Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
what's that, about 9 ton?
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Wouldn't say that, as long as there's bacon, I'm good...
in my British European world 2.2 pounds = 1Kg so 18,000LB = circa 8,200Kg metric, long and short tons loses me lol
parsifal
Colonel
This campaign against the F-35 reminds me of the F-111 debate back in the 60's. It was considered a disaster as well, and took years longer to deliver than originally promised. When we received them, they were the most expensive piece of military hardware ever used by the Australian military. They never fired a shot in anger, but despite all of that, they were worth every penny.
We used them for 43 years, lost 4 or so to operational accidents. Some money was spent to give them digital targeting capability and enhanced standoff weapon systems. In the numerous simulated battles that they were endlessly subjected to I do not believe that they were ever considered "defeated" Just 30 or so airframes allowed us to completely dominate our region for 40 years and gave us influence far beyond our standing as a nation.
I remember exercising against these things at several RIMPAC and KANGAROO exercises in the 80's. Their electronics suite made them a very difficult target to lock onto with our American Standard and the Army's Rapier missile systems. They would come in low with their ECM systems, launch their harpoons at about 40 miles. Very fast, hard to hit. Even when loaded with just iron bombs we had a hard time. I remember trying to track and engage with 5in guns in the DDGs, guns could not track fast enough to be effective.
Things have changed, I know, but I doubt the dynamic has changed that much. This talk about manned aircraft being obsolete is very similar to the talk in the UK back in the 50s and 60s when they said all carriers and all fighters were no longer needed because of nuclear weapons. UAVs have a role, but they cant do everything a manned a/c can do.
Despite its rocky start, we came to view our Aardvarks as the birds on our shoulders. I am confident the f-35 will do the same. They just need to get delivery and completion going sooner rather than later.
We used them for 43 years, lost 4 or so to operational accidents. Some money was spent to give them digital targeting capability and enhanced standoff weapon systems. In the numerous simulated battles that they were endlessly subjected to I do not believe that they were ever considered "defeated" Just 30 or so airframes allowed us to completely dominate our region for 40 years and gave us influence far beyond our standing as a nation.
I remember exercising against these things at several RIMPAC and KANGAROO exercises in the 80's. Their electronics suite made them a very difficult target to lock onto with our American Standard and the Army's Rapier missile systems. They would come in low with their ECM systems, launch their harpoons at about 40 miles. Very fast, hard to hit. Even when loaded with just iron bombs we had a hard time. I remember trying to track and engage with 5in guns in the DDGs, guns could not track fast enough to be effective.
Things have changed, I know, but I doubt the dynamic has changed that much. This talk about manned aircraft being obsolete is very similar to the talk in the UK back in the 50s and 60s when they said all carriers and all fighters were no longer needed because of nuclear weapons. UAVs have a role, but they cant do everything a manned a/c can do.
Despite its rocky start, we came to view our Aardvarks as the birds on our shoulders. I am confident the f-35 will do the same. They just need to get delivery and completion going sooner rather than later.
Oh stop lying! Sys knows more about the happenings than you do, even though you are working on the program. Bow down to him...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Except I don't see the naval version of this aircraft going away!
What boggles my mind with this is the F-35 haters don't realize that a multi-service, multi-mission fighter/ strike aircraft was initially achieved with the F-4. It worked well in all missions and the greatest handicap it faced were the politicians not allowing it to fully exploit its potential (BVR engagements). Had the USAF decided to go with the F-17, we would have had that same tri-service mix. The F-35 uniquely blends the tri-service concept with the offering of a production derivative that also gives the USMC their desired V/STOL strike aircraft.
The ignorance of the F-35 bashing community is amazing. They don't question WHY the so-called cost over-runs were allowed and approved. They don't ask about what part of the contracts were firm fixed price and what portions were cost plus, and finally they refuse to recognize the true mission of the aircraft, the progress made since the 2007 Rand Report, and can't conceptualize that VR air to air combat IS NOT the primary way you deal with your enemy (unless your elected officials enter a combat situation tying the hands of the F-35 pilots). 150 plus F-35s have been built and right now there are negotiations ongoing for the next 150 aircraft within the US military. Production jigs are being built by BAE and the first Italian F-35 just rolled out. If this aircraft was anywhere near the dog some slightly less than educated people say it is, they're smarter than some of the best military minds, aircraft manufactures and engineers this planet has to offer and perhaps should be running their own aircraft companies and building drones!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Oh stop lying! Sys knows more about the happenings than you do, even though you are working on the program. Bow down to him...
BOOM HEADSHOT!
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovsVU6mktOw
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Same here, used to think that it was only one sort of Ton, but....nooooo!
I dont know about Sweden but to queer things even more many European countries call a half kilo a "pound", yes horror of horrors even the French use "Livre" in markets and for a babies weight.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
What we use in Sweden, Gram, Hekto, Kilo, Ton....
buffnut453
Captain
Yep...if you're going into a fair fight, you're doing it wrong. Objective is to kill the other guy with as little fuss and at as long a range as possible. Shooting your watch off in the bar makes for great war stories but it's much better to get him at long range with you flying straight-and-level than to lose the tactical advantage and get into the close-in ACM knife-fight.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
parsifal
Colonel
so i have a question for those guys working in the program. Our DOD propaganda is saying deliveries are expected to begin 2018, with completion of our order 2023. Does that line up with whats happening inside the company?
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
The F4 was/is bad*ss, while the F-22/35 are just.....meeeh..
That should be a big enough spanner in the works...
buffnut453
Captain
Funny one, Jan...just not very accurate.
For the AF, you're missing the F-101, F-102, F-104 and F-105 all of which were replaced by the next generation F-15 and F-16 jets.
On the Navy front, you're missing the A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and F-8.
For the AF, you're missing the F-101, F-102, F-104 and F-105 all of which were replaced by the next generation F-15 and F-16 jets.
On the Navy front, you're missing the A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and F-8.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The F-4 was able to step up and fill a role that was left vacant by stupidity and lack of planning.
The F-22 reall hasn't been able to prove itself in combat although it's FMC rates were very poor for a while. The jury is still out on the F-35 although I believe it's going to work as advertised.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Beau is on the program but at flight test, but still may be able to give a better perspective than I.
I worked for Lockheed years ago building USN P-3s. We were also building P-3s for Canada (CP-140s) Australia, Japan and the Netherlands. Each international customer had a separate contract and delivery dates were negotiated. The USN could place production line priority on their P-3s but for the most part that didn't happen. If LMCO has a contract with the RAAF and committed to those delivery dates, they should be expected to see their aircraft to be delivered on schedule. Having worked with the RAAF, it would not surprise me if the late delivery penalties are pretty steep.
Last edited:
