Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Aaah....cheers Joe! 
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
April 2, 2015
"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been flown in air-to-air combat maneuvers against F-16s for the first time and, based on the results of these and earlier flight-envelope evaluations, test pilots say the aircraft can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option.
Although the F-35 is designed primarily for attack rather than air combat, U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin test pilots say the availability of potential margin for additional maneuverability is a testament to the aircraft's recently proven overall handling qualities and basic flying performance. "The door is open to provide a little more maneuverability," says Lockheed Martin F-35 site lead test pilot David "Doc" Nelson."
F-35 Tested Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers | Defense content from Aviation Week
"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been flown in air-to-air combat maneuvers against F-16s for the first time and, based on the results of these and earlier flight-envelope evaluations, test pilots say the aircraft can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option.
Although the F-35 is designed primarily for attack rather than air combat, U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin test pilots say the availability of potential margin for additional maneuverability is a testament to the aircraft's recently proven overall handling qualities and basic flying performance. "The door is open to provide a little more maneuverability," says Lockheed Martin F-35 site lead test pilot David "Doc" Nelson."
F-35 Tested Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers | Defense content from Aviation Week
Last edited:
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Hmmmm ..... only 4000 pounds internal capacity for weapons. About the same as the F117. That's progress for you!
Carries an impressive payload on external racks. But then its not a stealth aircraft anymore and this expensive contraption is doing the work that a far cheaper attack aircraft can do.
The F35 is useless against a foe like ISIS or other low intensity groups. A close support aircraft like the A10 is needed. Not this contraption.
As the years go by, air defenses are going to get deadlier and deadlier. And this over priced schitzo plane is going to get increasingly more vulnerable. By 2025, this jet will not be allowed to fly into dense air defenses because it will be a suicide mission. Hundreds of billions of dollars on an aircraft project that cant fulfill its role. And of course the drone jockies at Creech AFB will be saying "we could have done it for a fraction of the cost if you would have only funded us".
Fighter? Ha. How does it do against foreign competitors, not our own dated airframes.
I will admit that this is a useful fit for the Marines. Anything is better than the Harrier they have now.
It doesn't matter that the DOD is at fault for the immense cost over runs. The fact is it's taken decades to build this and its final cost is extremely expensive. The F117 project was an outstanding example of designing and producing a great airplane at an affordable price. Obviously the Pentagon cash-whores refused to learn the lessons.
In the end, only a fraction of these planes will be built. Already the follow on replacements are being worked on in the secret drone programs.
Carries an impressive payload on external racks. But then its not a stealth aircraft anymore and this expensive contraption is doing the work that a far cheaper attack aircraft can do.
The F35 is useless against a foe like ISIS or other low intensity groups. A close support aircraft like the A10 is needed. Not this contraption.
As the years go by, air defenses are going to get deadlier and deadlier. And this over priced schitzo plane is going to get increasingly more vulnerable. By 2025, this jet will not be allowed to fly into dense air defenses because it will be a suicide mission. Hundreds of billions of dollars on an aircraft project that cant fulfill its role. And of course the drone jockies at Creech AFB will be saying "we could have done it for a fraction of the cost if you would have only funded us".
Fighter? Ha. How does it do against foreign competitors, not our own dated airframes.
I will admit that this is a useful fit for the Marines. Anything is better than the Harrier they have now.
It doesn't matter that the DOD is at fault for the immense cost over runs. The fact is it's taken decades to build this and its final cost is extremely expensive. The F117 project was an outstanding example of designing and producing a great airplane at an affordable price. Obviously the Pentagon cash-whores refused to learn the lessons.
In the end, only a fraction of these planes will be built. Already the follow on replacements are being worked on in the secret drone programs.
bpower I am from UK the F35 will operate from Queen Elizabeth class carriers
Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As I undersatnd the ship is big enough but a quote of $2Bn for the catapult led to the B option being taken.
from wiki
Although the F-35B is fully capable of performing vertical landing, in a similar fashion to the way that the Harrier and Sea Harrier operated, this method of operation places limitations on the loads that the aircraft is capable of returning to the ship with. As a consequence, to avoid the costly disposal at sea of both fuel and munitions, the Royal Navy is developing the Shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique for its operation of the Lightning II. SRVL is a hybrid landing technique that utilises the Lightning's vectored thrust capability to slow its forward speed sufficiently to allow it to make a rolling landing, using its disc brakes, without the need of an arrestor wire.[66]
I think the best bet would have been the catapult and arrestor wire but what do I know.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It is - and it's more than what the F-117 could carry. Can you name any other low RCS aircraft other then the B-2 that could carry more weapons internally?!?!
Again you're wrong!!! It gives up some if its low RCS but is still harder to detect on radar than any other strike aircraft in it's class, and the "stealth' capability is not the only thing that made it expensive.
I could agree to a point, but if you're a real progressive thinker you would say that a helicopter or DRONE is cheaper to operate then an A-10 in this role!!!!
I bet in 1978 some geek in a polyester suit said the same thing about the F-15 and f-16!!! I bet they also said we didn't need BOTH fighters
Proof? Do you have a crystal ball?
I guess the Eurofighter, Gripen, Su 27, F-22 J-20 and t-50 "will not be allowed to fly into dense air defenses" as well?!?!? hmmmmm...
With that kind of foresight you should go to work for the Rand Corporation or start buying lottery tickets!!!!
That will be done in time when both the UK and Italy fly it in tests against the Typhoon and other aircraft.
You know this how?
How about a DRONE?
THAT IS ABOUT THE DUMBEST THING I'VE HEARD IN A VERY LONG TIME!!!!
The F-117 had similar issues in it's development and in todays dollars cost almost as much as the f-35 with far less capabilities. Again, you know this by yahoo news and osprey books - I worked on the program. If the public knew how much was really spent on the B-2 and F-117 in R&D costs, the press would be lining up to suck the exhaust out of the F-35
150 are built, 150 are on order excluding over seas assembly lines, so tell us in your infinite wisdom, what's you're definition of a "fraction?"
Syscom, give it up - I thought you were a lot smarter than this. You're mimicking yahoo news propaganda that's 6 and 7 years old. You're really making yourself look like a idiot.
Last edited:
FBJ I suggest you warm up by discussing the end of civilisation with one of the "The end of the world is neigh" banner carriers before you post.....facts have no place in the discussion. I have done it a few times and the only thing that bothers me is that the people I am speaking to have a vote. Syscom if you dont bring some up to date facts to the conversation then I can declare that the F 35 is only a front ....anyone attempting an invasion of the UK will be smitten by King Arthur with his sword Excalibur the powers of excalibur are also well documented on Yahoo
Excalibur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Excalibur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I would like to know sys's experience in air combat that qualifies him in determining that the aircraft is useless.
Still waiting on his response to my other post as well.
Still waiting on his response to my other post as well.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"
Syscom:"It doesn't matter that the DOD is at fault for the immense cost over runs."
Syscom:"It doesn't matter that the DOD is at fault for the immense cost over runs."
This is a wwII forum and I am not an expert in any field of aviation but in my view WWII experience was that you must go for the best possible.
The Spitfire upstaged the Hurricane because it was designed to be the best possible not a production compromise much as I love the Hurricane it would always be a bridemaid.
The UK had order books full will twin engined bombers when war broke out all became secondary after the Mosquito was in service, only the mosquito was designed for maximum speed and becauseof that it could live in a fighter environment, not outfight a SE fighter but could be a nuisance, could cause problems difficult to solve and out cruise the opposition.
The P51 designed from the start to be the bees knees in low drag which normally equates to high speed, it also equates to long distance economy which gave it its role as escort par excellance.
F4U Corsair biggest engine behind the biggest prop with sound dynamics behind it must have a lot of uses and it did.
In short you must go for the best.
The Spitfire upstaged the Hurricane because it was designed to be the best possible not a production compromise much as I love the Hurricane it would always be a bridemaid.
The UK had order books full will twin engined bombers when war broke out all became secondary after the Mosquito was in service, only the mosquito was designed for maximum speed and becauseof that it could live in a fighter environment, not outfight a SE fighter but could be a nuisance, could cause problems difficult to solve and out cruise the opposition.
The P51 designed from the start to be the bees knees in low drag which normally equates to high speed, it also equates to long distance economy which gave it its role as escort par excellance.
F4U Corsair biggest engine behind the biggest prop with sound dynamics behind it must have a lot of uses and it did.
In short you must go for the best.
ScreamingLighting
Airman
In a sense, Sys is right that the drone programs have already begun, because the Pentagon has a little thing called foresight. They know the drones will at least take another 10-15 years to be fully developed, not to mention combat ready.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Then we'll have Robocop!
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
Just by that quote right there, nothing will be able to fly into dense air defenses if a F35 can't do it. You might want to re-think that...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Drones have been used in combat for quite some time now...
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
They're usually Generals etc...
buffnut453
Captain
But not in a hostile air environment and not with the kind of dedicated strike capability of F-35.
buffnut453
Captain
ScreamingLighting
Airman
I was referring to day-to-day combat drones which will replace the F-18/F-16 some time in the future, see the X-47. The stealth drones which the Pentagon will have the balls to use outside of secret ops.
buffnut453
Captain
Actually, I'm waiting for Sys to respond to any of the reasoned posts on this thread. He hasn't addressed challenges of comms latency, attacking mobile targets etc that pertain to UCAV ops. He hasn't even tried to refute, with logic or an alternative view, the tactically viable concept of using stealth for attacking high-value, high-payoff targets to neutralize air defences, and then using subsequent missions, carrying with more weapons under the pylons, to attack non-threat targets.
Bottom line is he's not interested in an intelligent debate. He simply is repeating the same stuff in hopes that if he shouts loud enough and long enough, he'll win. He talks about keeping A-10s around to fight ISIS but that presupposes the next war will be like the last few...which is a big assumption. If the next war happens to be a large-scale force-on-force, then A-10s will be SAM-fodder. Also, the weapons carried by the A-10 can be strapped to pretty much any launch platform...so why maintain the dedicated A-10 platform?
C'mon Sys, quit repeating yourself and actually engage in the conversation. If you disagree with what's being said, provide evidence to justify your remarks instead of just spouting the same stuff over and over again.
Well said. If sys continues on this path his credibility will be gone. You want in on an adult conversation, then be one.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
An autonomous drone will NEVER replace a manned combat aircraft. Drones will supplement manned combat aircraft, but never entirely replace them.
Some of us have worked on Drones and are also ACTIVELY engaged in the business. I've worked 3 drone programs and I could tell you in the past 20 years huge strides have been made in the field. The X-47 is well known in the aviation circles. A friend of mine deployed with the aircraft aboard the Roosevelt and AFAIK it is being deployed again. There are two of them and they will provide great test information for future development.
BTW, the program is going to run well into the billions, they are not cheap and it needs to be determined when a drone is expendable or a valuable asset.
