F-16.net

Printed from: F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference [http://www.f-16.net]
Document title: U.S. agrees to sell F-35 to Israel - F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference
Original URL: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8776-start-60-sid-43896b92cd40513d10db207cf1ff1c1e.html
Printed on: 18 November 2008

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

U.S. agrees to sell F-35 to Israel



Search Search  Register Register  Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
Thumper3181
PostPosted: Aug 30, 2007 - 08:16 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Jun 23, 2006
Posts: 434

Status: Offline
Quote:
I hope your not one of those who believe missile burn for extended time periods.


You can't out run them if do not see them until the missile's radar is turned on. LPI radar allows you to illuminate the target discreetly so you only turn the missile's radar on at the last minute. I know it's the subtleties.

Quote:
Just say no to Falcon 4 missile simulation.

Never did play the game and it is presumptuous of you to think so.

Quote:
Thirdly any aviation analist and press will easely put the Eurofighter 1 notch above the Superbug.


For instance?

Quote:
Fourth, we werent the ones who wasted taxpayers money because lobies pulled off to promote a stopgap fighter wich wasnt an improvement in every aspect over legacy F-14's and F-18's and that it will become rather redundant when the F-35 variants arrive in a few years anyway.


Not nearly as useless and obsolete as the Eurofrauder. The SH will be tanking, mud moving, jamming and providing sea control long into the 2020's. We can't say the same for the Eurofrauder.

Lastly, try using spell check. Analyst. Since you cannot spell it I wonder if you would know true analysis when you read it.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: Nov 19, 2008 - 12:32 AM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor





   
 
SpeakTheTruth
PostPosted: Aug 30, 2007 - 10:05 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Jul 26, 2006
Posts: 144

Status: Offline
Thumper3181 wrote:
Not nearly as useless and obsolete as the Eurofrauder. The SH will be tanking, mud moving, jamming and providing sea control long into the 2020's. We can't say the same for the Eurofrauder.


*sigh* You need to look up the definition of obsolescence. If the Typhoon is obsolete why are Air forces procuring it? Now I'm sure for the Euro nations and Saudi you'll reason that it is politics, work-share etc but then look at Japan. All indications show that the Typhoon looks to be the favourite. If it was so obsolete why was it even considered? The F-18 is in that contest and there are no indications to show that is a top contender. Don't get me wrong I think the SH is a wonderful aircraft, but don't exaggerate it to the extent of thinking it is better than the Typhoon. Yes the tiffy has some flaws in at the the moment but they are being addressed - it is a new aircraft.

Also you'll quite happily listen to the opinion of USAF pilots when talking about the F-22, so why not do the same with the RAF pilots who have flown the Tiffy? They know more about that aircraft than me or you do.

Thumper3181 wrote:
Lastly, try using spell check. Analyst. Since you cannot spell it I wonder if you would know true analysis when you read it.


Come on Thumper lets not start nit-picking, everyone makes spelling mistakes and typo's and that includes you. I can fully understand Pilotasso's posts and his English is pretty much perfect. Remember the guy is from Portugal so English may not be his first language, although he speaks (or types I should say) very good English. Addressing his spelling mistakes/typo's this way has nothing to do with the current argument and is just unnecessary.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Scorpion1alpha
PostPosted: Aug 31, 2007 - 12:18 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Oct 20, 2005
Posts: 784

Status: Offline
Quote:
Now I'm sure for the Euro nations and Saudi you'll reason that it is politics, work-share etc but then look at Japan. All indications show that the Typhoon looks to be the favourite.


Pardon for getting into the middle of this little tryst but where are you getting the Typhoon is tops on their list because I find that interesting.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
tmofarrvl
PostPosted: Aug 31, 2007 - 10:07 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Oct 19, 2006
Posts: 96

Status: Offline
Thumper3181 wrote:
"The US Navy and Marine Corps used Honeywell's Visual Target Acquisition System from 1973 to 1979 in approximately 500 of their Phantom fighters." . . .
Thats a bit more than flirt.

I guess I needed to explain more clearly:
  • After being installed in some 500 US Navy F-4's, the entire VTAS program was canned and all systems were pulled from assets that were still flying.

  • After being examined for possible use in both the F-14 and F-15, the decision was made NOT to deploy the VTAS in either airplane.

  • Today, the US Air Force and US Navy fly with a helmet mounted display and sight that was developed by a joint venture between a US and Israeli manufacturer - and which bears no common lineage to any of the hardware deployed under VTAS.

In plain English, VTAS didn't work. US Navy pilots complained that they didn't know if the system had made a positive lock onto a target, or if it was tracking background glare. Electronics technology just wasn't mature enough to make a helmet mounted sight (much less a helmet mounted display) practical back in the 1970s.

The first real world breakthrough in this arena was made by Soviet developers, who came up with the novel idea of combining a helmet mounted sight with a high off-boresight heat-seeking missile - that also had the necessary agility to score a high off-boresight kill. The concept was first deployed by the Soviets, and was later perfected by the Israelis.

Thumper3181 wrote:
Quote:
Python 4 were developed with Israeli taxpayer funding

Reverse engineered and highly modified sidewinder.

The AIM-9L (which was the most advanced Sidewinder that the Israelis deployed when they were developing the Python 4) couldn't do what the Python 4 could do, anymore than the F-15 could match the peformance of the F-22. I wouldn't call the F-22 a "highly modified" F-15, anymore than I would call the Python 4 a "highly modified" Sidewinder.


Thumper, I seem to be detecting a predisposition that assumes that all true innovation must originate from an American developer, and that all American hardware must automatically be superior to anything else in the world. While I appreciate your "made in America" enthusiasm, it can also lead to two, potentially dangerous errors.

  • The first, is that such a predisposition can prevent someone from taking advantage of his competitors' ideas and innovation.

    Virtually all American military hardware in the air today, uses components or subsystems that were either produced or developed overseas. It all comes down to stretching our limited defense resources as far as possible. American manufacturers don't need to be the "best" at everything. We do need to focus our R&D resources on a few key areas, and allow someone else to provide the many peripherals that we will need - at a lower cost.

  • Second, such a predispostion can also lead someone to underestimate the capabilities of a potential adversary.

    Shortly after the Berlin Wall fell, I had the rare opportunity to meet one of my senior counterparts from the former Soviet Union. I can assure you that their engineers were every bit as innovative and intelligent as their American adversaries. What they lacked was the manufacturing and industrial base to match our own. They would spend more time working around their manufacturing shortcomings, and less time developing their ideas into physical hardware. Yes, our hardware was "better." But I would never presume that the Soviets couldn't pose a real threat.


If America wants to continue to deploy the best weapons available to arm our soldiers, we need to be willing to learn from both our allies, and adversaries.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
tmofarrvl
PostPosted: Aug 31, 2007 - 10:20 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Oct 19, 2006
Posts: 96

Status: Offline
snypa777 wrote:
Last time I checked, the US were not fighting China so I guess it isn`t seen as a problem!


The United States began to grow truly anxious about China, only after it was revealed in 1998 that Chinese agents had successfully gained access to the most advanced of US nuclear warhead designs. This was the kind of information that could allow China's weapons producers to miniaturize their nuclear warheads, and potentially develop a MIRV'd nuclear missile for the first time.

This revelation triggered a variety of US Congressional investigations, including the well known Cox Report:
http://www.house.gov/coxreport/
. . . as well as a variety of export control measures that persist to this day.

To say that this put a chill on US-China relations would be putting it too mildly. The Clinton Administration had previously acquiesced to a whole range of technology transfers from the US to China, as well as to a range of weapons sales by third party suppliers. All of that came to an end after the degree and breadth of China's espionage operations became public knowledge.

The US was actually quite lucky that it was the Israelis, and not the UK that had won the contract to supply AWACS to China. As some of us remember, both Israeli and UK suppliers bid on that deal. Like the Spey engine, Israel's Phalcon radar system contained no US hardware. The US had refused to supply Israel with AESA radar technology, forcing the Israelis to develop their own, at their own expense.

Had the UK won that AWACS deal, this would probably still be a sore point in US-UK relations. It is doubtful that the Clinton Administration could have shut down a UK-China AWACS contract after it had already been signed. As it was, it was the Israelis who won that contract, and the US holds a great deal more leverage over Israel than it does over the UK. The Israeli government had to reverse a signed agreement, reimburse China for development costs that had already been spent, and terminate the delivery of any and all weapons or spares to China.

The most recent bone of contention on this subject, surrounded the supply of spare parts for the Harpy anti-missile drones that Israel had previously sold to China. Again, this was an Israeli-developed system - with no US components and which had been developed without US R&D funding. In fact, there was no US equivalent for the Harpy system. It was not until 2003 that the Israeli government finally got the message that terminating all military hardware deliveries meant ALL hardware deliveries, regardless of what previous contracts had been signed - when, where or by whom.

The UK, in contrast, still supplies China with jet engines to this day that equip Chinese fighter-bombers. After supplying an initial batch of 50 Spey Mk 202 engines during the 1990s, Rolls Royce reportedly signed a follow-on agreement in early 2000 for the continued supply of refurbished engines, spares and support. Without Rolls-Royce, the JH-7 would have to look for a Russian powerplant.

So yes, I agree that the Spey is an outmoded engine by modern standards. Yes, I agree that this is not a hot button issue in US-UK relations - NOR SHOULD IT BE. But we should also be aware that if it had been Israel, and not the UK that was supplying that engine to China, deliveries would have been terminated long ago.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
elp
PostPosted: Sep 01, 2007 - 12:45 AM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Editor
F-16.net Editor


Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2862

At the risk of getting back on topic.... Laughing is the following possible?

-Israel gets on an earlier delivery date for JSF which happens to be one of the things LM wants people to do so as to boost production numbers in the earlier part of the production plan.... and which will give Israel a Block I version of the jet. While Block I doesn't have a lot of combat functionality about it, this would fall into the theme of Israel filling in the rest of that combat functionality with their own home grown solutions. Just a theory and I have no idea if it has legs.

_________________
- ELP -
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
Thumper3181
PostPosted: Sep 01, 2007 - 03:19 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Jun 23, 2006
Posts: 434

Status: Offline
Quote:
At the risk of getting back on topic

Pretty funny Elp seeing how you tend to throw politics, economics, and finance into just about any topic.

That said, how many do you think they are going to get and how much of it are they going to pay for. Personally, after all the griping you and other here have done about Uncle being strapped for cash don't you think the money would better be spent if we bought them and gave them to our air force instead?

Quote:
The US had refused to supply Israel with AESA radar technology, forcing the Israelis to develop their own, at their own expense.


Nothing is at their "own expense" as long as we are subsidizing them. Maybe if they had to pay for everything they would not have had the money to "develop" the Phalcon radar or any other competing weapon system.

Sometimes we may not like having Britain sell one thing or another to China or other nations, but at least what they do sell they fund and develop without us. You cannot say the same for Israel.

Quote:
Thumper, I seem to be detecting a predisposition that assumes that all true innovation must originate from an American developer,

Nope, not true. In the case of Israel all true military innovation is funded in whole or in part by you and I. They either get money, or they reverse engineer and improve upon or both. saying they have funded something on their own is ludicrous. IT all goes into the same pot.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
elp
PostPosted: Sep 01, 2007 - 03:39 AM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Editor
F-16.net Editor


Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2862

Thumper3181 wrote:
Quote:
At the risk of getting back on topic

Pretty funny Elp seeing how you tend to throw politics, economics, and finance into just about any topic.
.


Well consider all of those topics will have to align for JSF to work. Wink

_________________
- ELP -
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
Thumper3181
PostPosted: Sep 01, 2007 - 12:59 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Jun 23, 2006
Posts: 434

Status: Offline
Touche'
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Sep 01, 2007 - 04:02 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1089

Status: Offline
Thumper3181 wrote:
For instance?



There's a couple of UK "journalists" who worship at the alter of Typhoon. One of them even peddled that "Typhoons kicked Raptor a$$ in Nevada" story in an international publication that I HAD considered reputable. Made it sound like a big hush-hush conspiracy because there were "internet rumors (read: fanboy wishes) so it MUST be true. You'd be surprised the number of aviation journalists that troll these boards (I don't mean troll in the sense of making an a$$ of themselves) looking for goodies to write about.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Arctus
PostPosted: Sep 01, 2007 - 04:18 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: May 13, 2006
Posts: 165

Status: Offline
The United States and Israel are inextricably entertwined on many levels...

Idealogically: America is by and large a Christian nation. Judaism is the birthmother of Christianity. Jesus was a Jew.

Politically: Israel is first and foremost a democratic ally second only to the UK in terms of loyalty to the US. And as already stated we share a common enemy in Islamic Facism

Economically: Israel imports a great deal of American made/sourced products. With regard to the F-35 its really quite obvious--the more of them that get built the lower the unit cost.

Militarily: Israeli conflicts have proven to be an effective test for the operational efficacy of U.S. built weapons.

"Giving" billions in aid to Israel? So what? We've always used them to do our dirty work in the Middle East. Selling technology to China? I wouldn't be surprised if the State Dept wasn't in on it or at least aware--remember politics makes for strange bedfellows AND anything Israel sold to China does not compare in the least to an American President authorizing the sale of satellite based ICBM guidance technology in exchange for a few hundred million in "soft money" campaign contributions.

Bottom line? A few political ups and downs aside a strong Israel is vital to the interests of the United States

_________________
354 FW Eielson 02-05
389 FS Mtn Home 99-02
54 & 90 FS Elmendorf 91-99
479 TTW Holloman 84-91
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
bdn12
PostPosted: Sep 01, 2007 - 08:34 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Jul 16, 2007
Posts: 38

Status: Offline
Yes, Israel is an ally and we should sell them the F-35 and let them modify it however they want. However, the F-22 shouldn't be sold to Israel nor any other country. Arctus, of course who else but Clinton would have done such a thing? Negotiating with a communist country for some campaign money in exchange for ICBM technology. I'm not trying to make this a political bash, but this is the reason we can't let Democrats handle our military. He was also the one who said Israel would be the first export customer of the F-22. They don't care about safeguarding military secrets, as long as they get money, nothing else matters.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
snypa777
PostPosted: Sep 01, 2007 - 08:35 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 26, 2005
Posts: 1455

Status: Offline
tmofarrvl, whilst I agree with some points in your post I must say the Spey engine sale is moot.
Ancient Spey is powering an ancient Chinese fighter, you do make some good points on technology leakage in general, however the Spey is a bad example I feel. Primarily because it is an old engine, secondly the US officially doesn`t seem to be making any noises about the deal.

The civil engines currently being supplied to China by GE are much more likely to aid Chinese engine R&D than a near fifty year old design in a military application, in terms of modern design and metallurgy.

I am not so sure that Israel would have been prevented from selling a Spey type engine to China, a modern design, yes, but not an older unit. Unless a US company was on the shortlist (cynical hat on). In fact, Uncle Sam still does a great deal of trade with China and it ain`t all Wheat grain.

Arctus, I wholeheartedly agree with you, the West is certainly using Israel as a proxy and has done so for decades. Without Israel, the mid-east would look very different today. I don`t begrudge the country any aid it gets.
Political allies cost money, Israel has shed blood and tears that the US might have been forced to expend, it amazes me how many people forget this....but then tax-payers never like paying tax.

Keeping the IDF current with modern weapons when you consider that the whole region is now the arms dealer`s favorite playground is essential. We scratch Israel`s back, they return the favor. An Israeli F-35 is as good a proposition as the F-15 was IMHO.

_________________
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
Asif
PostPosted: Dec 17, 2007 - 11:00 AM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Editor
F-16.net Editor


Joined: Aug 23, 2003
Posts: 1766

Aviaton Week wrote:

Israel Wants JSF As Soon As Possible

Dec 16, 2007
David A. Fulghum, Robert Wall and Douglas Barrie

Israel plans to keep its aerial domination of the Middle East intact, and that includes buying Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, accelerating its first deliveries, and deciding whose advanced equipment will be packed into the stealthy strike aircraft.

A senior Israeli air force (IAF) official says those major areas of concern appear to be on the right track because of an "understanding" with the U.S. officials. Washington's representatives are more ambiguous, saying that there has been no official change to Israel's F-35 program.

"The plan is that we will get the F-35 as soon as it’s possible," the senior IAF official says. He says the service will end up with more than 100 F-35s, but he would not confirm the size of the purchase or that Israel is asking that the initial delivery date be accelerated by two years to 2012. The IAF wants the JSF "the minute it is available."

"Israel has a unique requirement, it doesn't operate in a coalition, [and it has a] different kind of strategic relationship" with the U.S. than the other F-35 partners," says Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin’s vice president and general manager for the F-35. However, he says the overseas release of the first export aircraft will be no sooner than 2014.

The purchase, which could include an initial batch of 25 aircraft, is still being negotiated. Brig. Gen. Johanan Locker, head of the IAF’s air division, was in Fort Worth as recently as late November.

Israel's ambitions to integrate indigenous weaponry also pose some problems for the program. The weapons road map for the Blocks 1-3 F-35 standards has already been drawn up with no Israeli weaponry on the list. Partner nations are currently working on a list for Block 4, but there’s pressure to cut weapons from the process rather than add them. Israel undoubtedly will want its F‑35s to carry the Rafael Python 5 air-to-air missile and possibly its successor, as well as the Rafael Spice family of precision-guided weapons.

Moreover, an influential retired IAF general says total sales will be limited by the JSF’s disadvantages. He points to its overdependence on stealth, a single crewman and what could be proprietary U.S. avionics.

"Eventually somebody will come up with a way to detect it," he says. "A stealthy configuration also means you can’t carry additional weaponry on the exterior. The weapons system is more important than stealth. Israel will have F-35s, but not as many as we once thought."

Smaller numbers won’t detract from the aircraft's deterrence value, he concedes. Even a small fleet will ensure a first-day-of-war, surprise-strike capability. But once daily combat operations escalate, nonstealthy aircraft aided by standoff weapons, escort jammers and information operations will sustain air operations.

Nonetheless, he worries that the JSF will start showing its limitations within five years. Among the drawbacks will be its one-person crew. As a result, "we can't operate the F-35 by itself," the retired general says. "We really need two-seaters, with one person concentrating on flying and someone else focused on the strike mission. One man can’t take advantage of all the options," particularly since JSF capabilities will include jamming, information warfare and network attack.

Inevitably, the avionics will present an area of contention. For example, Israeli aerospace officials say they can offer a tailored, active, electronically scanned array radar for less money than an AESA bought from the U.S. However, many of the electronic warfare and attack techniques are routed through the radar to produce jamming, false-target and other effects at ranges of 125 mi. or more. As a result, integration could be difficult and expensive.

Elta, the electronics division of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), has a version of the AESA, according to the retired general. "We need our own radar that we don't share with others. We also need our own advanced radar warning and active jamming." The Israeli AESA was flown last year; but for now it remains a generic system, not tailored to any specific aircraft—although it’s sized for an F-16, an Elta official says. Flight trials are continuing.

Meanwhile, current IAF leadership appears less concerned about the international trade issue.

“The number of aircraft [we obtain initially] could be irrelevant,” a senior general says. "The main issue now is that we get the first squadron as soon as possible. We give the basic capability to the squadron, and later on we increase it [with technology upgrades]."

The idea is to get just enough aircraft to develop a concept of operations and to lay out a technology development road map to tailor the JSF’s systems—particularly EW and attack capabilities—to Israeli-specific needs.

"At the beginning, we expect to get at least one squadron, with more to follow by the end of the decade [in 2020]," he says. "This is the first time there is not only an understanding [with the U.S.], but also a plan."

Another major issue is what comes with the aircraft and what is Israel allowed to develop on its own. Industry officials are struggling with the problem since the F-35 has a highly integrated sensor suite that makes it harder to replace one black box with another. A senior Lockheed Martin official says Israel will not be allowed to simply replace parts of the electronic suite.

However, an IAI executive sees a workaround. The company expects to build JSF structural elements. Once the structure is well understood, there could be opportunities for embedding unique sensors, he says. The information from these sensors could be shown in the cockpit through bolt-on displays if integration proves too difficult.

However, the air force is more concerned about threats than industrial hurdles. "We did not decide on the exact systems and processes by which we intend to [proceed]," the senior IAF officer says. "But I think there's an understanding that Israel will get the best [U.S.] aircraft, and we’ll be able to put the best Israeli systems inside [to meet] the IAF’s unique needs. We need to adapt them to the systems and the platform. That's what we've done with the F-15I and the F-16I, and I believe we will be able to do that with the JSF. It’s very important that we get this capability on our own.

"That includes systems related to network offense and defense," he says. “Some are the same as the Americans’, but we insist on some unique [capabilities] in every area. [Israel has] to have a relevant operational capability. You can’t wait to get [an upgrade to meet a new threat] a year late. You need to get intelligence, capability [and] precision on your own in a very short time.”

Syria, for example, is reputed to have the largest air defense capability in the region, and they are upgrading it with new investments.

"We are working to understand what our enemies are trying to do so we can tailor our power to deal with it," he says. “The main reason why we have to modify the F-35 [is to counter] the relevant systems at the relevant time. We must be able to deal with them. . . . We’re also developing new systems and weapons that we can’t talk about. Sometimes reality is more impressive than the imagination."

Israel also must wrestle with its weapons inventory, which often differs from that of the U.S. or other JSF buyers. Rafael officials say they are already working on alternative designs for the Spice precision air-to-surface bomb that can be integrated into the F-35. Foldout wings for the existing 2,000-lb. Spice will not fit in the JSF’s internal bay. Adapting it could reduce the bomb’s standoff range, but officials think that may be moot, since stealth will enable the JSF to fly closer to its targets.

Tied closely to the F-35 procurement is a decision to upgrade the F-15s and F-16s, particularly with new AESA radars that offer more range, small-target detection and broadband communications. However, the advanced radars are expensive.

"Do we intend to let the F-15s fly more years than we had planned?" the IAF official says. "It’s on the table. I intend to do the same with the F-16s. We have the second largest fleet in the world. With the right investment in avionics upgrades, they can be relevant for years."

"The JSF will not replace all our needs," agrees a senior defense ministry official.

According to IAF plans, not every aircraft will have the full package of upgrades. Instead, more advanced aircraft will feed target information to the others. However, U.S. radar developers point out that AESAs won’t be able to pass the same amount of information to non-AESA aircraft as they can to one that’s similarly equipped.

"For the future, the idea is to work as a group," the IAF official says. "That allows you to do [advanced operations] without investing in each aircraft. If we have some of the best of the best technology, we can spread it to the other platforms, weapons and systems. You upgrade the group via the network."

Here too, the former general expressed caution. "You have to attack information more than targets," he says. "You need air superiority and information dominance. If you’re not building network-centric operations the right way, the capability can be eliminated [by the foe’s own network attack]."

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 20Possible

_________________
Asif Shamim
F-16.net Editorial staff & Patch Gallery Administration
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Pilotasso
PostPosted: Dec 18, 2007 - 11:35 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Oct 29, 2006
Posts: 287

Status: Offline
Its interesting that retired generals and other specialists criticise single crew fighter (and other aspects) based on the same aircraft concepts of previous generation aircraft. This has only one flaw: That F-35 is different in that way from F-111 F-14 and other types with 2 seats because unlike these the 35 does the job of a second crewmenber by itself. Its a bit difficult to think ahead for people who are accustummed to see things from the same perspective decades on end.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Copyright © 2008 Lieven Dewitte and Stefaan Vanhastel