The trouble with the basement dwellers

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 692
Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 04:06

by delvo » 05 Feb 2015, 15:36

vilters wrote:The pure joy of flying, throwing the plane around the sky. The LOVE of freedom, the pure fighter "knife between the teeth" ace spirit.

The above is the F-16. The pilots plane... The yanking and banking days for fun are behind us. It's never gonna be the light headed "Spitfire" the F-16 was.

The F-35 has the power and the guts, but it does not have the "tits", (breasts) ***** appeal the -16 had.
...except that its maneuverability is about the same as F-16's or better. Don't let the lie that it's worse sink in as if it were the truth just because the liars repeat it a lot.

What the complaints about F-35 really amount to is that, in addition to that maneuverability, it's also too good at too many other things.


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5986
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
Location: Nashua NH USA

by sprstdlyscottsmn » 05 Feb 2015, 17:11

Don't forget the "handles a lot like the F-22, only crisper" comment. Subsonic acceleration stated as "similar to a Block 50 Viper or a Raptor".

It
is
not
a
dog
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer


User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2652
Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
Location: USA

by KamenRiderBlade » 05 Feb 2015, 19:31

So I know "Robert McNamara" was a pretty controversial figure in military circles.

Looking back at his service as "Secretary of Defense", what were the Pros / Cons of his leadership?


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5907
Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

by sferrin » 05 Feb 2015, 19:42

vilters wrote:Pilots will Always love pilots aircraft.
The pure joy of flying, throwing the plane around the sky. The LOVE of freedom, the pure fighter "knife between the teeth" ace spirit.

The above is the F-16. The pilots plane.

The F-35 is the combat machine.
Will probably do a better job at it too.
But?
The yanking and banking days for fun are behind us. It's never gonna be the light headed "Spitfire" the F-16 was.


Is 9Gs when an F-16 does it different than when an F-35 pulls 9Gs? :roll:
"There I was. . ."


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5986
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
Location: Nashua NH USA

by sprstdlyscottsmn » 05 Feb 2015, 19:58

sferrin wrote:
Is 9Gs when an F-16 does it different than when an F-35 pulls 9Gs? :roll:


Yes.

When an F-35 pulls 9G no one can bask in the glory because of the stealth.

Oh wait, [sarcasm]
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer


Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2052
Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
Location: Annapolis, MD

by maus92 » 05 Feb 2015, 22:09

popcorn wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Here is an OLD DOG DAVIS reminiscin'.... Look ahead peeples. :doh:
LIEUTENANT GENERAL DAVIS ON THE USMC AND THE F-35: PREPARING FOR 2015
14 Dec 2014 Robbin Laird

"...Lieutenant General Davis: ...We see it all the time and have seen it as we introduced new platforms in the past: F-4 and A-7 to FA-18, AV-8A to AV-8B, then to the Radar variant of the Harrier.

We pay our operators to be masters of the machine they fight today – not the next one they will transition to.

We tend to love what we do (especially if we are good at it), and seeing the potential in a future platform is sometimes difficult – especially in the middle of a fight...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/lieutenant-gener ... -for-2015/


Later on in the article he notes that there were officers in the USMC Aviation Community who were convinced the MV-22 was not suitable to the Corps‘ needs only to be proven "dead wrong" once the Osprey had been fielded and racked up an impressive record. Resistance to change is inherent in humans and is particularly strong in those who are so deeply invested in the old paradigm.


Yup, impressive CPFH, downtime, and power plants that are probably going to be replaced based upon experience in Afghanistan. Also impressive is the notional HV-22, clocking in at $95M a copy. They're going to be strapping on CFTs to get some of the range necessary for the COD mission, and probably stripping out the armor that might be useful in a TARP mission (hopefully they'll find a way to use removable armor modules...)


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: 22 Aug 2014, 22:46

by eskodas » 05 Feb 2015, 22:30

maus92 wrote:Yup, impressive CPFH, downtime, and power plants that are probably going to be replaced based upon experience in Afghanistan. Also impressive is the notional HV-22, clocking in at $95M a copy. They're going to be strapping on CFTs to get some of the range necessary for the COD mission, and probably stripping out the armor that might be useful in a TARP mission (hopefully they'll find a way to use removable armor modules...)


Yes, very impressive CPFH, 1/3rd that of the CH-46 and 1/6th that of the CH-53. http://i.imgur.com/x0AnFmE.png


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 7720
Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

by popcorn » 06 Feb 2015, 01:10

maus92 wrote:Yup, impressive CPFH, downtime, and power plants that are probably going to be replaced based upon experience in Afghanistan. Also impressive is the notional HV-22, clocking in at $95M a copy. They're going to be strapping on CFTs to get some of the range necessary for the COD mission, and probably stripping out the armor that might be useful in a TARP mission (hopefully they'll find a way to use removable armor modules...)

Channeling Sol now?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 7505
Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

by XanderCrews » 06 Feb 2015, 02:16

popcorn wrote:
maus92 wrote:Yup, impressive CPFH, downtime, and power plants that are probably going to be replaced based upon experience in Afghanistan. Also impressive is the notional HV-22, clocking in at $95M a copy. They're going to be strapping on CFTs to get some of the range necessary for the COD mission, and probably stripping out the armor that might be useful in a TARP mission (hopefully they'll find a way to use removable armor modules...)

Channeling Sol now?


LOL seriously what is going on Maus?
Choose Crews


User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 639
Joined: 29 Sep 2012, 23:42
Location: Halifax

by arrow-nautics » 06 Feb 2015, 03:07

XanderCrews wrote:LOL seriously what is going on Maus?


Meh, leave him be, his posting on F-16.net F-35 forum seems to make him happy

...I'm not exactly sure why though :lol:
There's an old rule among many in the fighter procurement business: "Too Early to Tell, Too Late to Stop".


User avatar
Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3300
Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

by count_to_10 » 06 Feb 2015, 03:13

smsgtmac wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:I was just reading about this. The Light Weight Fighter was kind of snuck into existence by bureaucratic manipulation, with the original idea of being a cheep day-fighter, springing from the "red bird" concept. The Air Force allowed it to go through without committing to anything while always intending to make the LWF into a multi-role aircraft; it was part of how they sold the "not a pound for ground" F-15.


I completely disagree with the characterization of the F-16 being "snuck into existence by bureaucratic manipulation".
Project Red Bird was an unofficial, underground effort that never got any headway outside the 'Reformer' camp. Even the name was a snarky commentary on the F-15's project name and was a scurrilous attempt to derail Project Blue Bird. Happily, in that respect it failed completely, but the basic concept was pulled out of the ashes, salvaged as it were, in SPITE of the Boyd clique's machinations BY the Air Force. See here (pgs 172-179). (Wow. I get to use the source twice in one night.)
There was also a video somewhere on these boards a while back with an AF General talking at the time about what was going to be needed to be put on the F-16 to make it something more than a "day-only" knife-fighter. As far as the AF is concerned, that was always the way it was going to be, and the F-16 wasn't truly baselined until Block 30/32. Which was still better than a lot of airplanes, which may never get everything that is originally envisioned (F-4 and F-15 come to mind).
I note here that it can be reasonably argued on that basis that the Block 3F F-35 is to the JSF program what the Block 30/32 F-16 was to the LWF program. :wink:

Okay, yeah, I pretty much screwed up what I meant to saw with that. Didn't they let one of Sprey's fellow travelers in the DoD run (or at least fund) the fly-off? My impression was that there was a bit of bureaucratic jujitsu in how the Air Force took they mostly useless light day-fighter and turned it into a multirole fighter-bomber that actually helped make the case for a purely air-to-air F-15.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.


User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 639
Joined: 29 Sep 2012, 23:42
Location: Halifax

by arrow-nautics » 06 Feb 2015, 04:06

The F-35 sucks because it has "problems". Can't we all see it? After all, no jet fighter in history had any problems whatsoever, so by default the F-35 de facto sucks

77c.jpg
77c.jpg (39.71 KiB) Viewed 71189 times
There's an old rule among many in the fighter procurement business: "Too Early to Tell, Too Late to Stop".


Enthusiast
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 18 Apr 2014, 05:38

by jtcreate » 06 Feb 2015, 05:36

popcorn wrote:Can't vouch for the linked post proferring more info on the PAK-FA incident. Bogdan says he wasn't the pilot.. also tries to downplay the fire as something local staff were able to,deal with as,firefighters were late to,arrive.. I have this,image of, people, scampering frantically carrying with handheld extinguishers.. pretty sure the Indian,delegation got,some dramatic,pics,to,share with the folks,back home.



http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... ?p=1670891

Translated from Russian, but with some gibberish

Quote:

MOSCOW, June 10. / ITAR-TASS /. Fifth-generation fighter T-50 (promising aviation complex tactical aviation, PAK FA) caught fire during tests in Zhukovsky, the fire was quickly extinguished, as a result of the accident no one was hurt. Told Itar-Tass learned at the press service of the company "Sukhoi".

According to the "Dry", the incident occurred when the T-50 landing at the airport Flight Research Institute. Gromov staff after a test flight. As explained in the press service, "smoke was observed over the right air intake, then there was a local fire." Representative LII. Gromov said that fighter, as usual, carried out test flights, but did a few laps at a very low altitude. According to him, the fire proved to be small, no pops or explosions was not heard, and the arrival of firefighters did not need - airport employees handled themselves. Earlier it was reported that the plane was piloted by test pilot "Sukhoi" Sergei Bogdan. However, the pilot denied this information. "I just returned today from a trip," - he said Itar-Tass by telephone. In the Sukhoi Design Bureau created a commission to investigate the causes of fire. While no version was not made Previous incident with the PAK FA August 21, 2011 at MAKS-2011 fighter aircraft could not fly. In the dispersal of the aircraft was recorded outbreak of the right engine nozzle, and then the pilot released the brake parachute, and the plane stopped within the runway. Cause of the accident was the failure of the power plant automation engine, occurred as a result of its surging. According to experts, did not load sensor that monitors the parameters of the power plant. As emphasized in the company, a new incident will not affect the timing of the tests, and the victim T-50 will be restored - he received only minor damage. According to ITAR-TASS source in law enforcement, the fighter has not yet passed the Defense Ministry. "The car belongs to the company" Sukhoi ", - said the agency interlocutor..




And yet, the political machine keeps those wheels turning!!!

http://in.rbth.com/news/2015/02/03/firs ... 41161.html

Yeah I know this is a state controlled website. But still, some old Soviet habits just don't go away. Not to offend, but, it looks like the Russians will still cut every corner for a good PR gain. I find it extremely difficult to believe that this plane is honestly ready for active service in any form for 2016 especially after last year's fire. The airframe still remains stress UN-tested without the new engines which won't be ready until 2020?


Enthusiast
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 30 Jun 2009, 23:52
Location: Las Vegas, NV

by fulcrumflyer » 07 Feb 2015, 04:44

Copy all wrt my F-35 comments and I'll take the barbs if you're so inclined to chuck 'em my direction. Passing up the opportunity to keep one's mouth shut always invites an equal and opposite reaction and I should've taken the shut-up approach. That any of us offer opinions about jets that none of us has ever flown or only flown against is done quite often on websites such as these. Most times those opinions are lacking or just plain wrong. I've never flown the Mirage 2000, but wasn't too impressed by what I experienced.

No, I'm not a reader of Foxtrot Alpha and the only article I'd ever seen from that website was one about a former squadron mate flying BFM against his son. Former squadron mate in a Viper, son in a Strike Eagle. Reading through the posts, Tyler Rogoway stated that the Viper was better in horizontal maneuvering and the (light gray) Eagle was better in the vertical. Hardly ever replying to web posts, I did reply that the Viper (GE-powered anyway) is better at both. He somehow knew of my flight history and asked if I'd respond to an internet interview. So I answered his questions on my experiences and offered my opinions on others. I'm not aware that he has any hidden F-35 agenda. I've not read anything else that he has written.

Almost all the e-mails I've gotten regarding what I said about the F-35 have been positive, to include a former Lockheed/Martin executive that I've know for many years. But with the amount of response I garnered, I decided to take a closer look at what I'd said and research more about the F-35 than what I'd picked up in bar talk and internet reports (not Foxtrot Alpha). After spending a couple of days peeling back the onion skin I've amended my overall assessment of the F-35 and posted this on Foxtrot Alpha to revise my statement:

Being an adherent to the saying that a wise man acknowledges his mistakes and a fool defends his; I was probably a little harsh on my assessment of the F-35. But those opinions were formed through my exposure to things going on at Nellis. Did I bite off on chaff? I will stand by my comment that the three variants and the required commonality between the three results in performance penalties, especially for the A and the C models.

After discussions with an old engineer friend of mine, who was also one of John Boyd's guys, the F-35 actually has a higher fuel fraction than the F-22 and, therefore, potentially better range. I also talked to someone who recently checked out in the Lightning II and his description of fuel burn rips holes in my previous opinion. Scratch that off the list.

The new F-35 pilot was also impressed with acceleration in a certain subsonic speed regime. So I'll concede that. The F-35 will probably never have the raw dogfighting potential of the F-16, but the different customers bought off on that. Not a requirement? I always figured it was better to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it. A former HH-60 pilot and coworker of mine always jests about fighters not really needing guns. The previous statement is my normal comeback.

Regardless, the fighter pilots that fly and will fly the F-35 could take any airplane they get and figure how to be lethal with it and dominate any enemy. Of than I'm certain.

So, in the end, the Lightning II is not such a pig after all. It has great avionics and will do fine. The program has still cost too much and has been poorly managed by the DoD and Lockheed/Martin. But that's another story.

Would I still rather fly the Raptor? You bet. I guess in the end you got to dance with what brung ya. In my case, back to the beginning with two tails and two engines. The Raptors do mostly air-to-air (as far as I know); and for that mission, mission planning isn't much more than filling out a line-up card. At my age now, that's all the attention span I've got.

I'd also build more Raptors and upgraded Vipers and Eagles. Heck, I want it all. Back to the Ronnie Reagan 40 fighter wings and a fighter jet in every garage!!

Peace out,

Spanky


I'll also add I wish I were 20 years younger and get back out there. Unfortunately, if I ever got into a Raptor cockpit I'd probably be a 4-g max kind of guy.


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3890
Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

by quicksilver » 07 Feb 2015, 08:46

Way to man up, but lucky we're not all at the bar. Twould be an expensive round...

"I will stand by my comment that the three variants and the required commonality between the three results in performance penalties, especially for the A and the C models."

Ok. You're on...defend it.


PreviousNext

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests