F-35 at Farnborough Airshow  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Homer J Simpson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 12:58:38 am
content: Stick with this until 6:00 in.If you are into aviation at all this is pretty cool stuff.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 01:10:08 am
content: Super impressive! I feel like the price paid should entitle all US citizens a 30min joy ride.

author: Homer J Simpson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 01:34:20 am
content: They are only $135 million a piece.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 01:44:46 am
content: "As of 2014, the F-35B is limited to 4.5 g and 400 knots. The next software upgrade includes weapons, and allows 5.5 g and Mach 1.2, with a final target of 7 g and Mach 1.6."So it's slow and can't pull a turn as hard as a 70s era aircraft. It's also late and expensive! Colour me unimpressed, give me back the Harrier.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 01:51:01 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on August 05, 2016, 01:44:46 amLOL - the Harrier is not a stealth airframe. It won't stand a chance against the F-35. It wouldn't even know what hit it.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 01:51:50 am
content: Quote from: xrunner on August 05, 2016, 01:51:01 amNo shit.The Harrier actually made it into service on time, though.. and worked to specification.And, y'know, we actually had them. Flying. Usable. Quite a few of them. How many F-35Bs do we have in service? Lemme use my fingers here.. right. 0.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 01:52:46 am
content: QFT -Quote from: Monkeh on August 05, 2016, 01:51:50 am

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 02:13:10 am
content: The Harrier was only effective against Argentina.The F-35 program is without a doubt a national embarrassment and a train wreck. The real yardstick is the F-22. Not cheap, but fully operational and there is no aircraft that comes close to matching it abilities and no competitors expected any time soon.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 02:15:10 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on August 05, 2016, 02:13:10 amNobody else has been willing to take us on after the pasting we gave them!

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 02:25:26 am
content: The Harrier required a real pilot. The F35 requires a supervisor.

author: Homer J Simpson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 02:40:50 am
content: Didn't the call the Harrier the "Widowmaker"?

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 02:42:57 am
content: Only the ones who can't fly it.

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 02:48:25 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on August 05, 2016, 02:13:10 am

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 03:05:07 am
content: Quote from: Alex Eisenhut on August 05, 2016, 02:48:25 amThe Northrop F-20 Tigershark suffered the same political fate decades ago.

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 03:10:44 am
content: "political fate decades ago"??I know a thing or two about that:

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 03:14:44 am
content: I'll see your Arrow, and raise you:

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 03:35:59 am
content: Quote from: Alex Eisenhut on August 05, 2016, 02:48:25 amI guess the F-22 had some advantages over the F-23, but boy does the F-23 look sexy -- really nice curves...The F-35 has been much maligned and has yet to prove itself but most all new aircraft are problem children at first. I suspect it will come around and I think that point is very near.The F-35 is not as maneuverable as some older AC like the F-16 and Russian AC are designed from the ground up for super maneuverability but if the F-16 or SU-35 is in flames and auguring into the ground because a missile from a plane they didn't see took them out that maneuverability doesn't count for much. Still, if the F-35 is highly outnumbered then it's likely to get to a furball and if that happens the SU-35 will eat it alive.The biggest problem I have with the F-35 is that it's trying to do too much and in so doing it isn't 100% at anything. I'd have preferred to leave hitting ground targets to drones with AC like the F-22 as cover. Frankly, although the F-22 is the newest and baddest thing in the air it to is getting a little old at 25 years of age and if I were the USAF looking over my shoulder at Russia and China I'd be hard at work on the F-22's replacement.As I see it top cover and air supremacy are the province of manned fighters but most everything else is better done by drones.Brian

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 03:56:35 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on August 05, 2016, 03:35:59 amYup, even the F-22's major advantage is not in maneuverability, but its avionics and weapons systems plus some stealth. It simply can shoot down opposing aircraft long before the opposition sees the F-22.

author: TimNJ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 04:34:59 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on August 05, 2016, 02:13:10 amNo it's not an amazing dogfighter or great at low altitude/speed support, but I think its jack of all trades approach is kind of the point. It's physical performance isn't amazing but it does have awesome onboard avionics and its very hard to lock on to.I might be a little biased since I'm a Lockheed employee, but everyone I know that works on F-35 really care about that plane and are really excited about its progress. Cost overruns are pretty insane, absolutely.

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 04:41:37 am
content: QuoteAlways and when the weapon system or radar system don't fail, because this plane fails as the donnybrook shootgun.But the great problem of the shoot to great distance, it is that the enemy can use decoys and other anti-missile systems for avoiding the missiles. And the F-35 haven't got many space

author: bitwelder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 05:49:23 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on August 05, 2016, 01:44:46 amOooh, I wonder if in the future they are going to sell software capped versions at cheaper prices

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 06:00:12 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on August 05, 2016, 01:51:50 amAnd let's not forget, the Americans still have the harriers we sold them on active duty, plus a load more they hoovered up for spares when we stopped using them

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 06:10:01 am
content: Quote from: bitwelder on August 05, 2016, 05:49:23 amOh I can see it nowQuote from: Trumpyboy

author: boffin
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 06:31:47 am
content: There was an excellent documentary on PBS about the contest between Boeing and Lockheed for the JSF, and when I watched it the 1st time, it always struck me that the much more conventional X32 was a better/safer/cheaper ideaPart1:Part2:

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 07:13:16 am
content: Quote from: bitwelder on August 05, 2016, 05:49:23 amI hope anyone offering firmware update hacks to unlock features a buyer 'paid for' doesn't brick the aircraft.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 07:19:57 am
content: Quote from: Alex Eisenhut on August 05, 2016, 03:10:44 amWhen the conversation slipped into the political arena, this was the first aircraft that came to mind.Such a promising project - and when it was canned, it wasn't just forgotten ... it was expunged.Criminal. (Though I daresay those closer to the project would be a tad more descriptive.)

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 09:04:58 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on August 05, 2016, 01:51:50 amFrom what I've heard they need like 8 years of software development to make it fire a machine gun. And the bombs it was designed to carry dont fit. I wonder when will we get reports that it wasnt able to shoot at a particular other plane, because they need a decade to code it. Or when you are trying to do a barrel roll, the screen will tell you that the current operation is not supported, please contact your local support branch with other questions, rebooting.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 04:38:27 pm
content: Quote from: Homer J Simpson on August 05, 2016, 02:40:50 amThat was the F104 Starfighter.

author: savril
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 04:54:19 pm
content: The F35 was finally able to shoot an air air AIM-9 several week ago. The problem was that it was carried on external wing, defeating the stealthness of the thing.This aircraft is the example of what is wrong with US military buyers. They want the impossible and don't care if it really is.They wanted a stealth multi role aircraft with VTOL, vectoring trust, and all the cool stuff to replace more than 4 current models.They ended with a STOLV truck which can't do any of its missions correctly compared to the competition. Its stealth is way beyond what was published in the first specs and won't be able to defeat the next upgrade of current 4.5G models.The F35 will be probably only fully capable of all planned missions in 2018.The Rafale will get its next upgrade in 2020: new radar and other electronic counter measures (electronic stealth) and will probably totally outscore it (the Rafale has already superior beyond vision capabilities with its optic system).In past test engagement, the F35 has a severe score against Rafale, Eurofighter ... and F-16...

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 05:14:59 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on August 05, 2016, 04:38:27 pmThe Starfighter was preceded by the Martin B-26 Marauder.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2016, 10:57:25 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on August 05, 2016, 05:14:59 pmNo, no, the B-26 was the "One a day in Tampa Bay" aircraft. A friend of mine's father ditched of them into the Rio Grande river!The only widow maker that I'm familiar with was the British Vincent Black Shadow motorcycle. It was called the "Widow Maker" and reportedly T.E. Lawrence (aka Lawrence of Arabia) was killed on one. The 1948 Vincent Black Shadow was claimed to be the world's fastest production motorcycle at the time but was also said to have had the world's worst brakes!

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 12:02:44 am
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on August 05, 2016, 10:57:25 pmThat would be quite remarkable seeing as Lawrence died in 1935!

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 02:52:58 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on August 05, 2016, 01:44:46 amUnited States found that the Harrier was so good that the United States Marine Corps had themThe Harrier was probably the only U.S. military aircraft type that was not an American designed and build aircraft.

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 02:57:53 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on August 05, 2016, 07:19:57 amSeveral years ago, a made for TV movie was made about the Arrow. The title is "The Arrow", and the movie can be found on Youtube. The DVD is also still available.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 03:09:04 am
content: I've seen some other material about the Arrow ... but I must make time for that movie at some point.Thanks!

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 03:42:46 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on August 06, 2016, 03:09:04 amIt is a three hours long movie, but it is very good

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 04:27:15 am
content: Quote from: SkyMaster on August 06, 2016, 02:52:58 amNot so:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-57_Canberrahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenia_C-27J_Spartan

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 07:15:07 am
content: Quote from: SkyMaster on August 06, 2016, 03:42:46 amMade the time.Worth the effort

author: boffin
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 07:36:39 am
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on August 06, 2016, 04:27:15 amthe DHC2 Beaver, & DHC6 Twin Otter are also in that list.

author: med6753
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 12:02:00 pm
content: The USAF wants the F-35 to replace, among other aircraft, this proven and very effective warrior....A-10 Warthog. Bought. Paid for. Cheap to fly. Extremely effective and deadly. A soldier's best friend. An enemies worst nightmare.A totally asinine idea.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 01:42:48 pm
content: I always thought the A-10 was not an elegant aircraft - but there was something about it that just said it would deliver.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 01:59:32 pm
content: The US army is basically doing highly violent policing, the A10 is a policing aircraft.The F35 is a military aircraft, but the US army doesn't engage in much military combat.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 02:29:31 pm
content: I don't know what it is, but I've always liked the look of this plane..... I'm hoping one day to build a model aircraft of this and fly it (Corsair):

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 02:40:38 pm
content: Quote from: med6753 on August 06, 2016, 12:02:00 pmISTR the Warthog has already been "replaced" by the F16 at least once. Inter-service rivalry? perish the thought.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 03:04:17 pm
content: Quote from: SkyMaster on August 06, 2016, 02:52:58 amI think that is more of a case of the Marines looking around and finding that the Harrier was the only plane which met their specifications including being fixed wing and VTOL. That combination is not common so they cut the coat to fit the cloth. They lucked out that the Harrier existed and a very friendly ally made it.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 03:36:12 pm
content: Quote from: SkyMaster on August 06, 2016, 02:52:58 amMight be true and the Canberra B-57 was U.S. licenced build but British designed. Maybe others?

author: med6753
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 03:53:39 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on August 06, 2016, 02:40:38 pmTrue, in a role that the F-16 is not very effective. It can't provide tree top level in your face ground support.

author: med6753
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 03:57:15 pm
content: Quote from: edy on August 06, 2016, 02:29:31 pmVought F4U Corsair. It was the first American aircraft to exceed 400 mph in level flight. The Japanese called it "The Whistling Death"

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 04:34:24 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 06, 2016, 01:59:32 pmThe A-10 was designed to destroy Soviet tanks. That's why it's amazingly effective as a ground support aircraft.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 04:45:28 pm
content: I don't see why the US doesn't have more drone projects.Want a superior A10 replacement? Put a retractable 30mm recoilless rifle gun pod in a supersonic drone. I bet if they started right now they could have it operational before the F35 is able to fire its gun.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 06:55:06 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 06, 2016, 04:45:28 pmHow many more should we have? It is difficult to enumerate them when most are secret and held from public eyes.Just the other day law enforcement used a ground based drone with explosives to execute a suspect. Who says we do not have enough drone projects?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 06:56:24 pm
content: If they want to use it for close air support it would have to go very public sooner or later.

author: Halvmand
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 07:20:33 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 06, 2016, 04:45:28 pmA truly recoilless design that would deliver the same rounds/min as the gau8 gatling gun fitted on the warthog would be a major engineering task.If you look at a true recoilless rifle like the carl gustaf, it loads from the behind and have a hughe back blast when fired.Newtons 3rd law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.In a recoilles rifle a medium that absorbs the opposite reaction (often a liquid) is expelled backwards when the the propelling charge detonates. Thereby the rifle has to be "open" in the back to let the medium outIt will be hard to make a mechanism that will allow for fast reloading.It will be hard to find space for the back blast. The rifle ideally has to be mounted on top of the front end facing down at an angle.This might create some stability problems and an aircraft with rotors is out the question.Though with the predator drones 1400 kg payload it could lift the 281 kg of the of the recoilless (assuming it weighs the same as the gau8) + some ammunition.Supersonic speed: Wont be useful with that gun.Anyways would drones as it is now never be able to cope with the operations a plane like the f35 would. F35 is a multirole airplane.Sorry for getting off topic. I have not much nice to say about the f35 platform as it is right now. Mostly because of the politics behind it here in Denmark.I don't really like drones either

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 07:28:13 pm
content: Recoilless designs do not deliver the high velocity needed for armor penetration without HEAT type projectiles which are ineffective with small diameter projectiles.If you want a drone replacement for the A-10 which is smaller than the A-10, then it will be dropping small diameter bombs and only using a gun for soft targets. This might be enough however the F-35 is not this.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 08:11:24 pm
content: Quote from: Halvmand on August 06, 2016, 07:20:33 pmIt doesn't have to be the same rounds per minute, you can compromise a little for the ability to get there much faster than the A-10.QuoteFire down, gas goes out top.QuoteIt's only relevant for getting to location quickly. A-10 doesn't strafe supersonic either.QuoteYou can fill the skies with single role drones for the price of the F35 project.

author: Jwalling
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 08:27:54 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on August 05, 2016, 07:13:16 amDO NOT APPLY HACK IN-FLIGHT!Jay

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 08:29:49 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 06, 2016, 08:11:24 pmOne or two rounds does not accomplish the task the GAU-8/A was designed to do. Compromise the RoF and you're going to need far superior penetration.

author: med6753
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 08:52:45 pm
content: The GAU-8 Avenger used in the A-10. Try fitting that in an F-35"You're gonna need a bigger boat!"

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 08:53:36 pm
content: Quote from: med6753 on August 06, 2016, 08:52:45 pmHe was talking about the A-10, not the F-35.

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 10:15:13 pm
content: Quote from: med6753 on August 06, 2016, 08:52:45 pmThat ought to get 'em outta the left lane...

author: med6753
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 10:31:34 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on August 06, 2016, 08:53:36 pmI was talking about the A-10 too. I was simply making the point that in no way can the F-35 match this firepower capability.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 11:26:06 pm
content: QuoteFor that, try this:I was there and I would say that everyone was mesmerized by that show.The US (4G) fighters have advantage in terms of engines, avionics, (digital) command links (up, down and peer to peers / F22), and their stealth capabilities. The Russians win in terms of aerodynamics, practicality and price.Both are uncontested in a real war and we are unlikely to know how well they hold up in real hostile situations. The Russians' strategy is quantity / manufactuerability vs. precision / quality of the americans. Whether a bunch of F15/F16/Su-27+sistors will beat a few F22/F35/T-50/J20/J31 is unknown at this point.For this particular variant of F35, you should ask:1) how much payload / fuel it can carry in combat?2) how reliable is the stol/vtol mechanism?3) how fast can they land them vs. the conventional F18?...Personally, I think F35 is too much of a generalist at too high of a price (designed to appease too many parties thus too much of a compromise) that in the end, it may end up pleasing none.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 11:29:09 pm
content: Personally, I am a big fan of the F15/Su-27 kind of airplanes: they look like real "airplanes". not the edgy stealth types.The F14 is also a beauty. too bad that the navy went with the F18 instead.B1 is also very good looking.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 11:38:33 pm
content: If planes still fought with just guns, the Russians would win. I do NOT want to get stuck into a dogfight with the likes of that. Oh, and someone teach the French that you really should not zoom the camera in for aerobatics. You can't follow the plane and you can't really see what it's doing anyway.Look at those tailerons go on landing, considering the forces applied, they can really shift. Typical russian flying!Quote from: dannyf on August 06, 2016, 11:29:09 pmNot when the wings are swept forward and it's trying to land it's not, it looks like a turkey about to take a crap on you.Also, compressor stalls. Nasty problem.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 02:07:26 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on August 06, 2016, 11:29:09 pmThe F14s and their Phoenix missiles were reaching the end of their useful life and someone concluded that the threat of Soviet Navel Aviation no longer warranted the kind of investment it would take to replace the them. Hopefully that remains the case.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 02:12:31 am
content: Quote from: David Hess on August 07, 2016, 02:07:26 amLet's be honest, a DDG can shit out enough SAMs these days to destroy any small airforce dumb enough to get within 50 miles all by itself, and they like to travel in packs. The role of interceptor is almost extinct.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 03:32:26 am
content: Quote from: retrolefty on August 06, 2016, 03:36:12 pmWell, if it has to be foreign-built, then the USAAF Spitfire fits the bill.4th Fighter Group 334th Fighter Squadron 1941–43335th Fighter Squadron 1942–43336th Fighter Squadron 1942–437th Photographic Reconnaissance Group 13th Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron 194314th Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron 1943–4531st Fighter Group 2d Fighter Squadron4th Fighter Squadron5th Fighter Squadron52d Fighter Group 307th Fighter Squadron308th Fighter Squadron309th Fighter Squadronand before the Spitfire, the Spad S.XIIIUnited States Army Air Service 13th Aero Squadron22nd Aero Squadron27th Aero Squadron28th Aero Squadron49th Aero Squadron93d Aero Squadron94th Aero Squadron95th Aero Squadron103rd Aero Squadron139th Aero Squadron141st Aero Squadron147th Aero Squadron213th Aero Squadron

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 03:36:03 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on August 07, 2016, 02:12:31 amThe problem is not as simple as that; not only are missiles more difficult targets than the bombers, but the bombers can launch outside the envelope of the air defenses. Allowing them to launch their alpha strike and run would just be stupid since they can just repeat the exercise again and again.Every bomber you can kill before it launches is worth 2 missiles (or 1 at long range and maybe more at short range). The DDGs will be much more effective against the leakers than the whole 100+ missile barrage coming in once.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 03:43:04 am
content: Well, I did say almost.With the layered defences available these days (ERAM, SM-2, ESSM (quad pack, thank you very much, a small task force can unleash quite the quantity of those!), CIWS), getting anti-ship missiles through is rather hard indeed, and I imagine they can load those things appropriately about as fast as getting a squadron of F-14s airborne, with fewer risks and no need for a giant floating runway.At one point they thought nukes were appropriate for air defence!

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 08:17:46 am
content: You do not wait to get the F-14s airborne. If you do that, then it is too late.The idea is to have an estimate for when the bombers will show up through other means and instead of spotting the F-14s on the deck, they are already in the air and starting their aerial refueling cycles bracketing the estimated time that the bombers will arrive. They need to be in a position to close with the bombers and get kills either outside of their launch radius or before they can get precise location data on the ships with their sensors. The bombers have their own reconnaissance information but between the time they take off and the time they arrive, the ships will have moved and changed position so they have to conduct their own reconnaissance before launching.The F/A-18 can do this also but not as well as the longer range F-14 with its longer range Phoenix missile. I am dubious of the claimed range for the F-35C but it would appear to be even better than the F-14 and the later versions of the AIM-120 have a claimed range close to that of the Phoenix although not quite as fast.This discussion brings back memories of playing Harpoon.

author: Halvmand
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 09:07:57 am
content: Quote from: Marco on August 06, 2016, 08:11:24 pmIf you fly faster (supersonic) you need even more rounds pr minute. Otherwise the spread on the ground will be to big and thus you won't hit the enemy, but a stray uranium depleted projectile may hit the school a km away.Yes it would maybe be possible to have the canon located in a manner which the gas can escape upwards. But the gun might have to be folded inwards the fuselage when flying supersonic. Supersonic speeds have all sorts of problems associated with it. You know the supersonic boom. A non protected front mounted gun will not handle that kind of abuse.If you want it to fly supersonic it is not possible it will behave as well when flying low and slow. like the A10 does when firing at about 500 km/t.Yes. Drones are cheap compared to an F35, but they serve only one purpose.A recoilless gun on a drone. I don't see it any time soon. I really hope to see less drones capable of dropping munition if I have to be honest..Edit: Spelling.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 09:30:20 am
content: Warthog was designed from the outset as slow, low, quiet and carry a bloody big stick. they knew the plane would be flying low enough and slow enough that even the proverbial blind man in a barn could shoot at it and hit it, so designed it so that the pilot was protected from small arms ( and most man portable ammunition) fire, and that there were enough redundant systems in the plane to keep on trucking even with major damage.Engines were simply regular commercial turbines, both reliable, cheap and available in large numbers, so you could keep whole spare engine blocks as field service parts and simply replace as needed with minimal training. Multiple hydraulic systems, and a cable backup, so you can load ALL hydraulics and still fly it, even with the plane full of dotted lines from gunfire. Pilot sits in a titanium housing with kevlar shrapnel lining, and has all his safety systems ( oxygen, ejection) in there with him. Redundant everything possible, so as long as it still has an engine running and enough control surface to fly it can keep on taking out targets on the ground.F35 I would guess is rather like the old soviet fighters, one hole through the fuselage and the pilot pulls the chicken handle. Might have some redundancy, but I guess all the hydraulic systems run together, and the fuselage is full of critical points where a shot will destabilise some critical system.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 09:39:03 am
content: Quote from: Jwalling on August 06, 2016, 08:27:54 pmAs most buyers in the military typically want full software and source code, along with full manufacturing info for the planes, they would have to make one per country, and hope they are not going to get a "spare" copy from another country with upgraded software.

author: Halvmand
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 09:43:53 am
content: That su-35 in dannyf's video is one sexy airplane. The f35 looks like a fat duck in comparison.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 10:05:09 am
content: Quote from: SeanB on August 07, 2016, 09:39:03 amThey mightwantit; they certainly won't get it.In addition, for the F35http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/22/raf-wont-be-able-to-repair-kit-on-f-35-jets---even-though-it-was/

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 10:07:00 am
content: Quote from: SeanB on August 07, 2016, 09:39:03 amOnly Israel is getting any significant access, everyone else is getting a black box with a million hidden kill switches. Looking at it unkindly, the F-35 and its international manufacturing program was a bit of a Trojan horse.I wouldn't be surprised if it was designed to slow down drone development among "allies", who are now politically pot committed to making the F35 investment look good. The age of fighters is over, these things are dinosaurs only seemingly useful because most of their enemies are dinosaurs from an even earlier age.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 11:14:00 am
content: QuoteThen you are assuming that you can take out your enemies BVR. The medium range A2A missiles don't have a great kill probability with the likes of Su27/30: 60% at best.Think about it from a money perspective: a F35 will cost you $110+ million a piece (50% more for the stovl version), about 3x - 4x of the Su30 and 4 - 5x of the Su27.Assuming a 50/50 chance in a dog fight with those aircraft (a generous assumption for the F35), and assuming full stealth with missiles on the external pylons, one F35 has a less than 50% chance of taking care of 3 Flankers, and less than 20% vs. 4 Flankers.Again, without actual performance in a war, or preferably several wars, it is hard to know how well the new hardware will do vs. the old one. All the assertions, even if from the "official" military sources, should be taken with a grain of salt.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 11:24:53 am
content: QuoteAgainst saturation attacks from supersonic anti-ship (cruise and / or ballistic) missiles?I think you have more confidence than the military planners,Today's carries have gone through only asymmetrical warfare in the sense it is heavily one sided where the opponents have no way to attack back, and no air combat capabilities. The carriers have not gone through a real war setting. How those billion dollar ships hold up in a battle of the equals where the opposing side can bunch back is unknown.It has to be fairly stressful to plan a US vs. Russia, or a US vs. China, or a US vs. Russia + China type of war where the US navy has to fight both land and sea based enemies from 1000km or more away. How good would a F35 be in those cases?Overconfidence in any hardware can only get you killed faster.QuoteThey may be right.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 11:30:17 am
content: Google F-35 turkeyStart with1/6 F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER IS A LEMONMilitary expert Pierre Sprey, the founder and designer of the F-16 & A-10 Warthog airplanes, explains why the f-35 will not cut it on the modern battlefield./watch?v=g4doIA3T9ps The F-35 Is an Airplane Build For a Dumb Idea/watch?v=idVY2KumIcA F-35 stealth fighter jet 'one of worst planes we've ever designed'/watch?v=5zKaWc_43UI F-35 fighter jet beaten by F-16 from 1970s/watch?v=Z_vXqtCkVy8 RUSSIAN RADAR CAN NOW SEE F-22 AND F-35 Says top US Aircraft designerPersonally I think it's great that the US military system has fallen so far into corrupt incompetence. Every war the US ever started was begun with a lie, and it's just been getting worse and worse. Time they received a damned good thrashing. Which is exactly what they are going to get, if the US people don't get a grip on their government and arrest and gaol all the warmongering psychopaths.The F-35 is also a useful measure of the Australian government's corruption and insanity. So long as our government still has even one F-35 on order, we can know they should all be shot for treason; for betrayal of the nation. Meanwhile look up TAFE chaos. We can't even run our crucial education systems properly, but we can afford these obscenely expensive utter lemons? Which will make us sitting ducks for regional military forces with enough sense to build or buy functional planes, or more practical missile systems. Nuts.I hope you realize that in any _serious_ war (which will be the US and any NATO nit-wits stupid enough to go along with the US, vs Russia, China, and practically the entire rest of the world) will _immediately_ go nuclear. Because it will be started by the USA, and Russia makes no secret that they will use nukes to defend their land, and China and Russia now have a mutual defense pact.There will also be a lot of things that never saw hot combat before. The large range of supersonic very smart anti-ship missiles for one, that all sane analysts (and US wargaming) know will eliminate virtually all NATO surface naval forces within the first few hours of conflict. All on the Russian, Chinese and Indian side it seems. Sunburn, Yakhont, Brahmos... Russia licensed the technology to India, set up a factory there, and so now they are commonly available to all non-NATO navies. There was an Indonesian navy ship docked in Sydney some years ago, with rows of them along the sides when I walked past in in Garden Island.There are also submarine smart drone nuclear weapons, so there go major coastal cities. Also tsunami-building phased deep ocean nukes, for wiping out coastal areas in a completely unstoppable way.Everyone who thinks the next war is going to be glamorous and heroic, is in for a rude shock. Or an unpleasantly messy death more likely. If you _do_ survive the initial conflict, you'll get to see the radioactive death of the entire biosphere and human civilization, as all the nuclear power plants and radioactive waste stores that were damaged in the war leak their nuclear poisons beyond any hope of control. Do you even understand the word 'epigenetics', or know what a knife edge between cumulative genetic errors and error correction by fitness/survival, our entire living planet rests on? There's a reason why life didn't begin on Earth until the background radiation of the original star-formed materials had died way, way down. Billions of years that took. So go ahead, have a nuclear war and wreck all the nuke plants, lets do _that_ all over again.Why does it have to be me that posts this stuff? Are the rest of you so completely media brainwashed that these things have never occurred to you?Those of you drooling over shiny military hardware, why don't you watch something more mature? Here:/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA The Banach–Tarski ParadoxThe stupidity of military weaponry is an uncountable infinity.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 11:37:15 am
content: Oh, and it's beautifully ironic, that one of the countries supposed to be manufacturing F-35 parts (engines I seem to recall) is Turkey. Which, now that Erdogan figured out it was the USA who sponsored the recent coup attempt that nearly killed him, is walking away from the USA.The Russians don't like Edogan at all either. But they are pragmatists.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 12:41:25 pm
content: Overpriced flying turkey. That's how it should be able fly to be proud of:

author: Halvmand
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 01:13:15 pm
content: TerraHertz: I agree. Unless the US turn down the volume a little, 3rd world war may not be to far away.The reason I don't like the F35 is because of the pro forma competition we had here in Denmark. From the start the F35 was the winner. Both Saab and Rafale left the competition before even making an offer because they knew that our politicians only had their noses up the US ass.I have no doubt that there is an effort being made to lessen media attention regarding that "competition". The only outlet that report on the matter is a dedicated website (http://nytkampfly.dk/). And for a little country like Denmark, this is the weapons deal of the century. I would really like if the public got just a minimum of info.But okay. I know that if you are a politician, you're most likely a lying piece of s**t to, so no surprises there.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 01:42:31 pm
content: QuoteAnother fair competition that's rigged.Like the "honest politicians", or the "free press" we have,

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 02:15:03 pm
content: Another USA bashing thread - Yea!

author: boffin
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 04:00:11 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on August 07, 2016, 01:42:31 pmlike the 767 v A330 refueling tanker contract?

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2016, 04:39:03 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on August 07, 2016, 01:42:31 pmIf the competition was fair, then they were doing it wrong.