brabus Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 I think I'm going to start writing opinion articles on how shitty I think the Navy's newest boat is - after all, I know a shitload about boats, everyone listen to me! What an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Spike Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 War is Boring has another F-35 article, now it's too slow and hot (not in the good way) to win https://medium.com/war-is-boring/no-the-f-35-can-t-fight-at-long-range-either-5508913252dd They hate that jet so much they finally went full retard. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Møøse Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 That article was written like a shitty college essay: search for quotes that support your idea, dismiss the claims of the side you disagree with, and assume the claims of the opposition are fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 That article was written like a shitty college essay: search for quotes that support your idea, dismiss the claims of the side you disagree with, and assume the claims of the opposition are fact. This man is ready to DG ACSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Change in course? Dunford: Pentagon Reconsidering Planned Size of F-35 Fleet Pentagon Reconsidering Total F-35 Buy, Dunford Says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
di1630 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Everyone who knew anything knew it would get smaller. Besides, by the time that last F-35 rolls off the line in 2035, 96.69% of what made it a great fighter on paper in 1997 will be irrelevant. We are already seeing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeA10 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Looks like the Aussies are dropping the F-35B. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aussies-to-be-first-to-dump-f-35-program-long-range-strike-bomber-decision-moved-back-lmco-textron-bid-for-little-orphan-sikorsky-030435/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Looks like the Aussies are dropping the F-35B. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aussies-to-be-first-to-dump-f-35-program-long-range-strike-bomber-decision-moved-back-lmco-textron-bid-for-little-orphan-sikorsky-030435/ Why did Australia even want a VSTOL model in the first place? Edit: Just saw they have two assault style carriers. Edited July 11, 2015 by StoleIt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Why did Australia even want a VSTOL model in the first place? Edit: Just saw they have two assault style carriers. They do but they haven't ever operated jets off them... However it's the same boat the Spanish have, and they do plan to operate jets off of it. A lot of noise is being made that this isn't so much a cancellation as waiting for the Spanish to do the feasibility of getting it working off that boat before the Aussies bite in to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Ski jump hornet - now make that the Advanced Capability Hornet and that is your F-35B alternative. Surprised the Rafale hasn't made any inroads with the Brits - Aussies - Spanish - Italians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Ski jump hornet - now make that the Advanced Capability Hornet and that is your F-35B alternative. Surprised the Rafale hasn't made any inroads with the Brits - Aussies - Spanish - Italians The juice is not worth the squeeze on this one. For one ski jump ships are on a tonnage level significantly larger than the assault ships you would be modifying no to mention vessels like Varyag and Kuznetsov are capable of greater speed for operations allowing better wind over the deck. The other part of it is while the sea Flankers and Navalized Fulcrums along with the SU-25 have shown the ability to fly off a ski jump boat they do so without anywhere near the ordnance load and fuel their designs can use so it's like fighting with 60% of your combat power. Hornet is already at a TW deficient when compared to both those planes, I doubt it would be an improvement. The other issue is while the ski jump worked great for the invincible class ships made into Harrier Carriers for an assault ship it means giving up two parking spots on the deck if not more which is why we never incorporated it into our designs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) The juice is not worth the squeeze on this one. For one ski jump ships are on a tonnage level significantly larger than the assault ships you would be modifying no to mention vessels like Varyag and Kuznetsov are capable of greater speed for operations allowing better wind over the deck. The other part of it is while the sea Flankers and Navalized Fulcrums along with the SU-25 have shown the ability to fly off a ski jump boat they do so without anywhere near the ordnance load and fuel their designs can use so it's like fighting with 60% of your combat power. Hornet is already at a TW deficient when compared to both those planes, I doubt it would be an improvement. The other issue is while the ski jump worked great for the invincible class ships made into Harrier Carriers for an assault ship it means giving up two parking spots on the deck if not more which is why we never incorporated it into our designs. True - the Canberra class is significantly smaller than the Kuznetsov class carrier with a ski jump but don't discount the ski jump concept because it can't put as heavy a jet as cat assisted launch. While the Canberra class probably could not handle a Super-duper bug it's the idea that you field what you can afford and work with those capabilities that I argue for. Not everyone can afford a nuclear powered carrier with a steam or EAL system but a lot countries that have or want carriers could afford a ski jump oil burner boat that could get probably 20-30 WOD. China is getting their Su-33 off (sts) with 4,000 lbs. of ordinance while a Superbug can launch with 12,000+ lbs. (no mention of fuel and take reference with salt but seems reasonable) Obviously the cat setup is mucho better but it's not like the ski jump is crap. Bring back weight is also a big problem with STOVL, the Harrier has been dropping ordinance into the drink for years because of vertical performance limits, SRVL will help with this but you are still limited in what can be brought back . Can't argue with the loss of parking for RW aircraft, google'd and seems no one has tried a variable ramp for a ski jump carrier, might as well get a catapult at that point I guess. Add-on now BO.net is Code 1: Found this simulation result on Hornet ski jump feasibility here. Edited July 13, 2015 by Clark Griswold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PinkFive Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 The Aviationist posted this today: http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/13/f-35-pilot-about-flight-helmet/ Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
di1630 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I'm really curious if the F-35 was designed never to bfm, get close to a threat, strafe etc....why do you need a helmet that can look through the floorboards? Can someone give me a reason for this thing other than cool factor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I'm really curious if the F-35 was designed never to bfm, get close to a threat, strafe etc....why do you need a helmet that can look through the floorboards? Can someone give me a reason for this thing other than cool factor? I'd venture to guess so you can shoot an AIM-9X with a virtual unlimited employment envelope. Oh the guy is under me? I don't even have to roll and then look up for him, I can just look down at my crotch and the missile will see him. Gives a whole new definition to "look down, shoot down" in that scenario too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeA10 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Not sure what is priced at $400 USD but I remember $250,000 in some briefing. Anyway, I think they started down the road of all data into the helmet and just kept going. Why not feed all imagery into the helmet? The part about "not being designed" for BFM is rather ridiculous. Look at the F-22. For a stealthy jet, it is one outstanding BFM machine. The lack of maneuverability compared to other fighters is more a result of compromise for the lift fan that the A and C share. Plus with a 5.5G limit on the B model, you can't really BFM much of anything. So, once again, the boat anchor of a fuselage is taking the others down with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
di1630 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I'd venture to guess so you can shoot an AIM-9X with a virtual unlimited employment envelope. Oh the guy is under me? I don't even have to roll and then look up for him, I can just look down at my crotch and the missile will see him. Gives a whole new definition to "look down, shoot down" in that scenario too. So it's designed to be stealth, but it may need to carry aim 9x in a non-stealthy config.....again, I'd like to know when this would be used? And you don't need a 400k even a 250k helmet to do that. Last I heard the lightweight scorpion nvg compatible, color Hmcs was going for 50k per kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HU&W Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I'm really curious if the F-35 was designed never to bfm, get close to a threat, strafe etc.... I've been wondering something similar with this plane for awhile. For all those reasons you mention, wouldn't a crew aircraft make more sense? All the missions we have recently been ascribing to the 35 really seem to fit a minimum of Pilot+WSO, if not more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 So it's designed to be stealth, but it may need to carry aim 9x in a non-stealthy config.....again, I'd like to know when this would be used? And you don't need a 400k even a 250k helmet to do that. Last I heard the lightweight scorpion nvg compatible, color Hmcs was going for 50k per kit. Haing had HMD our whole life the difference in a subtle and recent change in technology is huge. The original IHADDS helmet on A-D apache are 90 grand a piece. Most of the money is the IR harness that he infrared SSDs use to track helmet position. Well now with the E model we get a totally magnetic system that until only recently (ie last 10 years) never existed in a usable state. Helmets are below 10 grand and the system it's self is cheaper and easier to maintain. JHMCS was looked at on the E upgrade but the mag system on the HGU-56 was cheaper. So I have no doubt the JSF helmet could be much cheaper if it wasn't for the fact a minor change takes 10 years in acquisitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Spike Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I've been wondering something similar with this plane for awhile. For all those reasons you mention, wouldn't a crew aircraft make more sense? All the missions we have recently been ascribing to the 35 really seem to fit a minimum of Pilot+WSO, if not more. Most fighter pilots would rather have the extra gas. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stract Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 The F-35 thread is the only one I can open without getting a database error. I've tried several threads here and in the other forums with no luck. Also tried logging out and logging back in, again with no luck. Except this thread. Are others having problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurelySerious Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 The F-35 thread is the only one I can open without getting a database error. I've tried several threads here and in the other forums with no luck. Also tried logging out and logging back in, again with no luck. Except this thread. Are others having problems? So you're saying, for once, something F-35 related is operational? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Spike Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 The F-35 thread is the only one I can open without getting a database error. I've tried several threads here and in the other forums with no luck. Also tried logging out and logging back in, again with no luck. Except this thread. Are others having problems? That's because this thread is sponsored by Lockheed Martin and Carl's Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcraftllc Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I'm really curious if the F-35 was designed never to bfm, get close to a threat, strafe etc....why do you need a helmet that can look through the floorboards? Can someone give me a reason for this thing other than cool factor? The Apache is probably the next closest thing to an aircraft that allows the pilot to "see through the floor", and the main advantage is navigating at night. As you could imagine, it's extremely frustrating to have the mission be effected by the moon position, and there is very little ambient lighting in combat so you can't really navigate and avoid mountains that well with NVGs unless the moon is out. Spec Ops and Medevac aircraft are equipped with FLIR systems to help mitigate this since they really can't depend on the illumination to do their work, but the Apache is the only one with a dedicated head-tracking system. This is a crude mechanical design that doesn't have the spherical coverage with integrated cameras like the F-35, but it's still an awesome tool. The guy in the video was just saying that it isn't practical for targeting or for simple convenience in the daytime. The feature may be a bit oversold by Lockheed but I'd imagine it's still totally useful. With that said, is it just me or does that guy not care too much about his career in the AF? I mean, good on him for being frank because we all really do deserve the down-and-dirty on the situation, but geez man, I wouldn't want to bring that unwanted attention to me if I was working on (or in a position to benefit from) the F-35 program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
di1630 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I just think it has a lot of cool things not of much use. Back in '08 I went to the factory to meet with engineers as I was doing a paper on some of the systems. While flying the sim I heard a lot of "this plane wasn't designed to do that" ie fly low, do bfm, strafe, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now