bush_cheney2004 Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 (edited) Well no, it's not.........The F-35 was a clean slate. ...which is remarkable, given that there have been no aircraft losses in over 15,000 flight hours to date. The fire at Eglin has been the most serious incident to date. I recall that aircraft were often lost in development with fatalities in decades past (e.g. YF-14A Tomcat), but they still went on to become great performers. Edited July 6, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 No tis not the most serious, only the most recent. Quote
Moonbox Posted July 6, 2014 Author Report Posted July 6, 2014 Isn't that what I said? Now take your Typhoon or Flanker designed in the late 70s and early 80s and let's also expand on several decades of know-how and apply it to the F-35......... The Eurofighter program started only maybe 8-10 years before the F-35, and it was built from the start with air-superiority in mind. You wouldn't, for example, suggest that the F-18 was better than the F-15 at air superiority, would you, despite the fact that the F-15 was designed and built years earlier than the Hornet? Similarly, you'd not suggest that the original Hornets were better fleet defense fighters than the Tomcat, despite being 10 years newer, right? Again, I'm not an engineer, so you have me there, but from a purely practical standpoint I find it hard to believe that the wide array of stealth and multi-role requirements placed on the F-35's design did not force compromises in certain areas. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Wilber Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 The Eurofighter program started only maybe 8-10 years before the F-35, and it was built from the start with air-superiority in mind. You wouldn't, for example, suggest that the F-18 was better than the F-15 at air superiority, would you, despite the fact that the F-15 was designed and built years earlier than the Hornet? Similarly, you'd not suggest that the original Hornets were better fleet defense fighters than the Tomcat, despite being 10 years newer, right?Again, I'm not an engineer, so you have me there, but from a purely practical standpoint I find it hard to believe that the wide array of stealth and multi-role requirements placed on the F-35's design did not force compromises in certain areas. Every aircraft is a compromise in some areas but unless you can afford to operate multiple types, you have to select the compromise that best fits your needs. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 The Eurofighter program started only maybe 8-10 years before the F-35, and it was built from the start with air-superiority in mind. You wouldn't, for example, suggest that the F-18 was better than the F-15 at air superiority, would you, despite the fact that the F-15 was designed and built years earlier than the Hornet? Similarly, you'd not suggest that the original Hornets were better fleet defense fighters than the Tomcat, despite being 10 years newer, right? Actually, both the Eurofighter and Rafale were born from the same requirement in the 1970s………none the less, no, I wouldn’t suggest Hornet is a better purebred fighter then the F-15.…likewise the Tomcat....But by the same token, the F-15 is wanting when compared to the F-22.…. Of course, the Hornet (or the Falcon) were not intended to be a pre-eminent air superiority aircraft, but multirole types to conduct various tasks, well replacing various aircraft types…….The F-35 is the next logical extension of that meme. Again, I'm not an engineer, so you have me there, but from a purely practical standpoint I find it hard to believe that the wide array of stealth and multi-role requirements placed on the F-35's design did not force compromises in certain areas. Unlikely. “Stealth” is merely camouflage (as I’ve said numerous times) and was sought from the onset by the services of both the United States and the United Kingdom……..The multirole nature of the aircraft is only an improved extension of it’s predecessors. Now if you mean the STOVL requirement added complexity, time and money to the program as a whole….certainly, I agree 100% and have been saying that for years……Where I diverge is the complexities of the STOVL requiring design compromises to the conventional (and carrier) version…..from the onset in the developmental stage, these were both separate aircraft that shared similarities and systems. If there were no synergies, the STOVL requirement for the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and the USMC would likely never have been funded as a standalone variant …..As is likely the case for the USN’s carrier version…..If these services didn’t board the bus they would be likely operating, at best, improved variants of legacy aircraft until the middle of this century……This of course was not acceptable to these end users. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 Nope. Once again very simply, one design cannot fulfill multi roles. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 Nope. Once again very simply, one design cannot fulfill multi roles. Yet aircraft like these: Disprove your baseless claim. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 Yet aircraft like these: Disprove your baseless claim. Not in the least. It's not suypewrsonic and it's dangerous at night or low level. You can't see out of it and it tends to catch fire Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 (edited) Not in the least. It's not suypewrsonic and it's dangerous at night or low level. You can't see out of it and it tends to catch fire Well I agree that the F-35 isn't "suyperwrsonic". it is most defiantly supersonic.......How is it dangerous at night or low level? Why can't you see out of it? And how many of those in service have caught fire? Edited July 6, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 Got a lot to do with trying to suck too much power out of one engine. Never mind all the other crap that doesn't work. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 Got a lot to do with trying to suck too much power out of one engine. What's too much power for one engine in your opinion? And what other "crap" doesn't work? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 The stealth, the visor, the mid air refuel, the weight , the maneuvarability, Oh yeah and the engine. Other than that everythings good. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 The stealth, Source? the visor You mean this? the mid air refuel the weight What about it? the maneuvarability Source? Oh yeah and the engine. Oh yeah, like the Super Hornet..... Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 ...Of course, the Hornet (or the Falcon) were not intended to be a pre-eminent air superiority aircraft, but multirole types to conduct various tasks, well replacing various aircraft types…….The F-35 is the next logical extension of that meme. Yep....how long has it been that Canada had a pure air superiority platform in its inventory (e.g. F-86 Sabres)? Those who keep beating the "dogfighting" drum are ignoring the past, present, and future requirement for a CF-18 replacement. There is no scenario in which Canada would deploy to missions without U.S./NATO defense suppression and air superiority assets. Once air superiority is established, the threat shifts elsewhere, with CAP missions that the CF-18 or F-35 can handle. Canada is buying a multirole, strike fighter. If needed, watch Top Gun (again) for dogfighting fantasies that do not apply. The superb F-14 Tomcat ended its glorious fleet defense career as a (gasp) "bomb truck". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 Yep....how long has it been that Canada had a pure air superiority platform in its inventory (e.g. F-86 Sabres)? Bingo Those who keep beating the "dogfighting" drum are ignoring the past, present, and future requirement for a CF-18 replacement. There is no scenario in which Canada would deploy to missions without U.S./NATO defense suppression and air superiority assets. Once air superiority is established, the threat shifts elsewhere, with CAP missions that the CF-18 or F-35 can handle. Well very true, the F-35 of course can dogfight..... Canada is buying a multirole, strike fighter. If needed, watch Top Gun (again) for dogfighting fantasies that do not apply. The superb F-14 Tomcat ended its glorious fleet defense career as a (gasp) "bomb truck". Agreed. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 What's too much power for one engine in your opinion? And what other "crap" doesn't work? It's the amount of heat generated to try to achieve that much power from a single source. With regard to the weight it keeps getting heavier as "bandaids" are placed over cracks that keep on showing up. Next thing you know it ain't so maneuverable. Then there's the ejection seat, when you load it up it loses whatever steallth it sought to have initially, and it's so GD noisy you don't even need radar to track it Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 Oh BTW, I wouldn't consort too much with BC, he seems to have delusions of grandeur thinking the F 35 is already in service. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 It's the amount of heat generated to try to achieve that much power from a single source. Are you suggesting that much power could never be generated from a single source? I find that hard to believe..... With regard to the weight it keeps getting heavier as "bandaids" are placed over cracks that keep on showing up. Source for the weight gain......in your view, what is the ideal weight? Next thing you know it ain't so maneuverable. Source? Then there's the ejection seat, when you load it up it loses whatever steallth it sought to have initially, I don't suppose you have a source? and it's so GD noisy you don't even need radar to track it How much more noise is generated? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 Oh BTW, I wouldn't consort too much with BC, he seems to have delusions of grandeur thinking the F 35 is already in service. Why the personal attack on the member? That was uncalled for and clearly against forum rules. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 Are you suggesting that much power could never be generated from a single source? I find that hard to believe..... Source for the weight gain......in your view, what is the ideal weight? Source? I don't suppose you have a source? How much more noise is generated? Why the personal attack on the member? That was uncalled for and clearly against forum rules. Wasn't an attack at all. Just pointing he had/has his facts pretty wrong. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 When you state things that are completely wrong, you open yourself up to scrutiny.BC had the Aussies already flying the F 35. Anybody that knows anything knows that's all BS. Are you faulting me for calling a spade a spade? Quote
Moonbox Posted July 6, 2014 Author Report Posted July 6, 2014 Actually, both the Eurofighter and Rafale were born from the same requirement in the 1970s but the Future European Fighter program didn't even begin until ~1983. Understanding of the requirement maybe began before that, but then the same thing would be true of any plane. ………none the less, no, I wouldn’t suggest Hornet is a better purebred fighter then the F-15.…likewise the Tomcat....But by the same token, the F-15 is wanting when compared to the F-22.…. Of course, the F-22 was essentially the successor of the F-15 - the big, expensive, balls-to-the-walls air-superiority monster. They were/are both meant to provide unmatched air-dominance capabilities. Of course, the Hornet (or the Falcon) were not intended to be a pre-eminent air superiority aircraft, but multirole types to conduct various tasks, well replacing various aircraft types…….The F-35 is the next logical extension of that meme. and we'll see if it works. There's certainly a lot of logistical/tactical advantages to having one plane being able to complete multiple mission types, the 'logical extension' in this case appears to be rather extreme, especially considering it was originally intended to operate in consort with large complements of F-22's, which are so few in number now that they can't be relied upon. Unlikely. “Stealth” is merely camouflage (as I’ve said numerous times) and was sought from the onset by the services of both the United States and the United Kingdom……..The multirole nature of the aircraft is only an improved extension of it’s predecessors. but again, the F-35 was never intended to be the air-superiority weapon of choice. They were meant to be the natural evolution/combination of the F-16's and F-18's, operating in large numbers and as the workhorse of the fleet with the F-22 ensuring overall air-superiority. As for design compromises, you're likely aware that the F-35 has a radar signature many times larger than it's older and larger cousin the F-22. This has a lot to do with the materials used, as the F-22's stealth coating apparently costs a fortune to maintain between flights and a more economical stealth design was required. This required a larger focus on shape and angles to deflect radar, and frankly I have trouble understanding how forcing radar-deflecting shapes aren't going to impact flight performance. Regardless, when you have a plane that most estimates are pegging it at $120M/unit and by virtually all estimates will get blown out of the skies (as in no contest) by the older F-22 costing $150M/unit, I don't know how you can say that design compromises weren't made for it to fulfill its wide variety of role requirements. From its conception, the F-35 was meant to operate in conjunction with the F-22. I'm going to assume you know why the F-22 was cancelled, but the worrying thing for me is what happens if Russian and Chinese next-gen designs proliferate at greater rates than the US DoD anticipated? Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
ReeferMadness Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 Are you guys still arguing over these flying butterballs? Oh, wait, they're not flying right now, are they? I suppose they're parked butterballs at the moment. Still, I've no doubt that there are people getting rich off of them, even as governments waste peoples money on them. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Wilber Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 (edited) Don't know why anyone would think these things won't be continually improved over their service life. The power of the Harrier's engine has increased over 35% its reliability much improved and the aircraft's gross weight has nearly doubled. The original JT-9 engined B474's hqd a hard time making it across the Atlantic with all four running, now failures are a very rare thing and the engines are producing 20% more power. Certainly, being a single engine AC, that standard won't do but it just isn't logical to think these things aren't going to get a lot better. This aircraft is an attempt to be the second succesful VSTOL fighter in history and the first in over 50 years plus be successful with non VSTOL versions. No small feat and not suprising there are complications. One would think that a country which can't afford to operate more than one type of fighter aircraft would be hoping this thing can be a big sucess, not wishing for its failure. Edited July 6, 2014 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Rue Posted July 6, 2014 Report Posted July 6, 2014 Derek you engaged in an absolute falsehood stating Israel sells the technology the US gives it to anyone and that is why there is a dispute between Israel and the US. More to the point your comment makes no sense just like trying to argue the more you fly the F35 the cheaper its maintenance costs become. Let's get fight to the false statement you made. Israel wanted to put its own electronic system into the F35 so your contention the US was not allowing it because it would sell the US system to anyone is absolute and utter bullcrap. Israel believes it has a superior electronic engineering system. It is an absolute pile of crap to say as well Israel would sell the very same system it wants its pilots to use to anyone else. What a ridiculous thing to say. No Israel does not sell equipment to be used against it to kill its pilots or US pilots. That is an absolutelie. The US wants to force Israel to buy their system. If Israel used its own, the US subcontractors would not make any money, Its that simple and its one of the problems Israel has being too dependent on the US, its lost its independence on certain decisions as to what equipment it an use and that is coming to a head and in the end Israel will modify any F35 its given with its own equipment not withstanding the US trying to preserve a monopoly on sub-systems to put in the plane. More to the point if you knew anything about the security agreements between Israel and the US, Israel and the US have strict security requirements as to the sharing and exchange of information. Israel is being sent F35's to test because its test pilots are relied on by Lockhead as they have in the past by the US fighter manufacturers. Their pilots are far more experienced with testing computerized systems especially the flawed helmet which does not work, not to mention the myriad of electronic and structural issues the F35 has still not rectified and probably can't. As for test pilots panning the F35 people can find that out for themselves on the internet. You want to pretend you do not know about pilots complaining about poor night vision, a blind spot because of the cockpit design, the lack of manouverability, the lack of sound, the problems with engine overheating, the slow speed, its all documented and your pat denials won't make that go away. Also your claim that the Super Hornet is cheaper than the Gripen is false and people can check that out for themselves. The price differential by the way in the case of comparing a Superhornet and Grypen is not significant enough to warrant a concern as say between either of those craft and the F35. The Superhornet is in fact more expensive but for the money is worth it since it can offer better sub contracts to Canada then the Swedes and the Canadian pilots would not need as much training as with the Gripen. I personally think either craft is suitable for Canada. Some believe the edge to the Hornet is because it has two engines. I think the the Hornet or the Gripen are options. Their price was not and is not the issue their suitability to Canada is. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.