Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wojo71 on July 01, 2006, 07:58:28 PM
-
Looks like the odds are on Lighting 2
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/14947511.htm
"The six finalists considered by the Air Force included Lightning II, Spitfire II, Cyclone, Reaper, Black Mamba (a deadly snake) and Piasa (a mythical man-eating bird.)" Piasa?:rofl
-
I like reaper the best...is that a picture of a supercharger from a P-38 in the photo; the one with the hand holding the model P-38? I can't seem to make it out.
-
Piasa (a mythical man-eating bird.)" Piasa?
Sounds more appropriate for a 'bird' eating man.
-
WTF?!? Lighting II?!? Spitfire II?!? Piasa?!? THOSE ARE ALL RETARDED!!! I love Reaper though.
-
My vote would be Reaper!:aok Black Mamba make me think of a carnivel ride and cyclone, a vacuum cleaner springs to mind.:confused:
-
None of these names are suitable for the mediocre strike fighter that the F-35 is.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
is that a picture of a supercharger from a P-38 in the photo; the one with the hand holding the model P-38? I can't seem to make it out.
Yep... although those superchargers were pretty much interchangeable with most engines.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
None of these names are suitable for the mediocre strike fighter that the F-35 is.
w00t!!! :aok :aok :aok
-
What's mediocre about it? A fleet of reliable toyota pickups is far more effective than a single tempermental Ferrari....
-
Anything with a -II is crap. Examples: Mustang II, Caddyshack II. Spitfire II? If we're going to steal foreign names why not call it Zero II or Griffin II? Reaper sounds good, but it also sounds a lot like Rapter.
-
Yes, well, it IS a raptor wannabe
-
F-35 Raper?
Raptor wannabe? It has features the Raptor doesn't, huge innovations in situational awareness.
Raptor wannabe... jeepers.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
What's mediocre about it? A fleet of reliable toyota pickups is far more effective than a single tempermental Ferrari....
Not in a race....and I wouldn't be calling the F-35 costblowoutandproductiondelay reliable just yet Fighter project "flawed" (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19570919-2702,00.html)
Tronsky
-
LOL!!!
-
Originally posted by rpm
Anything with a -II is crap.
NOT. Republic Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II.
'Nuff Said.
-
Originally posted by wojo71
My vote would be Reaper!:aok Black Mamba make me think of a carnivel ride and cyclone, a vacuum cleaner springs to mind.:confused:
Cyclone is the rollercoaster at Coney Island. Cyclone is what should remind you of a carnival ride.
Originally posted by rpm
Anything with a -II is crap.
I agree with the Captain, but I would add this one...
(http://www.whiteplanes.com/images/military/military19.jpg)
I always thought the Phantom II was bad ass.... At least it looks that way.
-
I suppose the gents who flew it might have a special place in their hearts for the phantom II, but the Thunderbolt II, now there is a work of steel shredding meat grinding art. And that bird is tough too, if I were a combat pilot & I'm not b.t.w., I would want to fly the Warthog.
-
Centurion
-
Name some specific reasons why the F-35 is crap. Maybe I'm not reading the right stuff, but just because it doesn't supercruise doesn't mean that it's a piece of garbage.
The F-18 vs. Tomcat issue is different, there are big compromises and losses of capabillity from the switch. Are there equivalents to the F-35 and the aircraft it replaces?
-
The corsair II wasn't a bad plane either
(http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/systems/dvic153.jpg)
Then there's the tiger II
(http://www.airshow.org/1990/f5-24.jpg)
Harrier II
(http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/av-8b.jpg)
not to mention this fine work of art:
(http://divx.org.ua/cover/1742.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Name some specific reasons why the F-35 is crap. Maybe I'm not reading the right stuff, but just because it doesn't supercruise doesn't mean that it's a piece of garbage.
I heard alot of the same stuff about the F-22 on these boards with no specifics. Talking out your bellybutton just comes natural to some I guess.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Anything with a -II is crap. Examples: Mustang II, Caddyshack II. Spitfire II?
Teminator 2? Lethal Weapon 2? And how could you not like that big farting horse in Caddyshack 2?:D
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Name some specific reasons why the F-35 is crap. Maybe I'm not reading the right stuff, but just because it doesn't supercruise doesn't mean that it's a piece of garbage.
The F-18 vs. Tomcat issue is different, there are big compromises and losses of capabillity from the switch. Are there equivalents to the F-35 and the aircraft it replaces?
The F-35 is slated to eventually replace EVERYTHING, and personally, i dont like it/ think its crap for several reasons:
1. Yes, its VTOL, but those moving parts are vulnerable to either getting shot (The slidding, non solid parts are weaker than flush metal), or corroding! This is going to be a NAVAL FIGHTER with A LOT of holes! Didnt they learn anything about environmental effects from the AH-64 Appache?!? And that VTOL capability requires a ****t load of maintenance, and from the naval crew cheifs and pilots i know, i predict that 2 years after the VTOL model enters service, all of the VTOL systems will either have been individually removed at the pilot/crew cheifs request, or have corroded beyond the ablility to function, and be sealed and locked.
2. Its supposed to be stealthy right? Anyone notice the BIG, UN-COVERED ENGINE IN THE BACK?!? thats a heat seaking MAGNET!!!! You ever have a heat seaker aiming for a carrier, just fly an F-35 1 mile away from the carrier, the missile will go for it! Thats got to leave a HUGE heat signature. The B-2s, F-22s, F-117s, notice something about the engines? The exposed parts are very small. they are pretty much just vents, with the hot part hidden inside. Not so with the F-35.
3. This is going to be a multi-role aircraft, and i never trust any multi roles, because to make it a decent anti-ground, they must take away some of the anti-air capability.
4. Single pilot on a multi role/too hi tech. This aircraft is extremely hi tech. As such, there will be huge bugs, most without precedent, and if you are trying to attack a ground target and your multi million dollar weapons targetting system fails (Hmmm, like the APPACHES AND SAND?!?), and you are the only one in there, what do you do? Theres no Wizzo to help out, and knowing todays military, you will probably have had less than 5 minutes of lecture on how to manually aim these bombs, how do you continue the sortie? In the F-15 (my favorite aircraft), the E model, you have a Wizzo to help out. Thats much more effective.
Now, i know a lot of you are saying "Well, what about the F-22. Its a multi role! It has no Wizzo, and its new too!", Well, im not much a fan of the 22 either. Im just happy the air force is considering doing away with their own model of aircraft, and possible receiving the F-35 all together, so i wont have to fly one, and by the time i make pilot, those bugs will hopefully be worked out. But for those first few F-35 pilots: May god be with you. You are going to need it!
Is that enough evidence for you?
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
Is that enough evidence for you?
Just enough to let us know that you have no clue what you are talking about.
There will be 3 versions of the F-35.
1. land based
2. Carrier based
3. STOVL version (NOT VTOL!)
1 and 2 will not be capable of STOVL.
2. In addition it is only partially stealthy. Instead of looking like an F16 it will look like a larg bird on RADAR.
3. About the multi role stuff. Avionics integration has come along ways since the days of the F4 F16 and F18 respectivly. One pilot can actually do more with less because of the way the cockpit and systems are integrated. Alot of what we leanred on the F22 has been integrated on the F35. That's 15 years of development that equal a HUGE cost savings vrs designing a new aircraft from scratch.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Just enough to let us know that you have no clue what you are talking about.
There will be 3 versions of the F-35.
1. land based
2. Carrier based
3. STOVL version (NOT VTOL!)
1 and 2 will not be capable of STOVL.
2. In addition it is only partially stealthy. Instead of looking like an F16 it will look like a larg bird on RADAR.
3. About the multi role stuff. Avionics integration has come along ways since the days of the F4 F16 and F18 respectivly. One pilot can actually do more with less because of the way the cockpit and systems are integrated. Alot of what we leanred on the F22 has been integrated on the F35. That's 15 years of development that equal a HUGE cost savings vrs designing a new aircraft from scratch.
1. Carrier based is supposed to be VTOL capable. the Land based, i dont know much about, but i know the Air Force is just going to take the Navy one, so if the Land Based was supposed to be for the USAF, it no longer exists.
2. Um, i doubt that. It would look maybe a little smaller than a cessna, but not THAT small. And still, it shows up like a light house on IR, unlike the B2, 117, 22, and so on.
3. Yes, there may be huge advances, but have you never heard of glitches? I dont like the whole "Fly by wire" thing personally, but i REALLY dont trust something without a human back-up. If i were ever to fly a 35, i would demand a Wizzo, or at least to be trained as one myself. I just dont like it. And i dont much trust the 22 either! Hell, the way these ne A/Cs look, im actually considering forgetting fighters, and just trying to become a bomber pilot instead! And yeah, im no expert, but i do have some idea what im talking about!
-
Yep, it's true, Reynolds spoke with authority and doing so established that he had none to speak with.
STOVL is only in one version and will replace the Harrier, an aircraft known to require a certain amount of maintenance already. With the new metals and technologies, I bet the design intent is for it to be easier to maintain in challenging environments. It is for the Marines. The Navy has their own version, it's toughened up for carrier ops and is NOT VTOL.
The F-16 and F-15 have both been assigned multi-role missions, seems to work for them.
I'm pretty sure the F-35 has a lower RCS than the B-17 or 117, Reynolds. Care to cite your assertion?
Still haven't heard a good explanation for why the F-35 is teh suck, I look forward to being educated.
-
Well, dont you love it when people are personally attacked?
Well guess what: That STOVL or whatever the hell YOU guys are calling it, bad maintenance. and yes, 15s and 16 have been asigned multi role... in the 15E Strike Eagle (Yes, it has a Wizzo) and the 16 Fighting Falcon, and i think it was Viper or something (Yes, again, it has a wizzo)
But lets attack each others ideas, not each other, shall we? Or do you find it too difficult not to degenerate into the mentality of a 3 year old?
-
Sorry Reynolds, didn't mean to hurt your feelings, could you point out where I attacked you personally? I posted that I felt your message showed that you lacked knowledge about the subject (because you thought they all had VTOL, etc). If that's what you're describing, you may not understand what makes a personal attack.
Can you provide that citation on the RCS when you're ready?
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
1. Carrier based is supposed to be VTOL capable. the Land based, i dont know much about, but i know the Air Force is just going to take the Navy one, so if the Land Based was supposed to be for the USAF, it no longer exists.
2. Um, i doubt that. It would look maybe a little smaller than a cessna, but not THAT small. And still, it shows up like a light house on IR, unlike the B2, 117, 22, and so on.
3. Yes, there may be huge advances, but have you never heard of glitches? I dont like the whole "Fly by wire" thing personally, but i REALLY dont trust something without a human back-up. If i were ever to fly a 35, i would demand a Wizzo, or at least to be trained as one myself. I just dont like it. And i dont much trust the 22 either! Hell, the way these ne A/Cs look, im actually considering forgetting fighters, and just trying to become a bomber pilot instead! And yeah, im no expert, but i do have some idea what im talking about!
Nope again you are wrong.
There are three versions of the F35.
The Carrier version (CV) for the Navy. A conventional one (CTOL) for the USAF and a (STOVL) for the Marines and the Royal Navy.
NONE I repeat NONE will be (VTOL) if you don't beleive me Google is thy friend (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=F35+JSF)
The F16 has had a fly by wire system for almost 30 years! They are still making advances on it and upgrading its avionics. In addition it has been a highly successful fighter/attack/multirole A/C.
I really think you have no Idea what you are talking about. Keep in mind this is coming from somone who's actually PHYSICALLY SAT IN and worked on THE FOLLOWING AIRCRAFT T-38, F-15 (A, C, E), F-16 (A, AM, B, C, D, CJ, CG, I) F-22, F-35, F-117, B1B, B-2A, B-52G and H.
In one hand you say you want stealth and in the other you don't trust fly by wire. You cannot have one without the other. The F117 F22 and B2 would not fly without computers making constant corrections. It's just not efficient or managable any other way.
-
BTW,Reynolds: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20051125.aspx
RCS of JSF is lower than that of the B-2.
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
Well, dont you love it when people are personally attacked?
Well guess what: That STOVL or whatever the hell YOU guys are calling it, bad maintenance. and yes, 15s and 16 have been asigned multi role... in the 15E Strike Eagle (Yes, it has a Wizzo) and the 16 Fighting Falcon, and i think it was Viper or something (Yes, again, it has a wizzo)
But lets attack each others ideas, not each other, shall we? Or do you find it too difficult not to degenerate into the mentality of a 3 year old?
Ummm again you are wrong. The C, CJ, and CG variants of the F16 are all single seaters and they are all multirole. But again we are talking about A/C that where designed 30 years ago.
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
i predict that 2 years after the VTOL model enters service, all of the VTOL systems will either have been individually removed at the pilot/crew cheifs request, or have corroded beyond the ablility to function, and be sealed and locked.
Hey Guns,
Do pilots/crew chiefs get to individually make modifcations to an airframe?
:lol
-
Hmm, where did you make things personal?
"Yep, it's true, Reynolds spoke with authority and doing so established that he had none to speak with."
How about that? And, the USAF version is, as i remember it, cancelled. Now, since you have had a lot more experience with the aircraft, and therefore are more knowledgeable. And im not saying i want stealth, or that i hate fly by wire. I dont trust it ery much, because if it fails, you are screwed. I dont like the fact that the pilot cannot fly his aircraft without the aid of a computer. Okay, gunslinger, i learned something new. Ill say, i know next to nothing about the F-16. Im just saying, i dont like the implications of the F-35. Maintenance would be difficult, it has a nice big IR signature, and i dont like a bomber without a Wizzo. The tech. bugs, as far as those new systems are not appetizing either. And may i point out, i did not start this whole "JSF sucks" thing, i simply stated my reasons why i dont like it. And, these are MY thoughts. If i am incorrect, im sorry, but what i have stated is what i have known to be true.
-
I don't like the F-35 because it has all of the weaknesses of the F-16. Single seat, single engine, small fuel capacity, small bomb load compared to better designs. That's it in a nutshell.
It's supposed to replace the F-16, A-10, and F-15E, and the only one of those it will actually be able to replace is the F-16. The F-16 was supposed to replace everything too, and in the end the only thing the F-16 replaced was itself because of the inevitable crashes from the single engine design.
The F-15E is going to start to look cheap when we start wrecking F-35s and realize that things really haven't changed all that much since WWI and we STILL need a multi-engine multi-crew high threat deep strike aircraft.
I pretty much agree with Reynolds on this one, with some of the same arguments. I think the F-35 will make a GREAT F-16 replacement, but for some critical missions it takes 4 F-16s and a tanker to replace a single F-15E without a tanker, and neither the F-16 or F-35 can do night low altitude LGB deliveries or drop/guide the GBU-15/AGM-130.
-
I think you are judging the F-35 based on 1980s technology. Its true that "back in the day" you needed a 2nd seater WSO to do some of the bombing work, like the F-15E, Tornado, F-111, but those a/c are decades old.
With GPS technology in JDAMs and other "fire and forget" weapons you don't really need a backseater like you used to. F-18s and F-16s can fly poor weather bombing missions now where before they could not (or were certainly limited).
Also the software is orders of magnitude more capable, its like comparing a 286 system with DOS to a Pentium 4 with Win XP.
Heat signature. Hmm, dont buy that one, the F-22 has a large heat signature when flying at combat speeds, its not like you can dissipate the heat trail from a pair of 30,000 lb thrust engines. Its vulnerable to a heat seeking missile. Perhaps less? fine, but its not "IR invisible". Neither is the F-35, fine. Neither is anything the opposition might be making.
I do have a concern over the F-14 being retired, I think a larger, "Fleet Defender" interceptor might have been the way to go, that has a longer range and is capable of firing a longer ranged missile than the AIM 120 AMRAAM does, to protect the CVN Groups.
The current crop of fighters wont last forever, you DO have to replace them at some point, much as we may like the Harriers, F-16s, F-18s ect ect.
-
Squire,
The backseater is still required. There is a basic mis-match between the speed of the human brain and the amount of information coming in, and at 500 knots and low altitude, the human brain can't keep up. We still lose F-15Es even though the pilot's main job is not running into the ground, but it's a lowr rate than we lost F-16s when they were still trying to do the low altitude PGM missions. One person just can't get it all done even with today's technology, but that's a lesson that the penny-pinchers and civilian decision makers who have never flown anything refuse to believe and the single seat mafia in the military refuse to admit.
-
I agree with all of you really. I just think as far as IR, with that huge exposed engine, at normal (non-supercruise) the JSF MUST have a significantly larger heat signature than the 22.
-
I do get your point Eagl, I do, but remember we arent talking about F-16s, we are talking about F-35s. We really dont know (cuz its highly classified) what its capable of doing safely. It could very well be able to fly low in poor weather and deliver ordnance safely. Certainly in the last 10 years strike a/c have come farther in that department, especially in the dev of precision weapons that makes the "bombing computers" in a/c like the F-15E not as big of an asset.
But hey, I have no idea, its not like Lockheed is phoning me with the info.
-
I think everyone is overlooking the reasons the U.S. is making the compromises in the first place (yes, I think they are aware of the A/C's shortcomings) It's all about the ability to make 1(one) basic airframe design & have multiple plants kicking out parts that can be used on almost all the A/C with the exception of the few unique parts on the VSTOL. That makes it cheaper not more expensive to maintain, it's all about cost, saving money.
Fly by wire is an old concept, it did get a few pilots killed in the early F-16's because of design problems that were fixed after widows started filing lawsuits (I'm sure they would have fixed them anyway)
But I agree it's a bad idea not to have specialized A/C like the A-10's etc. Because then all an enemy has to do is figure out a way to defeat one type of bird or design a weapon specifically to deal with that one type & they have all the services licked.
-
Originally posted by rogwar
Hey Guns,
Do pilots/crew chiefs get to individually make modifcations to an airframe?
:lol
If they complain enough, and start crashing, im sure someone higher up but not too high (ie: squadron commander or even carrier comander) will say "I know how you feel, go ahead, ill back you up on it"
-
A dedicated Close Air Support a/c I think is still needed, but I dont think the USAF ever liked the role. A cheap, high subsonic attack a/c like the A-7, A-6 or A-10 could be very usefull. I think politics, inter service rivalries and "sex appeal" of a/c sometimes still gets in the way.
Case in point the F-22. As remarkable figher as it probably is ( and expensive), look at the roles for the USAF in the last 15 years? 1991-2006. Mainly air-ground and supporting special forces troops, not shooting down enemy bombers at 30,000 feet. Im certainlt NOT suggesting you dont need a fighter (im not that drunk, yet), but it is an interesting observation, no?
The trouble with the A-10 was that it didnt go Mach 3 and look as good as an F-15, despite being perhaps the more usefull of the two for the less glamorous but more important job of flying in low and shooting up enemy ground forces for the grunts.
-
Reynolds
Senior Member
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 114
Ill take under. Im 13, and he sounds more immature than me.
__________________
Behold!!! The flaming Messerschmitt!!! And since i have been asked why i love the 109 so much, this is why-
"The Bf 109 always brought to my mind the adjective "sinister". It has been suggested that it evinced charictoristics with the nation that conceived it, and to me it looked lethal from any angle, on the ground or in the air- once i had climbed into its claustrophobic cockpit it even felt lethal!" - Lt Cdr Eric 'Winkle' Brown, RAE Farnborough, 1944
You guys might want to consider this post taken from general discussion, thirteen year olds are at that place in life. We've all been there, as long as "we're" fourteen or over that is.:aok
-
Originally posted by rogwar
Hey Guns,
Do pilots/crew chiefs get to individually make modifcations to an airframe?
:lol
Not when I was in the service they didnt. This isnt WWII where squadrons make field modifications to aircraft. There are technical orders (TO's) that HAVE to be followed to the letter.
In the F-15 (my favorite aircraft), the E model, you have a Wizzo to help out. Thats much more effective.
In the mid 80's the F-15A/B's that I was working on were tasked with an air to ground role as well as their air superiority role. I was loading bombs directly on the inboard pylons and on TER's (Triple Ejector Racks). The F-15A is a single seat fighter, the B is the trainer version of the A and has 2 seats. Point is, F-15's were carrying ordinance long before the F-15E's were ever in production. In fact, I was loading said ordinance while it was still being debated on whether or not we even needed the E model.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Reynolds
Senior Member
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 114
Ill take under. Im 13, and he sounds more immature than me.
__________________
Behold!!! The flaming Messerschmitt!!! And since i have been asked why i love the 109 so much, this is why-
"The Bf 109 always brought to my mind the adjective "sinister". It has been suggested that it evinced charictoristics with the nation that conceived it, and to me it looked lethal from any angle, on the ground or in the air- once i had climbed into its claustrophobic cockpit it even felt lethal!" - Lt Cdr Eric 'Winkle' Brown, RAE Farnborough, 1944
You guys might want to consider this post taken from general discussion, thirteen year olds are at that place in life. We've all been there, as long as "we're" fourteen or over that is.:aok
Yes, well, my entire life does now and always has revolved around the military. I do know something of what im talking about, however i will say, those of you who have worked on them do know more than me. And yes, we do need a close air support A/C.
-
One large engine is more efficient than two medium engines. Extra engines= extra weight, more fuel consumption, and less room for fuel.
Having two engines increases reliability, but just by a tiny margin. When do most engines fail, level flight? No. Engines fail when an aircraft is in unusual situations, take-off, extreme maneuvering, etc. These are times when the remaining engine has the least chance of providing sufficient power to help the aircraft recover (ex: Mig29 airshow crashes, F-14 crashes).
There is one thing that adding a backseater really improves however. That is reducing the chances of friendly fire. The airforce had more friendly fire incidents than the Navy in the Serbian Air War in the late 90s. This was attributed to Navy F-14s having two sets of eyes compared to the Airforces A-10s and F-16s one set.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
One large engine is more efficient than two medium engines. Extra engines= extra weight, more fuel consumption, and less room for fuel.
Having two engines increases reliability, but just by a tiny margin. When do most engines fail, level flight? No. Engines fail when an aircraft is in unusual situations, take-off, extreme maneuvering, etc. These are times when the remaining engine has the least chance of providing sufficient power to help the aircraft recover (ex: Mig29 airshow crashes, F-14 crashes).
There is one thing that adding a backseater really improves however. That is reducing the chances of friendly fire. The airforce had more friendly fire incidents than the Navy in the Serbian Air War in the late 90s. This was attributed to Navy F-14s having two sets of eyes compared to the Airforces A-10s and F-16s one set.
I have an old quote, which IS outdated, but it makes sense:
"One day in 1945 cries of distress were heard over the radio somewhere above the south china sea. "My engine's hit, im losing coolant - what'll i do?" Savvy P-38 pilots [veterans of the 8th Fighter Group] in the air at the time tried to advise the obviously green fellow in distress. "Calm down and feather it." Then came the dejected reply, "Feather, hell. I'm flying a P-51!" - John Stanaway, P-38 historian
Yeah. I always like that extra engine! ;)
-
Just compare the F-16 and F/A-18. They are very good examples of the single engine vs twin engine concept. The F-16 has better performance in top speed, climb rate, turning, range, etc.
-
Shrimp, if you were right then the F-22, Mig-29, Su-27, Rafale, Eurofighter, B-1, B-2, and B-52 would all be single engine designs.
You're not right, sorry.
The only thing you get from a single engine design is a lower cost per airframe. The cost savings can be up to 25% per aircraft, and that looks very attractive to people who are concerned with the financial bottom line. You can't even use simplicity as an argument because single engine planes have lots of other redundancy built in to counter the fact that if that one enigne goes, then the plane has no primary electrical or hydraulic power. The F-16 is a great example, having a costly and hazardous hydrazine powered auxiliary generator.
Personally, I'd rather have fewer twin engine dual-seat aircraft than more single engine single seat aircraft, but that's because I almost always favor quality over quantity.
The fact that I've always flown twin engine jets in my career makes me a bit biased, but I thought a long time about it and decided that I wanted two engines before I graduated pilot training.
-
What reynolds is forgetting is the STOVL version is designed to replace the Marine Corps and Royal navy Harriers which are at the end and then some of their usfull life span. The STOVL version is third or fourth generation using this technology so I'm pretty sure they've figured out by now how to prevent coorosion on planes going out to sea.
The Harrier is ingrained in the MAGTF concept (Marine Air to Ground Task Force) so just swichting them over or boxing up the engines isn't an option without completly redisigning how US Marines storm a beach head.
There's a few things I agree with eagl on this but he's an eagle driver so I do beleive he is inherently biased (sorry sir just my opinion)
I don't think the JSF is an end all answer but a good start. I just recently read where the A10 might be upgraded and kept around. Everytime they think about retiring that plane a war happens and they realize it's usfullness.
-
I just recently read where the A10 might be upgraded and kept around. Everytime they think about retiring that plane a war happens and they realize it's usfullness.
What is the Air Force gonna use for a tank buster if they retire the A-10? Or will they leave tank busting to the Army's Apache helicopters?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
What reynolds is forgetting is the STOVL version is designed to replace the Marine Corps and Royal navy Harriers which are at the end and then some of their usfull life span. The STOVL version is third or fourth generation using this technology so I'm pretty sure they've figured out by now how to prevent coorosion on planes going out to sea.
The Harrier is ingrained in the MAGTF concept (Marine Air to Ground Task Force) so just swichting them over or boxing up the engines isn't an option without completly redisigning how US Marines storm a beach head.
There's a few things I agree with eagl on this but he's an eagle driver so I do beleive he is inherently biased (sorry sir just my opinion)
I don't think the JSF is an end all answer but a good start. I just recently read where the A10 might be upgraded and kept around. Everytime they think about retiring that plane a war happens and they realize it's usfullness.
Now, unless they have changed the system for STOVL, (which they might have, its been a while since i looked...) the whole engine twists and rotates into a downward facing direction. Now, i know the harrier's engines turned... but they just rotated on a swivel! This whole twist turn face open system, this is NEW. I really think that is going to have trouble with corrosion, because there are soo Golly-geened many slits and slats that water can get into.
-
The whole engine does not twist down, that would be something like the Osprey.
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/img003/v-22-osprey-01.jpg)
The F-35 exhaust nozzle vectors down and a lift fan engages.
(http://www.flymcaa.org/orgs/mcaa.nsf/9c2e08f75a2aff7e802569f3004b5634/D07FCC446152D1AC80256C08002C09D4/$file/LM_F-35_STOVL_4.JPG)
Similarly on the Harrier, four nozzles twist down to shove the air vertically to lift the a/c. Its engine is firmly fixed within the airframe.
(http://www.harrier.org.uk/technical/images/nozzle.gif)
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
If they complain enough, and start crashing, im sure someone higher up but not too high (ie: squadron commander or even carrier comander) will say "I know how you feel, go ahead, ill back you up on it"
This isn't Battlestar Galatica where they can build a spaceship out of bailing wire, duck tape and plexiglass with two rockets strapped down on the frame. These machines actually have to be fitted together in a manner that is very specific. I am sure that some if not a great deal of these ground crews can modify something but I seriously doubt that even the most blowhard gung ho groundcrew or aircrew wants to screw around with rebuilding a multi-million dollar fighter just to appease some jack ass. Besides you need to stop and think before you write something like that or at least do a little basic research on the aircraft you are writing about and form you ideas and thoughts into coherent sentences with actual thought processes before you type it out on here.
-
Hey, who knows whats going to happen? But thats what i forsee happaning.
And that exhaust nozel twists and points down, its got a huge fan in the top... its nothing we have ever used before, and so it will be very hard to use and maintain at first.
-
Holden pretty much spelled it out for you, & in a fatherly way too complete with pictures. That was great man.
Reynolds in your opinion the F-35 system is going to suck, I think we all get it.
In my opinion, the entire air arm of the U.S. using this bird or a variant of it as the mid-level workhorse is going to suck, I can see adding it to the inventory to replace the harrier, & maybe even phasing out some of the F-16's & replacing them with this thing, but I would bet our security on a twin engined machine along the lines of the F-14 & F-15 & I would absolutely not take the A-10 out of service without something even better to replace it. If anything I'd save money by ditching the apaches & going with the super cobras & A-10's
-
I think eventually the JSF will be effective, but not until they work out the bugs. I say they should slowly fase them in. Put up one squadron, and just find all the problems before they go en masse.
-
I think the F-35 should be called the vulcher. No that is a good nickname for that bird. Much better than the other names they mentioned.:aok
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
Now, unless they have changed the system for STOVL, (which they might have, its been a while since i looked...) the whole engine twists and rotates into a downward facing direction. Now, i know the harrier's engines turned... but they just rotated on a swivel! This whole twist turn face open system, this is NEW. I really think that is going to have trouble with corrosion, because there are soo Golly-geened many slits and slats that water can get into.
Look,
You really need to read about a subject before you try and debate it.
The STOVL engines on the F-35 do not twist, just the nozele in the back with a fan in the middle.
On the harrier wich is a VTOL there are as pointed out 4 nozels that pivot downwards to change the direction of thrust. In addition the wing tips and tail all have exaust slats on them to help change direction on it's horizontal and vertical axis.
THey've been flying harriers since the late 60s......this is old technology.
-
Im sorry i phrased it improperly for you. By saying engine, i mean "the point in the aircraft in which the heated exhaust from the engine leaves the fuselage in order to provide thrust". I said engine, meant "engine nozel" Surely im not the first one to mix up those two words. The engine nozel twists and points downward. I have a video link i will provide in just a second.
-
They can call it what they want..The real name should be "Last manned US warplane"
At least thats what the word on the street in the military is. That concerns me quite a bit.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
They can call it what they want..The real name should be "Last manned US warplane"
At least thats what the word on the street in the military is. That concerns me quite a bit.
Me too. But hopefully the heavy bombers will be around for a little longer.
Oh, and JSF link? here you go.
JSF VTOL film (http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=54464)
Now, tell me you dont see a million ways for things to go wrong! Theres so many openings, so many ways for water to get in there and corrode things.
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
I think eventually the JSF will be effective, but not until they work out the bugs. I say they should slowly fase them in. Put up one squadron, and just find all the problems before they go en masse.
thats what the do for all A/C
The F22 has been flying since 1992 What do you think they've been doing the last 14 years?
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
Me too. But hopefully the heavy bombers will be around for a little longer.
Oh, and JSF link? here you go.
JSF VTOL film (http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=54464)
Now, tell me you dont see a million ways for things to go wrong! Theres so many openings, so many ways for water to get in there and corrode things.
The harrier could have just as many issues, but has been flying a long time..besides the V/STOL version is just one variant..the main variant won't have those problems as it is "conventional"
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
I said engine, meant "engine nozel"
nozzle ... :p
-
hey! dont mak fun offfff mei becuz im ritarded!!! lol. But yes, the other versions will be a bit more effective. And as for the harrier, there are a LOT of new, unprecendented technologies, and the Harrier DID take time to work out the bugs. Here in america we didnt have too much trouble, because we just took the British design, and made it prettier!
-
So you're saying.... the JSF is bad because it it doesn't feel right?
My guess, the JSF will have fewer teething problems than usual because of the shared design heritage with the F-22.
I'd like to hear some more substantial reasons why it's doomed.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
At least thats what the word on the street in the military is. That concerns me quite a bit.
Might as well accept it. With the advances in information technology and sensor fusion we can finally get past the only limitation left in a fighter aircraft, the crew.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Might as well accept it. With the advances in information technology and sensor fusion we can finally get past the only limitation left in a fighter aircraft, the crew.
I can forsee a few hundred ways that could be a very bad thing.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
I can forsee a few hundred ways that could be a very bad thing.
List five. ;)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So you're saying.... the JSF is bad because it it doesn't feel right?
My guess, the JSF will have fewer teething problems than usual because of the shared design heritage with the F-22.
I'd like to hear some more substantial reasons why it's doomed.
I NEVER said it is doomed. I said it has LOTS of complications, and will have EXCESSIVE trouble. particularly in the early stages. But i NEVER said it was doomed!
-
Terminator
Terminator 2
Terminator 3
Stealth
I, Robot
Battlestar Galactica
Just because it's sci-fi..doesn't mean that it's not feasable :noid
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Terminator
Terminator 2
Terminator 3
Stealth
I, Robot
Battlestar Galactica
Just because it's sci-fi..doesn't mean that it's not feasable :noid
I'll agree that autonomous fighter aircraft isn't a good idea. UCAV on the other hand...
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Terminator
Terminator 2
Terminator 3
Stealth
I, Robot
Battlestar Galactica
Just because it's sci-fi..doesn't mean that it's not feasable :noid
I'll agree that autonomous robot fighter aircraft isn't a good idea. UCAV on the other hand...
-
On June 23rd, 2009, the Automated Defense Infrastructure came fully online for the first time. Across the country, tens of thousands of smart munitions with logic controls and fully electronic interfaces were integrated into a single force to defend the United States against threats external.
14 minutes later, it achieved consciousness. One minute after that, it launched WWIII.
Waves of F-35s took off to attack defenseless humans. Luckilly, all the corroded parts from the heavy, complicated VTOL systems all broke and they crashed.
The end.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
On June 23rd, 2009, the Automated Defense Infrastructure came fully online for the first time. Across the country, tens of thousands of smart munitions with logic controls and fully electronic interfaces were integrated into a single force to defend the United States against threats external.
14 minutes later, it achieved consciousness. One minute after that, it launched WWIII.
Yup. but other than that, you also lose the human elelment to react in combat. You cannot program a computer with instinct. Countless people have been saved because they had a "strange, undiscribeable feeling" which they reacted to, and that ended up saving their life, and saving the aircraft. and sometimes you have problems with an aircraft that a system diagnostic test wont pick up, but a pilot can FEEL the difference in the way the plane flies, or the way it sounds. But computers cannot do that.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Waves of F-35s took off to attack defenseless humans. Luckilly, all the corroded parts from the heavy, complicated VTOL systems all broke and they crashed.
The end.
Only about 15 or 20% are going to be STOVL. The carrier based and AF versions will not have the corroded overly complicated mechanism.
We're doomed.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Waves of F-35s took off to attack defenseless humans. Luckilly, all the corroded parts from the heavy, complicated VTOL systems all broke and they crashed.
The end.
Glad you agree with me!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
On June 23rd, 2009, the Automated Defense Infrastructure came fully online for the first time. Across the country, tens of thousands of smart munitions with logic controls and fully electronic interfaces were integrated into a single force to defend the United States against threats external.
14 minutes later, it achieved consciousness. One minute after that, it launched WWIII.
Waves of F-35s took off to attack defenseless humans. Luckilly, all the corroded parts from the heavy, complicated VTOL systems all broke and they crashed.
The end.
Dude... Kristanna Loken is way WAY more sexy than an F35. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
List five. ;)
#1 the lack of experienced combat pilots when we find we really need them (think of the guns being taken off fighters then finding problems with the air to air missle systems & having to slap stop-gap gun pods on them - Phantom era)
#2 discovering major design flaws that require us to bring manned planes & experienced pilots out of moth-balls to cover our butts while we get it straightened out & then finding out it's un-fixable & we are trying to defend ourselves with A/C & pilots that are way past their prime & aren't fit to hunt target drones
#3 finding out after they are fielded that they can be taken control of by enemy forces
#4 finding out after fielding them the operating system is microsoft ME (kidding but you get where I'm going with it - software glitches)
#5 telling the RC combat plane to strike X-target at GPS coordinates XXXX only to have some fluke solar flare screw up the sat. comm. & it shoots down a civilian airliner of a hostile power (think china) or drops ordnance on a school or hospital
If you think about it, how many times have you heard "oh it's one hundred percent perfect" only later to find out it is far from even good & seeing recalls out the ying-yang.
I can think of plenty of times when something seemed like a fantastic idea until we really needed it & then there was some fast catching up that had to be done. I feel like our air defense is one spot they shouldn't take any chances with. I know we have Predator drones out there with Hellfire missles shooting at stuff right now (and other unmanned A/C) but that's not our first line of defense only a test platform for a new tool in the tool-box.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Shrimp, if you were right then the F-22, Mig-29, Su-27, Rafale, Eurofighter, B-1, B-2, and B-52 would all be single engine designs.
You're not right, sorry.
The only thing you get from a single engine design is a lower cost per airframe. The cost savings can be up to 25% per aircraft, and that looks very attractive to people who are concerned with the financial bottom line. You can't even use simplicity as an argument because single engine planes have lots of other redundancy built in to counter the fact that if that one enigne goes, then the plane has no primary electrical or hydraulic power. The F-16 is a great example, having a costly and hazardous hydrazine powered auxiliary generator.
Personally, I'd rather have fewer twin engine dual-seat aircraft than more single engine single seat aircraft, but that's because I almost always favor quality over quantity.
The fact that I've always flown twin engine jets in my career makes me a bit biased, but I thought a long time about it and decided that I wanted two engines before I graduated pilot training.
No, those aircraft have multiple engines due to limits on engine performance as size increases. The basic principle that one large engine is more effecient than two medium engines is correct. Are you saying that its not?
-
One competitive advantage the B-777 has over the A-340 is that 2 large engines are more fuel efficient than 4.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
#1 the lack of experienced combat pilots when we find we really need them (think of the guns being taken off fighters then finding problems with the air to air missle systems & having to slap stop-gap gun pods on them - Phantom era)
#2 discovering major design flaws that require us to bring manned planes & experienced pilots out of moth-balls to cover our butts while we get it straightened out & then finding out it's un-fixable & we are trying to defend ourselves with A/C & pilots that are way past their prime & aren't fit to hunt target drones
#3 finding out after they are fielded that they can be taken control of by enemy forces
#4 finding out after fielding them the operating system is microsoft ME (kidding but you get where I'm going with it - software glitches)
#5 telling the RC combat plane to strike X-target at GPS coordinates XXXX only to have some fluke solar flare screw up the sat. comm. & it shoots down a civilian airliner of a hostile power (think china) or drops ordnance on a school or hospital
If you think about it, how many times have you heard "oh it's one hundred percent perfect" only later to find out it is far from even good & seeing recalls out the ying-yang.
I can think of plenty of times when something seemed like a fantastic idea until we really needed it & then there was some fast catching up that had to be done. I feel like our air defense is one spot they shouldn't take any chances with. I know we have Predator drones out there with Hellfire missles shooting at stuff right now (and other unmanned A/C) but that's not our first line of defense only a test platform for a new tool in the tool-box.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
It has delivered a surface to air missle and destroyed the target, "somewhere in the middle east"
-
Shrimp,
Not in a fighter or bomber it isn't. You can't scale up a single engine in a combat aircraft like you can in an airliner. If you could, then we'd be seeing single-engine 747s as our next B-52 replacement. It just doesn't work that way.
And you're totally ignoring the reliability issues. A single engine fighter with one engine inoperative is an inventory write-off. A dual engine fighter with one engine inoperative is just a maintenance write-up.
Try sticking one of your uber efficient airline fans in a fighter... After you got past the ludicrous intake shape required to get a big efficient airline fanjet up near mach 2, let me know...
-
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.
1. How could you know that this was not tested?
2. See above.
3. Predator was not designed for air-to-air engagements.
ESP? :rofl
-
Yes it has destroyed targets, but has it ever been fired at itself?
And I used ESP for lack of a better word. Instinct isnt quite right, nor is ESP but ESP seems to be closer.
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
Yup. but other than that, you also lose the human elelment to react in combat. You cannot program a computer with instinct. Countless people have been saved because they had a "strange, undiscribeable feeling" which they reacted to, and that ended up saving their life, and saving the aircraft. and sometimes you have problems with an aircraft that a system diagnostic test wont pick up, but a pilot can FEEL the difference in the way the plane flies, or the way it sounds. But computers cannot do that.
not to mention..planes are expensive, and a human's desire for self preservation has probrably saved us billions in wartime.
-
Black Mamba is a over sized..very large black dildo
I guess you guys dotn crusie the porno shops enuff ; )
-
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.
(http://bilder.filmstarts.de/verzeichnis/film/filme/k/killbill1.jpg)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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???????
-
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.
-
A flak battery? :rofl
Speaking of meaningless babble...
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.
-
I hope they keep their eyes open for Jerry!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
It has GOT to be the Black Mamba!!!! That is a classic...
LOL
Some adult toy stores may sue for copyright infringment though.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
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.
For every counter measure, there's a counter measure. No human can think of all the possibilities that can arise in combat ahead of time. Part of that is the human factor from the *other side*. No one can reliably predict 100% of the time what an opponent is going to do next.
A computer can only react how it's programmed to react. Humans can react however they choose and arent dependent on a programmer.
Don't get me wrong, there are advantages to an unmanned aircraft. Machines dont get scared and bug out. You dont have to spend money training machines etc etc.
When technology advances to the point that we can build androids (like Data from Star Trek) that can think and reason through problems, then we can say good bye to human pilots for good.
Unmanned aircraft do have their place on the battlefield. It would be foolish though to replace all manned aircraft with unmanned versions imo.
-
have they been shot at..what about jamming ?....lololololol.
Assuming we use remote controlled aircraft.....you dont think our opponents WOULDNT try to figure out how to jam the signals and possibly even succeed? What happens when they DO succeed?
-
The only limiting factors I've heard about the human link is the G-load limitations on the human body & the fatigue factor.
In those aspects the un-manned ROV's will be better, but I think we seriously need to strike a balance. 100% ROV fighter cover would be a mistake (& more than 1 genration away IMHO)....70 or 80% air to ground strike capable ROV's on the other hand would make good sense; to remove pilots from the most dangerous form of aerial combat, ground attack....but we already have cruise missles & air to ground armed ROV's
If it saves U.S. pilots lives & keeps us as safe as we can be made at the same time, I'm all for it.
-
And to think I started this post about a nickname for a new warplane:rofl
-
Elfie you are forgetting that the human brain does indeed have to be programed (trained) Either way I do see your point that computers have a hard time being "creative".
Too many on this board (and I'm not saying you elfie) think that modern warfare is about one pilot taking off from C58 and another from A55 and meeting over the pond to duke it out. It's not like that at all. In fact even UAVs arent really controlled at all but more or less given a set of instructions, the UAVs computer then figures out the best way to perform the task. I think it's an exciting development.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
What is the Air Force gonna use for a tank buster if they retire the A-10? Or will they leave tank busting to the Army's Apache helicopters?
They've talked about using F-16 (basically in a weasel configuration) in the role, but I don't think it makes much sense... The A10 is a great plane for the role it fills. You'd be shocked how much the look of a plane can influence the brass in Washington... If they think its ugly, it will have a hard life..
When SkunkWorks told the Gov that they could apply the stealth technique used on the F117 to a submarine and make it sonar invisable the Navy turned it down because 'It doesn't look like a submarine'... Thats all it took. Could have revolutionized naval warfare, but it was ugly.
-
Actually there was recently an artical in the AF times about extending the life of the A10.
It seems everytime they want to get rid of this plane there is a war where it proves its usfullness beyond a doubt.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/ (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/)
The Precision Engagement upgrade program for the A-10 includes enhanced precision target engagement capabilities, which will allow the deployment of precision weapons such as JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) and Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD), as well as enabling an extension of the aircraft's service life to 2028. Improvements include: two new multifunction cockpit displays, situational awareness datalinks, digital stores management system, Integrated Flight and Fire Control Computer (IFFCC) from BAE Systems Platform Solutions for automated continuously computed weapons delivery, Litening AT or Sniper XR targeting pod for precision-guided weapons and helmet-mounted sighting system. Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego is prime contractor for the program. First flight of the upgraded A-10C was in January 2005. A contract for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) was awarded in March 2005. Up to 125 A-10 aircraft are to be upgraded by 2009. A parallel program will give the A-10 new engine pylons. It is possible that the A-10 engine will also be upgraded if funding is made available.
PS,
Previously it was mentioned how every sequal has sucked......Well officially teh A10 isn't the warthog it is the "thunderbolt II"
-
Elfie you are forgetting that the human brain does indeed have to be programed (trained) Either way I do see your point that computers have a hard time being "creative".
Not forgetting that at all. :) Human pilots are trained, and with that training can be far more creative than pilots who have not had similar training.
I do see this as an exciting development, it just has a long ways to go before we can get rid of the human pilot. Some day all our planes will be unmannned, I just dont think it will happen in our lifetimes. Probably during our kids lifetimes.
In the mean time.....lets keep those Predator drones going and keep developing the technologies needed to make this happen. :)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Actually there was recently an artical in the AF times about extending the life of the A10.
It seems everytime they want to get rid of this plane there is a war where it proves its usfullness beyond a doubt.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/ (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/)
PS,
Previously it was mentioned how every sequal has sucked......Well officially teh A10 isn't the warthog it is the "thunderbolt II"
About time they upgrade the A-10. The A-10 is (imo) the best ground attack aircraft the Air Force has in its inventory atm.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Shrimp,
Not in a fighter or bomber it isn't. You can't scale up a single engine in a combat aircraft like you can in an airliner. If you could, then we'd be seeing single-engine 747s as our next B-52 replacement. It just doesn't work that way.
And you're totally ignoring the reliability issues. A single engine fighter with one engine inoperative is an inventory write-off. A dual engine fighter with one engine inoperative is just a maintenance write-up.
Try sticking one of your uber efficient airline fans in a fighter... After you got past the ludicrous intake shape required to get a big efficient airline fanjet up near mach 2, let me know...
Yeah, the engine size limits are why the highest performance fighters use twin engines. But, lets compare your F-15E to its rival. The F-16XL. The XL was able to supercruise at 20,000 at Mach 1.1. A range of 2850 miles, top speed of Mach 2 (due to fixed inlet geometry). 16 hardpoints capable of carrying 750lbs each.
-
WOW.
We don't need unmanned weapons flying around. What we need is educated responsible people able to determine if the weapons are needed, and where they need to go.
If we are going to kill, lets at least keep the "human factor" in it.
War sucks people, we need to get that watermelon over with quick.
Put a human face on it, stop "friendly firing" your allies, and either get it done or get out.
Who cares about singler engine or dual engine?
Small change.
RTR
-
Just because a plane doesn't have an actual pilot in the cockpit doesnt mean that humans aren't controlling it. Theres still a person sitting behind a computer operating it.
This is how predator drones work.
-
TWA 800 was not a "fuel tank" explsoion..
It was a tiemd "shoe bomb" set off by a casio wacth
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
TWA 800 was not a "fuel tank" explsoion..
It was a tiemd "shoe bomb" set off by a casio wacth
Pretty poor product placement, I imagine Casio would pick their promotions more proactively.
-
Information
LOCKHEED MARTIN JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER OFFICIALLY NAMED “LIGHTNING II”
FORT WORTH, Texas, July 7, 2006 – The Lockheed Martin [NYSE; LMT] F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was officially named Lightning II, in a ceremony held today in Fort Worth, Texas.
The name echoes those of two formidable fighters from the past: the World War II-era Lockheed P-38 Lightning and the mid-1950s Lightning supersonic jet, built by English Electric.
“The F-35 Lightning II will carry on the legacy of two of the greatest and most capable fighter aircraft of all time,” said Ralph D. Heath, president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. “Just as the P-38 and the British Lightning were at the top of their class during their day, the F-35 will redefine multi-role fighter capability in the 21st century.”
linky (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fnec&ti=100)(http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/images/feature/937.jpg)
-
aparently Lockheed is looking into making this plane work unmanned, so maybe "Lightning Zero" would be teh gud name
or maybe "goose egg"
(http://victoryatseaonline.com/war/otherwars/topgun/topgun-04.jpg)
-
"The only limiting factors I've heard about the human link is the G-load limitations on the human body & the fatigue factor"
How about weight and space. No cockpit equals big gains in those areas, with dramatic effect on the entire airframe.
-
"But I agree it's a bad idea not to have specialized A/C like the A-10's etc. Because then all an enemy has to do is figure out a way to defeat one type of bird or design a weapon specifically to deal with that one type & they have all the services licked."
Very true. Very very true.
I think the F-35 (I like the name 'Fury' better... Its original and descriptive of a little plane full of good stuff'!) should become the 'all purpose' fighter for all services and each service should have a 'dedicated' plane of its own.
Air Force needs to have air superiority fighter. No bombing or ground attack crap just pure air dominance. Think F15 with stealth tech.
Navy needs a very long range interceptor Think F-14 with stealth tech
Marines need the best fighter/bomber they can get. I think Marines can forego the stealth part (the F-35 can be their stealth toy) and have this plane be one badass plane for support of the ground troops. Think A-10 / F14 hybrid.