro et contra - with arguments we build on our knowledge, i.e. discussion and argumentation always provocate us to learn more of the subject to not to play dumb. It's also about a question of energy one need to write at least an article - I was always admiring with people who could start and *end* an magazine article.

 

[sferrin]

For the most part I enjoyed his contributions to rec.aviation.military back in the day.

 

[AGRA]

Carlo is basically the best air strategist we have in Australia at the moment. He has written a myriad of very serious articles not only on the hardware (which we all love) but also the strategy of how to conduct air warfare. He is presently persona non gratia with the senior echelons of the Australian Defence Forces and in particular the DoD and RAAF because he blew the whistle on their plan to retire the F-111s early.

This is absolute nonsense. Dr Kopp's "proposals" all of which have been made for commercial reasons have been rejected by the Australian Department of Defence because they were all fundamentally flawed.

He is person non gratia because he and his partners made a commercial offer called the “Australian Industry Solution” to the DoD and after it was rejected rebadged themselves as an independent think tank called ‘Air Power Australia’ and have spent the past seven odd years advocating their position by claiming the DoD is incompetent and corrupt. This commercial offer is still valid and according to his principal business partner a Mr Peter Goon if any espects of this offer were acted upon, such as purchase of the F-22 or upgrading of the F-111 for another generation of service, he and Dr Kopp would expect to get paid. This is dodgy business practice by anyone’s standards.

His ideas and advocacy are great stuff for the air enthusiast crowd but completely fail the kind of technical, capability and operational analysis expected by the professional defence community.

 

[Woody]

His comments over the years regarding the F-111 are a joke, especially some of the justifications he has made to keep them - anyone remember his suggestion that the F-111s be armed with AMRAAMs to defend against waves of supersonic Backfire bombers coming over the horizon at Australia?.

Well, whats wrong with that? The F-111 was designed as a fleet defence fighter and has the range and mach 2.5 speed for quick response. All it would take is a decent air to air radar and proper maintenance. A backfire that far from home isn't likely to have fighter escort to worry about.

Dr. Kopp's promotion of the F-111 reminds me of the F-14 advocates who didn't want to see the Tomcat replaced by the Super Hornet. The 'Vark and the Tomcat were amazing airframes that could do things Super Hornet drivers only dream of. But the airframes are getting old, spares are harder to find, and it's harder to keep them airworthy. The Super Hornet has more than its fair share of weaknesses (shorter range than the A-6, slower speed than the Tomcat, wing drop, etc,) but it's cheaper to operate and easier to maintain. In these times of fiscal austerity, these are very important qualities in a combat aircraft.

I my opinion retiring (or not replacing) it's swing-wing aircraft was one of the worst moves the US defense force has made. If the American F-111 bombers had been kept current they would still be better penetrators than the Strike Eagle. The F-111 Raven was the only tactical jamming aircraft there air force had and the only one the US had that could keep up with fast jets. And just image the capability a refurbished Tomcat would have had with Raptor super-cruise engines and radar and Phoenix missiles with AMRAAM bits. OK, it might not be stealthy but it could fly from carriers and reach mach 2.5, carry more, further than a F-18 and shoot at enemies a hundred miles away. (and probably be cheaper than developing the Super Hornet).

CFE is right; Cheap operation is important these days much like buying a Toyota Corola is much more sensible than owning a race car just don't expect to win any races a competition level. Don't get me wrong I like the Hornet for operators that can only afford one type (today's Skyhawk?) but I think the 'Super' Hornet is a cop out (no pun intended).

To me it's spooky how quickly the F-14s were withdrawn - heres a depressing picture of their fate courtesy on Google Maps.

PS. check out Davis Monthan in Tucson, Arizona on Google Maps if you want to quiz your friends on how many types you can identify or just add up the amount of American tax dollars to can see quietly turning to scrap in the sun.

Cheers, Woody

 

[scifibug]

I'm not that good with A/C id, but if anyone does figure it all out please post it.

Q: What is the status of these A/C, what would it take to make them flight capable? (rough guess, exact details not required)

 

[Antonio]

I can identify the following types:

C-130 Hercules
P-3 Orion
B-57 Canberra
F-4 Phantom II
F-14 Tomcat
A-10 Thunderbolt II
F-111
A-4 Skyhawk

But there are some other...

Any idea about that medium sized, twin engined (turboprop?) aircraft with straight wings?

regards,

Antonio

 

[Woody]

I was being sarcastic and wow, you guys really are a bunch of train-spotters. But while we're at it are those F-100s (apparently better kept than the F-14s)? You can zoom in pretty close as this pic for Pometalbava shows - all those fantastic planes and you care about the straight-wing turboprop . Those little stick thingies seam to be wingless A-10s.

The point I was making was that the F-14 and F-111 seam to have been fast tracked to scrap to stop them ever competing with current lame types - F-4s stayed in reserve for years - some dodgy deal done with Boeing which Australia's are in on too? As you can see there's definitely no shortage of second hand spares for the Aussie Aardvarks .

It's all a conspiracy.

Cheers, Woody

 

[Apophenia]

...Any idea about that medium sized, twin engined (turboprop?) aircraft with straight wings?...

This train-spotter's guess would be Convair C-131s

 

[avatar]

like I posted in the previous page ... forget the politics ..... Kopp's articles from the 80's are rather nice in that they are able to trace the genesis of weapons that we take for granted today and are definitely good for some introductory course ... his site also has some info on old weapons proposals. However his raptor?f-111/ ...aus regional bulwark ... uncle sam poodling .. invasion fleet off the coast ofaustralia (Indian or Chinese) ...well :

 

[starviking]

His comments over the years regarding the F-111 are a joke, especially some of the justifications he has made to keep them - anyone remember his suggestion that the F-111s be armed with AMRAAMs to defend against waves of supersonic Backfire bombers coming over the horizon at Australia?.

Well, whats wrong with that? The F-111 was designed as a fleet defence fighter and has the range and mach 2.5 speed for quick response. All it would take is a decent air to air radar and proper maintenance. A backfire that far from home isn't likely to have fighter escort to worry about.

But it was the F-111B that was designed as the fleet defence fighter, not the Strike versions the RAAF have. Integrating the radar, qualifying the weapons, running flight trials, re-lifing the airframe & engines, paying for the maintenance - there is a lot of money and a lot of risk there. Might even have to manufacture a new nose for the bird to cope with a new radar. This idea is a non-starter -just look at what's happened with the Aus Seasprite and multiply the costs involved by a factor of at least 3.

Starviking

 

[GTX]

And most importantly from a strategy point of view - where is the supposed threat justifying such a questionable investment???

Regards,

Greg

 

[Woody]

Stop repeating government PR - its boring.

But it was the F-111B that was designed as the fleet defence fighter, not the Strike versions the RAAF have. Integrating the radar, qualifying the weapons, running flight trials, re-lifing the airframe & engines, paying for the maintenance - there is a lot of money and a lot of risk there. Might even have to manufacture a new nose for the bird to cope with a new radar. This idea is a non-starter -just look at what's happened with the Aus Seasprite and multiply the costs involved by a factor of at least 3.

With the F-111 you've got a tried and trusted long range mach 2.5 airframe. The Kiwi's where able to put an APG-66 (F-16 radar) in their Skyhawks and anyway the the Aussie F-111 AN/APQ-169 radar (last upgrade) is capable of guiding sparrows as it is. The AMRAAM being fire and forget should be easier. Comparing it to the Sea Sprite programme is using one bunch of incompetent crooks to justify the next. What we should be doing is trying to put them (the Sea Sprite gang) all in jail. Do you really think (embezzlement not withstanding) that this would be more expensive than replacing (with a donkey) the entire type? How much would F-15E Strike Eagle radars cost?

[quote author=GTX]
And most importantly from a strategy point of view - where is the supposed threat justifying such a questionable investment???[/quote]

Well in the late 19th century the whole reason for the formation of entire US Navy was persieved hostile threats - which lead to them being the most powerful country in the world for next century and a half - or you could just play it safe and wait to be called up for the next Gallipoli. It always amuses me when pundits like to discuss military strength until someone questions the accepted line then they come over like a bunch of hippies Are you for an effective (and cheap) military or not?

Cheers, Woody

 

[GTX]

I give up - if people want to take the nonsensical ramblings of someone like CK as truth, then fine. Having served in the RAAF (in both Engineering and Strategy roles) and worked in Defence Industry (both in Projects and otherwise) for many years, I am comfortable in my understanding of the true issues involved and am comfortable in knowing that for the most part such ramblings will also be ignored by those in decision making positions.

Regards,

Greg

 

[Woody]

Hmmm...comfortable.

The old 'I'm an expert - it's my job - so I don't have to give explanations' response. Always gets my respect.

From Carlo's website:-

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Upton Beall Sinclair, Jr.
I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked, 1935

If you're so interested in buying what the Americans tell you without knowing what you're going to use it for

where is the supposed threat

why don't you just give them the cash and save on all those bases and salaries - possibly yours?

Cheers, Woody

 

[GTX]

Explanations only work when the other side has any desire to understand them! As I said above, if you wish to accept CKs stuff without question then that's up to you, but DO NOT INSULT ME by quoting his website to defend your position or by implying that I am some sort of puppet!!!

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Topic is locked. Any attempt to resurrect this argument elsewhere will be locked.

Please note this kind of behaviour is not acceptable on this forum.