Author Topic: F-35 "lighting II"?  (Read 2739 times)

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2006, 09:09:56 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by wojo71
My vote would be Reaper!:aok Black Mamba make me think of a carnivel ride and cyclone, a vacuum cleaner springs to mind.:confused:


Cyclone is the rollercoaster at Coney Island. Cyclone is what should remind you of a carnival ride.

Quote
Originally posted by rpm
Anything with a -II is crap.
 

I agree with the Captain, but I would add this one...



I always thought the Phantom II was bad ass.... At least it looks that way.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Brenjen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2006, 09:22:51 AM »
I suppose the gents who flew it might have a special place in their hearts for the phantom II, but the Thunderbolt II, now there is a work of steel shredding meat grinding art. And that bird is tough too, if I were a combat pilot & I'm not b.t.w., I would want to fly the Warthog.

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2006, 11:08:04 AM »
Centurion

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2006, 11:45:12 AM »
Name some specific reasons why the F-35 is crap.  Maybe I'm not reading the right stuff, but just because it doesn't supercruise doesn't mean that it's a piece of garbage.

The F-18 vs. Tomcat issue is different, there are big compromises and losses of capabillity from the switch.  Are there equivalents to the F-35 and the aircraft it replaces?
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2006, 03:42:07 PM »
The corsair II wasn't a bad plane either



Then there's the tiger II



Harrier II



not to mention this fine work of art:

« Last Edit: July 02, 2006, 03:45:23 PM by Gunslinger »

Offline Slash27

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12795
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2006, 03:42:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
Name some specific reasons why the F-35 is crap.  Maybe I'm not reading the right stuff, but just because it doesn't supercruise doesn't mean that it's a piece of garbage.

 



I heard alot of the same stuff about the F-22 on these boards with no specifics. Talking out your bellybutton just comes natural to some I guess.

Offline Slash27

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12795
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2006, 03:44:54 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rpm
Anything with a -II  is crap. Examples: Mustang II, Caddyshack II. Spitfire II?  


Teminator 2? Lethal Weapon 2? And how could you not like that big farting horse in Caddyshack 2?:D

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2006, 08:07:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
Name some specific reasons why the F-35 is crap.  Maybe I'm not reading the right stuff, but just because it doesn't supercruise doesn't mean that it's a piece of garbage.

The F-18 vs. Tomcat issue is different, there are big compromises and losses of capabillity from the switch.  Are there equivalents to the F-35 and the aircraft it replaces?


The F-35 is slated to eventually replace EVERYTHING, and personally, i dont like it/ think its crap for several reasons:

1. Yes, its VTOL, but those moving parts are vulnerable to either getting shot (The slidding, non solid parts are weaker than flush metal), or corroding! This is going to be a NAVAL FIGHTER with A LOT of holes! Didnt they learn anything about environmental effects from the AH-64 Appache?!? And that VTOL capability requires a ****t load of maintenance, and from the naval crew cheifs and pilots i know, i predict that 2 years after the VTOL model enters service, all of the VTOL systems will either have been individually removed at the pilot/crew cheifs request, or have corroded beyond the ablility to function, and be sealed and locked.

2. Its supposed to be stealthy right? Anyone notice the BIG, UN-COVERED ENGINE IN THE BACK?!? thats a heat seaking MAGNET!!!! You ever have a heat seaker aiming for a carrier, just fly an F-35 1 mile away from the carrier, the missile will go for it! Thats got to leave a HUGE heat signature. The B-2s, F-22s, F-117s, notice something about the engines? The exposed parts are very small. they are pretty much just vents, with the hot part hidden inside. Not so with the F-35.

3. This is going to be a multi-role aircraft, and i never trust any multi roles, because to make it a decent anti-ground, they must take away some of the anti-air capability.

4. Single pilot on a multi role/too hi tech. This aircraft is extremely hi tech. As such, there will be huge bugs, most without precedent, and if you are trying to attack a ground target and your multi million dollar weapons targetting system fails (Hmmm, like the APPACHES AND SAND?!?), and you are the only one in there, what do you do? Theres no Wizzo to help out, and knowing todays military, you will probably have had less than 5 minutes of lecture on how to manually aim these bombs, how do you continue the sortie? In the F-15 (my favorite aircraft), the E model, you have a Wizzo to help out. Thats much more effective.

Now, i know a lot of you are saying "Well, what about the F-22. Its a multi role! It has no Wizzo, and its new too!", Well, im not much a fan of the 22 either. Im just happy the air force is considering doing away with their own model of aircraft, and possible receiving the F-35 all together, so i wont have to fly one, and by the time i make pilot, those bugs will hopefully be worked out. But for those first few F-35 pilots: May god be with you. You are going to need it!


Is that enough evidence for you?

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2006, 08:25:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Reynolds
Is that enough evidence for you?


Just enough to let us know that you have no clue what you are talking about.  

There will be 3 versions of the F-35.  
1. land based
2. Carrier based
3. STOVL version (NOT VTOL!)

1 and 2 will not be capable of STOVL.  


2.  In addition it is only partially stealthy.  Instead of looking like an F16 it will look like a larg bird on RADAR.

3.  About the multi role stuff.  Avionics integration has come along ways since the days of the F4 F16 and F18 respectivly.  One pilot can actually do more with less because of the way the cockpit and systems are integrated.  Alot of what we leanred on the F22 has been integrated on the F35.  That's 15 years of development that equal a HUGE cost savings vrs designing a new aircraft from scratch.

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2006, 08:35:55 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Just enough to let us know that you have no clue what you are talking about.  

There will be 3 versions of the F-35.  
1. land based
2. Carrier based
3. STOVL version (NOT VTOL!)

1 and 2 will not be capable of STOVL.  


2.  In addition it is only partially stealthy.  Instead of looking like an F16 it will look like a larg bird on RADAR.

3.  About the multi role stuff.  Avionics integration has come along ways since the days of the F4 F16 and F18 respectivly.  One pilot can actually do more with less because of the way the cockpit and systems are integrated.  Alot of what we leanred on the F22 has been integrated on the F35.  That's 15 years of development that equal a HUGE cost savings vrs designing a new aircraft from scratch.


1. Carrier based is supposed to be VTOL capable. the Land based, i dont know much about, but i know the Air Force is just going to take the Navy one, so if the Land Based was supposed to be for the USAF, it no longer exists.

2. Um, i doubt that. It would look maybe a little smaller than a cessna, but not THAT small. And still, it shows up like a light house on IR, unlike the B2, 117, 22, and so on.

3. Yes, there may be huge advances, but have you never heard of glitches? I dont like the whole "Fly by wire" thing personally, but i REALLY dont trust something without a human back-up. If i were ever to fly a 35, i would demand a Wizzo, or at least to be trained as one myself. I just dont like it. And i dont much trust the 22 either! Hell, the way these ne A/Cs look, im actually considering forgetting fighters, and just trying to become a bomber pilot instead! And yeah, im no expert, but i do have some idea what im talking about!

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2006, 08:37:48 PM »
Yep, it's true, Reynolds spoke with authority and doing so established that he had none to speak with.

STOVL is only in one version and will replace the Harrier, an aircraft known to require a certain amount of maintenance already.  With the new metals and technologies, I bet the design intent is for it to be easier to maintain in challenging environments.  It is for the Marines.  The Navy has their own version, it's toughened up for carrier ops and is NOT VTOL.

The F-16 and F-15 have both been assigned multi-role missions, seems to work for them.

I'm pretty sure the F-35 has a lower RCS than the B-17 or 117, Reynolds.  Care to cite your assertion?

Still haven't heard a good explanation for why the F-35 is teh suck, I look forward to being educated.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2006, 08:42:29 PM »
Well, dont you love it when people are personally attacked?

Well guess what: That STOVL or whatever the hell YOU guys are calling it, bad maintenance. and yes, 15s and 16 have been asigned multi role... in the 15E Strike Eagle (Yes, it has a Wizzo) and the 16 Fighting Falcon, and i think it was Viper or something (Yes, again, it has a wizzo)

But lets attack each others ideas, not each other, shall we? Or do you find it too difficult not to degenerate into the mentality of a 3 year old?

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2006, 08:47:59 PM »
Sorry Reynolds, didn't mean to hurt your feelings, could you point out where I attacked you personally?  I posted that I felt your message showed that you lacked knowledge about the subject (because you thought they all had VTOL, etc).  If that's what you're describing, you may not understand what makes a personal attack.

Can you provide that citation on the RCS when you're ready?
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2006, 08:53:14 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Reynolds
1. Carrier based is supposed to be VTOL capable. the Land based, i dont know much about, but i know the Air Force is just going to take the Navy one, so if the Land Based was supposed to be for the USAF, it no longer exists.

2. Um, i doubt that. It would look maybe a little smaller than a cessna, but not THAT small. And still, it shows up like a light house on IR, unlike the B2, 117, 22, and so on.

3. Yes, there may be huge advances, but have you never heard of glitches? I dont like the whole "Fly by wire" thing personally, but i REALLY dont trust something without a human back-up. If i were ever to fly a 35, i would demand a Wizzo, or at least to be trained as one myself. I just dont like it. And i dont much trust the 22 either! Hell, the way these ne A/Cs look, im actually considering forgetting fighters, and just trying to become a bomber pilot instead! And yeah, im no expert, but i do have some idea what im talking about!


Nope again you are wrong.

There are three versions of the F35.  
The Carrier version (CV) for the Navy.  A conventional one (CTOL) for the USAF and a (STOVL) for the Marines and the Royal Navy.

NONE I repeat NONE will be (VTOL) if you don't beleive me Google is thy friend

The F16 has had a fly by wire system for almost 30 years!  They are still making advances on it and upgrading its avionics.   In addition it has been a highly successful fighter/attack/multirole A/C.

I really think you have no Idea what you are talking about.  Keep in mind this is coming from somone who's actually PHYSICALLY SAT IN and worked on THE FOLLOWING AIRCRAFT T-38, F-15 (A, C, E), F-16 (A, AM, B, C, D, CJ, CG, I) F-22, F-35, F-117, B1B, B-2A, B-52G and H.

In one hand you say you want stealth and in the other you don't trust fly by wire.  You cannot have one without the other.  The F117 F22 and B2 would not fly without computers making constant corrections.  It's just not efficient or managable any other way.

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
F-35 "lighting II"?
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2006, 08:55:02 PM »
BTW,Reynolds: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20051125.aspx

RCS of JSF is lower than that of the B-2.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis