Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Bingo
Here's one of me - I think you might recognize the aircraftBingo
F-4?
BingoF-4?
No I am not - but I keep repeating if necessary that a Saab 37 in principle can do the job of a F-35. The efficiency of the job done is another issue.
Bingo
....The birdstrikes shouldn't even be counted in this as they are more an act of god and are capable in bringing down many different aircraft....
Just to show you that not all engine failures were related to maintenance issues
Regards
Jagdflieger
Disagree by a longshot and so does the way many militaries (including the US) looks at this! They are a risk factor by chance. That's like the operator blaming the manufacturer for their aircraft being grounded because of bad weather or better yet, it's like blaming the certain make of a car for being a lemon when they are in the shop for flat tires as they keep running over nails! Bird strikes were a known risk factor since the beginning of manned flight!Absolutely, bird strikes should be counted: they are, and were by the time the F-104 was deployed, a known risk factor.
Absolutely, bird strikes should be counted: they are, and were by the time the F-104 was deployed, a known risk factor.
One example is the use of pigs at Amsterdam airport to keep geese away.Now with that said, civilian and government agencies do have Bird/wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) programs to deal with migrations and prevent roosting of certain bird species around airports and do keep stats on how this affects operations at certain environments.
But bird strikes are not counted against direct MC rates with regards to specific aircraft operational safetyAbsolutely. Its s big enough risk that they are reported and snarge is collected to pattern out migratory patterns to help prevent it.
But bird strikes are not counted against direct MC rates with regards to specific aircraft operational safety
I get your point, but you don't seem to get mine.Part of the job that the F-35 does is provide force multiplication by its modern data-processing and stealthy profile.
Again, a horse and cart can move stuff and people from point A to point B. So can a Camry. In principle, they're both people and stuff movers. But Donner Pass probably wouldn't have happened if the Donner party had been driving Toyotas. You're not getting 60 mph and GPS nav with a horse and cart.
My only point is that comparisons are fine, but we shouldn't compare apples to oranges.
I get your point, but you don't seem to get mine.
Not every country has the $ to produce/develop/purchase a 5th generation aircraft, basically only two (USA and China) That is why I had brought up this thread in regards to the
possible capability of a joint European aerospace industry beginning in the 60'.
Furthermore a F-35 or F-22 is a weapon that primarily serves the military philosophy of having a superior offensive weapon. - just as the presently developed hyper missiles.
As such countries that do not have an offensive agenda or are not part of a flexible response are basically not in need for such an aircraft or hyper missiles. But rather high-tech
defensive systems.
All countries who have technology and some $ are focusing on technology to identify and target/destroy stealth aircraft's which includes off course conventional aircraft's.
As such a stealth aircraft aside from it's offensive principle, basically only supports a rebirth of an arms-race. X has them, so Y want's/needs them, and so on. But it doesn't change the balance of power between the main protagonists, since the actual power is dictated by nukes and on the future conventional and nuke issue by e.g. hyper-sonic missiles.
Imagine a nutcase like Putin having a realistic hyper-sonic missile capability - what good are these future 30 Luftwaffe F-35's going to be?
As such I would rather keep and enhance my e.g. Eurofighter and diverting funds into the above mentioned technologies, instead of purchasing an offensive weapon system that
can only be brought into action due to a NATO decision to attack someone who doesn't posses nukes. (yes I am aware that an F-35 can also defend-but that factor isn't worth the added $ in regards to what maybe "enemies", Europe is or might be facing).
The USA has a different philosophy in that matter then Western-Europe (aside maybe the UK)- for the USA to field e.g. an F-35 or F-22 is essential to their political doctrine.
But anyhow in order to progress in these matters Europe would need a capable joint-military aerospace industry. - which until today it doesn't really have.
Regards
Jagdflieger
A few things -I get your point, but you don't seem to get mine.
Not every country has the $ to produce/develop/purchase a 5th generation aircraft, basically only two (USA and China) That is why I had brought up this thread in regards to the
possible capability of a joint European aerospace industry beginning in the 60'.
Furthermore a F-35 or F-22 is a weapon that primarily serves the military philosophy of having a superior offensive weapon. - just as the presently developed hyper missiles.
As such countries that do not have an offensive agenda or are not part of a flexible response are basically not in need for such an aircraft or hyper missiles. But rather high-tech
defensive systems.
All countries who have technology and some $ are focusing on technology to identify and target/destroy stealth aircraft's which includes off course conventional aircraft's.
As such a stealth aircraft aside from it's offensive principle, basically only supports a rebirth of an arms-race. X has them, so Y want's/needs them, and so on. But it doesn't change the balance of power between the main protagonists, since the actual power is dictated by nukes and on the future conventional and nuke issue by e.g. hyper-sonic missiles.
Imagine a nutcase like Putin having a realistic hyper-sonic missile capability - what good are these future 30 Luftwaffe F-35's going to be?
As such I would rather keep and enhance my e.g. Eurofighter and diverting funds into the above mentioned technologies, instead of purchasing an offensive weapon system that
can only be brought into action due to a NATO decision to attack someone who doesn't posses nukes. (yes I am aware that an F-35 can also defend-but that factor isn't worth the added $ in regards to what maybe "enemies", Europe is or might be facing).
The USA has a different philosophy in that matter then Western-Europe (aside maybe the UK)- for the USA to field e.g. an F-35 or F-22 is essential to their political doctrine.
But anyhow in order to progress in these matters Europe would need a capable joint-military aerospace industry. - which until today it doesn't really have.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Okay - so 30? F-35's presently active with European forces would be able to do a job with credibility - great, then we can chuck away the remaining 2500 combat aircraft'sI get your point. I disagree with the idea that the Saab (or any other 3d-gen fighter, for that matter) could do the job of the F-35 with any credibility.
Ok - let's be realistic. 30 F-35s aren't going to make 2500 combat aircraft go away, but if you're looking at force integration and depending on the air force, it could replace one or two other airframes doing similar roles.Okay - so 30? F-35's presently active with European forces would be able to do a job with credibility - great, then we can chuck away the remaining 2500 combat aircraft's
and safe loads of money. But aside from that, I do not consider a Saab37 last produced in 1989/90 and upgraded in 2000 to be a 3rd generation aircraft, but a 4th generation equivalent, if a Eurofighter or Rafael is considered to be a 4/5 generation aircraft.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Agreed, so the present 4th and 4/5 generation aircraft's are doing the job that the F-35 might sooner or later undertake in far greater numbers, e.g. within 10 years.Ok - let's be realistic. 30 F-35s aren't going to make 2500 combat aircraft go away, but if you're looking at force integration and depending on the air force, it could replace one or two other airframes doing similar roles.
Case in point - the USAF F-35A will replace the F-16 and A-10. The USN F-35C will replace older F/A-18s and possibly the F/A-18 Growler. In the case of the USN you now have 2 combat airframes taking the place of the A-6, F-14, EA-6 and in some roles, S-3.
But in some cases they are. Some of the sensors and computers are currently added to 4th generation airframes, but these are a "bolt on" short term solution and in some cases not as efficient or capable as the F-35 platform.Agreed, so the present 4th and 4/5 generation aircraft's are doing the job that the F-35 might sooner or later undertake in far greater numbers, e.g. within 10 years.
That an F-35 will be far more effective isn't disputed by me. But the idea that a present 4th generation aircraft couldn't do the missions of an F-35 is what I reject = because that
is exactly as to what they need and will do for the next 10 years. - that all
Regards
Jagdflieger
Exactly - just as I was pointing out.But in some cases they are. Some of the sensors and computers are currently added to 4th generation airframes, but these are a "bolt on" short term solution and in some cases not as efficient or capable as the F-35 platform.
Look at the F-15EX
What Makes the US Air Force's F-15EX Fighter Truly Special
While various models of the F-15 have been in service for nearly fifty years, the F-15EX was first conceived in 2019. The first F-15EX was delivered to the Air Force in March 2021 and the second a month later.www.19fortyfive.com
Exactly - just as I was pointing out.
Regards
Jagdflieger