Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
More Grief For The F-35...  
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5402 posts, RR: 30
Posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10362 times:

In what seems like a never ending stream of bad news for the F-35 program, Aviation Week reports that the 'B' model has moved another step closer to the chopping block.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20Strike%20Fighter&channel=defense

Quote:
Navy Undersecretary Robert Work told the Navy and Marine Corps in July to provide lower-cost alternatives to the Navy’s current tactical aviation plan, and to examine the consequences of terminating either the F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) version or the carrier-compatible F-35C. Work is seeking decisions in time for the 2013 budget submission.

Just kill the 'B', already. It's the number one thing stalling the entire program and it would save further billions in development and production costs. As well, it would probably reduce the price per unit of the 'A' and 'C' models and get them to the customers significantly sooner.

As the article points out, there are serious questions about the forward deployment capabilities of the 'B', and even more questions about it's tactical abilities even if it can be forward deployed. If the Pentagon is right and each plane needs a special 1000sq ft landing pad made out of exotic concrete landing pad, it kinda takes away the advantage of mobility if each plane needs a cement truck as support equipment necessary for deployment, it would seem to reduce its usefulness somewhat.


What the...?
81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10311 times:

Fairly damning article about the 'B', for sure, from a practicality p.o.v.

Once again (I know I sound like a broken record) the 'one size fits all' solution mentality just generally speaking does not work. Terminate it and move on, perhaps to a Marine-focussed UCAV.

Related, I believe, I see from my latest AIR International that the USMC has purchased 40 now-retired Harrier GR.7/9s from the RN for use as a spares source, for something like $150M. Yes, the Harrier and the AV-8B are not identical, but there is a fair bit of commonality.

If they need that many spares, they intend to keep the AV-8Bs operational for far longer than originally planned. Which may mean they see the writing on the wall for the F-35B.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10241 times:

Im still not clear on why an amphibious army needs supersonic stealth fighter jets.

User currently offlineFoxTwo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10144 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 2):

I second that. Why is the hornet not suitable? I suppose the economy / intense spending may have something in common with this.


User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5358 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9941 times:

Quoting FoxTwo (Reply 3):

I second that. Why is the hornet not suitable? I suppose the economy / intense spending may have something in common with this.

F/A-18s can't operate off of LHA/LHD decks and a CVN isn't necessarily always available to support amphibious operations, especially with talk of a shrinking carrier force.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9843 times:

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 4):
F/A-18s can't operate off of LHA/LHD decks and a CVN isn't necessarily always available to support amphibious operations, especially with talk of a shrinking carrier force.

Maybe if the USN didnt have to operate 10 mini aircraft carriers, they could afford to keep their super carriers. Give the USMC's fighter assets to the USN, and let the Marines do what marines were meant to do, invade with ground assets from the sea, not zip over head in fighter jets.

You have the USAF with fighter jets, then you have the USN with fighter jets, and the USMC with fighter jets... 3 of 4 branches of the US military has an air force... might as well make a F-35D and give the Army 300 of them. You could call it the US Army Air Corp.


Really, why does the USMC need fighter jets at all?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9838 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 1):
Fairly damning article about the 'B', for sure, from a practicality p.o.v.

A damning article about an ill-conceived program that should have been shot down before politicians and bureaucrats fell in love with it and convinced themselves it could work. Lightning II? More like the Aardvark II.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 4):
F/A-18s can't operate off of LHA/LHD decks and a CVN isn't necessarily always available to support amphibious operations, especially with talk of a shrinking carrier force.

Perhaps someone needs to remind the Corps what the H in LHA is.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):
Really, why does the USMC need fighter jets at all?

They need some close air support ability beyond helicopters. That said, in the near term the Hornets are fine and I would favor a highly modernized A-10 for the USAF and USMC to fulfill this role. It has to be cheaper than the F-35, which is in all liklihood going to be subpar for this mission anyway.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1673 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9810 times:

Take this report with a major grain of salt and skepticism; Bill Sweetman is known for being openly anti-F-35 (and anti-Marine Corps for that matter), to the point where his editors actually censored him a while back.

And many of the things he said are half-truths. The biggest example:

Quote:
Navy construction specifications continue to warn that the F-35B will impose temperatures as high as 1700F (several hundred degrees higher than a Harrier exhaust) on vertical-landing pads, with a transonic exhaust velocity. This is enough to cause standard concrete to “spall”—that is, shed surface flakes in a near-explosive manner—with a 50% chance of damage on the first landing.

In reality, see this lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8wSeIz9uL8

And I will note that the F-35B exhaust temps on deck plates were characterized in formal testing conducted by the government in January 2010 . The government, the Navy and LM know exactly what the exhaust temperatures are. The jet wouldn't be going to the ship next month if there were problems -- the Navy brass would never allow the sea-based test flights to proceed if it did.

Further, the temperature of 1800 degree F is measured at the nozzle. The temperature at the pavement surface can be as high as 1400 degrees F. The velocity of 1000 degrees F is at the velocity at the nozzle. The pressure of 36 psi is on the pavement. That 1700 degree F temp was based off of a preliminary Navy document that came out well before the F-35B first flew, and thus did not have any real world information to back it up.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2897 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9809 times:

And it keeps piling on:

http://defense.aol.com/2011/09/01/f-...fix-found-navy-version-unaffected/

Quote:
UPDATED Washington: A new problem -- described in a Pentagon email as "not a serious issue" -- has been found with the wings of the Air Force and Marine versions of the F-35.

The problem is with the wing's forward root rib and was discovered in standard durability tests. The ribs -- which provide the core strength of the wings -- must be redesigned. The problem appears to be one stemming from design -- not quality control -- and a redesign production plan for the affected F-35 fleet's wings will be in place by the fourth quarter, a Capitol Hill source tells AOL Defense.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9782 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
They need some close air support ability beyond helicopters.

And the USN or USAF cant perform these roles because?


User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2098 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9723 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):
Really, why does the USMC need fighter jets at all?

The Marines have a long and sacred tradition of backing up their own infantry with their own air support, and I admire that. I believe they all go thru the same boot camp and their is supposedly a much tighter bond between the fighter jocks and the infantry they are supporting.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):
And I will note that the F-35B exhaust temps on deck plates were characterized in formal testing conducted

Good points you make their, and just an aside... we had a AV-8B Harrier practicing for an airshow here at Daytona Beach around 1990 that, during the hover part, blew apart a good section of runway which caused airlines and military arrivals to be diverted... so even the Harrier can be fickle when it comes to exhaust temps effects (granted a landing wouldn't have been as detrimental as hovering).



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9714 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 8):
And it keeps piling on:

http://defense.aol.com/2011/09/01/f-...cted/

So the Flight Test Program continues to work.

Excellent news.


User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9639 times:

I agree kill the B and quit wasting money on this thing and get it built already.

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2098 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9618 times:

I for one hope the B model gets produced... it is an amazing machine, and something lots of countries tried to make happen from the '50's onward but wasn't able too. As an aviation fan I can't imagine wanting to see all that work and progress cast aside.


Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineEagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9339 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Oroka (Reply 2):
Im still not clear on why an amphibious army needs supersonic stealth fighter jets.
Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 10):
The Marines have a long and sacred tradition of backing up their own infantry with their own air support, and I admire that. I believe they all go thru the same boot camp and their is supposedly a much tighter bond between the fighter jocks and the infantry they are supporting.

I too can see the attachment to your own organic air element. But in this day and age the duplication of resources doesn't seem worth it, especially when the USMC model is the major problematic part of the program.

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 13):
I for one hope the B model gets produced... it is an amazing machine, and something lots of countries tried to make happen from the '50's onward but wasn't able too. As an aviation fan I can't imagine wanting to see all that work and progress cast aside.

Well the UK (who really were the only country to actually make V/STOL work operationally) have given up on their sacred Harrier's and the F-35B.

(USSR had the Yak-38 Forger but it wasn't very successful in service. Spain, Thailand, India and Italy use or have used Harriers on their own carriers. And of course the USMC operate AV-8B's which are 2nd generation Harrier's)


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9276 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 9):
And the USN or USAF cant perform these roles because?

Do you want to be the guy to tell the Marines that they can't have something?

Anyway, I don't see a problem with them having their own planes as long as they are the same planes the Air Force and Navy use. Just buy more of the same and spare themselves the huge development costs of dedicated variants.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9268 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 10):
The Marines have a long and sacred tradition of backing up their own infantry with their own air support, and I admire that. I believe they all go thru the same boot camp and their is supposedly a much tighter bond between the fighter jocks and the infantry they are supporting.

That is becoming a really expensive tradition to keep up with, creating a duplicate capability. $29B a year is a lot of money to have a second army that can be deployed from the sea, with their own ships, and own fighter support.

I just with the entire Canadian military had half the capacity of the USMC.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9268 times:

Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 14):
Well the UK (who really were the only country to actually make V/STOL work operationally) have given up on their sacred Harrier's and the F-35B.

Yes, the Harriers are gone, but only becuase there is no more money available in the UK. Even less than the US. So the Harriers had to go, also the Nimrods, also the older Hercs, and some of the Tornados. And some of the Typhoons are being sold off to Saudi Arabia even before delivery.

Actually, the Marines with the AV-8B did rather better than the Harriers as it could carry more and had a bigger 'bring back' factor.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15):
Anyway, I don't see a problem with them having their own planes as long as they are the same planes the Air Force and Navy use. Just buy more of the same and spare themselves the huge development costs of dedicated variants.

Quite. For CAS I don't see anything wrong with a mix of AV-8Bs and A-10s -- although the A-10 is definitely not carrier capable, but the point being it's a very effective CAS platform. When you've got battalion/regiment-sized forces on the beach, I don't quite see the point of stealth a/c.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9263 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 16):
I just with the entire Canadian military had half the capacity of the USMC.

Also with less than half the budget and half the man-power. You can't compare the size of the USMC to the entire Canadian Military. Both have different objectives and roles.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 16):
$29B a year is a lot of money to have a second army that can be deployed from the sea, with their own ships, and own fighter support.

Says who,a Canadian?


User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9160 times:

So what would be the effect if the conventional A model was dropped as well and all three services flew a variation of the C model? Going back a few decades the F4 Phantom was basically the same across the three services.

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1673 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9154 times:

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 19):
So what would be the effect if the conventional A model was dropped as well and all three services flew a variation of the C model? Going back a few decades the F4 Phantom was basically the same across the three services.

The A model is too far along, and development and testing has gone very well for the A model. Also, many partner nations prefer the A model compared to the other variants.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9122 times:

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 19):
So what would be the effect if the conventional A model was dropped as well and all three services flew a variation of the C model? Going back a few decades the F4 Phantom was basically the same across the three services.

The 'C' is or will be overbuilt (i.e., heavier than necessary) w.r.t. the 'A' variant:

- strengthened landing gear for deck landings;
- arrester hook assembly
- not sure if the AAR probe is different (likely not, even if probably a minor change)
- bigger wing with folding mechanism (therefore heavier)

which I would guess in the best of all world of the F-35 means less payload/radius.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1673 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9078 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 21):
The 'C' is or will be overbuilt (i.e., heavier than necessary) w.r.t. the 'A' variant:

- strengthened landing gear for deck landings;
- arrester hook assembly
- not sure if the AAR probe is different (likely not, even if probably a minor change)
- bigger wing with folding mechanism (therefore heavier)

which I would guess in the best of all world of the F-35 means less payload/radius.

The C variant has bigger fuel tanks, and is has the longest range of all 3 variants.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9034 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 22):
The C variant has bigger fuel tanks, and is has the longest range of all 3 variants.

And that would be due to ... no fuel in the folding section of the wing. Aha ! unless the wing doesn't fold therefore the whole extended wing is available for fuel. I can't see that there would be more volume in the fuse for extra fuel.

There have been a couple of comments, and I will try to dig them out, that the "C" variant may itself be in some difficulty now, and the UK MoD has made it fairly clear that if the USN buy is reduced substantially, the UK is out and will look for a European (i.e., navalised Typhoon) solution. I'd guess if the "C" purchase reduction were true, then more F/A-18E/Fs are in the cards. Or a reduced deployed force.

Not sure if any USN reduction would be to known technical issues, but it might well be due to the fact that the US is, well, broke.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1673 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8995 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 23):
And that would be due to ... no fuel in the folding section of the wing. Aha ! unless the wing doesn't fold therefore the whole extended wing is available for fuel. I can't see that there would be more volume in the fuse for extra fuel.

There have been a couple of comments, and I will try to dig them out, that the "C" variant may itself be in some difficulty now, and the UK MoD has made it fairly clear that if the USN buy is reduced substantially, the UK is out and will look for a European (i.e., navalised Typhoon) solution. I'd guess if the "C" purchase reduction were true, then more F/A-18E/Fs are in the cards. Or a reduced deployed force.

Not sure if any USN reduction would be to known technical issues, but it might well be due to the fact that the US is, well, broke.

There is more room for fuel in the C variant; it can take 8,900kg of fuel, compared to the 8,390 kg of fuel the A variant can. Not to mention the larger wing which provides more lift.

The Navy won't give up F-35C; it is the only new fighter type they will be fielding in the near future. The Navy has no future fighter in development, as practically every other proposal is a only a concept. The Air Force won't give up on the A variant; they are backed into a corner as they have zero new fighters on purchase other than F-35.


25 connies4ever : Interested to know where the extra 500kg of fuel is stored. Whether or not the USN gets the numbers of F-35Cs they want is a political decision. Not
26 FoxTwo : Oh common, is that what all this is about? Not being able to say NO for the first time in US Military History? WW2 ended nearly 70 years ago. Why can
27 BMI727 : Then you need that many more planes flying in the Air Force and Navy. The savings probably wouldn't be that much, mostly administrative. As long as t
28 Powerslide : The pentagon should reclassify the F-35 as a Black Project just to stop the idiotic news stories by reporters that have zero knowledge of of aircraft
29 Post contains links and images Spacepope : The wing is bigger on the C front to back WRT the A/B, and has almost 20% more area. An overhead view shows it quite well, with the trailing edge of
30 JoeCanuck : It wouldn't take much of a catapult to launch an A-10 from a ship. JATO packs would do it...and the A-10 is probably the best ground attack/support ai
31 Post contains images mffoda : The F-35A also is the only version with a cannon built in.... The others will have to carry a gun pod.
32 Post contains images spudh : Hell, put floats and a lifting eye on it and it would still be the best Marine close support aircraft available. With the wing it has I'd say getting
33 BMI727 : There is a lot more to making the plane carrier ready than that. The entire structure needs to be beefed if to handle the pounding, though the A-10 i
34 LMP737 : I think that if there ever was an amphibous assault a CBG would be made avaliable to provide air cover.
35 Oroka : Says someone who knows their countries economy is directly tied to a certain neighbouring country that it But then that would mean that non marines we
36 ThePointblank : All 3 variants of the F-35 are already in the advanced stages of flight testing. Even the proposed wing issue will take 45 days to resolve and fix, a
37 Post contains links Powerslide : Back in the real world, the F-35B program continues..... http://www.xairforces.net/newsd.asp?newsid=498&newst=8
38 LMP737 : Four carrier air wings have a USMC F-18 squadron assigned to it so they would still have fellow Marines flying cover. If the F-35B were cancelled I c
39 Flighty : The people who broke programs like this (I am talking about cost overruns) should be publicly shamed. They should absolutely not be employed right now
40 ThePointblank : The CVN's can't get in as close because they are high value assets. No way will a carrier commander risk placing his carriers within 100 or 200nm of
41 JoeCanuck : Shore batteries are old news...any boat larger than a dingy can be targeted by a missile, either from shore, the air or sea. Anything large enough to
42 spudh : I'd guess the two biggest problems would be with the undercarriage. The nose wheel is definitly not designed for catapulting and being off centre mig
43 XT6Wagon : very large straight wing works wonders for the low stall speed. Its also why the A-10 is by far the best anti-helicopter platform we have. Well that
44 Powerslide : Every fighter program since the Korean War has been delayed and overbudget, the JSF is nothing new. With the invention of advanced aircraft sensors t
45 spudh : Thats what I was thinking, I reckon the A10 stall speed is way lower than 120kts. Maybe 120 is its fully laden stall speed. The F18 lands at 125kts,
46 rwessel : It's called a bridle. And they've been in the process of being phased out for decades. The USN has removed the bridle catchers (the thing that sticks
47 BMI727 : Except for the Marines having to develop their own F-35 variant, where do these billions come from? You can get rid of the Marine squadrons and roll
48 JoeCanuck : Every new plane since Vietnam has been so sophisticated it didn't need a gun...except when it did. Guns have proven their worth time and again and I'
49 Devilfish : Problem is convincing the powers that be to give up expensive, bleeding edge whiz-bang systems in favor of an effective, lower tech platform. Congres
50 bikerthai : The proximity to shore should not be the issue. Neither is a full up invasion with many branches involved. The real issue is with the continuous redu
51 Bennett123 : What is a A160?. Not a type that I have heard of.
52 Post contains links mffoda : It is a UAV helicopter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_A160_Hummingbird
53 XT6Wagon : The A-10 has allways been viewed as obsolete by most of the USAF, including at its own roll out. Its small and slow. Underpowered so MTOW flights bar
54 bikerthai : As a soldier would you prefer CAS or have the ability to take out the target yourself? An long endurance armed UAV that is linked to the local comman
55 BMI727 : A new A-10 doesn't need to be low tech. Just add the applicable technology to an already proven system. It doesn't fit their image.
56 Post contains images mffoda : Both please! Just having the A-10 or Apache overhead is usually enough to get the bad guys to look for softer targets. It's like Taliban kryptonite..
57 TaromA380 : I am asking myself ... The F-35 cost per copy is constantly raising. Initially the F-35 was thought as a "budget" plane, in contrast with the very exp
58 Post contains images bikerthai : From Wiki "The A-10 is scheduled to be in service with the USAF until 2028 and possibly later" They are (or have already) re-winging the A-10 and upg
59 Post contains images bikerthai : Don't know how the F-22 Stealth paint will hold up under salt water condition? I guess it's the price you have to pay. bikerthai
60 TaromA380 : Then keep the F-35C for the USN & Marines ! Ooops, that's exactly the near-canceled version !!! (after the B)[Edited 2011-09-07 15:49:26]
61 rwessel : They appear to hold up poorly under *non*-salt water conditions. I can't imaging regular exposure to salt water would help things. The USAF seems to
62 Powerslide : I think this forum takes the cake for the most anti-F35 members that have zero background in Military Aviation or Fighter Jet tech, yet they continue
63 BMI727 : In certain situations, quite possibly. What is more disturbing is you continuing assertion that technology renders the fundamentals of a mission obso
64 Post contains images Powerslide : You don't know how good or lousy the F-35 will be as a CAS aircraft, it's not even operational. Making a judgement on it now would be speculation at
65 ThePointblank : F-35 is not only just a fighter, it is also a ISR asset as well. The EO-DAS has the resolution to track ballistic missile launches and moving aerial
66 kanban : except the programing is reputed to be about 4 years late (there's another thread on that)
67 ThePointblank : Actually, included in Block III, which has already seen some flight testing by BAE's BAC 1-11 test platform at the recent Northern Edge exercise.[Edi
68 wvsuperhornet : They dont its just another duplication of service that we can no longer afford, naval avaiation could fill the void very easily. Its a nice thought a
69 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Please note that I wrote "lower" precisely to highlight that point compared to the JSF. And as pointed out in Reply 58, they are even now integrating
70 mffoda : I believe many of you are casting this CAS umbrella a bit too far. The F-35's primary role is Not to provide CAS. It Is designed to penetrate hostile
71 spudh : To be fair I think the issue is the B model with US Marines as its primary purchaser. As the Marines operate both V/STOL and Catobar aircraft at pres
72 Post contains images mffoda : Hey Devilfish... Those Infrared Countermeasures in the bottom photo are unusual!
73 ThePointblank : F-35's greatest advantage is better integration of the sensors, and the ability to display the information in a readily usable format. It is capable
74 rwessel : EMP is not gammas, and shielding against it is well understood (and has been for half a century), and that’s doubtless a prime consideration for an
75 Post contains images BMI727 : I feel pretty confident that the F-35 won't be as good as updated A-10s. Even if it is, it will be more expensive. And lest we forget, part of the re
76 Post contains images Devilfish : I think a "bug" sneaked in there and they were trying to find it!
77 JoeCanuck : What the hell...? How did this sneak by the powers that be? Why on earth would they want to keep around a crappy, slow, straight winged, stable, bull
78 XT6Wagon : I think the US army and marines have politely told the USAF that they will have alot of problems if the don't keep the A-10 around for them. Also whi
79 Post contains images Devilfish : I'd be a lot less confident on this.....business is business.
80 Post contains images spudh : That's fair enough but I was thinking more along the lines of the cold war RAF deployment of the Harrier operating from roadways and such like in thi
81 Post contains images kanban : Gads, was back when the Harrier had a wood fired boiler? Or was it the carrier that needed cord wood?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic More Grief For The F-35...
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...? posted Wed Nov 17 2010 15:56:14 by JoeCanuck
More Cash Problems For The Restored Vulcan posted Tue Feb 19 2008 12:22:28 by GDB
Any Replacements For The C-5 Galaxy On The Horizon posted Thu Apr 21 2011 20:52:23 by 444Pilot
Lockheed & Boeing Designs For The C-17 Contract? posted Sun Mar 27 2011 11:48:18 by 747400sp
Wrist Watches For The US Air Force Pilots? posted Mon Dec 20 2010 21:37:02 by wardialer
Will There Ever Be A Replacement For The E-2? posted Fri Apr 2 2010 03:34:11 by 747400sp
The Beginning Of The End For The VC10 posted Tue Jan 19 2010 08:17:58 by Tonystan
Last Chance For The VH-71? posted Mon Sep 28 2009 11:16:01 by AirRyan
Why No Stovl For Navalized F-35? posted Sat Jul 25 2009 07:35:38 by LHCVG
More Woe For Ares I posted Tue Jul 21 2009 21:56:35 by Rwessel

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format