|
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 01:19 AM by American Mad Man
|
the F-117?
I don't think that was ever going to be put on a carrier. To my knowladge it was is in service only with the AF. Besides, i doubt with control
problems the "woblin goblin" could ever land on a carrier...could be wrong though
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 01:20 AM by htown
|
No there were suggested plans for it only.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 07:39 AM by COOL HAND
|
Originally posted by Lampyridae
The A-10 was designed to cut down Warsaw Pact tanks in swathes in Western Europe. It's not suited for today's modern combat styles - precision
strike, etc. It just doesn't have the inbuilt night-fighting capability and other niceties that other modern strike aircraft have.
That is why they invented the LANTIRN pod. So that planes without inherent Night Fighting capabilities can get it.
The A-6 was the Navy's first all-weather strike aircraft, could haul an enormous bombload and drop them roght on target. But these days you only need
1 or 2 bombs on target. For sheer mass destruction we have B-2s with cluster bombs.
Okay, what do you recommend for Close Air Support?
Air superiority is not much of a problem for the US Navy now... the F-14's purpose was to protect carrier fleets from attack aircraft (but not nukes
or nuclear cruise missiles!). But I wonder if the F-35 is up to tomorrow's air superiority role...
Where did you get that info from? The F-14 was designed as a Fleet Interceptor, meaning it was to intercept all threats to the fleets at the max
range possible. To do this it was given a powerful radar that could shoot down incoming aircraft and cruise missiles.
As far as teh F-35 we will have to wait and see. Hopefully it will benefit from an improved AMRAAM, with better range, ECCM, etc..
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 10:51 AM by PARALYZ
|
Magnificent post Intelgurl.I've always considered the F-35 to be the "Mini Raptor"...hehe.It indeed has some great specs.The thing that raises my
eyebrow is it replacing the A-10.We all like the sexy high tech cadillac technology in our jets.Though the A-10 is on its way out personally i think
its a mistake to replace it at this time.Nothing does the one thing it was designed to do,close air-to-ground support,better than it.No matter how
fast or from however far way we shoot at an enemy there still will be times when we will hafta get close in the enemy's face.I'm not totally opposed
to the F-35,i'll be definately checking out how it does when it enters service.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 11:00 AM by cmdrkeenkid
|
Originally posted by PARALYZ
The thing that raises my eyebrow is it replacing the A-10.We all like the sexy high tech cadillac technology in our jets.Though the A-10 is on its way
out personally i think its a mistake to replace it at this time.Nothing does the one thing it was designed to do,close air-to-ground support,better
than it.No matter how fast or from however far way we shoot at an enemy there still will be times when we will hafta get close in the enemy's
face.
i completely agree. we're planning on using b-52s well into the next decade or two. it's already the longest used military aircraft. the a-10 is
comparable to this in ground attack capabilities. it can fly low and slow and take down entrenched buildings, or come in screaming and take out tanks
and caravans.
the a-10 is like the modern skyraider. that plane was used forever, and was a total ass-kicker.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 11:06 AM by COOL HAND
|
Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Originally posted by PARALYZ
The thing that raises my eyebrow is it replacing the A-10.We all like the sexy high tech cadillac technology in our jets.Though the A-10 is on its way
out personally i think its a mistake to replace it at this time.Nothing does the one thing it was designed to do,close air-to-ground support,better
than it.No matter how fast or from however far way we shoot at an enemy there still will be times when we will hafta get close in the enemy's
face.
i completely agree. we're planning on using b-52s well into the next decade or two. it's already the longest used military aircraft. the a-10 is
comparable to this in ground attack capabilities. it can fly low and slow and take down entrenched buildings, or come in screaming and take out tanks
and caravans.
the a-10 is like the modern skyraider. that plane was used forever, and was a total ass-kicker.
That is because it has been easy to add new capabilities to the B-52. There is tons of room to put in all kinds of sexy high-tech gear.
The A-10 does not have that luxury. They have pretty much used up all the room in that aircraft that they can. It was never designed to be a
high-tech aircraft, but that is what you need to survive these days.
Personally I would love to see them produce the two seater A-10 for the FAC and CAS role.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 11:48 AM by PARALYZ
|
A redesign of the A-10 might be something to consider.A similiar jet to the A-10 is the SU-39 which has most of the same capabilities and is a bit
more manueverable and faster.Sorry not meaning to go off F-35 subject.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 01:05 PM by Lampyridae
|
Originally posted by COOL HAND
Originally posted by Lampyridae
The A-10 was designed to cut down Warsaw Pact tanks in swathes in Western Europe. It's not suited for today's modern combat styles - precision
strike, etc. It just doesn't have the inbuilt night-fighting capability and other niceties that other modern strike aircraft have.
That is why they invented the LANTIRN pod. So that planes without inherent Night Fighting capabilities can get it.
There's more to night fighting than just infrared. Terrain following radar, low-light TV, etc. A-10s have now been upgraded with somewhat
rudimentary avionics, after the make-do of the 1st Gulf War.
The A-6 was the Navy's first all-weather strike aircraft, could haul an enormous bombload and drop them roght on target. But these days you only need
1 or 2 bombs on target. For sheer mass destruction we have B-2s with cluster bombs.
Okay, what do you recommend for Close Air Support?
Close Air Support? If you mean the A-6 was specifially designed for close air support, then you're mistaken. The A-10 was to be eventually be
phased out by a dedicated F-16, a somewhat poor choice in my opinion! The F-16C gun pods in GW1 were a joke... but the Warthog first flew in 1972, and
the Air Force plans to move on. As for the B-52, who knows...
A-6 Intruder
A-10 Warthog
Air superiority is not much of a problem for the US Navy now... the F-14's purpose was to protect carrier fleets from attack aircraft (but not nukes
or nuclear cruise missiles!). But I wonder if the F-35 is up to tomorrow's air superiority role...
Where did you get that info from? The F-14 was designed as a Fleet Interceptor, meaning it was to intercept all threats to the fleets at the max
range possible. To do this it was given a powerful radar that could shoot down incoming aircraft and cruise missiles.
I hope you're not suggesting that F-14s were designed to shoot down ICBMs. I did not say conventional cruise missiles. I mean cruise missiles with
a nuclear warhead - they only have to get close to be effective. Also - the Navy's anti-sub net in the past was also dirt poor. And it is a fact that
the Navy played "no nuking our carriers" in war games. And yes, I do know about the F-14's radar and Phoenix combination and what it is meant for.
Next time, please actually read what I post.
As far as teh F-35 we will have to wait and see. Hopefully it will benefit from an improved AMRAAM, with better range, ECCM, etc..
True. But it won't be as user friendly as the Warthog!
[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Lampyridae]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 01:10 PM by Lampyridae
|
I stated earlier that the A-10 was designed as a tank-killer. It was not - in fact, it was designed for wars like Vietnam, low intensity conflicts.
However, it later came to be viewed and used by planners as a "tank-buster."
Anyway, enough wandering off the topic. We're here to discuss the F-35.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 01:13 PM by Lampyridae
|
Originally posted by PARALYZ
A redesign of the A-10 might be something to consider.A similiar jet to the A-10 is the SU-39 which has most of the same capabilities and is a bit
more manueverable and faster.Sorry not meaning to go off F-35 subject.
I agree, but the USAF has tasted invulnerability and likes it. It doesn't even want to get its aircraft scratched these days - speed and stealth are
vogue, and the A-10 has neither. I think that to them the A-10 is like a pub brawler showing up at a fencing club.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 01:20 PM by Krisboton
|
with that compotition i wanted the X-32 to win but it didn't but now the X-35 is a great air craft so im glad it won!
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 01:28 PM by COOL HAND
|
There's more to night fighting than just infrared. Terrain following radar, low-light TV, etc. A-10s have now been upgraded with somewhat
rudimentary avionics, after the make-do of the 1st Gulf War.
LANTIRN gives you LLTV and IR.
Close Air Support? If you mean the A-6 was specifially designed for close air support, then you're mistaken. The A-10 was to be eventually be
phased out by a dedicated F-16, a somewhat poor choice in my opinion! The F-16C gun pods in GW1 were a joke... but the Warthog first flew in 1972, and
the Air Force plans to move on. As for the B-52, who knows...
A-6's not used for CAS? Someone better tell all those Marine drivers that they weren't used for that. The A-6 was designed for both Startegic
and Tactical Bombing.
I hope you're not suggesting that F-14s were designed to shoot down ICBMs. I did not say conventional cruise missiles. I mean cruise missiles with
a nuclear warhead - they only have to get close to be effective. Also - the Navy's anti-sub net in the past was also dirt poor. And it is a fact that
the Navy played "no nuking our carriers" in war games. And yes, I do know about the F-14's radar and Phoenix combination and what it is meant for.
Next time, please actually read what I post.
No # it couldn't hit an ICBM. Excuse me for not stating that implicitly, I guess I overestimated your intelligence.
True. But it won't be as user friendly as the Warthog!
Spoken like someone who has never flown in a military aircraft.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 03:23 PM by American Mad Man
|
I think the A-10 is going out the door simply because it's survivability is getting lower and lower. With missles like the Stinger and Russian
equivalent hand held G2A weapons being in abundance, relatively cheap, and easy to use, slow low flying planes are too big of a risk to put that close
to the ground. Besides, today you can use a guided bomb to precisely hit the target from far away. And if you need an A2G weapon platform, helo's are
the way to go. Just my 2 cents.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 03:54 PM by cmdrkeenkid
|
Originally posted by Krisboton
with that compotition i wanted the X-32 to win but it didn't but now the X-35 is a great air craft so im glad it won!
just out of curiousity, what were your reasons for wanting the x-32? personally, i thought the x-35 was a much better vehicle (in both capabilities
and looks).
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 10:03 PM by bios electric
|
Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
just out of curiousity, what were your reasons for wanting the x-32? personally, i thought the x-35 was a much better vehicle (in both capabilities
and looks).
I agree, the X-32 looks like a pelican with it's mouth open.
it's ugly as home-made sin,
so damn ugly it'd make a frieght train take a dirt road,
Joint Chiefs had to tie a pork chop around it's neck just so the dogs would play with it,
So ugly Boeing shaved it's butt and made it walk backwards...
can you tell I been drinkin?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-3-2004 @ 02:42 PM by Mo0se
|
Good Lord! This is an awesome thread!!!
I did not really know that much about the F-35 until now. That laser thing its gunna have sounds like star wars, can't wait for that to be
deployed.
moose out
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 7-3-2004 @ 05:31 PM by nobody
|
It's much better then what you think. This is only what the press got out of us.
Lockheed never fails!
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2004 @ 06:13 AM by roniii259
|
the f-35 will replace the a-10 as a cas because of its stovly capacity. The harrier is used in the same way today, but only the marines use it. The
a-10 is a great aircraft dont get me wrong, but the stovl, stealth,and supersonic flight capabilities will make it harder to shoot down, thus saving
money and lives. The x-32 was just ugly, ive seen mockups for the boeing and the lockhhed jsf and the lockheed one is definintely better
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-3-2004 @ 10:51 AM by Lampyridae
|
Originally posted by COOL HAND
Spoken like someone who has never flown in a military aircraft.
Fine. I only know what I've been told and researched. Sorry.
[Edited on 8-3-2004 by Lampyridae]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-3-2004 @ 08:01 PM by Spectre
|
It came as a surprise but I actually got to see an F-35 at the National Air & Space Museum at the Dulles Airport. I went to see their SR-71 and
didn't even know that they had a JSF in the collection. It is impressive to look at although it seemed much smaller than I had imagined. You can't
get too close to the plane but you can see it from all around. I tried to get a peek into the cockpit from the upper walkway with my camera zoom, but
I could not make out amy details. If you are in the area it is worth the trip.
National Air & Space Museum - Dulles
|
copyright & usage
|
|
