Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
We been dropping a long time. My plane AF03 is about to start shooting for the current software we have on board, which is a head of every one else. If you actually pull your head out your ass syscom you would have known we have been shooting for a long time. Or did you not read that part on yahoo...
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Glider
Captain
Priceless
- Thread starter
- #205
buffnut453
Captain
Couple of observations. Firstly I HATE the word "drone" which implies mindlessly following a pre-arranged mission agenda. Modern UAVs are either RPAs with a pilot in command, albeit on the ground. In the future, we may well have UCAVs with a host of sensors that can respond dynamically to a threat environment. Either way, it's hardly a "drone".
Secondly, I'm not entirely sure what Syscom's term "schitzo fighter" is supposed to mean. If it's a general opposition to multi-role aircraft, then we should have never fitted rockets and bombs to Hurricanes, P-47s, P-51s or tried turning the Mosquito bomber into an effective multi-role platform...and that's before we consider the F-4 or F/A-18 both of which have multi-role capabilities. His earlier post about having a "purpose built bomber" politely ignores the fact that you'd then have 2 aircraft to maintain in your front-line inventory with double the logistics chain etc.
As a final observation, if the F-35 is so crappy why are the USMC trying to accelerate its deployment, even with the current software faults? According to National Defense Magazine, the Corps is willing to take the F-35 even earlier than other operators because, despite its ongoing issues, even in its current form it's better than what's in use today across the various missions that the F-35 can accomplish.
Secondly, I'm not entirely sure what Syscom's term "schitzo fighter" is supposed to mean. If it's a general opposition to multi-role aircraft, then we should have never fitted rockets and bombs to Hurricanes, P-47s, P-51s or tried turning the Mosquito bomber into an effective multi-role platform...and that's before we consider the F-4 or F/A-18 both of which have multi-role capabilities. His earlier post about having a "purpose built bomber" politely ignores the fact that you'd then have 2 aircraft to maintain in your front-line inventory with double the logistics chain etc.
As a final observation, if the F-35 is so crappy why are the USMC trying to accelerate its deployment, even with the current software faults? According to National Defense Magazine, the Corps is willing to take the F-35 even earlier than other operators because, despite its ongoing issues, even in its current form it's better than what's in use today across the various missions that the F-35 can accomplish.
Many of the weapons for ground attack are missiles, if the F 35 was to be used to drop iron bombs from 25,000ft then it would be a waste of money. The difference between the missiles is not so great so provided they can acquire and take out the target what is the difference between a fighter and a bomber anyway?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
God, you're being an idiot!
I think Syscom, with his Yahoo news aviation education knows more than the US, British, Australian, Singapore, Italian, Dutch and Canadian militaries combined!!!!
If anything this aircraft is going to be one of the most intensively tested (maybe even over tested) weapons platform ever developed and rightfully so in some respects. The statement that it will be obsolete by 2020 is one of the dumbest things said about this aircraft that I could recall. I guess the F-22 is obsolete as well and the Super Hornet is ready for the boneyard!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I was thinking about Paveway and Brimstone.
buffnut453
Captain
The use of any wholly dependent on the target type and threat environment. Long-range, stand-off missiles are great for fixed targets that can be readily identified using sensors onboard the missile but they're far less effective against mobile targets where there's a need for real-time intelligence feeds and human eyes on the target before the weapon is pickled.
From the Hurricane onwards, fighters have been able to carry out more than one mission. The challenge is how well a multi-role platform performs each of the roles assigned to it as, clearly, a dedicated fighter will be optimized more for air combat than an aircraft that must perform both air combat and ground attack roles. Typically, it's a difference in sensors and systems integration rather than in the size/shape of the airframe, except in the case of dedicated bombers like the B-52 and B-2 where the ability to lift lots of heavy weapons a long distance takes precedence over air combat manoeuvring.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
What concerns me most, is that those doors will lock either in closed or open position...stealth is gone then...if open!
Last edited:
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
Now, I wouldn't be too sure about that....
The software currently loaded on my jet is the most current verson there is. No other jet has the software that is on my jet at the moment.
That was the point I was also trying to make. The F35 may not be as good as an F22 as a fighter but it is still good. To attack in a hostile environment you need stealth and stand off weapons. The F35 can carry more external weapons at the expense of stealth if/when threats are eliminated.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
buffnut453
Captain
Yep...we're on the same page. The other thing to note is that the use of stealth is typically required only for high-value targets and so you don't need a large quantity of ordinance because you're going after very specific targets. In a high-threat environment, stealth would be used to neutralize surface-to-air threats at key locations to allow conventional, non-stealth aircraft through the gap and attack other targets. Stand-off missiles can be used as part of the force package for static targets, but even then stealth will allow the launch platform to get closer without detection, thus decreasing missile flight time which increases surprise and reduces the defender's ability to respond. Conversely, in a low-threat environment, there's no real need for stealth and so the F-35 can carry more weapons as needed by the mission, including "taxi-cab" orbits for on-call CAS if needed.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
As far as you know, aye...wink, wink, nudge, nudge...
Which makes me wonder (I know, slight off topic), are the South African Air Force using those helmets with.....d*mn....what was it called again...helmet display thingmajig, that's the best technical term that I can come with at the moment....pmsl
Does the F-35 have the same potential built in as the Gripen (I know, but it's the only fighter that I've ben working with, sort of), what would it cost to increase fuel by 40%, two more hardpoints, to name a few....mind you, this is five years ago, try to remember the name web system they used over Libya....
Carry on gentlemen, this highly entertaining...
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
With as many engineers telling me this, (again they are engineers, what do they know, wink wink) I will take their word for it.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
I don't trust engineers!
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... I don't trust engineers! "
Day to day life must be cause for considerable nervousness in that case, my friend
Day to day life must be cause for considerable nervousness in that case, my friend
