[evil]
http://youtu.be/Ki86x1WKPmE (http://youtu.be/Ki86x1WKPmE)
Schweeeeet
I just came on myself
I wonder how/if this will change the look of future aircraft carriers?
very cool but i don't see the tactical value of it
Quote from: sofadriver on November 19, 2012, 08:02:39 PM
very cool but i don't see the tactical value of it
You can park it anywhere. No pesky airstrips to construct/maintain/be a giant, high profile target etc.
Quote from: sofadriver on November 19, 2012, 08:02:39 PM
very cool but i don't see the tactical value of it
Fly it over the bad guys back yard and put the fear of god in them, that'll do it.
Naaaaaaa....what we need is more horses and bayonets. Stealth horses with lasers.
Quote from: bobspapa on November 19, 2012, 08:55:35 PM
Naaaaaaa....what we need is more horses and bayonets. Stealth horses with lasers.
[evil]
Quote from: sofadriver on November 19, 2012, 08:02:39 PM
very cool but i don't see the tactical value of it
well, when Hollywood redoes "True Lies" in 15-ish years, they can then have a new Ah-nold fly it and crush a Florida trooper car and have people jumping on it while flying in the city with it and all that unbelievable stuff again since the Harrier will be extinct....
oh wait...you said tactical...not tacky....my bad...
Quote from: bobspapa on November 19, 2012, 08:55:35 PM
Naaaaaaa....what we need is more horses and bayonets. Stealth horses with lasers.
I see your stealth horses and raise you bear cavalry
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_H2DePAZe2gA/SGPHEzzPIzI/AAAAAAAAC28/qAs1X6BdR1s/s400/BearCavalry.jpg)
bear arms...arm bears....same thing!
One (very expensive) trick pony.
"heavy and sluggish"
“can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run"
"pitifully small load for all that money"
F-35 will cost 30 to 40 percent more to maintain than current jet fighters
In 2008, it was reported that in a simulated war game a Russian Sukhoi Su-35 fighters defeated the F-35
Russians already found it (VTOL) to be a waste in there version, the YAK-141
The one thing that this chunk of crap does really well is line someones pockets.
Quote from: spolic on November 20, 2012, 11:18:53 AM
The one thing that this chunk of crap does really well is line someones pockets.
You can look up the alternate engine design tale of woe for the F-35 as well. Living in DC both sides of the issue were running radio and print ads... Lots of money being spent on a solution (it seems) no one had asked for.
Quote from: spolic on November 20, 2012, 11:18:53 AM
One (very expensive) trick pony.
"heavy and sluggish"
“can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run"
"pitifully small load for all that money"
F-35 will cost 30 to 40 percent more to maintain than current jet fighters
In 2008, it was reported that in a simulated war game a Russian Sukhoi Su-35 fighters defeated the F-35
Russians already found it (VTOL) to be a waste in there version, the YAK-141
The one thing that this chunk of crap does really well is line someones pockets.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/ (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/)
John Boyd would definitely not approve.
It's an interesting plane, but seems to continue the Pentagon's tradition of making overly expensive, and bloated aircraft. The F-35 is a supposed do-it-all platform. The problem with that is a plane that does everything OK, does nothing exceptionally. It's also absurdly expensive, meaning you can't afford to lose very many in battle. Sure, you never want to lose any pilots or planes, but when you can't lose any due to a limited supply resulting from their cost...well, that isn't a great position to be in.
The most effective aircraft are relatively inexpensive, and are extremely efficient at their job (note that isn't plural). Good examples would be the A-10 and the F-16 (even though it was bastardized a bit over the original design by the Pentagon). Even the F-117 (although it isn't cheap). F-18 is also good, although the Navy bloated it even more than the F-16 (it was originally a pure lighweight fighter when it competed against the F-16 in the Air Force design competition).
The only benefit to the F-35 is it has the potential to make aircraft carriers smaller and less expensive. Ofcourse, the Pentagon won't allow that though.
Typical military procurement. Yeah, it's super cool, but 20 years in development, at $300M per is quite a price to pay. They need to get away from the everything to everyone, perfectly concept. It's just too much to ask for in an aircraft. Hence why we're flying B-52s, F-15s and F-16s still. The newest of those is from what, 1976?
Quote from: B.Rock on November 28, 2012, 02:59:53 PM
Hence why we're flying B-52s, F-15s and F-16s still. The newest of those is from what, 1976?
don't forget the hornet and super hornet ('83 and '99 respectively)...
and the same logic coming soon to a doc near you. [cheeky]
Quote from: derby on November 28, 2012, 07:52:57 PM
don't forget the hornet and super hornet ('83 and '99 respectively)...
All these 'dinosaurs' and their crews are still far ahead of what they'd have to fight in 99.99% of future battles; and the last 0.01% will be, unfortunately....
The Eurofighters and Sukhois of the world are really putting the pressure on the next generation fighters. I think that the F22 and F35 designers are putting too much stock on the hit them for afar mentality. Reminds me of the days of the F4. They originally designed it without a gun, all missiles, and not necessarily all that maneuverable. It was supposed to be able to identify a target at long range and shoot it down before it came too close. It worked for the most part, but then the MiGs got sneaky. The F35 has no thrust vectoring, which is becoming standard feature in all next gen fighters.
I don't understand why the DMF Gods,I mean Mods, allow military posts as it seems pretty political but they do,so I'll put this in here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/in-federal-budget-cutting-f-35-fighter-jet-is-at-risk.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/in-federal-budget-cutting-f-35-fighter-jet-is-at-risk.html?hp)
Quote from: Ducatamount on November 29, 2012, 10:05:09 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/in-federal-budget-cutting-f-35-fighter-jet-is-at-risk.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/in-federal-budget-cutting-f-35-fighter-jet-is-at-risk.html?hp)
And that's what happens when you try to make one platform do it all.
As long as we keep it to the fighters performance, or lack there of, then we stay on the safe side of the debate.
One stop shopping for a fighter is practically impossible. You want something that is really fast, but that is also slow enough for ground support. You also want a plane that is stealthy, but that can carry a shipload of munitions. You want it to be cheap, but to be the most advanced fighter ever designed.
Quote from: derby on November 28, 2012, 07:52:57 PM
don't forget the hornet and super hornet ('83 and '99 respectively)...
Oh, true. I was cherry-picking just a little to illustrate the point. Also, they're all fine aircraft to be certain. The B-52 has supposed to be replaced three times now, and yet, there it is.
Quote from: B.Rock on November 29, 2012, 11:49:42 AM
Oh, true. I was cherry-picking just a little to illustrate the point. Also, they're all fine aircraft to be certain. The B-52 has supposed to be replaced three times now, and yet, there it is.
No other plane in the AF can carry the payload. it's huge and they can see it coming a longs way away, but it's good at what it does, make a lot of shit disappear in deathly flames.
Quote from: derby on November 28, 2012, 07:52:57 PM
don't forget the hornet and super hornet ('83 and '99 respectively)...
I'm almost convinced that a re-powered and re-armed updated F-104 Starfighter would still be a formidable and affordable weapon today.
Quote from: Langanobob on December 02, 2012, 08:13:47 AM
I'm almost convinced that a re-powered and re-armed updated F-104 Starfighter would still be a formidable and affordable weapon today.
Interesting thought.
Found this chart for the F-104, I don't recall ever seeing this kind of thing:
(http://[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/F-104A_flight_envelope.jpg%5Dhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/F-104A_flight_envelope.jpg%5B/url%5D)
Quote from: Langanobob on December 02, 2012, 08:13:47 AM
I'm almost convinced that a re-powered and re-armed updated F-104 Starfighter would still be a formidable and affordable weapon today.
Nah. The F-16 is far better. The F-104 was a good plane for its time, but had some issues.
Quote from: Speeddog on December 02, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
Found this chart for the F-104, I don't recall ever seeing this kind of thing:
(http://[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/F-104A_flight_envelope.jpg%5Dhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/F-104A_flight_envelope.jpg%5B/url%5D)
I believe that's the chart that Boyd developed to describe the performance of an aircraft. I've never seen one before, despite looking for one. My guess to why they're hard to find is because they're classified for operational aircraft.
Fantastic book for those that like this sort of thing:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dU1i1%2BAiL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
I read and enjoyed the Boyd book several years ago, then sent it to my Canadian uncle who is a WWII RCAF Spitfire Ace. He liked the book too, which carries a lot more weight than my opinion. He flew many planes during his career, but I asked and he never flew an F-104.
Here's a link to an interesting F-104 article.
http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm (http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm)
Quote from: Langanobob on December 02, 2012, 07:59:55 PM
Here's a link to an interesting F-104 article.
http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm (http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm)
Pretty interesting, thanks. Not surprising, as everything Kelly Johnson was involved with was extraordinary. Have you read Skunkworks by Ben Rich? I'm guessing you have, but if not get it. [thumbsup]
It would have been interesting to see what the F-16 could have done if the Pentagon wouldn't have partially neutered it by requiring it to have too many capabilities. I remember an argument about wing square footage from the Boyd book, where Boyd was so upset with the required increase that he basically dis-owned the airplane, even though he had been it's biggest champion. It's interesting to look at old prototype photos vs. production photos to see how bloated it became...could have been a true F-104 v.2 (even though it is still a fantastic plane).
the simpliest solution:
Give the A10 the CAS mission exclusively, build for carrier and rough airstrip duty and split them off to the Army and Marines.
Make the F-35 into an A-35 and drop the fighter role. sell it to e any and all takers, drop the SVTOL version
Drop the F22 and revamp the F23 into a multiservice Airsuperiority fighter with carrier capability. keep it exclusively U.S.
Work on the B52 replacement with B1 tech, russians did it, we can.
Quote from: Raux on December 03, 2012, 09:07:37 AM
Drop the F22 and revamp the F23 into a multiservice Airsuperiority fighter with carrier capability. keep it exclusively U.S.
Work on the B52 replacement with B1 tech, russians did it, we can.
The F-23 wouldn't be any cheaper than the F-22. It's just a different take on the same thing. Multi-service is part of the problem...the AF has different needs than the Navy/Marines.
B-1 [laugh] [laugh] Biggest POS airplane ever. Even the Pentagon didn't want it...Reagan brought it back to life after the Pentagon killed it when he became president (it was made in So. California). There hasn't ever been a good swing-wing aircraft, despite what Top Gun has led everyone to believe.
Quote from: Triple J on December 03, 2012, 09:23:45 AM
The F-23 wouldn't be any cheaper than the F-22. It's just a different take on the same thing. Multi-service is part of the problem...the AF has different needs than the Navy/Marines.
B-1 [laugh] [laugh] Biggest POS airplane ever. Even the Pentagon didn't want it...Reagan brought it back to life after the Pentagon killed it when he became president (it was made in So. California). There hasn't ever been a good swing-wing aircraft, despite what Top Gun has led everyone to believe.
the B1 has been pounding the shit out afghanistan, it can loiter awhile.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/08/02/the-air-forces-record-breaking-b-1-deployment/ (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/08/02/the-air-forces-record-breaking-b-1-deployment/)
Quote from: Raux on December 03, 2012, 10:56:26 AM
the B1 has been pounding the shit out afghanistan, it can loiter awhile.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/08/02/the-air-forces-record-breaking-b-1-deployment/ (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/08/02/the-air-forces-record-breaking-b-1-deployment/)
I'm astounded that they could provide 6 months+ of round-the-clock coverage with only 400 airmen and 9 planes, using *any* plane that big and complicated.
Quote from: Raux on December 03, 2012, 10:56:26 AM
the B1 has been pounding the shit out afghanistan, it can loiter awhile.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/08/02/the-air-forces-record-breaking-b-1-deployment/ (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/08/02/the-air-forces-record-breaking-b-1-deployment/)
Maybe, but it still has been an extremely expensive airplane, plagued by problems from the beginning. It's good they seem to have found a use for it.
Quote from: Triple J on December 03, 2012, 11:25:18 AM
Maybe, but it still has been an extremely expensive airplane, plagued by problems from the beginning. It's good they seem to have found a use for it.
And yet still cheaper than the F-35. That blows my mind.
Growing up near Edwards, the B-1 really is a cool plane to see fly.
Quote from: B.Rock on December 03, 2012, 12:04:06 PM
And yet still cheaper than the F-35. That blows my mind.
Growing up near Edwards, the B-1 really is a cool plane to see fly.
That is pretty crazy.
I like seeing them all fly as well...my dad was a firefighter at Nellis AFB, so I got to see a lot of cool planes. [thumbsup]