Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: danny76 on October 08, 2014, 12:27:34 PM
-
UK News agencies reporting US F15 has crashed at RAF Lakenheath in Norfolk, apparently spun into the ground after a loss of control, pilot ejected safely and was picked up by helicopter shortly afterwards.
-
At least pilot was safe :old:
-
Absoruteley, septics can afford a new hairyplane
-
UK News agencies reporting US F15 has crashed at RAF Lakenheath in Norfolk, apparently spun into the ground after a loss of control, pilot ejected safely and was picked up by helicopter shortly afterwards.
Another in-flight breakup due to stress fractures?
-
Well, they are a little long in the tooth
-
Another in-flight breakup due to stress fractures?
That can't be it because it must have been some other completely speculative reason that just so happens to support my geopolitical viewpoint even more.
-
thankfully it didn't end up hitting anyone or the local primary school.
Is there any need for Top Gun to be practising combat manoeuvres over the English countryside? Surely they can go out over the north sea or something...
-
thankfully it didn't end up hitting anyone or the local primary school.
Is there any need for Top Gun to be practising combat manoeuvres over the English countryside? Surely they can go out over the north sea or something...
Depends on what they are practicing doing.
-
Well, they are a little long in the tooth
Don't worry, we won't be building more of one of the best fighters ever made. Instead we will be pinning it all on that awesome, superior replacement the, F-35. The plane that can't carry the same weight, fly the same distance, or fight off enemy like it's "long in the tooth" precursor.
-
It's a miracle that nobody was hurt on the ground.
We are talking about the area around Spalding, correct?
The world is grateful that the United Kingdom continues to graciously host forward bases despite the possibility (inevitability) of flying accidents during peace time. I'm very glad that the F-15C/E have better flying records than the B-47's that flew out of RAF Brize Norton in the 50's-60's. I lived there with my military family a couple of times and know a little bit about it.
:salute the Brits!
-
Depends on what they are practicing doing.
I was assuming they were in the air practising flying so they can do that over water where UK citizens aren't getting rained on by our "special relationship" :old:
-
Don't worry, we won't be building more of one of the best fighters ever made. Instead we will be pinning it all on that awesome, superior replacement the, F-35. The plane that can't carry the same weight, fly the same distance, or fight off enemy like it's "long in the tooth" precursor.
The F-15 is a sitting duck to modern AA systems. It has the RCS of a bus and you cant make a fighter able to fly faster or higher then an AA missile. Even the proposed Silent Eagle is not in the class of the F-35. Not even close, to build a stealth airplane you have to build it from the start. The F-15 is basically a 1970's design. People cant seem to understand an airplane the enemy doesnt know is there is far better then an airplane the enemy DOES know is there no matter the other performance parameters.
-
The F-15 is a sitting duck to modern AA systems. It has the RCS of a bus and you cant make a fighter able to fly faster or higher then an AA missile. Even the proposed Silent Eagle is not in the class of the F-35. Not even close, to build a stealth airplane you have to build it from the start. The F-15 is basically a 1970's design. People cant seem to understand an airplane the enemy doesnt know is there is far better then an airplane the enemy DOES know is there no matter the other performance parameters.
This...
A cookie for you...
-
I was assuming they were in the air practising flying so they can do that over water where UK citizens aren't getting rained on by our "special relationship" :old:
They still have to fly over land to get back to Lakenheath.
A dah moment:
Mrs Prescott’s husband John, 70, said: “I dialled 999 after the plane crashed and I was on the phone to the operator.
“When she asked me which service I wanted, I said that all three were needed. I told her that a US military jet had just crashed and I was watching the pilot come down in his parachute.
“I couldn’t believe it when she replied, ‘Is it male or female’. I just said, ‘I don’t bloody know’. Then she said, ‘Is their breathing OK?’. I just gave her the postcode and address .”
-
I was assuming they were in the air practising flying so they can do that over water where UK citizens aren't getting rained on by our "special relationship" :old:
With respect I don't understand the quotes around special relationship nor the 'old' icon.
The 48th TFW has deployed forward from British-hosted bases more than once in the last two decades with NATO or UN-coalition mandates.
As the world and particularly Europe wakes up to the escalated threat of amateur religious radicalism, the importance of forward-deployed assets will become ever more obvious.
In my heart I had hoped that yesterday's situation had happened closer to RAF Lakenheath and that the crash could be explained as an arrival or departure incident.
Until proven otherwise, I choose to believe that remarkable airmanship was demonstrated yesterday over Spalding and that a pilot did his job well as evidenced by the absence of injuries on the ground.
To your point, Bruv, I sympathize. I would be very concerned if the Air Force units here were 'Top Gunning' anywhere near a populated area. It would be an outrage. But in yesterday's incident that remains to be seen.
I will always appreciate the gracious willingness of the British people to allow forward-deployed assets on its soil. Especially the 48th TFW. Personally I will treasure the eight years of my own life spent in your country as a result of those policies.
:salute
-
The F-15 is a sitting duck to modern AA systems. It has the RCS of a bus and you cant make a fighter able to fly faster or higher then an AA missile. Even the proposed Silent Eagle is not in the class of the F-35. Not even close, to build a stealth airplane you have to build it from the start. The F-15 is basically a 1970's design. People cant seem to understand an airplane the enemy doesnt know is there is far better then an airplane the enemy DOES know is there no matter the other performance parameters.
:aok
-
The F-15 is a sitting duck to modern AA systems. It has the RCS of a bus and you cant make a fighter able to fly faster or higher then an AA missile. Even the proposed Silent Eagle is not in the class of the F-35. Not even close, to build a stealth airplane you have to build it from the start. The F-15 is basically a 1970's design. People cant seem to understand an airplane the enemy doesnt know is there is far better then an airplane the enemy DOES know is there no matter the other performance parameters.
A small RCS is not the only way to fool a radar and a small RCS will not always save you. In any case, nearly all that the F-15 will not be able to do, the F35 will not be able to do either, for more money.
-
An anti-radiation missile is a pretty good way to shut down a SAM site. In 1999, F-14s defeated multiple SAMs during the Serbian air war by simply running them out of energy. So, (1) ECM and anti-radiation missiles can be as effective or more than stealth, and (2) missiles have a limited amount of fuel and U.S. teen series fighters have defeated them simply by flying fast.
-
An anti-radiation missile is a pretty good way to shut down a SAM site. In 1999, F-14s defeated multiple SAMs during the Serbian air war by simply running them out of energy. So, (1) ECM and anti-radiation missiles can be as effective or more than stealth, and (2) missiles have a limited amount of fuel and U.S. teen series fighters have defeated them simply by flying fast.
This isnt 1999. That was, like, 15 years ago in a country that didnt have modern SAMs even then.
Aircraft today have to deal with S300/S400 SAM level threats. Try running from them in an F-15.
Your entire premise makes no sense whatsoever. Without question SAMs are the biggest threat to combat aircraft and 40 yo airframe designs simply wont survive in modern SAM environments.
-
Rich, the F-35 is living off of a lot of claims. Those claims are becoming increasingly less reliable as time goes on. For the cost that the F-35 is now expected to hit, the F-22B could have been finalized and fielded. The F-35 is never going to be able to compete on the level it claimed from the beginning. As was previously discussed, there are ways around attacking without stealth, and it is one of the main reasons the Growler exists for. You claim the F-15 Silent Eagle can't compete with the F-35, but the F-35 can't seem to even remain in service, let alone meet any goals in a timely manner or in anyway close to expectations.
Face it, the F-35 was over hyped, under delivered, and ridiculously over cost.
-
Those claims are becoming increasingly less reliable as time goes on...
Based on what? I'm sorry but I'm not going to take your word over the pilots and crews working with the F-35 now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wJ_Ffi2KFE
Like the wars of the future (and even now) F-35 is not about speed or maneuverability, although it has those qualities in adequate quantities; it's about stealth and sensor fusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZtcyaTi8c4
Like he says, the job of a fighter pilot these days and in the future is no longer about flying the airplane; they're system operators trying to make the most out of their system. One day down the line, beyond the F-35, the pilot will no longer be a part of the system.
-
Don't worry, we won't be building more of one of the best fighters ever made. Instead we will be pinning it all on that awesome, superior replacement the, F-35. The plane that can't carry the same weight, fly the same distance, or fight off enemy like it's "long in the tooth" precursor.
The F-4 is a better plane than the Joint Strike Failure.
-
The F-15 is a sitting duck to modern AA systems. It has the RCS of a bus and you cant make a fighter able to fly faster or higher then an AA missile. Even the proposed Silent Eagle is not in the class of the F-35. Not even close, to build a stealth airplane you have to build it from the start. The F-15 is basically a 1970's design. People cant seem to understand an airplane the enemy doesnt know is there is far better then an airplane the enemy DOES know is there no matter the other performance parameters.
The F-15 brings value to the fight the JSF can only dream of. It can also extend and dictate the fight on at least even terms. The JSF has front-aspect-only stealth and only in a limited number of bands. It cannot run. It cannot hide. It cannot fight. It has a blowtorch that can be seen forever and will be easy meat for current threats--nevermind emerging ones like PAK-FA.
We need more F-22s not Joint Strike Failures. The Marines with their blind loyalty to VTOL (something the F-35 will never be able to do with any decent payload) is the poison pill that ruined this airplane.
-
Amazing how some people think they actually know the capabilities of the F-35...
-
Amazing how some people think they actually know the capabilities of the F-35...
What capabilities? It can't even fly in IMC. It is breaking engine casings and fan blades despite being restricted to 3.5 Gs (or perhaps less). It has no range. It is a POS.
It requires a ridiculous pad assembly for VTOL ops (and the amount of fuel it burns per sortie is insane for almost no payload). Anyone consider how to deploy those to a forward area? The Marines sure haven't.
It can't trap. It doesn't meet the sink rate requirements to land on the boat. The maintenance on the RAM will be utterly impossible to manage on a CVN. Utterly hopeless.
You need to pay attention.
-
What capabilities? It can't even fly in IMC. It is breaking engine casings and fan blades despite being restricted to 3.5 Gs (or perhaps less). It has no range. It is a POS.
It requires a ridiculous pad assembly for VTOL ops (and the amount of fuel it burns per sortie is insane for almost no payload). Anyone consider how to deploy those to a forward area? The Marines sure haven't.
It can't trap. It doesn't meet the sink rate requirements to land on the boat. The maintenance on the RAM will be utterly impossible to manage on a CVN. Utterly hopeless.
You need to pay attention.
They can make improvements.
They're not done with it they're farther ahead of the public than people think in its development.
-
the F35 looked like it was flying pretty good last weekend at the Miramar Airshow. It hovered right in front of me and then slowly turned unitl it was nose on, then landed. Wow, just Wow, one scaring looking piece of technology.
-
They can make improvements.
They're not done with it they're farther ahead of the public than people think in its development.
Yeah right.
Further along meaning they're only WAY WAY behind.
Got news for ya', bud, there is something called PHYSICS. The JSF will never overcome THAT. :salute
-
the F35 looked like it was flying pretty good last weekend at the Miramar Airshow. It hovered right in front of me and then slowly turned unitl it was nose on, then landed. Wow, just Wow, one scaring looking piece of technology.
Low fuel load. No weapons.
-
Yeah right.
Further along meaning they're only WAY WAY behind.
Got news for ya', bud, there is something called PHYSICS. The JSF will never overcome THAT.
Go develop one.
-
Go develop one.
Why? We have F-22s. We don't need the Joint Strike Failure.
(Nice non-argument, btw. My developing one doesn't change the fact this thing sucks.)
-
Jeez Vraciu, you couldn't be more full of it.
-
Why? We have F-22s. We don't need the Joint Strike Failure.
(Nice non-argument, btw. My developing one doesn't change the fact this thing sucks.)
Developing? You're just adding a few things to complain about how it "sucks".
You most likely don't have any up-front experience with the aircraft or personally know a developer of the machine but yet you talk of it as if you had worked on it yourself and failed. If you did, then hell, I'd almost believe you.
-
Jeez Vraciu, you couldn't be more full of it.
Really? :rofl
I have stated the facts. You have mimicked talking points by the LockMart PR department.
-
Developing? You're just adding a few things to complain about how it "sucks".
You most likely don't have any up-front experience with the aircraft or personally know a developer of the machine but yet you talk of it as if you had worked on it yourself and failed. If you did, then hell, I'd almost believe you.
The information is out there if you get past LockMart and Bogdan (and even he is admitting the thing is a mess).
THE F-35 -- TOO BIG TO FAIL, TOO CRAPPY AND COMPROMISED TO SUCCEED.
-
You haven't stated any facts, only your own baseless opinions. Find me one pilot who has flown the F-35, from any of the eight nations who currently have pilots flying it, who has anything but praise for the aircraft. I dare you.
You're full of it.
-
Scholz is right.
-
You haven't stated any facts, only your own baseless opinions. Find me one pilot who has flown the F-35, from any of the eight nations who currently have pilots flying it, who has anything but praise for the aircraft. I dare you.
You're full of it.
Really? They "praise" an airplane that is restricted to 3 Gs and has avionics that DO NOT WORK and you buy that garbage? It catches fire for no reason, has awful self-protection, and can't carry a load that is useful for anything.
:rofl
You clearly have no grasp of politics. Any "praise" I have read is carefully parsed, too.
But hey, the Marines at Midway praised the Buffalo beforehand... Oops.
-
Scholz is right.
No. He is just snowed by yes men and ignores the realities of the aircraft. Numbers do not lie.
-
You don't have the numbers. And yes... The pilots who have flown it praise it.
-
You don't have the numbers. And yes... The pilots who have flown it praise it.
The numbers are out there.
Try basic algebra.
And again, how is this thing gonna forward deploy?
It can't.
SMH at Just So Failed cheerleaders.
-
You don't have the numbers. You can't find a pilot who's flown it and doesn't praise it. And that includes active air force and navy personnel from several different nations. If you think they're all "yes men" in the pocket of Lockheed Martin, you're a nutjob conspiracy theorist.
-
Didn't we have this exact conversation a couple of months ago?
- oldman
-
Didn't we have this exact conversation a couple of months ago?
- oldman
Yes. And the cheerleaders were just as delusional then as now.
-
You don't have the numbers. You can't find a pilot who's flown it and doesn't praise it. And that includes active air force and navy personnel from several different nations. If you think they're all "yes men" in the pocket of Lockheed Martin, you're a nutjob conspiracy theorist.
Yes, I do have the numbers. You just don't care to believe--or even find--them. They have cut corners and tried to shed weight resulting in a dangerous, fragile, unreliable piece of junk.
It can't perform as is. Once they try to beef it up they'll degrade performance further. It is a turkey.
Whatever works for you true believers. :rolleyes:
-
Any person flying an aircraft in an experimental program in this day and age is not going to come out and publicly bash it. It's not conducive to a long career. Let's examine a few facts that are not being touted by the "rah rah" crowd, some have already been touched on in here.
It has a 600 mile range. This is not conducive to CV ops as many anti-ship weapons can be fired from farther. Legacy Hornets are more than double that at 1275, clean, ie. no drop tanks. You put pylons and tanks on it, and then it is even more sluggish and it's main reason for being here (stealth) goes away.
Air to air, it is less maneuverable than the current Legacy fighters. It is no match for the F-22. It was billed as being able to be on an even plane with 5th Gen Chinese and Russian Fighters.
There has been documentation of cracks in separate areas indicating inadequate structure. These areas will have to be beefed up, which increases weight and degrades performance. The aircraft had to be limited to 3.5 G's because if this.
Engines are not delivering as expected.
Computer software is not delivering as expected and is now expected to not be finalized out to 2017 or further.
Helmet targeting system not working as advertised.
Cost. $80 million to start. $140 million or more now. These costs are only going to go up as it becomes further evident that the aircraft has to be further modified and fixed.
These are just a few facts that are widely known so you can google if you want to for sources. I'd suggest staying away from Lockheed for facts, they are neck deep in this fiasco and are not going to bad mouth it. Personally, I would have been ecstatic had this aircraft performed as advertised. It doesn't and is probably going to be double or more on the cost. That alone should have anyone questioning why we have a less capable aircraft than the F-22 when we could have had a far more capable aircraft in the proposed F-22B.
-
I'm not a fan of the F35 either and hope we (Canada finally scrap the project).
Can't run, can't fight, can't hide. there is some truth to that.
I think once they get the major bugs worked out it will make a decent strike aircraft, but it is going to need fighter protection. It will never be a multi role fighter.
Before the BVR crowd comes in.....that has to work as advertized every single time. Can't see that happening, at least not with the F35.
I would rather see Canada buy into the Super Hornet and outfit a squadrons strength with the Growler. At least the Hornet can defend itself.
just my humble $0.02
RTR
-
Any person flying an aircraft in an experimental program in this day and age is not going to come out and publicly bash it...
It isn't an experimental program. Hasn't been for nearly two years since the USAF started receiving F-35A's at Nellis. I've personally spoken to two Norwegian pilots who have flown it and are part of the RNoAF F-35 training unit. Both are F-16 veterans and both love the F-35 and its capabilities. And before you accuse them of being corrupt career chasers... Our armed forces don't work like that. Once their 12 years of obligatory service is up they're out and flying commercial. Don't confuse other countries air forces for the corrupt corporate forces you call a military.
Here's what the RAF has to say about the F-35B... You'll probably think he's on the payroll too. :rolleyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLSsLCMsCrM
And btw. they're not supposed to take-off with stores on. They take off with a short deck run, but land vertically.
-
Gscholtz,
As always it is a waste of time to talk with you. You have your opinions and that's that. You talked to some pilots at an airshow and they told you they like the plane. Awesome. Then you put words in my mouth regarding what I said about pilot's in the program. You're wrong, but don't let that stop you. Lastly, you make a bs statement about our military in favor of other military forces. It's per the usual m.o. for you.
How about this, you address the facts Vraciu and I posted? As for the vertical take off comment, that's foolish because no one has brought it up.
-
You haven't posted any facts, nor has Vraciu. You've only posted your own opinions; facts require sources. And no, I haven't just talked to "some pilots at an airshow". I had the privilege of attending their lecture on the F-35 program and the Norwegian part of it here at the airbase in Bodø. I'll take their word over yours, Vraciu's, Sprey's or anyone else that does not have first hand knowledge of the aircraft.
-
And of course beau32 was here on the BBS last year when we did this...
"Always amazes me how many people just trash something that they probably dont know anything about. Yes, they fixed the carrier tail hook and it will start carrier testing later this year. Things are looking good for the program. All testing is going good here. Yes there are hic-ups, but what program didnt. My plane is flying great. We are hitting many test points, and the ones we miss, we are going back, making sure we get it right, then fly it again. The F-35 is twice as loud as an F-16, and I would compare it to a F-22 taking off noise wise. How is it a waste of taxpayer money? Do you have proof? How did it fail? Proof? Just curious how people make these claims, but no proof to back it up. Apparently we are doing something right, Turkey just secured a order of 100. Japan has bought 50. South Korea just placed an order. From what I have seen, the flanker will never know the F-35 is there till its too late. This plane has a lot of amazing things going on with it, its a shame the general public only knows little of it....
BTW, if your curious about how I may know this. I am a Crew Chief on the F-35 at Edwards AFB, AF-03 is my bird. "
... but he's probably on the take as well, right Bodhi? :noid
-
Gscholtz,
As always it is a waste of time to talk with you. You have your opinions and that's that. You talked to some pilots at an airshow and they told you they like the plane. Awesome. Then you put words in my mouth regarding what I said about pilot's in the program. You're wrong, but don't let that stop you. Lastly, you make a bs statement about our military in favor of other military forces. It's per the usual m.o. for you.
How about this, you address the facts Vraciu and I posted? As for the vertical take off comment, that's foolish because no one has brought it up.
You got that right.
-
Oh no! What will I do?! :uhoh
-
History is repeating itself. The F-35 is going back to the missile carrier concept of the 1950s. "We'll shoot them BVR, no need for thrust vectoring or good aerodynamics". And forcing the same aircraft on 3 services; that has ended in disaster so many times. Even the F-4, the most successful of the tri-service aircraft, was average at best. Only through excellent pilot training was it used to any degree of the success.
As much as people dislike him, Pierre Sprey is right. Aerodynamics are fundamental. This is why the F-15, even with its huge RCS is such a success. Same with the F-22, and the F-16. The F-35 is overweight and relies far too much on electronics to make up for its flight shortcomings.
-
It isn't an experimental program. Hasn't been for nearly two years since the USAF started receiving F-35A's at Nellis. I've personally spoken to two Norwegian pilots who have flown it and are part of the RNoAF F-35 training unit. Both are F-16 veterans and both love the F-35 and its capabilities. And before you accuse them of being corrupt career chasers... Our armed forces don't work like that. Once their 12 years of obligatory service is up they're out and flying commercial. Don't confuse other countries air forces for the corrupt corporate forces you call a military.
Here's what the RAF has to say about the F-35B... You'll probably think he's on the payroll too. :rolleyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLSsLCMsCrM
And btw. they're not supposed to take-off with stores on. They take off with a short deck run, but land vertically.
Yeah, cuz they realized it couldn't do it. So the Marines have screwed the entire program with their worthless love affair with VTOL. And it still requires specialized landing pads that are bigger than anything we can carry. Also, nobody has figured how to forward deploy the ridiculous fuel load this thing will need to drop two bombs.
The stealth was compromised when the bay was redesigned not to mention that the threats themselves have evolved since the original design was completed. Hence, while front aspect stealth is decent, all other aspects are not. This thing will be seen on radar from three directions. Gad help you when it goes into afterburner with that single gigantic engine lighting up every IR seeker on the planet.
It is low, slow, short-legged, has no payload, cannot turn, and is not a fighter by any measurement.
Also, it is an experimental program guised as something else. The F-35s being delivered go immediately to depot for refit. They are catching fire for no reason. Engine casings are flexing even under the restricted 3.5 G envelope resulting in failures. It cannot fly in IMC. It cannot fly within 100 miles of thunderstorms. A recent cross country flight of four Jets resulted in three in-flight aborts.
Not experimental?
:lol
-
History is repeating itself. The F-35 is going back to the missile carrier concept of the 1950s. "We'll shoot them BVR, no need for thrust vectoring or good aerodynamics". And forcing the same aircraft on 3 services; that has ended in disaster so many times. Even the F-4, the most successful of the tri-service aircraft, was average at best. Only through excellent pilot training was it used to any degree of the success.
As much as people dislike him, Pierre Sprey is right. Aerodynamics are fundamental. This is why the F-15, even with its huge RCS is such a success. Same with the F-22, and the F-16. The F-35 is overweight and relies far too much on electronics to make up for its flight shortcomings.
The JSF is a pig. It will always be a pig. It will help the services keep their flying club and that's about it.
The F-4 was actually a better three-service design precisely because it DIDNT START OUT AS ONE. We never seem to learn.
Also, in the Navy's version of the Joint Strike Failure the gun is optional. So we are exactly right back to the F-4B--except the F-4 carried a far larger payload and had WAY WAY WAY better performance than this POS.
Sprey is exactly right as you said. The geniuses GScholz leg humps are the same ones trying to dump the A-10 (again) and who ceased F-22 production because it was "too expensive". Yeah....I believe in their judgment--not.
-
Why should anyone believe you or value your opinions in any way whatsoever? I prefer to get my information from the people who actually know what they're talking about. People like beau32, and the pilots and other personnel that actually work with the aircraft. You, Bodhi and all the other conspiracy theory nutjob naysayers are irrelevant. Just as you were irrelevant when the F-16 was the over-budget, doomed to fail project that every taking-head and naysayer were lamenting 30 years ago.
-
Why should anyone believe you or value your opinions in any way whatsoever? I prefer to get my information from the people who actually know what they're talking about. People like beau32, and the pilots and other personnel that actually work with the aircraft. You, Bodhi and all the other conspiracy theory nutjob naysayers are irrelevant. Just as you were irrelevant when the F-16 was the over-budget, doomed to fail project that every taking-head and naysayer were lamenting 30 years ago.
If ONLY this was an F-16.
The cheerleaders are misguided or lying. The numbers do not support their assertions. Or yours.
I fly with a guy who left the Pentagon in the middle of this mess. He was an F-22 Wing Commander before his stint in the Puzzle Palace. Without revealing anything classified he has made it quite clear this program is dysfunctional and effectively beyond hope. A lot of pilots are gonna' get killed in it should we ever face first tier opponents.
I will also go along with a Bill Sweetman and others, because not only do their assertions fit with my colleague's, but they can do basic math.
Member nations are dropping like flies and hedging bets. They see the writing on the wall...
-
Nevermind...
-
Nevermind...
:rofl
Well, let us hope the helmet works someday as the six view is positively Russian.
-
I'll remind you of this thread if we're still around here in 10-years time... :aok
-
I'll remind you of this thread if we're still around here in 10-years time... :aok
What would you like to wager?
-
The future of our air forces.
-
In the 1950s, the U.S. had a fast, but awful aircraft called the F-104. Common sense prevailed, and we simply dumped that aircraft on our allies through exports. Lockheed made money, the USAF got a different fighter, and things worked out. The best course of action for the U.S. is to sell the F-35 as an export aircraft. Now if we can only keep the aircraft from bursting into flames when it exceeds 3.5G's....
-
The future of our air forces.
Then you have already lost. :salute
-
In the 1950s, the U.S. had a fast, but awful aircraft called the F-104. Common sense prevailed, and we simply dumped that aircraft on our allies through exports. Lockheed made money, the USAF got a different fighter, and things worked out. The best course of action for the U.S. is to sell the F-35 as an export aircraft. Now if we can only keep the aircraft from bursting into flames when it exceeds 3.5G's....
:rofl
-
In the 1950s, the U.S. had a fast, but awful aircraft called the F-104. Common sense prevailed, and we simply dumped that aircraft on our allies through exports. Lockheed made money, the USAF got a different fighter, and things worked out. The best course of action for the U.S. is to sell the F-35 as an export aircraft. Now if we can only keep the aircraft from bursting into flames when it exceeds 3.5G's....
Technically it bursts into flames at 1G on the taxiway. At 3.5G it merely sheds parts....
:lol
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/10646861_929938190360526_6484993884961577606_n.png)
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/10646861_929938190360526_6484993884961577606_n.png)
Nice try. I was a Joint Strike Failure cheerleader for almost a decade.... It was painful to admit I was wrong....
We would do better pulling F-4s out of AMARC and putting Slammers on them.... Even if PK on the -120 is approaching AIM-7 territory....
-
... And then you became a conspiracy theorist.
-
The information regarding the Aim120 PK vs the AIM7 is extremely debatable, as Carlo Kopp, the famed "Air Power Australia" nut, is where much of this internet land "the Amraam sucks" nonsense originates from. I'm no huge F35 defender, nor do I slag it at this point, but in order to make the F35 look worse in A2A engagements, Carlo Kopp used data from the F35's only current long/medium range weapon, the Aim120, to do so. He fudged this data in the most advantageous way for HIS argument.
Example: He deliberately excluded "non-BVR" successful warshots, he deliberately excluded instances where more than one missile was successfully fired at a target and he deliberately included instances where missiles were fired WELL out of their NEZ with the pilots aiming to suppress a threat and achieve a "mission kill" knowing full well the missile was unlikely to achieve an actual kill.
Depending on how you interpret the declassified Aim120 data out there, you canget anywhere from a 43% to a 90% pk rate with it.
I will say that from what I've been told in person, by several fighter pilots, and by a very good high school friend that is a 2500 hour Hornet pilot, Canada's current test pilot for whatever new fighter we get, and an Empire test pilot grad with experience in the Typhoon and Gripen at Empire, the Superhornet and F16 on exchange, and flights in 2 other front line US fighters, that the Aim120 is the probably the most lethal weapon ever fielded in the USAF or USN/USMC fighter corps. Arguably the Aim9x block 2 is just as effective, but it doesn't have any warshots for comparison yet. Also, the Major of whom I'm speaking, https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jason-paquin/39/72b/444, has fired 3 Aim120 while working in the testing/experimental unit of the RCAF. Stern chase shots and an extreme range BVR shot vs a hard maneuvering drone target. All three caused catastrophic destruction of their targets.
Also, Bodhi, one thing regarding the range figures - The F35's range is nothing to hop up and down for, but neither are the legacy or Super Hornet's either. You're quoting the ferry range figures for the legacy and the combat radius for the F35, apples and oranges. They are both fairly close to one another in terms of combat radius, which is to say, crap. I know Gsholz will correctly say that the F35 carries a much larger fuel load and has a larger fuel fraction than the legacy and SuperHornet, but from what is currently available regarding radius range info to the public, they don't really differ all that much. FYI, even the SuperHornet with it's larger fuel fraction than the legacy it replaced still needed USAF fixed wing tanker support to operate anywhere further than 30 miles north of Baghdad, and tons of tanker support in Afghanistan. I hope Mace will come by this thread and use the F14 example of its range compared to both Hornet types, it's ridiculous how poor both the Hornet models range is, even with max drop tanks and massive tanker support. That said, I too believe the F18E/F is a great fighter despite this issue, very capable, great AESA radar, and so on.
I'd like to hear Eagl and Mace's opinion of the Aim120 (again, but just to re confirm it for those here that will no doubt continue on with the Air power Australia propaganda about it), as well as any updated opinions from them regarding the F35.
-
The Super takes a huge hit with those canted pylons. Sadly, the Hornet family has always suffered in the range department.... The JSF continues the trend and doubles down with horrid wing loading...
-
Did the super long range AIM-120 ever come in to service? It was to be powered by a ramjet engine. Range of 100 miles or so.
-
Gman, I find this whole "debate" futile. We did this last year and Bodhi used the same old rhetoric back then as now. Nrshida has left us, but has been replaced by Vraciu, though far less capable. Mace was there, Eagle was there, Baeu32 the F-35 crew chief was there, you and I were there. I don't know if Bodhi and Vraciu sit on a pile of Boeing shares or if they're just conspiracy nuts; whatever their problem they're set in their ways and nothing will change their minds.
I'll just link to the 2013 thread since this one isn't offering anything new: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,345902.0.html
-
Gman, I find this whole "debate" futile. We did this last year and Bodhi used the same old rhetoric back then as now. Nrshida has left us, but has been replaced by Vraciu, though far less capable. Mace was there, Eagle was there, Baeu32 the F-35 crew chief was there, you and I were there. I don't know if Bodhi and Vraciu sit on a pile of Boeing shares or if they're just conspiracy nuts; whatever their problem they're set in their ways and nothing will change their minds.
I'll just link to the 2013 thread since this one isn't offering anything new: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,345902.0.html
Squawk. Squawk. Polly wanna' cracker?
-
I was told an interesting analogy regarding the F35 by a USAF fighter pilot I was introduced to by my RCAF friend I mentioned above.
I asked him specifically about the F35 and the Air Power Australia stuff, about how it would be dead meat when forced into the air defense role vs Sukoi SU30 MKI and other variants. I figured he was a perfect person to explain this, as he has a Bandit number (F117 pilot) and flew tours with an F22 squadron, one of which as XO of 27th at Langley AFB.
He said imagine the battle space as a small indoor gymnasium, say the size of a basketball court or so. Inside are two opposing forces. One is very fit, can round around the gym 100 times or so, can sprint 40 yards in 4.4 seconds or so, and is a wizzy acrobatic martial artist type. The other is pretty fit, can round around the gym 80 times or so, and can sprint the 40 in around 5.5 seconds, and can throw a decent punch/kick, reasonably tough fighter. The first group of very fit guys has a blindfold on that only allows them to see about 10 yards, and has earplugs in so they can't hear anything. Both groups are armed with decent medium range 6 shot slug shotguns, capable of accurately hitting and destroying targets within that gym/battle space with a very high pK.
You can see where this is going, and who is who. Sounds like the 2nd group will likely mow the first, right? Hence, the "F35" group has a huge advantage. This is the common line I've heard from F35 supporters, including pilots who are pretty familiar with it, as well as all the info available online from pilots who have flown it and spoken about this capability.
My concern is this: What happens when either a: The shotguns run out of ammo and there is still targets out there (ie the F35 having to close to a visual range fight), or b: somehow the first group with the blindfold, figures out a way to either take it off, or see through it (ie negating the stealth/low observable tech the F35 has which gives it the only real advantage over possible airborne threats right now). Then what? See, the argument that the USAF isn't going to "use" the F35 in an a2a role, and that it's an attack bomb truck is all fine and well, but virtually EVERY other air force purchasing it is using it to replace fighters they currently are using as interceptors and a2a combat fighters. So, based on this, the F35 a2a performance is absolutely critical IMO, not just some back seat capability that the USAF shouldn't be concerned too much about since it won't be the F35's job. With only a dozen squads of F22s, the USAF will find itself running very short on escorts in a major shooting war with say, oh I don't know, China for example. Then even with the US forces, the F35 will be pressed into fighting other fighters.
Right now, it's been made out by Lockheed and pilots like the one I spoke to about it, that the F35 due to it's low observability and ability to see and get the first shots in due to its sensors, has any potential threat out gunned at the moment. Even if that is 100% true, what happens if say in 5 or 10 years some threat nation figures out how to eliminate or seriously degrade that low observability. Then the actual airframe performance of the F35 will be a very, very relevant, and frankly scary issue.
I would say the following would really put a lot of the question people have about the F35 capability to rest - put it up against the F16, which it is slated to replace in many air forces, in a series of exercises and fight scenarios, and see how it does, both BVR and in close range visual fights. If it wins a huge percentage of both, what more needs to be said really, as I don't think anyone, even detractors, have a huge issue with the apparent a2g capabilities of the F35 over the current gen 4.5 fleets.
-
Unfortunately, the stealth of the JSF has been compromised by design changes and technology advances.
Also, nobody has explained how the RAM coatings will tolerate carrier ops... Corrosive environment.
Nevermind that when certain panels are opened they have to be re-sealed. How long does that stuff take to cure?
-
Unfortunately, the stealth of the JSF has been compromised by design changes and technology advances.
Also, nobody has explained how the RAM coatings will tolerate carrier ops... Corrosive environment.
Nevermind that when certain panels are opened they have to be re-sealed. How long does that stuff take to cure?
whack some Tiger Seal on it. Done in 20 mins, heat proof, waterproof, open panel in the future proof.
BTW Vraciu. It tastes great. Put yourself outside some at the earliest opportunity :old:
-
whack some Tiger Seal on it. Done in 20 mins, heat proof, waterproof, open panel in the future proof.
BTW Vraciu. It tastes great. Put yourself outside some at the earliest opportunity :old:
:rofl