Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
    Results 26 to 50 of 50

    Thread: F-35C may not be suitable for carrier use

    1. Member Ikey3125's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 27th, 2008
      Location
      Fairchild AFB/Spokane WA
      Posts
      4,846
      Vehicles
      08 .:R 2763/5000
      01-17-2012 01:16 PM #26
      Quote Originally Posted by Geekengineer View Post
      WTH, Lockheed? Oh, that's because they went with the stupid lift fan. Wow. Fail plane is failure.
      I heard somewhere that the augmenter module of the F-35B engine has somewhere around a million moving parts...aka 1,000,000 points of failure...and I'm sorry, I don't want that many moving parts on something that is critical for take off and landing.

    2. Member
      Join Date
      Dec 11th, 2002
      Location
      PNW
      Posts
      5,028
      Vehicles
      Golf TDI, CBR1000F, Stinson Voyager
      01-17-2012 01:37 PM #27
      Quote Originally Posted by Geekengineer View Post
      Finally, someone else sees the glaring truth about the F-35B and that damnable lift fan.
      Ack!! The F-35 program always gets me wound up when I think about it!
      The thing that no one want to admit is that vertical landing, while it's a really neat stunt, is almost never used in combat conditions and imposes huge compromises on an aircraft's performance, basically turning it into a one-trick pony. Talk to a Harrier pilot some time. They are slow, short-legged (and maintenance hogs) that are fun to fly at airshows.
      How many US Harrier combat missions have required vertical landing in the last 20 years? How much more ordinance could Marines have put on target if they'd had a non-V/STOL airplane like an F/A-18 or an A-10 that can haul a dozen bombs?!?
      And combat pilots laugh at the concept of 'viffing'; it throws away energy from an airplane that doesn't bring much to the fight to start with. Read the accounts of the Brits flying Harriers in the Falkland War.
      And low-observability is soooo important, but the f-35's quoted equivalent radar cross section has been enlarged substantially since the optimistic 'sales-brochure' numbers that helped sell the airplane.
      X-32 all the way, baby.
      (Plus, it looks cooler.)
      If it's not foggy
      and you have your fog |ights on
      you are a doofus.
      "Pro Tip: Don't **** with people who've been trollin' longer than you've been alive." - OOOO-A3

    3. 01-17-2012 02:12 PM #28
      Quote Originally Posted by Gern_Blanston View Post
      . . . X-32 all the way, baby.
      (Plus, it looks cooler.) . . .
      Yeah, I don't know about that:



      I happen to work for a company that is reaping some good benefits from the JSF's delay, but I still can't agree with all trash talking of the program. Having worked on controversial programs before, I know what it's like to have every one of your teething pains broadcast to the world and "armchair engineered" by folks that don't have a clue what they're talking about.

      For example, the failure to catch a wire during roll-in testing is embarrassing, but the notion that "there is no apparent way to fix it" is ludicrous. Not apparent to the blogger, maybe, but I'm sure that those in the know have several fixes in the works. No aircraft has ever rolled off the line perfect the first time 'round. For example, several folks have talked about the 100 day development of the P-51. What no one talks about, however, is that the P-51A was relegated to ground attack when it was discovered that it didn't stack up as a fighter and it's wasn't until the D-model came out that it became a legend. I'm not saying the F-35 is going to be a legend, but at least let 'em work out the kinks before you try to see how it rates.

      And one final thought: While it's true that you can't strap external stores to the JSF without destroying its stealthiness, what can you strap to an F-16 or A-10 to make it stealthy? It makes perfect sense to me to use the "slick" airplanes to knock out the enemy air defenses, then load 'em up with bombs when stealth is less important.

    4. Member Zombiee313's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 27th, 2011
      Location
      Bay Area, CA
      Posts
      250
      Vehicles
      Old Ford Truck
      01-17-2012 02:20 PM #29
      Quote Originally Posted by gr8shandini View Post
      Yeah, I don't know about that:

      yeah that plane is one ugly bitch

      I happen to work for a company that is reaping some good benefits from the JSF's delay, but I still can't agree with all trash talking of the program. Having worked on controversial programs before, I know what it's like to have every one of your teething pains broadcast to the world and "armchair engineered" by folks that don't have a clue what they're talking about.
      I would not BRAG about benefiting from a program being crappy
      Yeah it does such to have the "teething pains broadcast" but at the same time... get it right the first time and then the multiple failures of the program won't be broadcast

      For example, the failure to catch a wire during roll-in testing is embarrassing, but the notion that "there is no apparent way to fix it" is ludicrous. Not apparent to the blogger, maybe, but I'm sure that those in the know have several fixes in the works. No aircraft has ever rolled off the line perfect the first time 'round. For example, several folks have talked about the 100 day development of the P-51. What no one talks about, however, is that the P-51A was relegated to ground attack when it was discovered that it didn't stack up as a fighter and it's wasn't until the D-model came out that it became a legend. I'm not saying the F-35 is going to be a legend, but at least let 'em work out the kinks before you try to see how it rates.
      There is NO excuse for the "failure to catch"... I would argue it is beyond embarrassing.

      And one final thought: While it's true that you can't strap external stores to the JSF without destroying its stealthiness, what can you strap to an F-16 or A-10 to make it stealthy? It makes perfect sense to me to use the "slick" airplanes to knock out the enemy air defenses, then load 'em up with bombs when stealth is less important.
      What good is a stealthy plane with no weapons?

      You don't have to make F-15/F-16/A-10 stealthy... cruise missiles, B-2 bombers, and electronic warfare take out the need for stealth..... Besides A-10's can fly low enough that it doesn't really matter as much as you think it does.... Plus if you are in the Military Industrial Complex and you know anything about the current generation of aircraft then you know how good some of the current electronic and physical countermeasures are at preventing those planes from being shot down.
      Quote Originally Posted by Elbows View Post
      You should instead be praising the fact that life is so good, and safe that you can be afforded the luxury to be outraged by the death of one civilian, at the other end of the world. That's phenomenal.
      Quote Originally Posted by Jim Harbaugh
      Who's got it better then us?!? ...... Nooooo-body!!!

    5. Member Zombiee313's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 27th, 2011
      Location
      Bay Area, CA
      Posts
      250
      Vehicles
      Old Ford Truck
      01-17-2012 02:28 PM #30
      Quote Originally Posted by Gern_Blanston View Post
      Ack!! The F-35 program always gets me wound up when I think about it!
      The thing that no one want to admit is that vertical landing, while it's a really neat stunt, is almost never used in combat conditions and imposes huge compromises on an aircraft's performance, basically turning it into a one-trick pony. Talk to a Harrier pilot some time. They are slow, short-legged (and maintenance hogs) that are fun to fly at airshows.
      How many US Harrier combat missions have required vertical landing in the last 20 years? How much more ordinance could Marines have put on target if they'd had a non-V/STOL airplane like an F/A-18 or an A-10 that can haul a dozen bombs?!?
      And combat pilots laugh at the concept of 'viffing'; it throws away energy from an airplane that doesn't bring much to the fight to start with. Read the accounts of the Brits flying Harriers in the Falkland War.
      I agree
      Also I have to add when I was in the USAF I made friends with a big group of Brits that were on my base TDY training with my pilots.... I got to go over there and go all over a harrier... they even let me fire it up and play with a lot of the systems while I was in the pilots seat.... Those planes are awesome.... but from what I could see and from what they told me... those planes are a NIGHTMARE to work on

      And low-observability is soooo important, but the f-35's quoted equivalent radar cross section has been enlarged substantially since the optimistic 'sales-brochure' numbers that helped sell the airplane.
      X-32 all the way, baby.
      (Plus, it looks cooler.)
      You think the X-32 would NOT be having the same problems right now? I think based on the multitude of demands and requirements on this program that it was destined to be a failure from the get go..... plus sorry but the X-32 is ugly when you look at it from any angle other then the one you posted the picture of
      Quote Originally Posted by Elbows View Post
      You should instead be praising the fact that life is so good, and safe that you can be afforded the luxury to be outraged by the death of one civilian, at the other end of the world. That's phenomenal.
      Quote Originally Posted by Jim Harbaugh
      Who's got it better then us?!? ...... Nooooo-body!!!

    6. 01-17-2012 02:45 PM #31
      Quote Originally Posted by Zombiee313 View Post
      I would not BRAG about benefiting from a program being crappy
      Yeah it does such to have the "teething pains broadcast" but at the same time... get it right the first time and then the multiple failures of the program won't be broadcast
      . . . .
      That wasn't meant to be a brag. I was just pointing out that harping on another program's defects bothers me, even though it would be in my best financial interest to see JSF cancelled.

      As for getting it right the first time, that's why we do flight test. Every design decision gets justified by hundreds of computer simulations, but sometimes what the computer says just ain't what happens in the real world. There's nothing much you can do about that.

    7. Member Ikey3125's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 27th, 2008
      Location
      Fairchild AFB/Spokane WA
      Posts
      4,846
      Vehicles
      08 .:R 2763/5000
      01-17-2012 02:45 PM #32
      Quote Originally Posted by Zombiee313 View Post
      I agree
      Also I have to add when I was in the USAF I made friends with a big group of Brits that were on my base TDY training with my pilots.... I got to go over there and go all over a harrier... they even let me fire it up and play with a lot of the systems while I was in the pilots seat.... Those planes are awesome.... but from what I could see and from what they told me... those planes are a NIGHTMARE to work on
      At Kadena we had Marines there with some, and in order to change an engine, you had to remove the wings and use a crane to lift it out

    8. Member
      Join Date
      Dec 11th, 2002
      Location
      PNW
      Posts
      5,028
      Vehicles
      Golf TDI, CBR1000F, Stinson Voyager
      01-17-2012 02:56 PM #33
      Quote Originally Posted by Zombiee313 View Post
      You think the X-32 would NOT be having the same problems right now? I think based on the multitude of demands and requirements on this program that it was destined to be a failure from the get go..... plus sorry but the X-32 is ugly when you look at it from any angle other then the one you posted the picture of
      Nah, I'm sure the '32 would have had problems too.
      And why do you think I googled for half an hour to find a good-looking pic?!?
      If it's not foggy
      and you have your fog |ights on
      you are a doofus.
      "Pro Tip: Don't **** with people who've been trollin' longer than you've been alive." - OOOO-A3

    9. Member Zombiee313's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 27th, 2011
      Location
      Bay Area, CA
      Posts
      250
      Vehicles
      Old Ford Truck
      01-17-2012 03:08 PM #34
      Quote Originally Posted by Gern_Blanston View Post
      Nah, I'm sure the '32 would have had problems too.
      And why do you think I googled for half an hour to find a good-looking pic?!?
      I am surprised at your dedication to find the ONLY angle where the plane actually looks good
      Quote Originally Posted by Elbows View Post
      You should instead be praising the fact that life is so good, and safe that you can be afforded the luxury to be outraged by the death of one civilian, at the other end of the world. That's phenomenal.
      Quote Originally Posted by Jim Harbaugh
      Who's got it better then us?!? ...... Nooooo-body!!!

    10. Member Zombiee313's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 27th, 2011
      Location
      Bay Area, CA
      Posts
      250
      Vehicles
      Old Ford Truck
      01-17-2012 03:09 PM #35
      Quote Originally Posted by gr8shandini View Post
      That wasn't meant to be a brag. I was just pointing out that harping on another program's defects bothers me, even though it would be in my best financial interest to see JSF cancelled.
      I was being sarcastic but you get my point though right?

      As for getting it right the first time, that's why we do flight test. Every design decision gets justified by hundreds of computer simulations, but sometimes what the computer says just ain't what happens in the real world. There's nothing much you can do about that.
      There is one major thing they could do differently... get better engineers
      Quote Originally Posted by Elbows View Post
      You should instead be praising the fact that life is so good, and safe that you can be afforded the luxury to be outraged by the death of one civilian, at the other end of the world. That's phenomenal.
      Quote Originally Posted by Jim Harbaugh
      Who's got it better then us?!? ...... Nooooo-body!!!

    11. Member Zombiee313's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 27th, 2011
      Location
      Bay Area, CA
      Posts
      250
      Vehicles
      Old Ford Truck
      01-17-2012 03:27 PM #36
      My question is why are we wasting money on the F-35 when we could either upgrade the F-16 or just get the Eurofighter or Rafale?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale


      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon


      In 2004, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper said after flying the Eurofighter, "I have flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter."
      Just to stir the pot a little bit

      Quote Originally Posted by Elbows View Post
      You should instead be praising the fact that life is so good, and safe that you can be afforded the luxury to be outraged by the death of one civilian, at the other end of the world. That's phenomenal.
      Quote Originally Posted by Jim Harbaugh
      Who's got it better then us?!? ...... Nooooo-body!!!

    12. Senior Member AZGolf's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 6th, 2000
      Location
      Phoenix area
      Posts
      23,852
      01-17-2012 06:19 PM #37
      Quote Originally Posted by Zombiee313 View Post
      You don't have to make F-15/F-16/A-10 stealthy... cruise missiles, B-2 bombers, and electronic warfare take out the need for stealth.....
      The F-35/JSF is an export aircraft, while the B-2 is not. While it's fine and dandy for the US to use the B-2 as our primary stealth bomber, that still leaves all of the partner countries without a stealth bomber, as they do not have access to our B-2's.

    13. Member Zombiee313's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 27th, 2011
      Location
      Bay Area, CA
      Posts
      250
      Vehicles
      Old Ford Truck
      01-17-2012 07:38 PM #38
      Quote Originally Posted by AZGolf View Post
      ... as they do not have access to our B-2's.
      tough **** they should develop their own

      Any of the countries that we want have their own ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES.... plus we would probably help them out with our ECM / Stealth abilities... you only really need those when you are establishing air superiority... once you have air superiority then those measures are not as much of a concern
      Quote Originally Posted by Elbows View Post
      You should instead be praising the fact that life is so good, and safe that you can be afforded the luxury to be outraged by the death of one civilian, at the other end of the world. That's phenomenal.
      Quote Originally Posted by Jim Harbaugh
      Who's got it better then us?!? ...... Nooooo-body!!!

    14. Member
      Join Date
      Dec 11th, 2002
      Location
      PNW
      Posts
      5,028
      Vehicles
      Golf TDI, CBR1000F, Stinson Voyager
      01-17-2012 08:16 PM #39
      Quote Originally Posted by Zombiee313 View Post
      My question is why are we wasting money on the F-35 when we could either upgrade the F-16 or just get the Eurofighter or Rafale?
      Because they don't create any jobs in the districts of porky senators.

      Quote Originally Posted by AZGolf View Post
      ...it's fine and dandy for the US to use the B-2 as our primary stealth bomber...
      All, what?... 2 dozen of 'em?
      If it's not foggy
      and you have your fog |ights on
      you are a doofus.
      "Pro Tip: Don't **** with people who've been trollin' longer than you've been alive." - OOOO-A3

    15. Member Zombiee313's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 27th, 2011
      Location
      Bay Area, CA
      Posts
      250
      Vehicles
      Old Ford Truck
      01-17-2012 08:30 PM #40
      Quote Originally Posted by Gern_Blanston View Post
      Because they don't create any jobs in the districts of porky senators.
      Stupid government fraud and abuse


      All, what?... 2 dozen of 'em?
      23.... didn't they crash and burn with one in Guam a couple months ago or something.... Wasn't that the Spirit of San Francisco.... get it crashed and burned.... because it went up in flames....

      get it? don't worry I will be here all week folks... be sure to tip your waitresses
      Quote Originally Posted by Elbows View Post
      You should instead be praising the fact that life is so good, and safe that you can be afforded the luxury to be outraged by the death of one civilian, at the other end of the world. That's phenomenal.
      Quote Originally Posted by Jim Harbaugh
      Who's got it better then us?!? ...... Nooooo-body!!!

    16. Member
      Join Date
      Dec 11th, 2002
      Location
      PNW
      Posts
      5,028
      Vehicles
      Golf TDI, CBR1000F, Stinson Voyager
      01-17-2012 08:36 PM #41
      If it's not foggy
      and you have your fog |ights on
      you are a doofus.
      "Pro Tip: Don't **** with people who've been trollin' longer than you've been alive." - OOOO-A3

    17. Member Zombiee313's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 27th, 2011
      Location
      Bay Area, CA
      Posts
      250
      Vehicles
      Old Ford Truck
      01-17-2012 08:44 PM #42
      I posted a new thread with a Poll to talk about the F-35 vs other options.... just want to see your opinions
      Quote Originally Posted by Elbows View Post
      You should instead be praising the fact that life is so good, and safe that you can be afforded the luxury to be outraged by the death of one civilian, at the other end of the world. That's phenomenal.
      Quote Originally Posted by Jim Harbaugh
      Who's got it better then us?!? ...... Nooooo-body!!!

    18. Member dubfan's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 25th, 2002
      Location
      Orlando, FL
      Posts
      3,888
      Vehicles
      2007 GLI
      01-17-2012 11:02 PM #43
      Quote Originally Posted by Gern_Blanston View Post
      Ack!! The F-35 program always gets me wound up when I think about it!
      The thing that no one want to admit is that vertical landing, while it's a really neat stunt, is almost never used in combat conditions and imposes huge compromises on an aircraft's performance, basically turning it into a one-trick pony. Talk to a Harrier pilot some time. They are slow, short-legged (and maintenance hogs) that are fun to fly at airshows.
      I actually did

      Worked with one, as a matter of fact, David Poole, CDR, RN. He was VP of Engineering of a small aerospace startup I worked at in the 90s. He flew the Sea Harrier during carrier trials. Has a Martin-Baker tie from it, too. Also flew F-4s during the Falklands era, developed high-AOA air combat tactics for the Royal Navy. His specialty was controlling yaw at high AOA using differential thrust.

      He quite liked the Harrier, actually, thought it a MUCH underrated air-to-air platform, particularly as a dogfighter (!) because of its low observable characteristics. Had a very small frontal cross section and relatively clean-burning exhaust. In contrast to say, F-14s, which he often went up against in simulated air combat exercises and which he derided as "great big smoky things".

      When I pressed him to pick an airplane he actually would choose to go to war in, though, he somewhat shamefacedly picked the F/A-18 as the best compromise of airframe, avionics, weapons. He wasn't happy about it, though He really loved his F-4s -- "big, fast, loud -- very American".
      "Personally, I believe that 'fairness' consists in the fruits of my labor not being taken by corrupt hacks to redistribute to their cronies in exchange for votes." -- Glenn Reynolds

    19. Member Zombiee313's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 27th, 2011
      Location
      Bay Area, CA
      Posts
      250
      Vehicles
      Old Ford Truck
      01-17-2012 11:10 PM #44
      At least the F-35B can use a carrier

      Quote Originally Posted by Elbows View Post
      You should instead be praising the fact that life is so good, and safe that you can be afforded the luxury to be outraged by the death of one civilian, at the other end of the world. That's phenomenal.
      Quote Originally Posted by Jim Harbaugh
      Who's got it better then us?!? ...... Nooooo-body!!!

    20. 01-18-2012 12:26 AM #45
      Damn I miss the F-14...

    21. Member Ikey3125's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 27th, 2008
      Location
      Fairchild AFB/Spokane WA
      Posts
      4,846
      Vehicles
      08 .:R 2763/5000
      01-18-2012 12:38 AM #46
      Quote Originally Posted by AlexVespaTx View Post
      Damn I miss the F-14...
      Think we need to go back to 1 mission 1 jet days...all these multirole do everything under the sun jets are horrible. Every hear the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none," thats what the JSF is gonna be. Be able to do alot, just not very good at all the task

    22. 01-18-2012 10:03 AM #47
      Quote Originally Posted by Ikey3125 View Post
      Think we need to go back to 1 mission 1 jet days...all these multirole do everything under the sun jets are horrible. Every hear the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none," thats what the JSF is gonna be. Be able to do alot, just not very good at all the task
      That works fine and dandy when you have an airbase that can park tons of planes. On a carrier where space is an issue for parking/maintenance/etc. it would seem that multirole aircraft can solve a lot of the problems.

    23. Member Zombiee313's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 27th, 2011
      Location
      Bay Area, CA
      Posts
      250
      Vehicles
      Old Ford Truck
      01-18-2012 01:49 PM #48
      Quote Originally Posted by joness0154 View Post
      That works fine and dandy when you have an airbase that can park tons of planes. On a carrier where space is an issue for parking/maintenance/etc. it would seem that multirole aircraft can solve a lot of the problems.
      It solves some problems, but it also creates a bunch of problems.

      Multi-role Aircraft = Compromised Airframe that can do different things, but none of it exceptionally well

      I do like that they are replacing the EA-6B with the EF/A-18G ... that is a good job by the Navy
      Quote Originally Posted by Elbows View Post
      You should instead be praising the fact that life is so good, and safe that you can be afforded the luxury to be outraged by the death of one civilian, at the other end of the world. That's phenomenal.
      Quote Originally Posted by Jim Harbaugh
      Who's got it better then us?!? ...... Nooooo-body!!!

    24. Member efritsch's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 21st, 2002
      Location
      Kelowna B.C.
      Posts
      8,284
      Vehicles
      2004 Golf 2L, 1992 Passat Syncro Wagon, 1987 Fox Wagon (Project)
      01-29-2012 11:26 AM #49
      I just caught this thread and just watched that video and I tend to agree.

      The F-35 seems to be too big of a compromise to do everything everyone wants it to. While the B Version can land vertically, its appears that it would take longer to cycle jets that way than the 'old fashion' way.

      I think different, purpose specific aircraft are still the way to go.
      Quote Originally Posted by 90quattrocoupe
      I am old enough that I only have to be nice when I want to.

    25. Senior Member NoDubJustYet's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 25th, 2002
      Location
      WNoVA
      Posts
      29,105
      Vehicles
      MkV GTI
      01-31-2012 12:28 PM #50
      Quote Originally Posted by dubfan View Post
      When I pressed him to pick an airplane he actually would choose to go to war in, though, he somewhat shamefacedly picked the F/A-18 as the best compromise of airframe, avionics, weapons. He wasn't happy about it, though He really loved his F-4s -- "big, fast, loud -- very American".
      Hell yeah! Best aircraft ever!
      كافر
      Save the Nürburgring!

      Quote Originally Posted by Cousin Eddie View Post
      Gotta keep right on the 'Ring. German road rules apply.
      Quote Originally Posted by NoDubJustYet View Post
      I think you and I have mentioned this one a few times over the years.
      Quote Originally Posted by Cousin Eddie View Post
      Might as well just make it our signatures at this point.

    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •