F-35, Hero Or Zero ?

Thanks for the correction it still worries me that our new carriers are being built yet we still don't have the jets to occupy them. God forbid if the Argies try to take the Falklands again .. Wasn't the harriers a key role in the Falklands war providing top cover for our troops

Originally posted by Tnellecxe
Personally? I'd have bought Russian or French planes. Russian equipment is battle tested,

When has Russian aircraft been recently battle tested?

The only really "fair fight" was Iran vs Iraq war in the 80's. Iran's F-14 smoked everything Iraq had, which was reasonably good Russian stuff. In the Gulf War, Iraqi aircraft always ran away from the tomcat.

(with the same electronics close up enough the F-14 might do the same to the F-35 )

F-35 would smoke with F-14 every time, the F-14 probably wouldn't even know what hit it. VLO.

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Originally posted by boomer135
EDIT: Forgot to mention that most likely the F-35 is gonna take on a Strike Eagle role more than a standard fighter, probably flying close to a pack of F-22's to take care of the A/A fighting while they conduct bombing runs.

Just adding some fuel to the fire: not all countries will have this option. Those countries that have decided to place the F-35 as their mainline fighter (Canada, I'm looking at you) without a bigger brother may be required to depend on its own A/A capabilities if they wish to undertake operations on their own. Insert flames here.

No flames needed...your absolutely right. However, if Canada is gonna go to war with somebody, most likely the U.S. is gonna have their back and send the F-22's in anyway. (Unless it's Quebec ) (BTW what's up with that whole Quebec wants to be their own country ordeal? Anything ever come of it?)

Originally posted by boomer135
No flames needed...your absolutely right. However, if Canada is gonna go to war with somebody, most likely the U.S. is gonna have their back and send the F-22's in anyway.

IE the operations we can undertake are limited to those we can get help on. Perhaps not the best position for a country which prides itself on sovereignty to be in.

(BTW what's up with that whole Quebec wants to be their own country ordeal? Anything ever come of it?)

They are like the 13 year old girl of the family. They take up as many resources as they can, and then whine about how difficult their lives are. The good news is that their attempts to secede and become their own country are largely limited to politicians whose dreams of grand conquest far outstrip the position they would actually find themselves in. In general, being part of Canada is a significant boon to Quebec, regardless of how oppressed they claim to be.

reply to post by boomer135


The export versions are not changed.

The F35 configuration that Australia will take delivery of in 2014 is identical to the configuration of the US Air Force

link.

reply to post by Tnellecxe


Incorrect. Why are some people intent on blaming America for our own screw ups. We retired the Harriers without replacement to save money, we decided this all by ourselves. We do have a track record in this as a few years earlier we retired the Sea Harrier, a FAR more useful aircraft to the RN that the ones we just got rid of. Going back further, we also scrapped all our Jaguars several years before the Typhoon was ready to take over its role (it still isn't fully capable in this area). All done under the banner of SDR (Strategic Defence Rape). Who can blame the US for spotting a bargain bin spares supply?

We are our own worst enemy. We may even end up buying a total of about 20-30 F-35's or, more likely, use it to get rid of the test of our fast jet fleet and become dependant on one type. To 'save money'.

The Aviationist has an interesting article where a couple of former Skunk Works guys talk about why the F-35 program has so many problems.

I thought this bit was rather interesting (and slightly amusing):

According to Batey, Alan Brown, a British guy who joined Lockheed in 1960 before joining the Skunk Works in 1975 and being involved in the Have Blue and F-117 programs, had “a simple algebraic formula”:

[…] “the time it takes to go from initial design to operational use by the Air Force is directly proportional to the size of the Air Force oversight committee that’s guiding the airplane design. For the F-117, the Air Force team was a colonel and six other experts-the corresponding team on the F-22 was 130. And if you ratio 130 over seven, you’ll get just about the ratio of the time it took from starting the airframes to getting them in service,” Brown explained.

Bob Murphy, who joined the Skunk Works in 1954, managed flight-test on the U-2 and became deputy director of operations, illustrated the troubles faced by the Joint Strike Fighter to Batey.

“Because of bureaucracy”, […] “once you get all these organizations involved-all the different Air Force bases across the country, and every contractor that makes a screw for the airplane-when they have meetings, everybody comes to every meeting, and nothing ever gets settled. It’s crazy! If you’ve got 300 people in a meeting, what the hell do you solve? Nothing,” Murphy stated.

theaviationist.com...

Originally posted by kimish
I hear something like this and it just makes me think... I think of when the military denied the existance of the stealth aircraft. I think it wasn't until the late 80's or early 90's that the military admitted they did exist. And had existed since the 60's. In other words, what they are showing off as top of the line, most advanced etc. isn't anything near technologically what they really have behind closed doors.
I have nothing but the utmost confidence in the U.S. air superiority.

edit on 2-4-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)

The first stealth fighters and bombers were actually pioneered by the Germans in the last few months of the war.

www.youtube.com...

The technology we have right now has barely changed since the 40's and 50's, its just been refined and upgraded.

The F35 however is a piece of #. In a slightly off topic tangent however, Britain still tries to bribe places like India with 'foreign aid' money into buying BAE aircraft contracts with the now way obsolete Tornado GR4 upgrades and Eurofighters when at the same time India is working on a joint Indo-Russian project which will not only decimate the Eurofighter but the West's pet F35 project too.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by CyningSaeward


Not quite. The Mosquito was the first aircraft built with an eye towards radar return. It had a smaller RCS than it should have for the time, due to construction materials, and was considered the first low observable against radars of its time.

Jack Northrop was building flying wings prior to the Horton brothers as well.

You learn something new! I never realised the Mozzie had a low radar profile, more than likely the balsa wood construction I imagine, but I think it was accidental with the Mosquito, this German one was built with the intention of creating a dedicated stealth air force.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by CyningSaeward

 

Jack Northrop was building flying wings prior to the Horton brothers as well.

1940 is before 1937?

The Horton's had independently powered flying wings up before Northrop had his first flying wing model up.

Not that there is any shame in that, both groups were really going against the established grain.

reply to post by peck420


Northrop had a wing in the air in the 30s. When ican get on the computer later tonight I'll dig up the info on itI

reply to post by Zaphod58


That still doesn't mean that it was designed specifically with stealth in mind.

reply to post by CyningSaeward


The 229 wasn't either initially. It was discovered during tests that a flying wing is inherently stealthy due to the shape. They started out looking for an advanced design the luftwaffe would be interested in, at least partly to get money for more designs.

reply to post by CyningSaeward


The Germans weren't developing with stealth in mind either. This is a retrospectively applied myth that grew up becausevthebHorten design appends to lend itself to LO.

All that the Hortens, Jack Northrop, and everyone else (yes, everyone, there were lots) developing flying wings were trying to do was develop the most aerodynamically efficient aircraft they could.

Radar itself was in it infancy, radar avoidance was almost unheard of. Window was as far as it had got by that date. The idea that aircraft were shaped in the way we do now to give them stealth characteristics is preposterous. Coincidence is not proof.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by peck420

 

Northrop had a wing in the air in the 30s. When ican get on the computer later tonight I'll dig up the info on itI

That would be awesome, thank you in advance!

Everything I've got on Northrop (prior to his 40's model) has a tail.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The Aviationist has an interesting article where a couple of former Skunk Works guys talk about why the F-35 program has so many problems.

You (and the Skunk Works guy) hit the nail on the head there. The JSF has had far too much 'design input' from the USAF and even international customers. Every design change sets off a whole cascade of work to be done.

Specification creep always greatly extends development time. In aerospace development a simple change can often add years.