Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rogwar on January 30, 2014, 10:51:55 AM
-
People on an outdoors forum I follow were oooowwwwing and aaaahhhhhhing about the incredible capability of the latest Russian fighters in this video. What do you think?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77e_1389637750
-
Impresive.
F22 would still smoke them all in a fight while they were flying around doing those pretty loop-de-loops and ground hovers. Too bad we only have a hundred or so. I'll stop there before this gets into a political discussion.
-
Impresive.
F22 would still smoke them all in a fight while they were flying around doing those pretty loop-de-loops and ground hovers. Too bad we only have a hundred or so. I'll stop there before this gets into a political discussion.
you say so but most of the experts calling F22 and F35 lemon planes...
-
Impressive isn't the word I would use - amazing maneuvers. Whether they stack up to the F-22 or F-35 technologically; that's a different story but I gotta say I would love to have witnessed that in person.
Back in 1991, The Russians visited Love Field outside of Dallas and since I happened to be stationed at Carswell AFB at the time, I went out to watch the show. The Russians were offering ten minute rides in the MIG-29 and there was a line of folks waiting for their turn at $10,000 a pop. I was completely impressed with that AC and it holds nothing compared to what we see today.
-
you say so but most of the experts calling F22 and F35 limon planes...
LOL
-
Impressive isn't the word I would use - amazing maneuvers. Whether they stack up to the F-22 or F-35 technologically; that's a different story but I gotta say I would love to have witnessed that in person.
Very true and you got my point. The F-22 technologically is leaps and bounds ahead of even the latest Russian offerings where it counts: lethality and stealth. It does have problems such as the reported O2 system for the pilot but it is still the finest figher aircraft in the world today bar none.
I will not argue the F-35. I hope I am wrong but in my opinion the F-35 concept will not pan out. Jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none is hard to pull off.
-
LOL
lol back at you... Even the guy who was one of the master minds behind the F16s says so....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw
-
you say so but most of the experts calling F22 and F35 lemon planes...
"Experts" you say... Care to name one?
-
Nice RC jets btw...
-
"Experts" you say... Care to name one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojPnp2hwqaE
-
Care to name one?
I'm not going to spend the better part of an hour watching that. I do not consider anything the media produces to be "experts" in any way, form or function.
-
The RC jets look like Chinese J-10 fighters.
The Russian demo was pretty old. Things to note are the way the nose *always* drops before the plane flies out of maneuvers, and the nose also usually slices nose-left during the pitch-up high AOA pulls due to engine torque effects. The F-22 does neither of those things since it is more completely in control during its maneuvers.
-
Let me know when they can dodge an AIM-9x
-
Care to name one?
I'm not going to spend the better part of an hour watching that. I do not consider anything the media produces to be "experts" in any way, form or function.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI
here 10min version for u.... If you dont want to get informed there is notthing i can do for you....
-
Nice RC jets btw...
That's what I found funny on the other forum.
:rofl
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI
here 10min version for u.... If you dont want to get informed there is notthing i can do for you....
Informed? Lol, if you consider that "informed" then the word has lost all meaning. Don't listen to the media talking heads. Listen to the pilots who fly the F-35. Listen to those involved in the project.
Don't believe anything that man or his partner in BS Winslow Wheeler says.
I read Sprey’s essay on the F-22, and after that I'm never reading anything that man writes, ever. It fails to offer any proof and in fact, offers the same standard lies about the F-22 that I’ve already heard numerous times. Moreover, the essay reveals that Sprey is either completely ignorant about defense issues or, more likely, so biased against modern weapons that he’s blatantly lying to malign them while praising the F-16 fighter to the highest.
Why the F-16? Because Sprey, as a member of the Fighter Mafia, was one of the men behind that program and, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, he advocated its development and production. Sprey is, in short, the godfather of the F-16 as much as Harry Hillaker and John Boyd were. His love for his brainchild, the F-16, is obviously blinding him, leading him to malign better, more capable aircraft, including the F-22 and F-35.
-
"Experts" you say... Care to name one?
Some consider my background to qualify as "expertise", and I'm convinced that the F-35 is a lemon, and badly overpriced at that. I like the F-22, and both the maintenance problems and high price of the F-22 can be blamed on the small production numbers. The F-35, if only 200-300 were built, would cost 2-3 times what an F-22 costs, and it is only front-quarter stealthy.
I've spoken to folks who have flown in and against the F-22 and every one of them say it is "for real", a true air dominance fighter. I don't know anyone who says the F-35 will be the best at anything. My 2 main gripes about the F-35 are the fact that its a stealthy F-16 at 4x the cost, and the fact that many very very good and cost effective and combat-proven programs have been cancelled outright in order to funnel more money into the F-35 program, on completely baseless promises that the F-35 will be an effective replacement for a half dozen outstanding aircraft, none of whose roles can actually be filled by the F-35.
Anyone going against the F-35 in the future is gonna run them out of gas, run them out of missiles, then shoot them in their non-stealthy a$z when they run away at, what.. mach 1.4 (maybe on a good day) until they flame out from lack of fuel? Eagle drivers learn rather quickly how to win "most of the time" against vipers. Out stick them, out-defend them, run them out of amraams and fuel. At half the cost we could have new build F-15s with the most advanced AESA radars and integrated systems carrying 10 missiles and 18,000 lbs of weapons, against the F-35's 4 missiles and 4000 lbs of bombs.
Yes, the defense industry needs to have *something* to design/build or it will wither and die. This is a national defense issue over the long term. But joint fighter programs ALWAYS suck. Rand corporation actually just published a major study on joint procurement programs, proving this.
-
The J-10 is a purchased Israeli design known as the Lavi, which was an intended improvement on the F-16. Came in heavy and not worth the cost, so the Israelis negotiated an improved F-16, problem solved. The Chinese built it and are running into engine problems.
I join the club of the F-22 and F-35 being a bad investment, if for no other reason the total cost. The Navy was wise to cut the A-12 Avenger II when it went ballistic. Sadly, the Air Force forged ahead with these two birds. The American taxpayer could have purchased more of the F-15SE (Silent Eagle, not Strike Eagle) and upgraded the F-16 and save 2/3 the money. Our greatest threat is not the former Soviet Union or even the military of China. Our greatest threat is economic peril caused by debt and spending. We can't afford these massively expensive birds.
On the flying, great turns though combat isn't waged with tailslides. That only happens on a regular basis in AH.
boo
-
Some consider my background to qualify as "expertise", and I'm convinced that the F-35 is a lemon, and badly overpriced at that. I like the F-22, and both the maintenance problems and high price of the F-22 can be blamed on the small production numbers. The F-35, if only 200-300 were built, would cost 2-3 times what an F-22 costs, and it is only front-quarter stealthy.
I've spoken to folks who have flown in and against the F-22 and every one of them say it is "for real", a true air dominance fighter. I don't know anyone who says the F-35 will be the best at anything. My 2 main gripes about the F-35 are the fact that its a stealthy F-16 at 4x the cost, and the fact that many very very good and cost effective and combat-proven programs have been cancelled outright in order to funnel more money into the F-35 program, on completely baseless promises that the F-35 will be an effective replacement for a half dozen outstanding aircraft, none of whose roles can actually be filled by the F-35.
Anyone going against the F-35 in the future is gonna run them out of gas, run them out of missiles, then shoot them in their non-stealthy a$z when they run away at, what.. mach 1.4 (maybe on a good day) until they flame out from lack of fuel?
Pretty much the same concerns I have witht he F-35. I am not an expert but what I have read seems troublesome.
I have to add that the SU-35 is a amazing plane and cuts a very handsome profile. Up to tackling a F-22 it is not but it is still very impressive.
-
Eagl, have you actually talked to anyone in the F-35 program? Anyone who has flown the F-35?
You know... We have one here on the BBS... Beau32 works on F-35s and back in February 2013 this is what he had to say:
Here is what I see, from a Maintainer point of view (Crew Chief of AF-03)
Alot of what I read on here is crazy. Some of the things people come up with. The F-35 is following along with every other plane that has been developed. They all have been over priced and over budget. Its going to happen. Deal with it. We are constantly working to make these planes better and better. Right now we are down for a 3rd stage cracked blade out of AF-02. Who knows how it happened. Could be a bad blade or could be just one of those freak things that happen. Cracked blades in jet engines occur a little more than what people think (talking about all jet powered aircraft in general). Its a safty precaution to ground the fleet till this gets sorted out and the problem fixed. Better to get it taken care of then to possibly lose a jet and/or a life of a pilot. So just because you hear that the fleet is grounded, dont take it as a bad thing.
Most people tend to hate on things they dont really understand cause they read a few negative things online or in a paper or magazine. Dont believe everything you read. Our program is making great strides, and out of the 50,000 or so test points we have over 20,000 accomplished. We still have a long way to go, but we are making it happen.
I cant really go into much detail, but have the things in here are not true that people say. Just call it a little insider info........
Also I've personally talked to two RNoAF pilots who are involved and their opinions reflect the same enthusiasm for the F-35 as the British test pilot in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kshe7-BYfWc
-
I join the club of the F-22 and F-35 being a bad investment, if for no other reason the total cost. The Navy was wise to cut the A-12 Avenger II when it went ballistic. Sadly, the Air Force forged ahead with these two birds.
Hey, don't blame the Air Force for the F-35. The AF is the lead in that program due to having the highest production numbers of all the variants, but the whole program was badly compromised from the beginning by being a "joint" program. The whole design is fouled up, from determining the size to requirements defining the flying qualities, because of the multi-service requirements. Imagine the cost of a car that had to drive 200 mph, climb rocks like a highly modified jeep, and carry a family of 8. That's the kind of BS compromises you end up dealing with when you design a "joint" fighter, and the f-35 was fouled up from the beginning because of it. Add on nonsense about "the USAF will never buy another stealth aircraft" (used to justify killing F-15 production that was planned to replace ancient F-15s that are literally falling apart), and you get all your crappy joint eggs in one irreplaceable basket.
Heck, even the Brits wasted about 100 mil thrashing the design of their next carrier based on uncertainty as to if they'd buy the F-35B or F-35C. If the naval variant was its own program, it would have cost LESS per aircraft and been a much better multi-role naval fighter. As it is, that version is suffering so much risk that the Navy dared open up the possibility (for less than a week it turns out) of buying more F-18s due to F-35 delays and design compromises.
It was a fatally flawed program from the beginning, due to the joint nature. Don't blame the USAF on it, we're just the ones stuck buying the biggest bag of lemons.
-
GScholtz,
Frankly, a maintainer's opinion on the value of a fighter *as a fighter* isn't worth much to me. Nothing against beau32, but he brings a maintainer's perspective to the argument. Can he really say that the F-35 as a joint program is better than 3 independently competed programs? If he's being honest, I doubt he would. The lift fan size and geometry constraints on fuselage mold lines, and difference in wing sizes between A and C, and the lack of rearward visibility in the A model are only the most obvious outward signs of the massive compromises made with this aircraft. The teeny tiny weapons bays on a fighter that is supposed to replace the A-10 are even more telling. None of the 3 planes is going to be awesome at meeting its service requirements.
I have also been careful to not criticize the development pace. I know all fighter programs have teething problems. That's not my gripe with the F-35. My gripe with the F-35 has nothing to do with engine maturity or fatigue cracking or whatever, and everything to do with it not being a very good fighter.
I did work with someone who was intimately involved in the helmet display and "3D" visual awareness human factors testing. He was involved in the design of that from nearly day one, and he commented that the 3D visual capability may be a step too far with respect to human resistance to spatial disorientation. The cost in that one feature alone is enormous. We can only hope that the technology required to present a jitter and lag free full color high resolution multi-spectral helmet-integrated display will trickle down to the gaming industry, but even the best we've been able to come up with is nearly guaranteed to cause severe spatial disorientation in many real-world situations. Having lost a good friend last year to an NVG spatial disorientation mishap, and having taught new pilots for 9 years how to fight spatial disorientation even in "traditional" cockpits, this is not a topic that can be dismissed very easily as a simple matter of pilots complaining about how hard their job is.
3 programs for the 3 services with fast jet requirements would have produced better aircraft at a better price. The RAND study proves this is the case, even for lower production number requirements like the F-35B (STOVL) or F-35C (large US-centric carrier design).
-
I've watched Pierre Sprey's interviews, and what he says seems pretty logical. Aircraft need to be specialized, not generalized. Dedicated ground attack aircraft, dedicated air superiority aircraft. Sure sure, everyone cites the Gulf War mission where a couple F-18s shot down a Mig-29 then went on to bomb their target. But that is a pretty isolated incident.
Sprey's main criticism of the F-35 is its poor maneuverability (which he accredits to extremely high wing-loading), its low speed, and its reliance on stealth. He claims stealth does not work due to long wavelength radar being able to defeat it. He also claims that IFF (electronic identification Friend or Foe) is still a horrible system (reference 2 F-15s shooting down two UH-60s in the late 90s).
When has a multi-service fighter ever worked? F-111- Nope. F-4 Phantom- Poorly. F-35- We'll see after it's shoved down the throats of all the services involved.
-
Informed? Lol, if you consider that "informed" then the word has lost all meaning. Don't listen to the media talking heads. Listen to the pilots who fly the F-35. Listen to those involved in the project.
Don't believe anything that man or his partner in BS Winslow Wheeler says.
I read Sprey’s essay on the F-22, and after that I'm never reading anything that man writes, ever. It fails to offer any proof and in fact, offers the same standard lies about the F-22 that I’ve already heard numerous times. Moreover, the essay reveals that Sprey is either completely ignorant about defense issues or, more likely, so biased against modern weapons that he’s blatantly lying to malign them while praising the F-16 fighter to the highest.
Why the F-16? Because Sprey, as a member of the Fighter Mafia, was one of the men behind that program and, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, he advocated its development and production. Sprey is, in short, the godfather of the F-16 as much as Harry Hillaker and John Boyd were. His love for his brainchild, the F-16, is obviously blinding him, leading him to malign better, more capable aircraft, including the F-22 and F-35.
I understand that you dont trust main stream media, Most of the I dont either. But I also dont trust anybody who has private companies name in his/her title.
-
I'm not in the aircraft industry but I have a saying I toss around quite a bit at work: "Generalists, in general, suck at everything". The saying applies to people and skillsets but I see no reason why it would not for fighter planes as well. Generalists have to make compromises in order to have a broad array of skills. In other words you cannot have a deep knowledge set of everything. In the same vein, I have a hard time seeing how a single plane can be designed to do so many jobs and do each of them well. Corners have to be cut and compromises made.
-
DaveBB,
I'd have to quibble about characterizing the F-111 and F-4 as failures or marginal successes... The F-111 was rightfully rejected by the Navy but it was one hell of a final "century series" cold war fighter-bomber. Not much of a fighter and thankfully not much money was poured into trying to make it one, but it was one hell of a deep strike fighter. Fast as anything else out there with tons of fuel and bombs and, for the time, a superb navigation and targeting system. Even the modern day combat proven F-15E isn't quite the penetration bomber that the F-111 was, due to lack of speed and high-speed endurance.
The F-4... well, the widespread popularity of the model around the world and proven combat results say a lot. And if I recall correctly, the F-4 was originally primarily intended for the Navy and had to be modified for USAF use.
Other aircraft that turned out well only because they were NOT joint programs are the F-16 and F-18. People forget that the prototypes of both the F-16 and F-18 were competing for the same lightweight fighter program. USAF chose the F-16 and the navy realized that the F-18 would, with appropriate design work, make a fine naval fighter.
Now imagine if the F-35 was "usaf only", and the Navy had to run its own fighter program separate from, but loosely based on the technology behind, the F-35? They could have widened/stretched it and given it 2 engines, if the basic model didn't also have to do STOVL for the marines and fit on the little amphib carriers. That could have been a hell of an F-18 successor, a 15% or 20% bigger acft based on F-35 era technology, but with 2 motors and no compromises for USAF or USMC joint requirements. Maybe they could have even made a 2-seat version for precision strike/attack and EW. How do you control your nifty new stealth navy attack drone fleet without a WSO/RIO in the back seat? Not very well, I bet...
-
Sure sure, everyone cites the Gulf War mission where a couple F-18s shot down a Mig-29 then went on to bomb their target. But that is a pretty isolated incident.
If I remember correctly the F-18 shootdown had a big caveat on it. They used AIM-7E Sparrows and by one pilots admission had they not killed the birds with the Sparrow shots they would have need to jettison their ord to turn with Sidewinders.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI
here 10min version for u.... If you dont want to get informed there is notthing i can do for you....
Youtube is your "information source"? The Internets, raising the bar of mediocrity since 1992. Apparently there is nothing we can do for you as well. :aok
-
Youtube is your "information source"? The Internets, raising the bar of mediocrity since 1992. Apparently there is nothing we can do for you as well. :aok
lol... :rofl
when you watching TV , do you consider the TV as your information source or the channel you are watching as your information source ?!
-
There's a lot of "maybe" and "could have" comments here which I find worthless. I find it sad but slightly funny that the F-35's rearward visibility is a negative issue with the first plane that the pilot can literally see through any part of the fuselage with optic sensors. The only real need for a transparent canopy is in case the sensors malfunction. I find it equally comical that the F-35's payload is being criticized since in that area it outperforms both the F-16 and F-18 using external hardpoints. It can sacrifice external ord to become a stealthy light bomber with two AMRAAMs and two 2000lbs bombs or two anti-ship missiles. Or it can carry four AMMRAMs (six in a future upgrade) if it needs to back up the F-22s in a stealthy pure A2A role. The version we're buying will also carry the IRIS-T dogfight missile we've been developing with the Germans.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kuCeDBzkfd4/TaXFeugou-I/AAAAAAAAAHk/0ua-jEFQh7U/s1600/f35weaponarrangementdb5.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/IRIS-T_air-to-air-missile.jpg/800px-IRIS-T_air-to-air-missile.jpg)
-
lol... :rofl
when you watching TV , do you consider the TV as your information source or the channel you are watching as your information source ?!
You watch TV? ... Do you actually believe anything they tell you on the "idiot box"?
It's even in the dictionary...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idiot+box
-
You watch TV? ... Do you actually believe anything they tell you on the "idiot box"?
It's even in the dictionary...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idiot+box
lol man... you are really funny...
-
I'm not getting into the F35 capability argument, but I will say something regarding the F22. Hindsight being what it is, it's a huge shame that the USA didn't offer the F22 to allied countries like those in Europe, Japan, and most importantly, the northern part of the NORAD defense zone, Canada.
Canada has dropped out of the F35 participation/deal, for many of the reasons Eagl mentioned, but mainly because it isn't optimized for a2a and long range patrol/interception, something that is important when you have a huge area to cover like the entire northern part of the continent. The F22 would have been a lot better fit, not perfect, but much better had it been "allowed" to be sold to Canada, yet all the inquiries were poo-poo'd ten years ago, and Canada was stuck with the F35, which it spat out after swallowing. We wanted 100 F22's. Japan wanted more. Can you imagine not only how much cheaper the F22 would have been, but how much more effective the USA's primary allies would have been if there were 350 F22's available in a time of a large war, not just 150 or so.
One of my friends from high school has flown 6 modern fighters, over 2000 hrs in the Hornet and gone through Empire test pilot school in the UK, flying the Typhoon, Grippen, Navy F18E/F on exchange as well. From what he's told me the F22 is extremely tough in a2a ex's for a number of reasons, and if he could pick any plane to fly in if his life was on the line that was the one.
Now, years later after the F22 has been long in service, the "new" fighter looks less capable and less stealthy to boot than the "older" one. WTH?! As mentioned already, the F35 is going to end up costing more, a lot more than the F22. It's a shame they don't put a fraction of the money being put into the F35 back into the F22 program, and speed track the a2g software/avionics/etc, and just have it perform the same job, better, and for less money, IMO.
-edit, Also, the OP video, those are R/C Jets, models I think made by FlyEagleJets out of Taiwan, they look like J10s. Google Flyeaglejets, their models are great large scale jets, and it's hugely popular in Taiwan, the police close down parts of certain roadways for clubs to fly these things there.
http://www.flyeaglejet.com/en/J103D.4.85.html
-
you say so but most of the experts calling F22 and F35 lemon planes...
What experts?
This is typical Russian. Write up a bunch of BS specs and then go send a few to an air show and have them dance around in maneuvers that are completely irrelevant to modern jet combat and hope they get a sale from some dummy that cant, or wont, buy western.
In videos like this you cant see RCS. You cant see radars, you cant see networkcentricy, you cant see engine reliability, or sortie rates, or mechanical reliability, or computing power, or computing code, or IR tracking, or EW systems, and the fusion of all this with weapons into a package that will "see" the enemy long before they see us.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/rcs_zps6ef5d3db.jpg)
-
Now, years later after the F22 has been long in service, the "new" fighter looks less capable and less stealthy to boot than the "older" one. WTH?!
The F-35 is not the "new" fighter over the "old" F-22. The F-35 is to the F-22 what the F-16 was to the F-15.
F-15/22 = air superiority fighter. F-16/35 light fighter/bomb truck.
The F-35 is no more designed to be superior to the F-22 than the F-16 was to the F-15. I.e. not at all.
-
The F-16 and F-15 combination is what as known as the "high-low" concept. For every F-15, there are approximately four F-16s. The F-15 is supposed to be much higher performance but more expensive than the lower performance yet lower cost F-16. Pierre Sprey is not a fan of this concept either.
-
f35 is Bradly story all over again ... the plot is the same just the actors are different...
-
Hardly.
-
lol... :rofl
when you watching TV , do you consider the TV as your information source or the channel you are watching as your information source ?!
This is about you taking shots in the dark. Eagl, Mace, WW and others have lived Military Avaition as an MOS. I'll take that over some youtube video.
-
The F-16 and F-15 combination is what as known as the "high-low" concept. For every F-15, there are approximately four F-16s. The F-15 is supposed to be much higher performance but more expensive than the lower performance yet lower cost F-16. Pierre Sprey is not a fan of this concept either.
Why? The F-16 isn't necessarily a bad fighter. Besides, with BVR, exactly how good is good enough?
-
The F-16 isn't a bad fighter at all. It is very capable. The F-35 will be too. Neither will match a dedicated air superiority fighter like the F-15, F-22 or Su-27 in pure A2A performance... They were never meant to.
-
The F-35 is not the "new" fighter over the "old" F-22
I'm not talking about the technology, just the time frame - an 8 year old car can still be better at a task than a brand new one, depending on the cars, that's the point I was making. The USAF/Pentagon marketed the F35 to the RCAF as "new and better technology", "superior" as you put it than the F22, with far easier skin to maintain in our climate, and equally capable of air superiority, interception, and air to ground tasks. By your statement, you disagree with this sentiment don't you, if the F35 isn't "new" compared with the "old" F22, right, and I agree, and that's the point I'm making. That's one among many excuses they used in offering the F35 over the F22, which was my point, not that the F35 is newer or more capable tech. In terms of foreign sales, the F35 was and is being offered as the most current and new technology, specifically over the F22 and every other Gen 4+ fighter.
The Pentagon tried to sell the F35 as a capable interceptor for covering the northern NORAD area, obviously, since it's the only aircraft they tried to sell the RCAF, barring the F22 from being offered. By your own statements, the F35=F16/bomb truck, not being designed to be "superior" to the F22....what do you think then of it being offered for sale in the long range, and I mean LONG range interception role, the primary role of any RCAF fighter?
As for the Russian "super maneuverable" fighters, Mace on this bbs put it best IMO - all that fancy flopping around looks great at airshows, but the aircraft while doing these as it very slow airspeeds, and it just makes it easier to pump an Aim9x into a target that is suspended in air doing cobras and other high AoA maneuvers. It looks great, impresses aviation writers and bbs fighter enthusiasts, but isn't all that useful in modern a2s combat, in fact, it's pretty much the opposite.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,345902.msg4570617.html#msg4570617
Mace also has some good info defending the F35 as well. I said at the start I wasn't getting into the F35 capability, and this is the main reason - much of it is still being kept secret IMO. I'm not saying it won't be capable, I think it's going to turn out ok for what it's designed for, my only point is that for my countries needs, the F22 is far, far more capable primarily due to range and supercruising capability.
-
As you say the F-22 is not an option... They won't sell it. You have to compare the F-35 to the other alternatives that are available to you. Just like we did.
After extensive talks with various manufacturers these were our options:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/An_F-35B_test_dropping_a_bomb.jpg/800px-An_F-35B_test_dropping_a_bomb.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Arm%C3%A9e_de_l%27Air_Rafale.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/RSAF_Typhoon_at_Malta_-_Gordon_Zammit.jpg/800px-RSAF_Typhoon_at_Malta_-_Gordon_Zammit.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Saab-JAS-39_at_ILA_2010_05.jpg/800px-Saab-JAS-39_at_ILA_2010_05.jpg)
What would you choose?
-
The Eurofighter Typhoon.
-
For a European military, I'd say the Gripen may actually be the best fighter out there right now.
-
Your airspace is about 1/100th of what ours is, we have to fly much, much father to intercept threats over the Northern areas. The F35 is a much easier sell for you than us. I agree with your country and your argument about choice, it's pretty much the same we were left with, and the only reason the RCAF pulled out of the F35 deal was it was a hot debate during the elections, so the current ruling gov't yanked the sale in order to gain points, although they said it was due to capability vs $, which is a fair enough argument as well. That said, the F35 has nowhere near the range required for long range patrols and interceptions that are part and parcel to the Norad agreement. Considering it's patrol a/c and long range bombers typically being intercepted, if the F35 had superb range, it not being the top of the food chain in a2a maneuverability and speed wouldn't be quite as critical, but the range is no better, perhaps worse, than our current fighter. That and being single engined in a very sparsely populated northern area with few runways about, having twin engines is a pretty important factor, much like it is in the Navy, but it's trees you splash into, not seawater if your single engine fails in our case.
For a European military, I'd say the Gripen may actually be the best fighter out there right now.
My high school friend I mentioned, Jason "Fudge" Paquin, flew it a lot in the Empire test school, and then on some ex's with a NATO member country's air force. He loved it, and although it isn't the absolute best at anything, it was great at everything, and most of all had great sortie generation rates - ie compared to the CF18 he flew, he estimated that the Grippen could generate about 1.5 as many mission sorties with the same ground crews in the RCAF right now. That's a big deal, it's like having half again as many fighters in a time of war as he explains it. It's comparatively cheap as well. Again though, single engine, and pretty short range. It's great for European countries where you can barely turn around at 500 kts within their borders, but over here, where our country can fit multiple Europes within its borders, we NEED range, and prefer twin engines.
-
:bolt:
-
Gman, while the size of the area we need to defend may be larger than you think (larger than the whole of Europe), I agree that it isn't nearly as large as Canada. What fighter do you use now that fits your requirements?
-
The Eurofighter Typhoon.
The Eurofighter is more expensive than the F-35, has no stealth, and has shorter range.
-
For a European military, I'd say the Gripen may actually be the best fighter out there right now.
It's a very nice 4th generation fighter, and in the end it was the Gripen and the F-35 that were the most competitive choices. However, without stealth the Gripen isn't much better than the upgraded F-16 we currently operate, and it isn't much cheaper than the F-35 either. Also range was an issue; the Gripen is short-legged.
-
Some consider my background to qualify as "expertise", and I'm convinced that the F-35 is a lemon, and badly overpriced at that. I like the F-22, and both the maintenance problems and high price of the F-22 can be blamed on the small production numbers. The F-35, if only 200-300 were built, would cost 2-3 times what an F-22 costs, and it is only front-quarter stealthy.
I've spoken to folks who have flown in and against the F-22 and every one of them say it is "for real", a true air dominance fighter. I don't know anyone who says the F-35 will be the best at anything. My 2 main gripes about the F-35 are the fact that its a stealthy F-16 at 4x the cost, and the fact that many very very good and cost effective and combat-proven programs have been cancelled outright in order to funnel more money into the F-35 program, on completely baseless promises that the F-35 will be an effective replacement for a half dozen outstanding aircraft, none of whose roles can actually be filled by the F-35.
Anyone going against the F-35 in the future is gonna run them out of gas, run them out of missiles, then shoot them in their non-stealthy a$z when they run away at, what.. mach 1.4 (maybe on a good day) until they flame out from lack of fuel? Eagle drivers learn rather quickly how to win "most of the time" against vipers. Out stick them, out-defend them, run them out of amraams and fuel. At half the cost we could have new build F-15s with the most advanced AESA radars and integrated systems carrying 10 missiles and 18,000 lbs of weapons, against the F-35's 4 missiles and 4000 lbs of bombs.
Yes, the defense industry needs to have *something* to design/build or it will wither and die. This is a national defense issue over the long term. But joint fighter programs ALWAYS suck. Rand corporation actually just published a major study on joint procurement programs, proving this.
And that gentlemen is the opinion of someone I always listen to. Because he's been there and done that. (still a fan of the Falcon though because I built them back in the day)
-
Nice RC jets btw...
Ding Ding!! Ding Ding!! We have a winner.
That pair of well flown planes in the first segment are RC models. Check out the spindly wire landing gear.
-
And that gentlemen is the opinion of someone I always listen to. Because he's been there and done that. (still a fan of the Falcon though because I built them back in the day)
Actually, Eagl's post is one of the most ignorant posts in this thread.
One glaring example is his F-15 with 10 missiles vs F-35 with 4 missiles comparison. The F-35 will be able to carry 14 A2A missiles. Its external pylons will be jettisonable allowing it to become stealthy at-will if the pilot so chooses, while retaining the 4 internal missiles (6 internal missiles in a future upgrade). The F-15 cannot become stealthy no matter what.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6hc1rMbueys/Uey7DGeHOoI/AAAAAAAACck/drIgNspKl2Y/s1600/F-35-Current-A2A-Plan.jpg)
-
Gsholz, we're using timed out F18's right now, started out as A models and have been through multiple refits, and are just plain timed out. We have serious issues keeping them in service and keeping parts in stock etc right now, and have only 60 that are up to current modern standards out of the original 140+ we bought. The Hornet has never been optimal for the mission we need it for, but it does have 2 engines, and the range thing, well, every northern mission means 3 external fuel tanks and often tanker support, something we have very little of, but is stretched to the max for missions up there. In Libya 7-8 CF18's flew 10 percent or so of the sorties, 750+ 2 and 4 ship tanker supported missions, and dropped a larger share of the bombs, just seven fighters, 3 two ships and a spare. It added a ton of time to the airframes that were already closing in on old age, combat time is often three times what peace time ops are in terms of hours/airframe aging. Rotating fighters over 5 months to keep those 7 fighters there really timed out the fleet when it was already "timing out" badly.
-
Few people realize that the F-35 is a big bird. Its max take-off weight of 70,000 lbs (35A) is greater than the F-15C at 68,000 lbs...
-
Gsholz, we're using timed out F18's right now, started out as A models and have been through multiple refits, and are just plain timed out. We have serious issues keeping them in service and keeping parts in stock etc right now, and have only 60 that are up to current modern standards out of the original 140+ we bought. The Hornet has never been optimal for the mission we need it for, but it does have 2 engines, and the range thing, well, every northern mission means 3 external fuel tanks and often tanker support, something we have very little of, but is stretched to the max for missions up there. In Libya 7-8 CF18's flew 10 percent or so of the sorties, 750+ 2 and 4 ship tanker supported missions, and dropped a larger share of the bombs, just seven fighters, 3 two ships and a spare. It added a ton of time to the airframes that were already closing in on old age, combat time is often three times what peace time ops are in terms of hours/airframe aging. Rotating fighters over 5 months to keep those 7 fighters there really timed out the fleet when it was already "timing out" badly.
Then we are in the same boat so to speak. Our F-16s have already been through several life-extending upgrades, and currently have the most hours on the airframes than any other F-16 operator. If we want to keep having an air force we have to buy new aircraft no matter what.
I don't really get your argument that the F-35 would have a range problem. With internal fuel + internal stores the F-35A matches the max range with stores and three DTs of the CF-18s you guys currently operate. With two 426 gallon drop tanks the F-35's range with stores will greatly out distance the CF-18. I do get the two engines argument though, but it's a case of weighing the risks and benefits of each aircraft available to us.
-
I do not know really. The only thing I find interesting is the similarity of media and expert reports of the F-35 and F-22 with what i heard about all of the the then new equipment coming online in the 80's. "F-15 over priced will never be enough of them. M-1 a complete boondoggle. Bradley waste of money. Humvee a turkey we should just upgrade the Jeep. MLRS outdated concept. B-1 over priced death trap" etc etc etc. 60 minutes and the experts batting average on that stuff was less than spectacular.
-
Yes, back in the '70s every picture of an F-16 in our newspapers were invariably accompanied by "over budget"...
-
My point is that although the F35 can match the CF18 for range, as I've already said, the Hornet is already not optimal for the patrol and interception missions we ask of it, not by a long shot, and it stretches our slim tanker assets to the max, and even then often requires tailoring the mission to the "range" available. Replacing something that isn't up to the task with something else that performs the same = insane. I pointed out the twin engines of the Hornet as that is the only advantage it has really over the "new" option.
-
As I already pointed out, the F-35 on internal fuel only matches the CF-18 max range with three external fuel tanks. With external fuel tanks the F-35 will greatly out-range the CF-18. After all, the F-35 has almost twice the internal fuel capacity of the F-18.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1J6zME8Gpsw/T1aWfWSd5bI/AAAAAAAABC0/hNJEJS5gfug/s400/f35a2013_Beta_long_range.jpg)
-
Hrrm, I'll have to check that, last time this came up I read that their ranges with externals was equivalent, but that was on another bbs and from a ground tech that is with 409 sqdr CF18 at Cold Lake. If that's wrong, I wonder what range the F35 gets on 2 Externals, as I don't know if it can mount a centerline due to the sensors there, can it? Regardless, if it can mount 3 or 2, I'd like to know what kind of range it gets on those 2 wing mounted tanks.
After searching it, I think the F35B stats were used compared to the F18, as they are very close on internal fuel and external fuel for combat radius range, the F35B having about 9 percent better range on internal, with the F18 having about the same on external better, probably due to having an extra tank (3 vs 2), where as the F35A and C have much better range, the A model 600 vs 400 for the F18A and C models on internal fuel only. The C model might be the best option for us to go with then if those range figures are correct, although not having an internal gun might not sit well with the RCAF.
-
It's a very nice 4th generation fighter, and in the end it was the Gripen and the F-35 that were the most competitive choices. However, without stealth the Gripen isn't much better than the upgraded F-16 we currently operate, and it isn't much cheaper than the F-35 either. Also range was an issue; the Gripen is short-legged.
As I understand it though, it's pretty damn rugged, VERY serviceable, and capable of flying from highways, and perhaps even unimproved strips.
Not to disparage anyone's military capability, but if any of the big boys like Germany or UK get pissed off, I think everyone else is going to be going to be trying to maintain a state of air denial, rather than going for air parity.
-
Hrrm, I'll have to check that, last time this came up I read that their ranges with externals was equivalent, but that was on another bbs and from a ground tech that is with 409 sqdr CF18 at Cold Lake. If that's wrong, I wonder what range the F35 gets on 2 Externals, as I don't know if it can mount a centerline due to the sensors there, can it? Regardless, if it can mount 3 or 2, I'd like to know what kind of range it gets on those 2 wing mounted tanks.
After searching it, I think the F35B stats were used compared to the F18, as they are very close on internal fuel and external fuel for combat radius range, the F35B having about 9 percent better range on internal, with the F18 having about the same on external better, probably due to having an extra tank (3 vs 2), where as the F35A and C have much better range, the A model 600 vs 400 for the F18A and C models on internal fuel only. The C model might be the best option for us to go with then if those range figures are correct, although not having an internal gun might not sit well with the RCAF.
1,200 nmi on internal with stores should match the CF-18 max range with stores. The CF-18's ferry range with max fuel and no stores is 1,800 nmi. The Cf-18 can carry three 330 gallon drop tanks. The F-35 gets two 426 gallon DTs.
-
Not to disparage anyone's military capability, but if any of the big boys like Germany or UK get pissed off, I think everyone else is going to be going to be trying to maintain a state of air denial, rather than going for air parity.
They are our neighbors and allies; any military conflict with them is unthinkable. As I said a year ago in a similarly themed thread:
I think you're mindset is too much focused on the way a super power fights... Norway's defense is based on a collective defense with our NATO allies. During the dark years of the Cold War we could muster an army half a million strong... It was designed to last three days. We could buy our allies three days to mobilize and come to our aid. Our air force would be gone on day one, but their mission would be to take out key targets on day one, slowing the Soviet advance. After day three we would only have "stay behind" forces left; guerrilla forces (terrorists lol) using hidden caches of arms and explosives to terrorize the occupying force.
Today Russia is no longer the threat it was. Our armed forces are now more focused on international NATO operations. Yes, 50 planes isn't much by themselves, but again we're talking about a collective effort with other NATO countries. Collectively the countries of Europe can muster more than 3000 modern combat aircraft.
Btw. it's a thread that anyone interested in the F-35 should read: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,345902.0.html
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtEdfSKgCOQ
:)
-
I have to say that I REALLY like the Rafale. The gripen would be a nice F-16 replacement but the Rafale is bigger and arguably more versatile. It also comes in a naval variant that lands on US carriers. That would be a treat, the US Navy trying to buy the rafale if the F-35 doesn't pan out and the F-18 production line was shut down due to the politics of the thing.
Eurofighter is good too but I'm not as enthusiastic about it.
Back to the subject of RC aircraft, I used to be drooling over the F-18 models and actually bought one but had kids instead of flying it. Now I'm trying to decide if I get back into RC flying, will I go with another F-18 model or go with a Rafale. They're just too sexy.
-
Please don't. If the USN buys the Rafale, the French smugness will be completely intolerable!
-
Having seen the F-22's capabilities and knowing the sort weapons tech housed inside it (As in I know its got the best and most expensive gear in the world in it, what it is I don't know). I know that the F-22 is the premier and most effective air superiority aircraft in the world. Period.
That said, their servicing hours, their cost, and low numbers mean they are not an effective combat solution in a large scale war. Their best use would be a path finder for a formation of F-15's. Or a force multiplier rather than a squadron strength fighter. The F-22 is a fiscally intensive super weapon. Which should be used economically rather than primarily. Same with the B-2 spirit. I'd trust a squadron of
B-52's..... AFTER the B-2 has annihilated the radar and SAM positions as well as the C&C building.
The Russian's on the other hand go for an "almost as good" fighter with superior dog-fighting ability, which is cheap and effective enough to have odds on the US aircraft by 3 to 1. I maintain that if a Russian fighter had the sort of missile and radar technology that the US fighter's possessed that Russian aircraft would be VASTLY superior. I know that Eagl our resident fighter pilot has said in the past that a MiG-29 and a SU-27/30 can turn up the butt of an F-16 and F-15. And that standard doctrine is to throw as many AMRAAMs in their direction as possible before they can get close.
The F-35... is simply a codpiece for US defence spending. It is simply not practical. It has an inflated price-tag. Its capability is nowhere close to that of current fighter aircraft in the inventory and would be outclassed by almost every fighter that Sukhoi and MiG are producing. It would be totally reliant on missiles and its stealth. WHICH again, should the Russian defence spending increase rectify this. Would make it combat ineffective unless in huge numbers. But considering you could have 3 F-16's or 4 MiG-29K's for the same price as ONE F-35, Its just not viable.
And I know the arguments are coming "you don't know anything, you don't know what it can do, its secret, it probably has LAZOR's or an Antigravity device you don't know about".
Until I can see it turn like an F-16, match the payload of the F-22 and carry ordinance like a Strike eagle. I will reserve my judgement.
-
We have a new winner of the "most ignorant post" award. The unit recurring flyaway cost of an F-35 is $84.5 million for the FY2016. The recent UAE F-16E/F deal was for 80 aircraft totaling $6.4 billion, or $80 million per plane. With all the bells and whistles available, a new F-16 could cost more than $100 million.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/F-16e_block60.jpg)
I think it is especially funny that you end your post with "I will reserve my judgement". You have none nothing of the sort.
-
They are our neighbors and allies; any military conflict with them is unthinkable. As I said a year ago in a similarly themed thread:
Wasn't specifically talking about Norway, but rather European nations in general. Pretty much everyone but Germany, France, and the UK should be looking long and hard at the Gripen.
-
The figures I have place an F-35 at 200 million per unit.... From the US Navy's report on budget......
A standard F-16 C costs 45 million per unit........ So even with the all the bells and whistles F-16 you are talking 2 to 1... with greater capability.
Edit: Standard Navy costs place the F-35B at 100 Million, and the US Marine at 103 million.
USAF with everything on it is 200.
-
Where the hell are you getting your numbers? The USAF F-35A is the cheapest version of the three. The F-35A's cost became less than $100 million per unit last summer!
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_30_2013_p0-602401.xml
What "greater capability" are you talking about? Be specific!
-
Total Payload and Maneuverability. You know..... the two most important things in a combat aircraft.
A little thing called the US Air Force, is where I'm getting my numbers.
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120210-115.pdf
^^ F-35 A, fiscal year for 2013.
And the US Navy...
http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/13pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf
So your telling me you are going to have a 50% decrease in cost... within 3 years?.... From a multi-billion dollar program?
right.
Also.. on the subject of projected cost....
I'm told a shamwow will clean anything anywhere for only 19.90$ in five installments...... I better go buy it.
-
Total Payload and Maneuverability. You know..... the two most important things in a combat aircraft.
And what are the maneuverability and payload figures for both aircraft in your fantasy world, pray tell?
You see, in the real world the F-35A has better instantaneous and sustained turn rates than an F-16 carrying a war load. A clean F-16 in "air show mode" has a maximum sustained turn rate of 18 degrees per second. The F-35A carrying an A2A war load and full fuel has a sustained turn rate of 17 degrees per second. The F-35 has better acceleration and top speed than the F-16 carrying a war load, and that's with the F-35 carrying 3.5 times more internal fuel than the F-16. The F-16 is actually structurally limited to 4G's if carrying external fuel or bombs.
As for payload the F-35A can carry a total of 18,000 lbs on four internal and six external hardpoints. The F-16 can carry up to 17,000 lbs on nine external hardpoints.
-
The fantasy world in question is the US Air Force fact sheets for each aircraft.
-
A little thing called the US Air Force, is where I'm getting my numbers.
You have no idea what those numbers mean. There's a big difference between total program cost, flyaway cost, and lifetime cost. The total procurement cost for the USAF includes among other things spare parts and ground infrastructure. The flyaway cost is reduced on average by 4% for every production lot. By the time we start getting our planes in lot 10 the flyaway cost will have come down to about $70 million per unit.
-
The fantasy world in question is the US Air Force fact sheets for each aircraft.
Bullsheit. Post them.
-
Check?
I am working on evidence. And numbers from official sources.
Your best source on cost was aviation weekly..... next question?
-
Post your sources.
Actually I'm "working" on information obtained personally from RNoAF pilots involved in the F-35 program. Buy hey... What do they know.
Find me a pilot that has flow the F-35 who doesn't like it. It's been flown for thousands of hours already and is in service with USAF training units. If it's actually a lemon finding pilots who think it is a lemon shouldn't be hard...
-
http://web.archive.org/web/20110317113904/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35A-ctol-variant.html
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35b-stovl-variant.html
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35c-carrier-variant.htmll
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104505/f-16-fighting-falcon.aspx
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA_Conf_-_JSF_Program_Brief_-_26_Sept_06.pdf
Also, Frowly's International directory of combat aircraft.
In direct comparison the wingloading of the F-35 is HIGHER, than the F-16.
Also, if you can tell me a stealth aircraft whose invisibility wasn't compromised by external weapons, let me know.
-
What payload figures for the F-16 and F-35A are in those documents? Maneuverability assessments? Acceleration figures?
That F-16 page doesn't even mention total payload capability!
You're full of it.
-
Hey Gman, here's a countryman of yours...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KppyVg4ttLU
-
That pilot Billie Flynn was the chief test pilot for the Typhoon program as well Gsholz, prior to going to Lock/Martin, my friend I mentioned Maj Jason Paquin flew with him in the Hornet for many years. He's also doing his job promoting the company he works for now, he said that the Typhoon was the absolute best fighter in the world when he was on air while working for them as well. I'm not saying he's being dishonest, not at all, just that he's putting the absolute best positive spin he can. Notice the words "measurable" and such when describing the greater range and time on station over the CF18, he doesn't actually give a number, and those words were not "pilot speak", but "salesman speak", very deliberately chosen - again, I'm not blaming or criticizing, just pointing out the fact that the detractors will say the same thing about what's said in that video. Here is another perspective on what he has said regarding the F35 - again, I take no sides, just pointing out the various opinions. Be forewarned, the author will remind you of that Australian air power site, but some of his points and links are interesting, which is why I've posted it, particularly the one link to the other test pilot at the Aviationist which is here: http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/#.UmKzzhZLLHg
http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/2013/10/rant-hey-billie-flynn-war-isnt-playtime.html
My final point is, Flynn is an expert, having also gone through Empire test pilot school, and flown many fighter types including the most advanced such as the Typhoon etc. He was also president of the society of eng. test pilots, at www.setp.org. I'll try and find the youtube videos of the Typhoon that he's in, I think considering he's flown and tested 2 of the newest fighters available, as well as flown the Grippen, the Rafale, Superhornet, and latest block F16 (this is all listed in an article about him), regardless of the "rah rah" sales pitchy stuff, he's probably the best qualified to comment on the F35 capability.
FYI, my high school pal Jason "Fudge" Paquin will be Canada and the RCAF's test pilot and first in uniform to fly whatever we buy, which my money is still on the F35. I just sent him a PM on FB to try and get him to weigh in on this, as he's at least as qualified as Flynn to comment, and has a lot of recent combat flying time in. I'm hopeful the F35 will work out, as replacements in many airforces in the west are needed quickly. The only thing that gives me pause still in a serious way is the single engine - in the last 15 years we've had several engine failures on the CF18 way up North where without that extra engine it would be adios aircraft, and more importantly possibly adios pilot in that environment.
-
People on an outdoors forum I follow were oooowwwwing and aaaahhhhhhing about the incredible capability of the latest Russian fighters in this video. What do you think?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77e_1389637750
The single engine delta planes look a lot like the IAI Lavi.
(http://hushkit.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/iai_lavi_atd_flight-01.jpg)
-
I think the correct question is what do you need to have best possible air force for a given budget?
1. You need to have absolutely superior training you can get
2. You need to have superior technology over your potential enemies or to be at least in parity at technological level.
3. You need to have high as high sortie generation as possible, you can achieve this by means of (a) having more planes (b) having lower turn-around time
Now lets talk about fighter aircraft selection to achieve these goals?
Let's talk about F-22:
What is the problem with it? It costs a lot. Even US can't afford too many of them. Its flight hours cost is very high and its mean time between maintenance is low which basically means you can't have high sortie generation rate and you can't afford too many flight hours to train your pilots. So you improve the (2) goal but you absolutely loose in (3) and (1).
Now lets take Saab Gripen:
It is in +/- parity with most of the modern aircraft, however, its cost is low in both initial procurement and flight hour costs. It has very low turnaround time (~10 min = refueling time) and it allows you to have highest training hours but withing the same budget. And there is no replacement to high quality training.
Now I'll tell some stories about Israeli Air Force.
It is considered one of the most highly trained airforces both in terms of air crews abilities and ground crew that can provide very high sortie generation rate. When there was a question whether to buy F-15I and F-16I it was clear that F-15I considered better but F-16I was much more affordable... So they choose the 2nd one. IAF is going to buy some F-35 but currently in very small numbers... why?
It looks like F-35 would be very good plane for a specific roles like being able to penetrate heavy defenses and perform strikes on highly valuable positions (much like F-117 in the Gulf War), it can be used as first strike against SAM sites and more.
But by no means it can replace current F-16s and F-15s for Israeli Air Force. One of the reasons is that it does in absolutely different direction to what IAF believes in. For example BVR combat is considered as important ability but not the most important one, on the other hand close combat is very important, as the matter of fact IAF was the first western air force to introduce close combat goodies like helmet mounted display, very efficient 4th generation missiles with high off-boresight abilities.
And when you look at F-35? In stealthy mode it does not carry short range weapons - it is not currently capable of firing heat seeking missiles from its weapon bays. Its maneuverability is very limited (it has huge drag, small wings) so for VVR combat it indeed a lemon (numbers speak for themselves). And it has higher costs in both terms of initial procurement and long term.
I think the hopes that F-35 would do it all would be fatal for any air force. It would complement any air force with good abilities but it wouldn't replace any of existing 4++ generation affordable planes.
-
FYI, my high school pal Jason "Fudge" Paquin will be Canada and the RCAF's test pilot and first in uniform to fly whatever we buy, which my money is still on the F35. I just sent him a PM on FB to try and get him to weigh in on this, as he's at least as qualified as Flynn to comment, and has a lot of recent combat flying time in.
That would be very cool!
-
And when you look at F-35? In stealthy mode it does not carry short range weapons - it is not currently capable of firing heat seeking missiles from its weapon bays. Its maneuverability is very limited (it has huge drag, small wings) so for VVR combat it indeed a lemon (numbers speak for themselves).
Yes it can carry dogfight missiles, as I said earlier in this thread... and the last thread we discussed this. You seem to keep "forgetting". The US won't but the European partners will. Norway will use the IRIS-T missile developed jointly with Germany. The UK will use their own ASRAAM missile. Both are off-boresight and lock-on after launch. They can be commanded to engage targets anywhere, even behind the aircraft with extreme close-in agility allowing turns of 60g at a rate of 60 deg/s and can attack specific parts of the targeted aircraft (like cockpit, engines, etc.). The missiles are already operational with several European air forces. I'm quite sure the vaunted Israeli Defense Industry can make something similar.
(http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/norwegian_f16_souda_bay1.jpg)
Here's one of our F-16s ready for takeoff on a patrol mission over Libya with two AMRAAM and two IRIS-T missiles.
Its maneuverability is very limited (it has huge drag, small wings) so for VVR combat it indeed a lemon (numbers speak for themselves).
Only when you nitpick and use use numbers that lie. Like the F-14, F-15, MiG-29, Su-27 and other wide-body aircraft the F-35 produce substantial lift from wide fuselage between the wings. An Israeli F-15 was able to land successfully with only one wing... Just how much lift the body section produces has not been released to the public, but it is going to be quite significant. Wing-loading alone is a meaningless statistic.
(http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=6778&t=1&sid=36c95dfaaadbbe01d5d7b1d46972e6e0)
Secondly you completely disregard that the F-35 has an enormous amount of thrust compared to other similarly sized fighters. The F135 engine is the most powerful ever fitted to a combat aircraft. At similar internal fuel loads the F-35 has a better thrust to weight ratio than the F-16.
The F-35 chief test pilot further noted that the F-35 can fly at angles of attack that are just as steep as those of the F-22. “It’s a fully maneuverable 50-degree airplane,” he said. He invited those who had witnessed the F-22’s startling agility at airshows recently to ponder the fact that “the same people also designed the flight control system for the F-35.”
The F-16 cannot do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA
(https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/13660/9777371443_2226c072a5_o__high.jpg)
-
What needs to happen is we need to add the same changes to the F15 and F16 that Russians did to the SU30 and Mig35. Make the engine nozzles movable. They would take care of the maneuvering problem. Then they also would be capable of high angles of attack :neener:
-
What needs to happen is we need to add the same changes to the F15 and F16 that Russians did to the SU30 and Mig35. Make the engine nozzles movable. They would take care of the maneuvering problem. Then they also would be capable of high angles of attack :neener:
IIRC the F15 airframes are breaking midair already from service life...
-
IIRC the F15 airframes are breaking midair already from service life...
NO I mean the new generation of 15s and 16s.. They can buy them for cheaper and maintiance is cheaper also. A f15 is around $30000 per flight hour, were as the F22 is $52,800 per flight hour. You could fly almost 2 F15s for the price of the F22.
-
IIRC the F15 airframes are breaking midair already from service life...
The most famous case of this was poor quality control in the factory. The webbing on a longeron of an F-15 is supposed to be .100" thick. In this case, it came from the factory at about .040" thick (actually a bit less, ~.037"). It's a wonder the plane flew as long as it did.
I know of no other recent (within the last 10 years) F-15s breaking up in mid-air.
-
Reading this was one of the biggest waste of 2 mins in my life. http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/2013/10/rant-hey-billie-flynn-war-isnt-playtime.html
Hes telling an experienced fighter pilot and test pilot that war isnt playtime and then blubbers on like an emotional child.
Going to war means that many of our best will sacrifice their lifestyles, their health, their very sanity.
Going to war means families will be ripped apart.
Going to war means people will die.
If Canada gets dragged into a war, it won't be to show off. If for some reason, we aren't allowed to join a coalition, then we obviously weren't needed there in the first place. As a civilized society, and as a country with a peaceful reputation, our aim is to avoid war... Not to join in with the warmongering nations just because it is the "in thing to do".
WTF does any of that have to do with fighter aircraft?
-
Be forewarned, the author will remind you of that Australian air power site, but some of his points and links are interesting
I warned everyone that it was run by a guy reminiscent of the Australia air power site, ie a nut. There are probably 200 pages on that site, and maybe 3 or 4 relevant points and a couple readable links, and I linked the only important one, the statements by another SETP test pilot regarding the relevant F35 discussion. I only linked it as it's where the information/link for the other test pilot was found, as some people demand proof and links for every bit of information they don't like. Again, I posted fair warning about that site, your 2 minutes wasted is your own fault if you didn't stop reading after 10 seconds.
-
NO I mean the new generation of 15s and 16s.. They can buy them for cheaper and maintiance is cheaper also. A f15 is around $30000 per flight hour, were as the F22 is $52,800 per flight hour. You could fly almost 2 F15s for the price of the F22.
I'd rather have one F-22 than two F-15s... Or even ten F-15s.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGtZG40H5OU
The Dutch taking one of their birds up...
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn4Zizvjo2o
British perspective...
-
That British perspective video brings up a pretty valid point, IMO, in that the assault carriers of the USA, as well as the smaller CV's in various other nations fleets such as the UK, and many others, can gain a whole new level of capability over the current STOVL aircraft with the F35. Going from the extremely short range little bomb truck in the Harrier, to a fighter that has much more range and stealth capability, I would think, and hope, that it would really let the smaller assault class ships punch far above their weight class. Time will tell I guess. I would think that having 2 little assault ships along with a CVN in a future battle group would give the USN and USMC another 40 or so just as capable fighters as what's on the big deck, which is a massive boost in available airframes, giving a future force of such structure over 100 gen 5 stealth fighters.
-
Yea, F-35 has a lot of thrust. It comes from a source that is as old as history.
(http://www.mindspring.com/~seanlong/images/F35cash.jpg)
-
Hah, I saw that pic on another site a couple days ago and laughed.
Eagl, what do you think of the Silent Eagle? They are up in Ottawa right now pitching it to the RCAF along with Boeing, and teams from France, as well as a team from the Typhoon people. Saab has dropped out as they can't provide enough airplanes by 2023, and we need to start replacing CF18's by 2017 at the latest, which means an order needs to be put in this year in order for that to start happening.
I like the Silent Eagle, since the RCAF's primary mission is to defend the northern part of the NORAD grid, defensive stealth isn't quite as critical, as there aren't many enemy radar stations up there to defend against, just recons planes and potential long range bombers. Rumor from the papers up here and defense industry daily is that it's down to the Super Hornet or the Silent Eagle, with perhaps a multi type deal including a small number of F35's later on. It's a very complex process up here right now. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-preparing-to-replace-its-cf-18-hornets-05739/ is a decent article from last week about it.
-
I like the silent eagle concept. Remember, stealth only has to be good enough to let you get close enough to shoot first and then escape. For an interceptor and air defense role, the F-15 is still outstanding especially with the newer engines and avionics packages. And the upgraded F-15E airframe which is now standard for all F-15s, the airframe is extremely strong and durable. I saw video of an F-15C that pulled about 12Gs and although it flew home, the plane was destroyed as it broke the motor mounts and badly bent the airframe. A friend of mine about 16 yrs ago pulled 12.5Gs in an F-15E and 2 weeks later the plane was returned to service after inspections and replacing a couple of cracked vent grilles.
So the plane is strong/durable, has a proven ability to withstand combat damage (including one that flew home after a direct aim-9 hit oops), is extremely fast especially by modern standards, and with upgraded avionics/radar is still world class in terms of systems and sensor integration. If anyone buys the extra outer wing pylons that the USAF never bought, the plane can carry 10 missiles in an air defense configuration. The plane has the whole package in terms of combat capability, with the exception of "stealth". Well, the silent eagle program really cuts down the RCS to the point where it may not be first into a modern air defense system, but it is more survivable than before and would be much more capable as an interceptor or strike package escort due to its speed and lower detection range after the low observable treatments and modifications.
Plus... mach 2.5. Seriously. And it was the world's first supercruising fighter, no matter what they say about the F-22. Even the "small" motor -220 versions could go supersonic in mil power when completely clean, and the -129 and -229 versions had very appropriate warnings in the tech order about inadvertent non-afterburning supersonic flight even with some combat loadouts.
So, yea I'm a fan, and sad to see both the US and Korea pass on the opportunity to refresh their fleets with very capable and updated F-15s. The Saudis know that the whole world fears the F-15E, and that's why they recently bought another couple dozen and also bought upgrades to their F-15S fleet, alongside their purchase of some Eurofighters. Singapore bought them too, when they decided that they needed a heavy fighter instead of a bunch of vipers or other little fighters. I don't know any F-15 operators who have been dissatisfied with them, so I remain a fan of them as a cost effective no-holds-barred interceptor and strike fighter.
Plus, the radar. My god. It's incredible. The capability that the radar alone brings to the fight still makes up for the plane's size and RCS for any use not involving penetrating the air defenses of a superpower on day zero. On night one though, beware... An airplane flying Mach .9 at 100 ft at night in all weather is hard to intercept no matter what you're chasing it with.
-
If they ever come up with a sub that can carry a couple of F35s, the game will change once again.
-
If they ever come up with a sub that can carry a couple of F35s, the game will change once again.
Actually...
they should extend the program and create Joint Strike Submarine Fighter such that it would be able operate submerged, takeoff and land vertically from a submerged position and of course be stealthy. This way you can save a cost on a submarine and aircraft carrier development :x
:bolt:
-
Eagl... Don't you think you're being more than slightly hypocritical? The F-15SE over the F-35? Seriously?
-
One thing stood out to me as I watched the Dutch flight of the F-35. Notice the very high AoA to both get airborne and the same very high AoA to arrest the sink rate as the pilot landed. That's a function of very high wing loading.
Also, on the F-35B, why does the lift fan door open parallel to the aircraft's airframe. It seems that it's acting as a huge airbrake. Wouldn't it have been more efficient at getting to flying speed if the doors opened in a clamshell configuration?
-
Why would you say that? Angle of attack during landing is very similar to that of an F-16. Landing speeds are also similar.
(http://www.freemages.co.uk/album/aeronautique/f16_landing.jpg)
-
Also, on the F-35B, why does the lift fan door open parallel to the aircraft's airframe. It seems that it's acting as a huge airbrake. Wouldn't it have been more efficient at getting to flying speed if the doors opened in a clamshell configuration?
It acts as a scoop for the lift fan.
(http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/6/13b9f2af-8b06-4f98-a6e1-68e73b7e8fc5.Full.jpg)
-
Form does follow function. I was only able to get data on the F-35C, it has a 4 degree higher AoA when landing than the F/A-18. Not too big of a deal. Its rated for a nominal 12fps impact into the flight deck, with 18fps impact being the maximum sustainable.
-
Form does follow function. I was only able to get data on the F-35C, it has a 4 degree higher AoA when landing than the F/A-18...
So what? The F-16 has an AoA of up to 7 degrees more than the F/A-18 when landing. What does this statistic have to do with, well anything?
-
Eagl... Don't you think you're being more than slightly hypocritical? The F-15SE over the F-35? Seriously?
For specific needs of the Korean AF and USAF air defense requirements, no, not at all. Our F-15s are still required for air defense and for day 2 of any offensive war, and the F-35 can't replace the F-15E. There are a hundred dead pilots whose remains are scattered on the Nevada desert floor who tried to do low altitude night precision weapon delivery in a single seat fighter. Some missions need a second crewmember in the aircraft. We have nothing on the books to replace the F-15E, so it is shortsighted to think that we can replace the few hundred F-15Es we have with a smaller number of F-35s, no matter how nice the avionics are.
Korea found out that they could order nearly double the number of F-15SEs than F-35s, and in a war with N. Korea the IADS would be degraded QUICKLY, after which they need more fighters, not less. Smaller numbers of F-35s aren't going to help win that war. They have a valid requirement for a reduced observable bomb truck like the F-15SE though, especially since it can be reconfigured from its low observable configuration to a hugely capable bomb truck just by swapping the CFTs. And they could have gotten exactly what they needed for the price they themselves set. But someone twisted their arm and they re-wrote the tech requirements until only the F-35 could meet them, even though they know damn well they're only going to get half the number of airframes and deliveries will be delayed at least 5 years, if not more.
For air defense and beating the hell out of a country with a degraded IADS, yes I'd take the F-15SE over the F-35, because of the raw performance as an interceptor, massive maximum weapon loadout, and the mission flexibility gained by having a WSO in the back seat.
I've never said that the F-35 doesn't have a place in the lineup. But its being oversold. It's like a football team releasing its entire offensive line to hire 4 wide receivers, to the point where their starting line up is 7 overpaid skinny dudes and a frightened quarterback. There's no synergy there.
-
There are a hundred dead pilots whose remains are scattered on the Nevada desert floor who tried to do low altitude night precision weapon delivery in a single seat fighter.
Do you have reference material for that statement?
-
Do you have reference material for that statement?
Not with me, no. Most of the details are privileged info anyhow. That statement is based on 20 years of watching flying safety videos annually and reading dozens upon dozens of mishap reports during my career. The infamous Viva Las Vegas video shown before each red flag has a dozen or more low altitude fatalities just in one 5 minute video clip, and that's just a mere handful that were caught on camera. My spatial disorientation course during F-15E FTU had 3 cases with no video, of F-16 drivers who augered in doing night low altitude LGB deliveries. Another CRM course I attended had 5 cases of guys who got disoriented during both daylight and night low altitude visual and PGM deliveries. I've lost 3 friends in the last 4 years due to spatial disorientation, and one of them was even in an F-15E with a WSO in the back seat (who lived), and the very first of my friends and squadron-mates who died in my first fighter squadron hit the ground doing about 500 kts during a low altitude threat reaction at night.
100 is a low estimate for the number of attack pilots who packed it in doing low altitude combat maneuvering. Very low. F-16s simply don't do low altitude LGB deliveries anymore after a rash of fatalities attempting to fill that role more than a decade ago. F-15Es still do it because we don't die quite as often doing that mission, but it requires the full attention of 2 crewmembers to even attempt to do it reasonably safely and effectively.
Rich46yo, don't take this personally, but... I'm sure you could get some data with a well written FOIA request to the AF safety center, but I've already seen the reports. If you choose to not believe me, frankly that's because you're not in the business and you world-view context on the subject is missing about 5 years of training/education that I can't possibly provide for you. Like the 2 morons who only survived by a miracle after they depressurized their acft above 20,000 ft before making sure their oxygen was flowing and after their windscreen fractured (in violation of direct guidance in the acft operators manual), ignorance of aviation safety and physiology doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you don't have the education and experience to understand what's going on or what people are talking about when the subject comes up.
Again nothing personal, but the whole single seat low altitude strike argument comes up over and over by people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. They either lack the education or experience, and they're making decisions that will get people killed due to their ignorance or ego. That viper driver talking about how the F-16 can do it all... Well, he hasn't done it all, otherwise he wouldn't be saying nonsense like that. And those who claim the F-35 will replace everything including F-15, F-15E, A-10... they're saying it out of WILLFUL IGNORANCE, ignoring 70+ years of lessons learned in fighter aviation, because they think even though they haven't done it and never will, they somehow know better than those who have been there and done that. All their charts and studies don't mean crap to the single-seat fighter pilot who's been given too much to do low to the ground and who pays for the bean-counter's inflated ego with his life.
-
...reading dozens upon dozens of mishap reports during my career...
Are you talking about day time or night time low altitude flying?
I clearly understand how 2nd crew member is critical and improves safety. For example IAI actually wanted to participate in 2 seat F-35 version development, also all the latest procurement of fighter aircraft by IAF were dual-seaters F-15I (which is F-15E with Israeli avionics) and F-16I (F-16 Block 50/52+ with Israeli avionics) as well all come in two seat version.
However, there is long history of low altitude flying using single seat aircraft in IAF history, from operation Moked (Focus) with single seat Mirage IIIC and to the operation Opera with 8 F-16A flying at low altitude for a long time to destroy the Iraqi Nuclear reactor. From what I have read, the training for the Moked had cost lives and during the operation itself several planes had kissed the ground.
But in general, low altitude flying in single seaters was very common and AFAIK is one of the mandatory training in the Israeli air force academy.
Also I don't know what is the situation at night... that is why I ask.
-
As it stands the superiority in aircraft is essentially irrelevant. More important is missile technology.
And where missiles are concerned. Volume of fire x by quality of missile. More aircraft = More missiles = More kills
Essentially, if you can purchase two AIM-120 armed aircraft with comparable capability. Then you have more combat power.
If an F-15 E with the new ANM radar system costs 100 million USD (2011) and the F-35C model costs 200 million (2013 price) then that's two F-15's with EIGHT! AIM-120C's each... and considering the AMRAAM has a BVR probable kill of 50-50.... AT MAX RANGE... and at semi-long to medium range its kill ratio is roughly 90%.
You are talking about an approximate ratio of 7-8 kills for every 10 missiles fired. Even at BVR range you are looking at 5-6 kills for every 10 missiles fired. Now the F-35's advantage of stealth is nullified if it carries external weapons. To match the F-15's weapons load it would have to carry four of the missiles externally.
-
Are you talking about day time or night time low altitude flying?
Also I don't know what is the situation at night... that is why I ask.
Not all pilots in the IAF are qualified to fly NOE with night vision (at night of course...). It is considered very dangerous and training is done in as sterile conditions as possible - I don't know how familiar your are with the Israeli air volume and multitude restrictions and limitations of flying through it, plus other mission related distractions can lead to fatalities.
The IAF clearly prefers two-seaters for most of its missions including air-superiority. The Israeli F-15 squadrons dedicated to air-to-air (i.e. not E/I models) include quite a few two-seaters. Since the days of the Mosquito in WWII, the benefit of having a second crew member facing forward and participating in the mission (as opposed to facing backwards, holding a useless gun and being generally clueless about the action) was clear. The 2nd crew member allowed the mossies to go on 4-5 hours missions of low-altitude hedge-hopping across Europe in day and night. That mission profile and risks is very similar to the situation we are discussing.
-
Excellent points Eagl IMO. Back when the RCAF flew the F104 in as an attack aircraft and interceptor, we lost over 100 of them out of 240, it was 46% as I recall, some of it because the aircraft was being asked to do things it couldn't, at least not very well or very safely. Several of the losses happened during Red Flag with the USAF in the desert, so having 100 USAF/USN/USMC pilots along with all the allied pilots who have crashed is easy enough for me to believe.
This is a picture of the 20mm cannon left over from an RCAF F104 crash at Nellis in 1979 at Red Flag, which flew into terrain.
(http://www.arizonawrecks.com/images/600_6...CF-104.jpg)
-
Eagl, the F-15SE may very well have been a better aircraft for the Koreans, I have no opinion on that. I was making a note of your inconsistent assessment of the capabilities of the two aircraft. While you describe the F-35 in stealth mode as "anyone going against the F-35 in the future is gonna run them out of gas", yet the F-35 carries more fuel then the F-15SE in stealth mode. You say "run them out of missiles", but you ignore the fact that the F-15SE also carries only four missiles in stealth mode. The F-15SE apparently "can carry 10 missiles in an air defense configuration", yet the F-35 can carry 40% more than that in a non-stealth A2A configuration.
And the most blatant case of hypocrisy must be this: F-35 stealth is apparently "then shoot them in their non-stealthy a$z". While for the F-15SE apparently "stealth only has to be good enough to let you get close enough to shoot first and then escape."
Really? Seriously?
The F-15SE has very limited stealth in a direct front aspect only, and only against X-band radars. The F-15SE has a huge RCS from every other angle except dead ahead. The F-35 on the other hand has a very limited rear aspect area where the stealth in compromised by the engine; an enemy radar must be able to see the actual fan blades up the F-35's "a$z" to compromise its stealth.
(http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/6673/jsff35raptoriibackengin.jpg)
You say "Plus... mach 2.5. Seriously." Yeah, seriously Eagl... In "air show mode" and only for a couple of minutes at high altitude. Hang anything like a useful war load on it and it's a sub-Mach 2 aircraft and can't supercruise. F-35 is able to maintain Mach 1.2 without using afterburners while carrying a useful internal load of missiles and bombs and while being stealthy. Block four upgraded F-35's will feature an optimized weapon bay configuration increasing the internal missile capacity by 50%.
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/719/f35missles.jpg)
-
http://defensetech.org/2014/01/29/report-f-35-cracks-in-tests-isnt-reliable/
The hardware problems, along with ongoing delays in software development, among other issues, led Gilmore to conclude that the fifth-generation fighter jet’s “overall suitability performance continues to be immature, and relies heavily on contractor support and workarounds unacceptable for combat operations.”
He added, “Aircraft availability and measures of reliability and maintainability are all below program target values for the current stage of development.”
As good as the F35 could end up being, it's sure been tough slugging uphill for this thing. It seems every month you read about some new problems they're running into. I realize that all new fighters have trouble in testing, and have changes to their designs in response to data from testing, but the F35 sure seems to have had more than its share. The whole article lists about a half dozen problems besides the cracks in different places in the airplane as well. What is with manufacturers in the DOD nowadays, do they intentionally try to make things not work? Look at the new Ford Carrier, elevators, dual band radar, Emals landing/launching system, which failed 10 percent of all test launches so far....the P8 Navy ASW aircraft which isn't working well....so many things just seem to be built very poorly from the start now. Frustrating to the taxpayer and everyone else I'm sure.
-
Military airplane crashes are NOT privileged information. They are a matter of record. http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/ Tho I didnt fly planes, you forget I was in USAF to. There have not been
a hundred dead pilots whose remains are scattered on the Nevada desert floor who tried to do low altitude night precision weapon delivery in a single seat fighter.
Not anywhere i can find, and dont worry. I dont take it personal. If you cant back up what you said then you just cant.
That a one person fighter has more to do , most of all at low level, then a Two person fighter should come to no surprise to anyone. Again here the F35 shines because of the power and ease of information delivery and situational awareness. Of course the real edge is stand off weaponry that has become the norm and not the occasional as in Gulf-1. Where ALL 4th gen and lesser planes took big chances in the grass due to 3rd rate AA. Most of all around Iraqi airfields.
And with the proliferation of much more advanced AA, some of them able to operate on their own, I cant really understand the argument for more 4th generation fighter bombers. Especially since the F15 SE has LO features designed primarily to aid ATA and not ground attack. Theres plenty of hard data to support the South Korean decision and that "arm twisting" had nothing to do with it. You cant make a 4th gen fighter a 5th gen fighter, most of all something as big as an F15, with a paint job and a small internal bay. South Korea has a very important ground attack mission and the F15 is just to vulnerable again ground based radars.
-
There are a hundred dead pilots whose remains are scattered on the Nevada desert floor...
Why can't you guys do this safely? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZyVhTo4hyE
We're not so lucky that our country is flat like a desert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0su8Vdkajg&feature=player_detailpage#t=71
When our European friends come visit they do the same: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KoF7cm-ipU
-
Even with TV personalities on board...
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clpyv8tMEDo
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuePyOT5ENc
Jan Erik Larsen is our Jeremy Clarkson and host of the car themed TV-show "Autofil" (Auto-phile). He has a very distinctive laugh...