Author Topic: F-35 "lighting II"? (Read 2746 times)

Sandman · « **Reply #90 on:** July 03, 2006, 08:43:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BGBMAW
Black Mamba is a over sized..very large black dildo

I was thinking more along the lines of a tall leggy blonde.

Brenjen · « **Reply #91 on:** July 03, 2006, 08:53:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Solutions:

1. Training
2. Testing
3. Testing
4. Testing
5. Fantasy

The Predator is just the first wave, proof of concept. It's just a matter of time before all combat aircraft are remotely piloted.

All those counters are pretty lame, training? How will that help in a scenario where all our combat planes are R/C?

Testing,testing,testing? Is this thing on?

They did plenty of testing on the M-16, they did plenty of testing on the phantoms missle systems, they did plenty of testing on the space shuttle & F-16's, etc. Would you have wanted your national security in the hands of an R/C Pinto? Pintos were tested too. The one you labeled as fantasy is the most likely thing to happen, comms are affected by atmospherics all the time. They'll start out piloted on the ground & end up pre-programmed for ground attack like Global Hawks recon ops.You need the human link in the chain as a fail safe. And they will never be able to dogfight with an R/C IMO

Sandman · « **Reply #92 on:** July 03, 2006, 09:05:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Brenjen
All those counters are pretty lame, training? How will that help in a scenario where all our combat planes are R/C?

Testing,testing,testing? Is this thing on?

They did plenty of testing on the M-16, they did plenty of testing on the phantoms missle systems, they did plenty of testing on the space shuttle & F-16's, etc. Would you have wanted your national security in the hands of an R/C Pinto? Pintos were tested too. The one you labeled as fantasy is the most likely thing to happen, comms are affected by atmospherics all the time. They'll start out piloted on the ground & end up pre-programmed for ground attack like Global Hawks recon ops.You need the human link in the chain as a fail safe. And they will never be able to dogfight with an R/C IMO

Absolutely, the best counter to inexperience has and always will be training.

Test & evaluation has evolved every bit as much as the weapons that we test.

... and #5 isn't the most likely. It's the most ridiculous.

Reynolds · « **Reply #93 on:** July 03, 2006, 09:16:54 PM »

No, its not. It IS the most likely. The more things can go wrong, the more things will go wrong. Murpheys law. learn it. live by it. survive.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #94 on:** July 03, 2006, 09:48:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
Yes, the F-22 has been flying. But they are very slowly retiring the squadrons that are to be replaced. These JSFs are being introduced much faster, and I think there is much more that needs to be worked out with these aircraft. Once they have made all the fixes, and have come out with an F-35b/c/d/e/f etc. it will be a great aircraft. But I think that first model will be plagued by horrible technical problems.

Once again you are talking out your Arse and let me tell you why.

I just left Edwards AFB where we do test and development of aircraft currently under development and even midlife development.

Edwards first started TESTING the F22 back in 92/93 when the first 22s came of the production line as preproduction aircraft. We didn't recieve the first production model till 2001 and even then they've changed the production version 3 times since then.

The first F22 squadron came online last summer....nearly 15 years since it was first tested.

Edwards has YET to recieve a pre-production of the JSF and actual production of the aircraft has barely even started yet. You will not see an actual JSF squadron for about 5-10 years from now and even then they will phase out the older F16s (ones made in the early 90s) first and so forth.

People with degrees apon degrees and decades of experience are making these decisions and they know what they are doing. We have the benifit of the 22 T/E to base on for the JSF so it will not take nearly as long as alot of the systems are identical.

You can argue against it all you want but you have yet to make a valid point that an aircraft that mets the performance standards set and shares MANY parts can fill future gaps for 3 different services.

The Marines need the JSF NOW, not 10 years from now as the Harrier fleet has been used long after it was initially expected

The USAF has a TON of F16s that are reaching their service expectations and F15s will start getting REALLY old in about 10 years.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #95 on:** July 03, 2006, 09:53:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
Has the predator ever seen actual combat? i know it has flown sorties into hostile zones, but its never been attacked back! Since no one has actually tried to:

1. take control of the predator

2. Shoot down the predator

3. run a combat sortie on an airborne target

We do not know how the aircraft will react in those situations. The lack of a pilot being in the seat makes the aircraft much less effective, due to the lack of pilot ESP. Pilots have been known to get a little bit of instinct, a twinge that something isnt right, and that saved them. That doesnt happen in these unmanned aircraft. You kind of need to be near the origin of danger in order to sense that danger.

Beleive it or not thes are being flown in combat every day. The predators have actually taken out more than a few high value targets when armed with hellfire missles.

Their nextgen is the X-45 and other UCAV varients. These have been undergoing testing for the last 5-10 years.

You seem to just assume that the military adopts wonder weapons on leaps of faith alone???????

Reynolds · « **Reply #96 on:** July 03, 2006, 10:14:23 PM »

No. I KNOW THEY ARE FLYING EVERY DAY, BUT HAS ONE EVER BEEN ENGAGED BY A FIGHTER? BY A FLAK BATTERY?!? NO!!! AND AS SUCH, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT DRAWBACKS WILL BE SUFFERED BECAUSE THERE IS NO PILOT IN THE AREA. WE WILL NOT KNOW THAT UNTIL THEY START TANGLING IN THE AIR. This is going nowhere. People are answering not with relevant information, but with insults, and pointless babble. Im not going to read anymore of this thread, so dont bother writting.

Sandman · « **Reply #97 on:** July 03, 2006, 10:20:41 PM »

A flak battery?

Speaking of meaningless babble...

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
No, its not. It IS the most likely. The more things can go wrong, the more things will go wrong. Murpheys law. learn it. live by it. survive.

Chairboy · « **Reply #98 on:** July 03, 2006, 10:48:38 PM »

I hope they keep their eyes open for Jerry!

Gunslinger · « **Reply #99 on:** July 04, 2006, 12:21:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
No. I KNOW THEY ARE FLYING EVERY DAY, BUT HAS ONE EVER BEEN ENGAGED BY A FIGHTER? BY A FLAK BATTERY?!? NO!!! AND AS SUCH, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT DRAWBACKS WILL BE SUFFERED BECAUSE THERE IS NO PILOT IN THE AREA. WE WILL NOT KNOW THAT UNTIL THEY START TANGLING IN THE AIR. This is going nowhere. People are answering not with relevant information, but with insults, and pointless babble. Im not going to read anymore of this thread, so dont bother writting.

But unknown to you for what ever reason they are being tested and tested ever single day. The "bugs" that you referr to get worked out before even going to production and then some.

As much as aviation enthusiest would like we cannot live in the cold war. Weapons platforms must progress and develop capabilites to counter threats that don't even exist BEFORE and not after they do. The military understands this and as such adjusts their docterine accordingly.

The P51 was never battle tested before it went into production. Military planners said they wanted an escort to berlin and manufactures said here you go. Same thing is going on now.

U ever consider the fact that a UCAV can pull a 14G turn AND have stealth at the same time. DO you think there's a piloted vehicle out there that can do this.

Elfie · « **Reply #100 on:** July 04, 2006, 01:18:41 PM »

Quote

U ever consider the fact that a UCAV can pull a 14G turn AND have stealth at the same time.

While that is one advantage of an unmanned aircraft. Computers cant be programmed to respond to every possible situation simply because things arise that no one anticipated. A human pilot can adjust to situations as they develop. If you make these unmanned aircraft remote controlled, how do you prevent the enemy from jamming the radio signals?

Unmanned aircraft will have their place on future battlefields, but I just dont see them completely replacing manned aircraft. At this point it isnt feasible, nor would it be wise.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #101 on:** July 04, 2006, 01:52:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
While that is one advantage of an unmanned aircraft. Computers cant be programmed to respond to every possible situation simply because things arise that no one anticipated. A human pilot can adjust to situations as they develop. If you make these unmanned aircraft remote controlled, how do you prevent the enemy from jamming the radio signals?

Unmanned aircraft will have their place on future battlefields, but I just dont see them completely replacing manned aircraft. At this point it isnt feasible, nor would it be wise.

Just a friendly question Elfie,

Do you assume that the engineers that design these systems havn't allready thought of this?

I'm no where close to agreeing that a computer can replace a pilot alltogether BUT as I've allways said on this board it's not about the plane or the pilot it's about tactics and how you use them.

Curval · « **Reply #102 on:** July 04, 2006, 01:59:03 PM »

It has GOT to be the Black Mamba!!!! That is a classic...

LOL

Some adult toy stores may sue for copyright infringment though.

BGBMAW · « **Reply #103 on:** July 04, 2006, 02:23:53 PM »

amazing..

gunslinger its hard to beleive that soem here ask those questions..they make it seem liek folks running theses programs are new to the idea of "warfare"..

have they been shot at..what about jamming ?....lololololol..YEs The engineers overlooked all that..they figured it was liek flying a cessna at your local FBO...You guys got 100LL here?

Brenjen · « **Reply #104 on:** July 04, 2006, 03:02:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BGBMAW
amazing..

gunslinger its hard to beleive that soem here ask those questions..they make it seem liek folks running theses programs are new to the idea of "warfare"..

have they been shot at..what about jamming ?....lololololol..YEs The engineers overlooked all that..they figured it was liek flying a cessna at your local FBO...You guys got 100LL here?

& almost everyone who say "don't you think they've thought of that" must think engineers are the smartest people on earth & never overlook anything or make mistakes. I wonder where all the problems with human manufactured equipment comes from if testing eliminates all problems & mistakes?

Why did my mothers maverick stall out on cana hoe grade in the 70's causing a multi-car pile up killing several people while I looked out the back window wondering when it was going to be our turn?

I'll tell you why, an engineering defect caused rust to form on the inside of the fuel tank & the temperature fluctuation from sea level to the high mountains caused rust to flake off & when the car got to a certain angle on the incline it choked off the fuel supply & the car died, the people behind us (travelling faster than the 75mph speed limit I,m sure) slammed on their brakes when they saw our car chugging & bucking to a stop. The people behind them & so on & so forth slammed into one another in a chain reaction that seemed like it was never going to stop. Ever smell burning flesh & hear people screaming as they burned to death?

How about TWA flight 800? Spark from a sensor in a fuel tank.

All because of a simple oversight in the testing & engineering phase.