More basement dweller stupidity.

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

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5409
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post29 Dec 2017, 23:57

vilters wrote:Ha-ha-ha-16 missiles?

Well, that pretty much covers the "missile reliability chapter".
=> You need a LOT of them to get something going.


How does number of missiles carried impact lethality of said missiles? If they only carried 1 would that give it a 200% Pk? :roll:

Sooper reliable AIM-120 (F-16 only needs 2 to get the job done):

85-2.jpg


Crap AIM-120 kuz lame Snorenet needs 10 to get it done:

aim120_2.jpg


And the absolute King of the Sky? The Matra R.530. Mirages only need to carry one, ONE to rule the skies. Why don't we carry those?

bfa68334c0eb1ffc4b465ca5c293f93b.jpg
"There I was. . ."
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 178
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post30 Dec 2017, 05:39

steve2267 wrote:What a nimrod. According to Nimrogoway, LM is being "disengenous" by showing a graphic of a possible, future F-35 configuration with 16 AAMs (14 x AIM-120s + 2 x AIM-9X). But nowhere does he apply the same adjective to a "notional" Boing 2040C F-15 configuration with sixteen (16) AIM-120s, but it could possibly be up to 20 AIM-120's, according to that oracle of tactical aircraft truth, Boing. I guess anything goes in Nimrogoway's fairy tale universe.


Interestingly, the F-35 requires only a modification to internal carriage that is already being worked on and a software change
to unlock "AA Beast Mode" (OK, they also need to do a bunch of flight validation and weapons release tests but that goes without saying). So it can be done cheaply if they really wanted to do so. The F-15C 2040C is pretty much a complete rebuild. My personal favorite would be an F-35C with 2 5000lb EFTs on the inner pylons, 6 AIM-120s internal, 4 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9Xs external. 27lbs+ of gas with 10 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9X in a bring home configuration. Who needs an F-14.

Interestingly enough, once someone certifies 4 AIM-120 per station, assuming anyone really wants that, there is nothing that says you couldn't pit it on a F-35. 22 AIM-120s with nothing more than a software change.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 298
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post31 Dec 2017, 04:04

LM employees were actually sticking it to poor Tyler on the FB page. It’s pretty funny to read. They also implied they have already fit tested that configuration.

Third article down.

https://m.facebook.com/thewarzonewire/
E47CF86C-704E-4047-8A4E-7589846FEF6B.png
Last edited by kimjongnumbaun on 31 Dec 2017, 06:15, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5995
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post31 Dec 2017, 05:13

juretrn wrote:The Drive(l)'s T. Rogoway is triggered by LM's F-35 "Beast mode" graphic:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17 ... r-missiles

"doesn't exist because I said so"



Tyler Rogoaway is complaining about people being "disingenuous" !!! LOL wow

Came across an article from earlier this year (Not F-35 but something I have some knowledge of and have 1st hand accounts from Marines working on it)

he screwed up the designations, he got the wrong, the nomenclature wrong, the reason wrong, the history wrong. everything was only about 50 percent right, and was clearly written by someone with no experience about firearms. Which is amazing because the internet search function could have steered him toward several open sources, accounts, and even debate threads that could have solved so much.

Its almost unbelievable how ignorant he is of what he reports on.
Choose Crews
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post31 Dec 2017, 05:52

juretrn wrote:The Drive(l)'s T. Rogoway is triggered by LM's F-35 "Beast mode" graphic:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17 ... r-missiles

"doesn't exist because I said so"


It only took him 6 months to get triggered as the graphic was released at the Paris Airshow.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

playloud

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 278
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 04:07

Unread post01 Jan 2018, 20:31

kimjongnumbaun wrote:LM employees were actually sticking it to poor Tyler on the FB page. It’s pretty funny to read. They also implied they have already fit tested that configuration.

Third article down.

I am questioning Mark on it now in that same thread, and his credibility is going down IMHO. If the graphic is valid (as he says), that means they have already fitted with 6x internal AIM-120. But if that is the case, the "stealth mode" side of the graphic should have 6x internal AIM-120. I think it is more likely they have fit tested the 12x AIM-120 config (4x internal, and 8x external), and not the 14x (6x internal, 8x external) as he says. He saw the 8x external when looking at the jet, but didn't count how many were in the internal bays. Now he is getting all pissed at me telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.

It's simple really. Either "Stealth Mode" is correct, and there should be only 12x AIM-120 in "Beast Mode".
Or... "Beast Mode" is correct, and there should be 6x internal AIM-120 in "Stealth Mode".
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 178
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post02 Jan 2018, 00:42

playloud wrote:It's simple really. Either "Stealth Mode" is correct, and there should be only 12x AIM-120 in "Beast Mode".
Or... "Beast Mode" is correct, and there should be 6x internal AIM-120 in "Stealth Mode".


Actually there is another possibility.

The slide is provided without any background information so it could be comparison of today (Block 3I - Stealth only by default) with a notional Block 4 down the road. Notice that the total payload in Beast Mode is 22,000lbs. However, that is not reflective of the Block 3F configuration since there is no 5000lb ordnance or EFT to put on the inner pylon yets. So for block 3F, the largest payload appears to be 4x 2000lb external plus 2x 2000lb internal plus 2x Sidewinders and 2x AIM-120s. So more like 15klbs of payload. You only get 22klbs of payload only when you can load up the inner pylons with maximum ordnance loads AND stick something on the centerline station. Can't do that today.

So, it could be that the left hand slide is today's capability versus the right hand side which is what will fit at sometime in the future (after the introduction of a 6x AIM-120 internal carriage). Since Lockheed has probably fit test a max payload, if nothing else for the F-35C with an external gun pod but also for the F-35A since the centerline station is the likely spot for a self-defense laser, the poster would have seen the fit test but that doesn't mean it is anything other than a fit test at this point.

Beast Mode is clearly beyond the current software load but not beyond the structural limits of the aircraft so the slide could very well be contrasting what today's aircraft are capable of versus what will be possible with nothing more than a software update (IF someone wants to fund it!). Given it is a Lockheed promotional slide of what is possible, I would guess they are trying to plant the seed for future updates and the best way to to that is to maximize the contrast. So, left side is 4x AIM-120 internal while right side is 6x AIM-120 Internal. In fact, I would consider it likely.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post02 Jan 2018, 05:07

Well, there is the 5k GBU-28.

The graphic is clearly a list of "maximums" to anyone using common sense.

One small correction to your post, all F-35s delivered starting in September 2017 are at Block 3F.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 298
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 01:10

Apparently weapons testing for SSD was completed last November.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/f-35-co ... ign=social
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 298
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 01:18

playloud wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:LM employees were actually sticking it to poor Tyler on the FB page. It’s pretty funny to read. They also implied they have already fit tested that configuration.

Third article down.

I am questioning Mark on it now in that same thread, and his credibility is going down IMHO. If the graphic is valid (as he says), that means they have already fitted with 6x internal AIM-120. But if that is the case, the "stealth mode" side of the graphic should have 6x internal AIM-120. I think it is more likely they have fit tested the 12x AIM-120 config (4x internal, and 8x external), and not the 14x (6x internal, 8x external) as he says. He saw the 8x external when looking at the jet, but didn't count how many were in the internal bays. Now he is getting all pissed at me telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.

It's simple really. Either "Stealth Mode" is correct, and there should be only 12x AIM-120 in "Beast Mode".
Or... "Beast Mode" is correct, and there should be 6x internal AIM-120 in "Stealth Mode".


It may have no been fit tested at the time they made the graphic, which would have been before the Paris air show. They could have completed the internal fit test sometime between then and now.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23301
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 01:55

kimjongnumbaun wrote:Apparently weapons testing for SSD was completed last November.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/f-35-co ... ign=social

Xmas time must be slow for news so old news is new news - already report here and elsewhere at the time:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=13143&p=382124&hilit=encompassing#p382124
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

tsl256

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2017, 20:22

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 20:53

Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 654
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 01:25

Esquire strikes again.

The F-35's Incompetence Has Gone Global

Earlier this week, reports emerged of discussions about the idea of modifying Japan’s Izumo class helicopter carriers to operate the F-35B. Japanese officials half-heartedly denied the report, which would apparently involve fitting a ski-jump and altering the flight deck to resist the high heat of the F-35B’s exhaust.
Oh, OK.

The report of Japanese interest in upgrading the Izumos was followed hard by reports from South Korea suggesting an interest on the part of Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) on modifying the Dokdo class amphibious assault ships to carry the F-35B, as well. At 14,000 tons, the Dokdos are considerably smaller than the Izumos, and consequently not nearly as capable. Dokdo, first of the class, would have to undergo significant reconstruction in order to operate the F-35B, and even the second ship of the class (currently under construction) would require heavy revision.

Oh, OK, twice.

In other words, both Japan and South Korea are going to have to pay to adapt their capital ships in order to make them suitable to carry a proven lemon that, I guarantee you, will screw up said ships in ways yet to be conceived even by the brightest engineers. Already, this process apparently involves finding a way to keep the FSAK’s exhaust from melting the decks of Japanese warships. Things are looking up!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo ... ar-BBHQ4de


Reply here: https://www.facebook.com/esqpolitics/
Offline

bojack_horseman

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 01:53

zerion wrote:Esquire strikes again.


Just as well.... no one will read it then
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7703
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 02:55

bojack_horseman wrote:
zerion wrote:Esquire strikes again.


Just as well.... no one will read it then

Background on the author.. :doh:

http://certified-old-guy.com/charles-p-pierce-bio/
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests