It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Looks like the F-35 isn't a turkey after all.

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

So bad = Fact
Good = PR

That's basically what it boils down to.




posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
There are things that this plane can do that we aren't allowed to know about. I'd reserve judgement until the day comes when we are made aware of what those capabilities are. Everyone is speculating on this plane based on what the military allows us to know...

EDIT: I mean, if you had a plane that could some really next-level stuff that no one has a defense against, would YOU tell the public and the whole world?
edit on 1-7-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
The proof will be in the pudding.Anything out there at the moment other than spoken by the pilots flying them is conjecture by armchair pilots.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Hmm, a few details left out.

The aircraft involved was AF-02, one of the first aircraft built. It's using older software, doesn't have the sensor capability of later aircraft.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Maybe, but the avionical problems (lift, drag, energy) are still there, independant to a software update.

I repeat my point (see my medium.com link, it was quite an eye-opener to me, good background-infos):


The marine corps had a problem with the navy's way of moving their carriers out of the way if the war is coming close. The corps wanted their own carriers and compatible avionics. They tried Bell UH1D. That was not a complete failure, but not the real thing.
They wanted the thing. They wanted a jetfighter capable of starting and landing vertically. A machine to replace the Harrier (which can start/land vertically, but has a very low freight load, and last but not least several decades old).

They got the F-35.
Now, navy and airforce have to deal with the same machine, although THEY didn't want the complicated fan/second engine only for vertical movement. Because this takes up a s**tload of space, weighs a lot and prohibits the installment of a dual engine for actual thrust.

To me, this seems not like a mis-construction, because aircraft-engineering is a very complicated task, and I'm far from being an expert, really.

This was a mis-planned thing. The specification sheet was faulty. They wanted a jack-of-all-trades, they got a machine which is not elite in every discipline, but just about average, even lower against modern jets which are designed for specific tasks.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

So you would expect aircraft one to be exactly the same as aircraft 100? Changes have been made to improve the thrust to weight ratio among other things. That means later aircraft with the current or final version of the software will do things that AF-02 will never do. They're lighter, and more maneuverable, with a better thrust to weight.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Having worked at LM for over 26 years, I can tell you that no two aircraft are ever the exact same thing. When we started building the first C130 J models, we found that there were very different flight characteristics resulting from
just small changes in the fuselage. One thing I found out just floored me, we had one guy who knew how to install the crew door that is near the cockpit, and when he retired they had to redesign the hole mess.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

The proper way would be to design a separate STOVL airframe using the same software & sensors.

China's F-35 clone doesn't do STOVL and probably won't have the aerodynamic compromises. Everybody is getting up about the Russian's bluster & machismo & military BS. Russia is declining. China is rising---it will be the Chinese who become peers to Western technology.

It doesn't matter that their toys are cheap garbage---they're that way because it's profitable. When the government puts a bullet in their head instead of a contract extension for selling the military garbage, Chinese can make quality.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ManFromEurope

So you would expect aircraft one to be exactly the same as aircraft 100? Changes have been made to improve the thrust to weight ratio among other things. That means later aircraft with the current or final version of the software will do things that AF-02 will never do. They're lighter, and more maneuverable, with a better thrust to weight.





Armchair experts.........I think I will trust the experts and they are saying this is the real deal. If you are fighting in close in today's arena you have failed in many ways.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: justdust
a reply to: Zaphod58
Having worked at LM for over 26 years, I can tell you that no two aircraft are ever the exact same thing. When we started building the first C130 J models, we found that there were very different flight characteristics resulting from
just small changes in the fuselage. One thing I found out just floored me, we had one guy who knew how to install the crew door that is near the cockpit, and when he retired they had to redesign the hole mess.



geez....that was a class-A cluster-f ....no newbie, assistant or probee that he could have mentored?.....and this guys boss didn't know this would happen?....what do those guys do all day, drink beer and chase women?....not talking about you zaph



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Eh, the Depot beats that hands down. The first thing we did after getting a jet back from PDM at the Depot was put it straight into a unit level Phase inspection. We got one EC back that they put the damn wings on crooked. Airplane went from perfectly trimmed without having to touch a button, to never flying right again, even though it went back and had them reset correctly.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: MrMaybeNot

The thing is at this moment, according to the test pilot's (probably public official "work report") own words, extremely underachieving. According to Wiki (yeah, I know!) it is also way over budget and experiencing developmental delay after developmental delay. It seems more designed to suck up money than control airflow. I am a layman, but it is ridiculously expensive, not something the world really needs right now and something my country of residence has poured a considerable amount of money into and committed itself to buying multiple aircraft, just because. One of the smallest countries in the world...Holland.

I'm not a hater but I would use that money for more....humanitarian projects.

ETA: As a layman I don't care what they can or want to do with it or compare it to but if a test pilot tells me it sucks, I believe him.
He is the one flying it.
edit on 7/7/15 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

And if a large group of other test pilots, operational pilots, and maintainers tell you that this is the most amazing aircraft they've ever dealt with, both in the air and on the ground? Who are you going to believe then?



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I worked on building the Royal Navys new Aircraft Carriers, and they will be using a variety of the F35. They were originally designed to have a steam catapult launch capability, now they are using a ramp for STOVL. Hopefully when they come in to service, the planes will actually be ready



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
IIRC those in the "know" said the Abrams tank had an intake filter that would clog in desert sand and cause the tank to over heat and stop.


Tender tanks



we ALL know how that worked to Saddam's advantage...............



whats the best way to keep a public secret, call it crap......
edit on 7-7-2015 by thedigirati because: spelling



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

Name a single air-frame that the U.S. has put into service that was a turkey?

I know I'm getting old, but I can't think of one. Nary a one. Ever.

Heads would roll, both high ranking military AND civilian CEOs. En Mass.

I will go with the track record, thanks you very much.....

The list of amazing aircraft that have come out of the U.S. is too long to bother with in this thread.

I know where I'd put my money....



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: nwtrucker

C'mon, people. Don't you find it interesting that we have all of this very expensive high-tech machines today keeping America's industries alive, and we just never got around to making a subsequent backup system for the shuttle?

The toys mentioned daily in the news are those that we intend to peddle to our wealthy friends. When's the last time you heard from an insider source on ATS calmly discussing the triangles and how they may be the missing link to space that we seem to lack but secretly may have operational?

ATS is a controlled environment, created by good people, but being what it is, subject to the desires of those that control us.


The airforce has a replacement the x 37 b in fact that program took over the shuttles work space. NASA turned it over to the airforce for maintaining the x37s. People get confused the US has the ability to get into orbit. NASA does not and that's the confusion that the us airforce is more than happy to let perpetuate so people don't take an interest in what x 37s are doing.
en.m.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: MrMaybeNot

The thing is at this moment, according to the test pilot's (probably public official "work report") own words, extremely underachieving. According to Wiki (yeah, I know!) it is also way over budget and experiencing developmental delay after developmental delay. It seems more designed to suck up money than control airflow. I am a layman, but it is ridiculously expensive, not something the world really needs right now and something my country of residence has poured a considerable amount of money into and committed itself to buying multiple aircraft, just because. One of the smallest countries in the world...Holland.

I'm not a hater but I would use that money for more....humanitarian projects.

ETA: As a layman I don't care what they can or want to do with it or compare it to but if a test pilot tells me it sucks, I believe him.
He is the one flying it.


They created a second video that discusses the cost. Turns out the costs are less than a euro fighter when you do the math.




new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join