Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
People up here are seriously saying we should be buying Super Hornets. I can see an argument for the Eurofighter or Rafale but if Canada buys the Super Hornet they would be making the biggest mistake they possibly could.
Actually, here would be a good place to ask this. On another site I post on I'm one of the few people with knowledge of military aviation (but of course a lot of other people like to make their "correct" thoughts known), but I'm always stumped when asked about the US weapons compatibility issues with the Rafale. Can anyone tell me or point me in the right direction for information on what the hurdles would be to making it work with our current weaponry?
What is being attempted in flight test is ensuring that the aircraft can "take a licking and keep on ticking" and in some instances pushed outside an enviornment it would never see in normal operation. As stated, this is the time to identify any flaws or potential flaws as the aircraft is pushed to its limit.FBJ, Excuse my one-string-banjo again, but "used and abused", is that not exacty what a WARplane would be faced with in a war? Don't think the enemy allows timeouts for maintainence and repair. Perhaps I am wrong but "takes a licking and keeps on ticking" has to be #! criteria for anything military, tied only with crew survivability.
Don't know if any of you remember the old M113s where the commander had to stand up and out of the vehicle in order to fire the 50cal. Brilliant design, wana guess how many vehicle commanders survived their first use in battle?
One line concerns me "it would neer see in normal operations" the is nothing normal in a war. Rememer the orginal Bradley Fighting Vehicle? The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting vehicle is a three million dollar version of the World War II Sherman tank, with room in the back for six guys. It weighs 30 tons, so its too heavy to be picked up by any helicopter and too large to be carried by a C-130, and is not truly amphibious. It's expensive to operate, expensive to maintain, and worst of all, its a huge vehicle with aluminum (a flamable metal like magnesium) armor and packed with explosive TOW missiles and internal fuel tanks. The only country willing to take the Bradley was Saudi Arabia and we had to GIVE them 400.
And discovering these issues "DURING" flight test are where they should be discovered. Keep in mind that that those aircraft at EDW are being "used and abused" to the point of breaking, all part of the process but the stupid press doesn't see it that way.
BTW....
Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future - Chicago Tribune
Those guys are the guys that bought into the JSF program sight unseen without an evaluative process.
I still don't think the F-35 is right for Australia.
Don't know what to say expect an F-35 obviously isn't a Bradley. When an aircraft it test flown, it's pushed to its limits. Engine and airframe damage CAN and WILL occur, that's why you have a test flight program. The XP-80 had it's air intake cave in before the first flight, FOD'ed the engine and delayed the flight test program - Lockheed had to go back and strengthen the air intake.
Stick to the facts.
1) This aircraft for whatever reason is hugely expensive.
.