Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 280 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,026 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
I find pedal turn ability fascinating in a fixed wing aircraft
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
The link reads like a press release from Lockheed-Martin. I noticed they didn't mention that after it's comparatively short flight time it take two days maintenance before it can fly again.

It's a grossly overpriced and under performing white elephant that should have been cancelled years ago.
 

·
Militant Normal
Joined
·
10,410 Posts
Within visual range, it's 90% pilot and 10% aircraft anyway. As master fighter pilots such as Yeager and Boyd have conclusively proven.

When the US acquired its' first Mig 15, it was mock-combat tested against our F-86. Yeager flew both planes, and regardless which plane he was in, he always came out on top. Even in the MIG, which had notorious instability problems, and usually couldn't recover from a spin.

BTW read the development history of the B-29. The airplane that prevented the invasion of Japan. Ir was still being debugged when the war ended.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,284 Posts
Just in case people didnt notice, the article is from June of 2017.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robot

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,521 Posts
When the US acquired its' first Mig 15, it was mock-combat tested against our F-86. Yeager flew both planes, and regardless which plane he was in, he always came out on top. Even in the MIG, which had notorious instability problems, and usually couldn't recover from a spin.
The MiG-15 - which traces its roots to the Focke-Wulf Ta183.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
All I know is that I wouldn't want to be in the cockpit with that big fan spinning behind my head. Last one-for-all solution was the F111, which resulted in the Navy paying for the F14 and the Air Force paying for the F15 all of which were obsolete in terms of fighting the hot version of the Cold War. Lockheed has a reputation for building expensive, complicated aircraft that are seldom mass produced.
The F104 was a space-age pig that we had to pay the Germans to fly. The YF12 was the mass produced strategic fighter version of the SR71, which was rendered obsolete by spy satellites before it was built.
If not for the C130 Lockheed would have gone out of business by the end of the Korean War.
The F35 was supposed to replace the F16 as our budget export fighter, but now it costs more than the F22.
 

·
Militant Normal
Joined
·
10,410 Posts
All I know is that I wouldn't want to be in the cockpit with that big fan spinning behind my head. Last one-for-all solution was the F111, which resulted in the Navy paying for the F14, both of which were obsolete before they came on line.
Do I have to remind the assembled multitude again that only the Marine version has the fan? It gets the glamor photos, but it's actually a small minority of the planes that will be built.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,364 Posts
All I know is that I wouldn't want to be in the cockpit with that big fan spinning behind my head. Last one-for-all solution was the F111, which resulted in the Navy paying for the F14 and the Air Force paying for the F15 all of which were obsolete in terms of fighting the hot version of the Cold War. Lockheed has a reputation for building expensive, complicated aircraft that are seldom mass produced.
The F104 was a space-age pig that we had to pay the Germans to fly. The YF12 was the mass produced strategic fighter version of the SR71, which was rendered obsolete by spy satellites before it was built.
If not for the C130 Lockheed would have gone out of business by the end of the Korean War.
The F35 was supposed to replace the F16 as our budget export fighter, but now it costs more than the F22.
F-111 had its merits; the reason the Navy moved away from it was the weight of the aircraft - had it been lighter the F-14 would most likely never have seen the light of day. The F-111 was in service for years in the USAF and performed quite well.

Satellites did not render the SR-71 obsolete. The cost of operation rendered the SR-71 obsolete. The SR-71 flew long after the introduction of spy satellites and the U-2 still flies to this day.

The F-35 is replacing the F-16 - both domestically and internationally with trusted allies. The F-35 costs far less than an F-22. Most people think of the initial price when they think about the F-35; its cost has dropped dramatically. The F-35 now costs just under $85 million per plane.

If you wanted to buy a F-16 Block 70 (latest version) with all of the bells and whistles, that still falls far short of the F-35 capabilities, you are going to spend $60-$100 million if under FMS. If the buyer chooses not to participate in the FMS program you will spend $40-50 million per aircraft.

So, yes, the F-35 is an outstanding value for what you are getting.
 

·
Live Secret, Live Happy
Joined
·
15,595 Posts
Like a number of weapon programs, the F-35 was over sold. While it will do many things very well, it can not bust tanks with cannon fire like the A-10, it still does not meet the deep strike mission requirement of the Navy, and it is far more complicated to fly than the F-16.

I believe the Marine version will be an excellent replacement for the AV-8 Harrier.
The Navy version is better and far more survivalble than the F-18.
The F-35 is light years ahead of current strike aircraft used by our Allies.

I believe it is a good addition to our current mix of aircraft, but IMO the US still needs to develop a modern replacement of the A-10 Warthog.
 

·
Militant Normal
Joined
·
10,410 Posts
Or just build more 'Hogs. It's a very simple airframe.

Full disclosure: I'm very partial to the A-10; I worked on the program at Farmingdale. Put the job into a modern facility with less corruption, and you'd get a better-made airplane for less $$. We KNOW it does the job. Boeing is already tooled up to make wings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
F-111 had its merits; the reason the Navy moved away from it was the weight of the aircraft - had it been lighter the F-14 would most likely never have seen the light of day. The F-111 was in service for years in the USAF and performed quite well.

Satellites did not render the SR-71 obsolete. The cost of operation rendered the SR-71 obsolete. The SR-71 flew long after the introduction of spy satellites and the U-2 still flies to this day.

The F-35 is replacing the F-16 - both domestically and internationally with trusted allies. The F-35 costs far less than an F-22. Most people think of the initial price when they think about the F-35; its cost has dropped dramatically. The F-35 now costs just under $85 million per plane.

If you wanted to buy a F-16 Block 70 (latest version) with all of the bells and whistles, that still falls far short of the F-35 capabilities, you are going to spend $60-$100 million if under FMS. If the buyer chooses not to participate in the FMS program you will spend $40-50 million per aircraft.

So, yes, the F-35 is an outstanding value for what you are getting.
--I'm not pushing the F-14. To determine the need for an aircraft just determine how many times it fulfilled its primary mission. How many times did the F-14 shoot down an aircraft or missile that was attacking the fleet? It was an unnecessary weapon system same as the F-35. Saying that he F111 could have replaced the F-14 if it had been lighter is like saying "if it had been a fighter instead of a bomber, with a better radar and better missiles, had landing gear suitable for a flight deck" is like saying that if it had been a different airplane it could have replaced the F-14. Neither aircraft was necessary or worth what they cost.

Advances in Soviet missile technology rendered the SR-71 obsolete. Can't believe that it's cheaper to deploy a satellite than it is to operate an SR-71. The aircraft was obsolete before it was deployed, same as the F-14. The US needed a way to snoop on Russia and the Warsaw Pact. Satellites can and the SR-71 can't. U2s still fly, but not over Russia or any other country with comparable air defense systems.

There's no way to know how much it will cost to deploy the F-35 until it is deployed. It had better be lots cheaper considering that it has half as many engines and half the capabilities of the F-22. The main consideration is: how much better will the F-35 be than its predecessors and how much does the improvement cost?

The Russians, the US, China and all other major players discovered that for strategic purposes the missile is much cheaper and more survivable system than a manned delivery vehicle could ever be, which is why the B-70 was scrapped.
In the last few decades the same argument is being applied to tactical purposes. I'm not arguing against the F-35 in favor of the F-22, I'm arguing against any major expenditure on manned vehicles in favor of unmanned vehicles. It's all a question of bang for the buck. The primary limitation to all manned air weapon systems is the aircrew.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,521 Posts
F-111 had its merits; the reason the Navy moved away from it was the weight of the aircraft - had it been lighter the F-14 would most likely never have seen the light of day. The F-111 was in service for years in the USAF and performed quite well.
A good friend of mine was a 111 driver. It wasn't a good fighter. It was a decent light bomber. But as a fighter it was not.
 

·
Tactical Sommelier
Joined
·
969 Posts
^^ Nor is the F35 a "dog fighter" -- many of the military brass discussing the F35 have consistently explained that the Joint STRIKE Fighter was never designed to be the front line air combat platform ... specifically, "If you find yourself in a dogfight, you screwed up big time."..... The F35 is akin to the Red October SSBN- "designed to approach targets with stealth and destroy them with little or no warning" -- the F35 was designed to be able to flame the bad guys without them seeing you. If you have suddenly got into a close in dog fight, you screwed up.



Now as for ME, I think the F35 is a front program for money for something much more advanced, like on Stargate SG1. Space battle cruisers, son.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
The link reads like a press release from Lockheed-Martin. I noticed they didn't mention that after it's comparatively short flight time it take two days maintenance before it can fly again.

It's a grossly overpriced and under performing white elephant that should have been cancelled years ago.
One one hand I agree with you. The F16 and F18 are still awesome aircraft and avionics are always upgradeable. They are battle proven and still better than what other hostile nations are operating. These platforms are a cheaper way to go.

On the other hand I think the U.S. still needs to be developing next generation aircraft. Although I think the F-35 program is a boondoggle. I don't know how in this day and age we can spend hundreds of billions on something like the F-35 and get a subpar operating aircraft.

I mean we don't light off nukes undergound anymore because we have computers so powerful that they can perfectly simulate a nuclear blast for planning and design purposes.
 
1 - 20 of 280 Posts
Top