The trouble with the basement dwellers

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

cosmicdwarf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 677
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 21:20

Unread post28 Jun 2016, 03:00

arian wrote:As for England joining the US, no thanks. We already have one NY too many.

Well, it wouldn't be New York, it'd be Old York.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post28 Jun 2016, 05:47

cosmicdwarf wrote:
arian wrote:As for England joining the US, no thanks. We already have one NY too many.

Well, it wouldn't be New York, it'd be Old York.

Wouldn't that just be York?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6413
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post28 Jun 2016, 16:51

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/f-35- ... oes-2016-6



The risk of fatal whiplash was previously thought to be caused by a combination of the way in which the ejection seats rolled forwards combined with the weight of the F-35’s helmet.

During simulated low-speed ejections, the heavy forces at play during the acceleration or deceleration of the advanced fighter jet would snap the neck of lightweight dummies. The problem was initially thought to have been caused by the ejection seats rotating too far forward.


Hey guys do you think they have examined anything about the seats going forward causing the problem?
Choose Crews
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 511
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post28 Jun 2016, 17:18

XanderCrews wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com.au/f-35-ejection-seat-woes-2016-6



The risk of fatal whiplash was previously thought to be caused by a combination of the way in which the ejection seats rolled forwards combined with the weight of the F-35’s helmet.

During simulated low-speed ejections, the heavy forces at play during the acceleration or deceleration of the advanced fighter jet would snap the neck of lightweight dummies. The problem was initially thought to have been caused by the ejection seats rotating too far forward.


Hey guys do you think they have examined anything about the seats going forward causing the problem?


Story has a problem understanding the difference between 136 pound pilots and 200 pound pilots
Offline

pron

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 128
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post28 Jun 2016, 19:45

Here is a good article every "basement dweller" should read.

Opinion: "Hating the F-35 Has Become a Fad" at TACAIRNET.
https://tacairnet.com/2016/06/27/opinion-hating-the-f-35-has-become-a-fad/
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post28 Jun 2016, 22:07

pron wrote:Here is a good article every "basement dweller" should read.

Opinion: "Hating the F-35 Has Become a Fad" at TACAIRNET.
https://tacairnet.com/2016/06/27/opinion-hating-the-f-35-has-become-a-fad/

But “hurr durr durr F-35 sucks!” isn’t a valid argument anymore, nor is “but can it BRRRRRT!!?”.

:devil:
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6413
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post28 Jun 2016, 22:19

pron wrote:Here is a good article every "basement dweller" should read.

Opinion: "Hating the F-35 Has Become a Fad" at TACAIRNET.
https://tacairnet.com/2016/06/27/opinion-hating-the-f-35-has-become-a-fad/


Gold.

This is going to go viral and get referenced constantly for the next year at least
Choose Crews
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post28 Jun 2016, 23:45

More telling than the fighters of the past, the same logic (or lack thereof) and noise was aimed at ground systems like the Abrams and Bradley and Apache. Too expensive! Can't fight! Won't survive! How did that work out? I recall it was Pierre Spray who was saying back then that the Abrams armor was too weak and had major weak areas. What an idiot.
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 472
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post29 Jun 2016, 00:58

arian wrote:More telling than the fighters of the past, the same logic (or lack thereof) and noise was aimed at ground systems like the Abrams and Bradley and Apache. Too expensive! Can't fight! Won't survive! How did that work out? I recall it was Pierre Spray who was saying back then that the Abrams armor was too weak and had major weak areas. What an idiot.


The Abrams has very good armor, by all accounts. The Bradley of ten years ago was vulnerable to IEDs. Among new IFV designs, the Israeli Namer, the German Puma and the Russian T-15 appear to have heavier armor than the Bradley. From Wikipedia on the IEDs:

"In the Iraq War, the Bradley proved vulnerable to improvised explosive device (IED) and rocket propelled grenade (RPG) attacks, but casualties were light with the crew able to escape. In 2006, total losses included 55 Bradleys destroyed and some 700 others damaged. By 2007, the Army had stopped using the M2 Bradley in combat, instead favoring more survivable MRAPs. By the end of the war, about 150 Bradleys had been destroyed."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post29 Jun 2016, 02:27

talkitron wrote:
arian wrote:More telling than the fighters of the past, the same logic (or lack thereof) and noise was aimed at ground systems like the Abrams and Bradley and Apache. Too expensive! Can't fight! Won't survive! How did that work out? I recall it was Pierre Spray who was saying back then that the Abrams armor was too weak and had major weak areas. What an idiot.


The Abrams has very good armor, by all accounts. The Bradley of ten years ago was vulnerable to IEDs. Among new IFV designs, the Israeli Namer, the German Puma and the Russian T-15 appear to have heavier armor than the Bradley. From Wikipedia on the IEDs:


Newsflash: 35 year newer designs are better at surviving new threats which weren't even envisioned before, than 35 year old design.

Meanwhile, how many thousands of Russian-made IFVs and tanks have been destroyed by Bradleys in combat?

The Bradley was accused by the usual sources as being too large, too heavy, not survivable for the crew etc. In fact, it's design philosophy was jut proven to be right in combat for 30 years, but the same design philosophy has been adopted by virtually all other armies since then.

PS: Namer and T-15 are different classes of vehicle. They are not comparable to Bradley. Russia's equivalent design is the Kurganets-25. Both it and the Puma, strangely, or not so, have the same design philosophy as the Bradley. Russia only now in 2015 decided to abandon its hideously ineffective BMP-3 design philosophy.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6413
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post29 Jun 2016, 05:02

arian wrote:More telling than the fighters of the past, the same logic (or lack thereof) and noise was aimed at ground systems like the Abrams and Bradley and Apache. Too expensive! Can't fight! Won't survive! How did that work out? I recall it was Pierre Spray who was saying back then that the Abrams armor was too weak and had major weak areas. What an idiot.


http://www.fredoneverything.net/ReformersLast.shtml

You are giving sprey far too much credit. His critisism was far more ridiculous than just the armor
Choose Crews
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3114
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post29 Jun 2016, 11:50

XanderCrews wrote:
arian wrote:More telling than the fighters of the past, the same logic (or lack thereof) and noise was aimed at ground systems like the Abrams and Bradley and Apache. Too expensive! Can't fight! Won't survive! How did that work out? I recall it was Pierre Spray who was saying back then that the Abrams armor was too weak and had major weak areas. What an idiot.


http://www.fredoneverything.net/ReformersLast.shtml

You are giving sprey far too much credit. His critisism was far more ridiculous than just the armor


I wonder if he or other "Reformers" have ever been even remotely right about something. I wonder what Dina Rasor would've said about Russian tanks as M1 is huge in comparison and much more spacious (and ergonomic)? If they had their way, US armed forces would've been filled with really crappy equipment and human casualties would've been huge compared to what has actually happened. I love how people with no experience and zero understanding about military and technology make so much noise and write books about these subjects. Sadly, the internet is full of similar people with a lot of opinions but zero knowledge or experience to back their opinions up.
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 436
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post01 Jul 2016, 06:31

The problem with basement dwellers, is they can't see the nose in front of them. check out the second comment by Captkol. :doh: hilarious

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35s-touch-down-uk-0
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Offline

gideonic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 291
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post01 Jul 2016, 17:18

Offline

bojack_horseman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2016, 19:51
  • Location: Ireland

Unread post01 Jul 2016, 17:51

gideonic wrote:David Axe is at it again :D
https://warisboring.com/air-force-teste ... .y13ezfy4m



I can't blame Axey.

That discredited hatchet job last year made his career.
He isn't going to abandon the very story that made him.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests