| Author | Message | ||
     Wolfridgerider |
The F-35 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110113/pl_afp/usmili taryaerospacef35_20110113153609 Come on man?!?!? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Replace the A-10 with that ? These are the same twits that thought the F/A-18 was a viable replacement for the A-6. Stupid. You have no medium tactical bomber aircraft. you will of course notice that the B-52 continues service in its many variants... there is no 'new' 'fifth' generation strategic bomber. trying to bring a swiss army knife to a job the requires a hammer. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Looks like most of the problems are with the V/STOL variant. It's pretty amazing that there's basically been ONE successful V/STOL jet in history, the Harrier, which basically goes back to a 1960 design. | ||
| Americanmadexb |
"The United States is covering 90 percent of the cost of the development but has participation from Britain, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Australia." Where is France?  }} | ||
| Superdavetfft |
I'm all for a strong defense but who exactly are we competing with for air supremacy that would give us a legitimate need for these? Is anyone even close to our current technology? | ||
| Froggy |
Does this mean I can pick up a second hand surplus A-10 cheap? | ||
| Buellkowski |
I've read that the Russian PAK-FA and the Chinese J-20 are still a ways off from entering service, so no, there is no current competition other than the F-22, which is a creature built for different purposes than the F-35. I fear the cost overruns are exacerbated by the multinational nature of the F-35 project. Lots of folks to disappoint with a cancellation, so the monster rolls on however bloated. The same is happening with the Airbus A400 transport. | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
"It's pretty amazing that there's basically been ONE successful V/STOL jet in history, the Harrier, which basically goes back to a 1960 design." Funny you should mention that...... http://australianaviation.com.au/2010/12/uk-bids-f arewell-to-harrier/ | ||
| Aesquire |
...but who exactly are we competing with for air supremacy that would give us a legitimate need for these? Everyone. France sells Mirage planes to anyone with the scratch. Russia sells it's next to new stuff, ditto. China wants to steal Taiwan, and knows that quantity is a quality all it's own. We are working hard on having a smaller air force than Switzerland. As more UAV's go into service, the fighters are being scaled back. We've had Military cutbacks that cut the shooters, not the Brass. That was a big mistake before every war in the 20th century. By nature, America is moderately isolationist. Who cares what strange foreigners do to each other far away? But it's not the 19th century anymore. It's not even the 20th. While our main foes this very second are jihadist jerks without much of an air force, Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc. do actually have planes. Any of those nations are one bad day away from war. Look at China & Russia and see totalitarian nations that could turn expansionist at any moment. See the Dec. '10 Popular Mechanics for a China war scenario. Now, my opinion is we'd be better off with 200 F-20's than a dozen F-35's, but stealth is a game changer. It's also expensive. Bottom line is, the F-22 is in storage. That leaves us Old planes, mostly top notch stuff, in a rapidly dwindling fleet. We still have an edge in tech, but it's getting narrow. We are behind in numbers at any one place. I'm worried about the networking stuff too. China is becoming the home of assembly line hacking. So all the stuff we count on to give us the edge over a bad guy who will always outnumber us is going away. I'm not a big F-35 fan. What I have seen over the history of aviation is that one design for all services never works. ( or has not since the P-12 biplane ) There have been very good results turning Navy planes into Airforce planes, and the Marines with rare exceptions ( Harrier, Corsair )get the Navy's old stuff. You can't make an Airforce Plane into a Navy one without making it much stronger and heavier. ( landing gear and tail hook plus all the structure to keep it in one piece in a carrier landing. ) Making a "regular" plane and a Vtol are such different games I'm astounded the F-35 works at all. ( and it almost doesn't ) More A-10's, Next Gen Harriers, etc. are what I think we need, but that's not what we are buying. | ||
| Loki |
the Chinese just unveiled their own stealth bird this week | ||
| Slaughter |
Harrier has been successful because it has never gone up against a capable adversary. Think of surface-to-air and air-to-air infrared seeking missles... now look at the AV8B with the HOTTEST places right smack dab on each side of the wing - instead of the ass-end like a "NORMAL" jet. Also it's hell-for delicate - HAD to be since it was designed for vertical TAKE OFF as well as LANDING. AV8B VSTOL = Very Seldom Takes Off Loaded | ||
| Cityxslicker |
we are loosing our ground attack element. despite what fighter jocks will tell you, the war is won or lost, on denying the enemy territory; air superiority is to support that, it is not a stand alone option. thumbs up their assez thumbs up their assez | ||
| Delta_one |
what do you mean by that? I thought the vtol was scrapped from the f35 a long time ago because it was terrible, the harrier was/is a terrible pig in the air. if you want vtol get a roto wing and as for the f35 in the navy, I thought that was given the big thumbs down because its a single engine, loose it and you are swimming back. loose and engine on an f18 and you can still limp it back to the carrier. and as for replacing the f16 with it, why? the time is spend fussing with the skin takes just as much time as the rest of the maintenance that needs to be done on the f-22, now we want two airframes like this? the f15 is an aging aircraft so the 22 is a good decision but the f16 is still an effective weapon and is not nearly as old as the 15. the A10 is VERY old but it is a niche aircraft that cannot be replaced by a blanket aircraft. it simply cannot be done, just as the f111 should not have been taken out of service it was a low flying heavily armed aircraft that would still be very effective and has not been appropriately replaced (not that I don't love the F15E but it lacks the low speed capability that was inherent in the aardvark) we need more A-10's or a new bird like it, the JSF is not it. | ||
| Aesquire |
F-22 production is over, tooling is in storage, and operational status is...iffy. No more F-22 will probably be built, and the 168 of them will probably have a short career since the current admin. would prefer "alternatives". A-10's with night/all weather capability, would be a good thing. The Harrier went up against the Argentine Airforce & Navy & did very well against Mirage's etc. Any Vtol is going to be tricky to fly, until the tech gets advanced enough for semi autonomous t/o and landing. It's just plain different. As a dogfighter, it's limits are mostly electronics. Sure, it's subsonic, but the Sidewinders are not, and VFF'ing makes it the most pointable of any U.S. production plane. ( some of the X-planes are pretty amazing, and the F-22 is good, but the Harrier is in it's own class ) It needs an upgrade to take the Aim-120 for the next gen, which is not going to happen either. Predators are great for their purpose, but are not fighter bombers. Of course, "Major War" is obsolete. We were sure of that after WW1 & WW2 & WW3, &.......... | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Where are the French? Building these. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale Brits are also well into the Eurofighter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon Aesquire, I think you nailed it. As previously noted the UK are getting rid of the Harriers, & their only Aircraft carrier. All this was announced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, end of last year. A replacement, The Queen Elizabeth, is due to enter service in 2019 (if everything is built on schedule) & the design has already been altered to fly F35s off it. | ||
| Dwardo |
I don't think there was anything better than the A1 Skyraider, assuming you are in no hurry to get to the target area, lol. | ||
| Fast1075 |
Whats not to like about a Thunderbolt  unless you are on the receiving end of the butt kickin'....Whispering Death....one completely badass aircraft. | ||
| Spdrxb |
Maybe we could utilize more of these instead. I know its a turd, but its at the top of my cool list.   | ||
| Blake |
ewww! | ||
| Glitch |
| ||
| Cityxslicker |
I want to see the osprey mounted with appropriate size and caliber to make it on par with the 'spooky' herc AC-130 | ||
| Swordsman |
Still a fan of the old Blackbirds. Who cares if satellites can see it? It can't be caught! A-10's are awesome. Saw an interview once with the designer, and he quite literally designed the plane around that gun. ~SM | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
BANG you're dead...  | ||
| Delta_one |
the A-10 was one of my airframes in the Air Force, I cant even tell you how intimidating that thing is in person. it is an incredibly effective weapon. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
The flying Cross as the Soviets termed it, there is indeed no replacement, very few competitors, the only thing that comes even close is the Su-25 Frogfoot. Are we not supposed to eliminate ground force targets with a tactical response anymore ? dunder headed. as dumb as removing the A-6. There is absolutely no substitute for putting ordinance, and a lot of it, on target, any time of day, in any kind of weather. | ||
| Aesquire |
...no substitute... True. We are in the position of using nuclear bombers built before most of you were born for tactical strikes with GPS guided bombs. The B-52 has 8 freaking engines. It's like using Sopwith Camels in the Korean war. The B-1 is also being used as a close support plane, and it's even more rare and expensive. I won't even mention the $Billion$+ B-2. First, there is unthinking reliance on a key technology, GPS. The satellites are getting old, and we are abandoning manned space. They might squeeze a few more flights out of the shuttle program, but they've already fired a lot of the guys that know how to do the work. The only bright spot is the SpaceX company, which planned to be a manned vehicle, and now has the contract for supply service to the ISS. There is already GPS jamming tech out there. ( Gee, Thanks Russia & China ) And both Russia and China have proved they can kill satellites. I'm a bit nervous about over reliance on any technology. Then again I'm reactionary. I'd have built more F-14's ( A much better pane with the f100 series engines ) and butt loads of F-20's. Not to knock the F/A-18. It's a good plane but not the best plane for everything. It's a pity the Naval Stealth attack plane was a waste. | ||
| Midnightrider |
I'm with spdrxb about the Osprey. I was in Baghdad a couple of years ago and there was nearly constant air traffic day and night. After you'd been there a couple months you would barely give any aircraft, fixed wing or rotor, a second glance. Yet when the Ospreys were in the area everybody would just stop and watch. | ||
| Kc10_fe |
F-22s are here for awhile kids and they are incredible. 6 F-15C models and 1 F-22 go and play over the Atlantic. For hours the F-15s attempt to down the F-22. The F-22 takes them out from over the horizon like fish in a barrel. The laughter over the intercom during air refueling is comical. The F-15 guys dont laugh at all. F-15Es and F-18Fs are large and drop. The A-10 is now the A-10C which is the newest upgrade and they will be here for a long time. Bones and Buffs are doing just fine. The Air Force takes good care of its fleet. | ||
| Delta_one |
an F-15c vs an F-22 is a joke, they should have used one with a newer avionics and radar package in it like the E model. maybe then he would actually have to maneuver it a bit. | ||
| Aesquire |
The Queen of "shoot you way out of your range" was the F-14. The F-22 with stealth shoots you before you can see it, not the same thing. The problem is with rules of engagement, not so much the weapons. When you have to make visual ID before the shot, Piper Cubs with Sidewinders rule. That's why the kill ratio in 'Nam was so bad. F-4's equipped with radar guided missiles could have done much better, but insane ROE's forbid it. The F-14 had a telescope ( with tape recorder ) that let you actually use visual ID ROE's and still win. They are gone now. I'm only kidding a little about Piper Cubs. A test was done with the new F-15 & F-16's with the then latest missiles and gear, against F-5's with commercial car radar detectors and the then latest Sidewinder. The Roe's required visual ID, and that negated the longer range of the Sparrow missile. ( The AMRAMM was not yet in service ) The need to illuminate the target with the Sparrow meant that the lowly F-5's could kill the newer planes, even after death with the fire and forget sidewinder. You end up with everyone shot down. A nation with a bit less regard for it's troops, could use cheaper, less capable planes and weapons in greater quantity, and win. Not knocking the F-22. Radar stealth is a game changer. ( as is very good camo ) But, a Raptor ( F-22 ) can be smoked by a Mig21 ( really old fast fighter ) if he isn't allowed to use his advantages. |
