Wouldn't that have been better performed by organically incorporating the Harrier into US Army forces Europe?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wouldn't that have been better performed by organically incorporating the Harrier into US Army forces Europe?
buffnut453
Captain
Maybe, but that's the event for which the RAF's Harriers trained. Not USMC, I know, but it was the origin of the Harrier's role.
buffnut453
Captain
It's not the age of the issue that's relevant but the need for STOVL capability. There are plenty of airframes dating from earlier than 1991 that are still entirely relevant today but others that aren't. For my money, A-10 and Harrier both fall into the latter category. Don't get me wrong - I think both aircraft are fantastic. It's just that their roles have disappeared. Rather like horse-borne cavalry, really.
It's not the age of the issue that's relevant but the need for STOVL capability. There are plenty of airframes dating from earlier than 1991 that are still entirely relevant today but others that aren't. For my money, A-10 and Harrier both fall into the latter category. Don't get me wrong - I think both aircraft are fantastic. It's just that their roles have disappeared. Rather like horse-borne cavalry, really.
At the risk of thread creep, would you perhaps say the same applies to the M1 Abrams tank? It seems today a diesel reciprocating-engine powered vehicle, better suited to long periods of idling, more economical fuel consumption, urban warfare and working closely with dismounted troops would be more appropriate?
The M1 was envisioned to be working in the same environment as the A-10 and Harrier previously mentioned.
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
Its an interesting read and not as negative as I expected. There were engine problems that caused delays in the flight testing which in turn meant that a number of goals were missed which is understandable. A structural failure yes but well into the second lifetime test cycle.
The good progress of the F35B and F35C plus the use of the 3F to make up ground lost with the 2B. Its behind on the mission systems but they were held up by the engine problems.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
About drone costs..
The X-47B which was a UCAV demonstrator (of which two were built) had a program price tag of $813 million. Do the math!
The X-47B which was a UCAV demonstrator (of which two were built) had a program price tag of $813 million. Do the math!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
IIRC the F-22 can carry 2000 pounds or bombs internally and another 2000 pounds on wing pylons. In that configuration the RCS is increased so it loses some of it's stealth capability.
The YF-23 in it's prototype form carried no bombs.
The F-35 can carry 3000 pounds of bombs internally and another 15,000 pound on hardpoints, 18k total
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"The Kremlin is cutting its initial production of the Sukhoi T-50 fighter by 75 percent amid cost overruns and rumored technical concerns – the same kind of issues that have plagued US development of the F-35."
Grounded? Russia's answer to US next-gen fighter hits the skids. - Yahoo News
Grounded? Russia's answer to US next-gen fighter hits the skids. - Yahoo News
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Deliberaty ignoring the fact that this is a one off "X" plane?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Do your home work - 2 (two, dos, два) were built
and POINTING OUT the fact that the basic F-35 airframe came from the X-35
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
Are you ignoring the US Govt paper I produced much earlier that gave the cost of a combat drone of $500m?
It should ne noted that current combat drones don't have a fraction of the capabilities of the 'cheap' drones that you are after. What one of those would cost I can only guess at.
Re the Su T50 fighter. The Russians have announced that they are going to build 12 aircraft over the coming years which to me sounds like prototypes which means that the AA missiles you are relying on, are on there own. The Su27 which seems to be the fighter that Russia are relying on is generally considered to be a match for the F15 which makes the F15 an excellent aircraft to compare the F35 against, or do you disagree?
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The F35 "Schitzoid". Doesnt know if its fighter or a bomber. Its really good to know it carries a paltry 4000 pound internal payload when in full stealth profile. Pathetic. The fact it can carry even more on hardpoints at the cost of stealth just prives what many critics have condemed it for.
A purpose built bomber would carry a lot more internally. And if its selling point is it can carry a lot externally, then why have a stealth capability to begin with?
As fighter, its just a joke. It wont be able to maneuver with any modern fighters.
As for its software, its going to be its downfall. One issue after another. It wont be till 2020 that all the bugs are worked and by then the plane is already obsolescent. A great multi hundred billion dollar investment in a flying turkey. It would have been far better to invest the money in drone R&D and embrace the future rather than this deadend.
A purpose built bomber would carry a lot more internally. And if its selling point is it can carry a lot externally, then why have a stealth capability to begin with?
As fighter, its just a joke. It wont be able to maneuver with any modern fighters.
As for its software, its going to be its downfall. One issue after another. It wont be till 2020 that all the bugs are worked and by then the plane is already obsolescent. A great multi hundred billion dollar investment in a flying turkey. It would have been far better to invest the money in drone R&D and embrace the future rather than this deadend.
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
I take that to be a Yes you are ignoring the cost, survivability, size and other drone issues which will presumably have no developmental problems.
Re the aircraft it will be fighting against can you tell us which Russian fighter the F35 will not be able to outperform?
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
More myopic drivvle...
And I guess the F-117A was just as pathetic as it carried even less of an internal payload?!?!?If you expand your brain cells you'll find that this is an option to be utilized when striking lower risk targets
Genius, see above
Prove it - maneuverability of an F/A-18 WITH and internal payload as admitted by pilots who fly the Typhoon.
More BS from the uneducated, uninformed, and unenlightened. The F-18 has software issues as we speak, an ongoing situation, same with the F-22. You're a bundle of optimism, I bet you have a picture of Pierre Spey hung up on your wall!
meanwhile...
General Defends Embattled $850 Billion F-35 Program | The Fiscal Times
Last edited:
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The cost of a drone at 700 million? Sure . I believe that. Maybe for a one time airframe. With all the money pissed away for the Schitzo fighter, we could have put it in R&D for drones and would be able to deploy them by 2020 at a fraction of the cost of what were paying now.
Glider
Captain
Still ignoring that official paper I posted.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk
Weight: 14,950 lbs (6,781 kg)
Unit cost: $222,700,000–$222,700,000 USD (2013)
Sure Sys, and this could fly them...
You have not provided one iota of proof, data, information to support your uninformed and sometimes ignorant argument. Please stop reading the articles on yahoo that reference data from 2007
Speaking of Drones, next week I am working on a General Atomics aircraft. That is the company that builds the Predator Drones.
