Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
“the Worst I’ve Ever Seen.” - Air Force General  
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13283 times:

F-35 deputy program executive officer:

"Air Force Major General Christopher Bogdan, on the job five weeks as deputy program executive officer, fired an unusual public salvo at the world’s largest defense contractor for what he described as a poor partnership in managing the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ckheed-martin-on-f-35-program.html

“We will not succeed on this program until we get past that,”

Take away:

“There is no more money and no more time in the development of this program,” he said. “That is it. We will not go back and ask for any more.”

In my view, the Pentagon is just as much to blame as they agreed with the high risk concurrency acquisition - and they are now harvesting the consequences as the risks they took which are manifesting themselves and coming home to roost. Somebody should take this turkey program out with a mercy shot and save taxpayers a fortune.

[Edited 2012-09-17 19:02:00]

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15811 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13221 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Thread starter):
Somebody should take this turkey program out with a mercy shot and save taxpayers a fortune.

I'm not convinced they'd save anything. When you cancel a large program like the F-35 you end up right back with the same problem and less time to solve it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13123 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
I'm not convinced they'd save anything. When you cancel a large program like the F-35 you end up right back with the same problem and less time to solve it.

Especially considering that there is no other in production fighter that can effectively replace whole sections of the USAF, USMC, and USN combat jet force. The F-16 and the F/A-18 line are slowly wrapping up production and don't have the industrial capacity to pump out the numbers of fighters needed to recapitalize the US combat jet fleet. The last long lead items on both types have been purchased and unless there are more orders immediately, the production lines will close down in two to three years.

Both types are already deep into their lifecycles, and to top it all off, the US DoD has serious doubts on the combat effectiveness of both types in the face of ever improving air defence systems.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 13058 times:

IMO the F35 is the classic try to kill 3 birds with one stone. Gripen is kind of the same idea, 3 in 1, it ends up being decent at 3 roles but its not the best in any single role. Compromises has to be made.

And would 2 or 3 different fighter jets really cost more in the end? LM has lost a lot of credibility with F22 and F35, they are viewed as masters of getting paid more than they excel at fighter design.

Without all compromises the F35 could be a very good Airforce figher or a very good naval fighter..


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15811 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12770 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 3):
IMO the F35 is the classic try to kill 3 birds with one stone.

It didn't work with the F-111, and it's only marginally better now. The best hope is that history continues to repeat itself and a new Fighter Mafia emerges to bring sanity to the whole thing.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12637 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
It didn't work with the F-111, and it's only marginally better now. The best hope is that history continues to repeat itself and a new Fighter Mafia emerges to bring sanity to the whole thing.

It will still come out cheaper than developing a 5th gen fighter for each service. Imagine this program x 3... atleast this way there is a lot of cost savings from the commonality. Yes it has been quite the ordeal developing the F-35, but considering how cutting edge it is, there is a steep learning curve.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15811 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12590 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):
It will still come out cheaper than developing a 5th gen fighter for each service.

Each service doesn't need a 5th gen fighter. How does stealth help you replace the A-10? They'd be better off with a larger payload and a second engine while ignoring speed.

The F-35 is like taking a football team and trying to come up with one guy who you can clone 22 times to make the whole team. You'll end up with slow wide receivers and undersized tackles. Not to mention that anyone that talented would have to be paid a lot. And then you throw the allies in there too: some positions match up pretty well, but not in others. A linebacker in a Tampa 2 needs to be different than a linebacker in a 3-4.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12529 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
How does stealth help you replace the A-10?

Okay, so three 5th gen, and also a tank buster for the USAF.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15811 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12513 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 7):
Okay, so three 5th gen, and also a tank buster for the USAF.

First, the Air Force already has one. They should have updated the F-22 and bought more of those as well as pursued the FB-22 to meet their strike requirements. Then fill in the ranks with more F-15s and F-16s as needed, which should be useful for the parts of a war after the first few days.

The A-10 should be updated and possibly have the production line restarted if more airframes are needed. It's a really hard plane to beat from a bang for the buck standpoint and certainly isn't broke.

The Navy, who messed everything up and proved they can't have nice things when the A-12 got cancelled, will have to make do with the Super Hornet in the near terms and I would support a fifth gen fighter for their purposes. Honestly, I think the F-35 would have been better off as a belated Tomcat replacement rather than the JSF.

Frankly, the Marines should just get A-10s of their own to operate from land and fly helicopters from their assault ships. Ideally, they would have some STOVL capability, but I think it's likely to be too expensive for not enough benefit.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12451 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 3):
And would 2 or 3 different fighter jets really cost more in the end? LM has lost a lot of credibility with F22 and F35, they are viewed as masters of getting paid more than they excel at fighter design.

Considering that LM is the only company making 5th gen aircraft in the world right now - no, that flying Lada from Russia isn't 5th gen - I'd say their credibility is top notch. Operationally, the F-22 is a superb aircraft that no enemy would dare fight with their current equipment and the F-35 has immense potential way beyond anything else currently in development. Where LM has to improve IMO is the management and logistics. You can't blame them for delays and cost increases, setting budgets with current technology advancement is unrealistic. If building world-class fighters was easy more manufacturers would do it.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3741 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12424 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 9):
You can't blame them for delays and cost increases, setting budgets with current technology advancement is unrealistic



And why not... they developed the numbers and have experience with incorporating new tech. basically they under bid substantially knowing the government would bail them out... and while that may happen, it will come at a cost like several hundred fewer units and a serious credibility problem for future contracts.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12332 times:

Here is another point of view...

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/ne...hipfacesaseaoftroubles1?a=1&c=1171



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2639 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12299 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 9):
no, that flying Lada from Russia isn't 5th gen

    yes, you're right...they have no idea what they're doing over there. You know, because historically Sukhoi is one of the most successful fighter design bureaus in the world right up there with Lockheed. Is the T-50 late to the party? Perhaps, but because for the last 20 years there has been no money for it. But it most certainly is 5th gen. You should stop being in denial that other countries can and are close to matching the technology the USA has.


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 12105 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 9):
Considering that LM is the only company making 5th gen aircraft in the world right now - no, that flying Lada from Russia isn't 5th gen - I'd say their credibility is top notch. Operationally, the F-22 is a superb aircraft that no enemy would dare fight with their current equipment and the F-35 has immense potential way beyond anything else currently in development. Where LM has to improve IMO is the management and logistics. You can't blame them for delays and cost increases, setting budgets with current technology advancement is unrealistic. If building world-class fighters was easy more manufacturers would do it.

One can certainly blame LM, esp when they has cost issues and design issues during the original competition. Though you can also blame the US Gov for not putting harsher penalties in the contracts, at this point in a real commercial contract LM would in effect belong to the US Gov.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 11758 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 12):
You should stop being in denial that other countries can and are close to matching the technology the USA has.

Well the proof is in the pudding. I really hope the pakfa turns into a success and lives up to all the hype the Russians are putting out there. For one it's radar cross section may be hard pressed to beat the Super Hornet, let alone an F-35 and forget about competing with an F-22. The Pakfa would've been an excellent aircraft if it was already flying in squadrons, but IMO Sukhoi is about a decade late to the party. No fault of the company, but more so the idiotic and corrupt government.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 11723 times:

In other news, they are well on the way to fixing the tail hook for the F-35C:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_09_19_2012_p0-497526.xml

Quote:
The original design failed to snag the arresting wire in early testing owing to two problems: the point of the hook was not sharp enough to scoop under the wire and securely grab it, and a dampener device was not sufficient to maintain a hold on the wire. Essentially, the hook was bouncing upon landing, reducing the likelihood of a successful arrested landing.

Lockheed Martin, the F-35 prime contractor, has redesigned the hook to address those problems. An interim version, which has a sharpened point but lacks the dampener, was tested.

In three of five recent attempts, the redesigned hook did capture the wire; the failures were due to the pilot landing the aircraft too far from the wire for a successful arresting.

Structural durability testing was completed ahead of schedule:
http://www.asdnews.com/news-45047/F-...etes_the_journey_of_a_lifetime.htm

Quote:
Durability testing of the CTOL airframe to 8,000 hours was completed ahead of schedule, proving the airframe is able to handle a variety of flying conditions it will experience when in service. Work continues on schedule for proving the aircraft for up to two lifetimes or 16,000 hours.

The 350 tonne structural test rig at our Brough facility was purposely built to ‘fly’ the F-35 through a series of flight scenarios. Over 20 miles of wiring, 2,500 strain gauges and 160 loading actuators subject the aircraft to a range of loads that it would typically encounter in actual flight.


User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2639 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 11619 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 14):
IMO Sukhoi is about a decade late to the party. No fault of the company, but more so the idiotic and corrupt government.

I agree with you on this, however, even though the T-50 is late....at least they are second. I think both USA and Russia now consider China a bigger threat than each other.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 14):
For one it's radar cross section may be hard pressed to beat the Super Hornet, let alone an F-35 and forget about competing with an F-22.

I love when people say this because they can't prove it. I certainly can't prove you wrong either because the numbers SIMPLY aren't public. Do you know the RCS data for a Super hornet, F-35, F-22 and T-50? Because if you don't then how credible is that argument?

In any case, going by the "general stealth design knowledge" all the people on the internet always claim to know, for one the T-50 definitely is stealthier than the Super Hornet. The super hornet is a beefed up Hornet, how is that in any way stealthy besides for the band-aid compressor covering feature they have in it? As far as the F22, well no doubt it is the best fighter out there. There is no denying that. I agree, the T-50 has no real effort in reducing the IR signature of the engines from the rear. But like I said earlier, Sukhoi are not idiots and have most certainly designed the intakes, frontal profile, and various shapes to show a very low RCS at least from a front/bottom front profile and from a side profile. Which in any case is the most important since you're not supposed to be seen while you are coming. You're not going to approach a target "ass forward". I'm not claiming to be an expert on stealth design, but neither are you. So these arguments are always pointless. However I do believe that Sukhoi are a reputable enough design bureau to not mess this up, especially since stealth IS the primary objective of the new fighter. And there are similarities in "stealth feature design" with both the F-22 and F-35 which the Super Hornet completely lacks. Remember, the YF-22 also had a big pitot tube, all kinds of weird things on it, and funny paint before it became what it is today. Going by tradition, Russian designs usually have significant differences from their prototype forms. Let's see what the T-50 looks like when it is matured, mass produced and in service in several squadrons. Then we can make more educated assumptions (although they will still be fruitless and unprovable)


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 11570 times:

Russians must learn to build better quality engines, until at least recently MIG engines had about 50% of the flying time before overhaul compared to western engines, maybe if labor is cheap this is ok, but doing this in a cash starapped west I see very few interested in russian products.

And judging by how Russian engineering at Boeing has caused a lot of weight issues, they still like to over engineer stuff.

Not saying that LM is a role model, they did once design super planes with no competition, but that was a long time ago, greed did not exist back then.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1697 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 11426 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 14):
I really hope the pakfa turns into a success and lives up to all the hype the Russians are putting out there. For one it's radar cross section may be hard pressed to beat the Super Hornet, let alone an F-35 and forget about competing with an F-22.

Its always amusing when people throw around statements like these when at the end of the day they have no clue what the true numbers are for all them and everything is derived from a ton "guesstimates", looking at pretty pictures and a "if doesn't look like an F-22, it musn't be stealth" fanboy logic.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 16):
Do you know the RCS data for a Super hornet, F-35, F-22 and T-50? Because if you don't then how credible is that argument?

He doesn't. He just likes to derail threads with fanboy drivel when it comes to anything russian.

Quoting sweair (Reply 17):
until at least recently MIG engines had about 50% of the flying time before overhaul compared to western engines

MiG doesn't make engines, you are thinking about Klimov. And yes, Klimov engines are complete shit, which is one of the reasons why most countries are avoiding planes fitted with them.

Quoting sweair (Reply 17):
but that was a long time ago, greed did not exist back then.

The whole F-104 scandal in Europe begs to differ

returning to the topic:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
In other news, they are well on the way to fixing the tail hook for the F-35C:

I remember reading news that the issue was already fixed or that they had a fix for it already.


User currently offlineEagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1879 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 11409 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 17):

Russians must learn to build better quality engines, until at least recently MIG engines had about 50% of the flying time before overhaul compared to western engines, maybe if labor is cheap this is ok, but doing this in a cash starapped west I see very few interested in russian products.

This has been Russian cultural situation since the Mig-21/23. (If not before) It's not that the engines aren't as good as Western,its that the Russian don't design engines with long life in the mix.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11234 times:

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 19):
This has been Russian cultural situation since the Mig-21/23. (If not before) It's not that the engines aren't as good as Western,its that the Russian don't design engines with long life in the mix.

Remember that the Russians worked and continue to work around the premise of a primarily conscript military. The average service of a Russian serviceman is usually for a couple of years. As such at best, a Russian Air Force maintainer will only know enough to swap large parts out and can't troubleshoot minor problems. If a engine has problem with a fuel pump, the Russians would simply remove the entire engine and send it back to the factory and install a new one, while a Western technician would just replace the fuel pump.

As such, Russian engines are not designed for longevity because they get swapped out for the smallest of things.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days ago) and read 11168 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 18):
"guesstimates", looking at pretty pictures and a "if doesn't look like an F-22, it musn't be stealth" fanboy logic.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you can see the fan module straight on, like you can in the pakfa, you'll bounce radar waves back to the Raptor like a golf ball on concrete. That and those two massive afterburner and VEN sections sticking out the back don't help either. I guess their own concoction of "stealth paint" must be some special stuff if they truly consider the thing 5th gen.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7663 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 11091 times:

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 19):
its that the Russian don't design engines with long life in the mix.

Rather like the V-22 Osprey engines which last only a few hours before needing a complete rebuild, it's not only the Russians who have engine longevity issues.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 11078 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
you'll bounce radar waves back to the Raptor

If he Raptor or F-35 turn on their radars to begin with, they'll be targeted before they can see anything. In the future, battles in the air will have to do without radar when close to the enemy. Stealth mostly is important if you are the aggressor. If you are the defender, it makes little difference and there is little value in stealth for them.

Defenders would be fortunate if Stealth attackers turn on their radars.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11056 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
If he Raptor or F-35 turn on their radars to begin with, they'll be targeted before they can see anything.

F-35 and F-22 use LPI radar systems.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
Stealth mostly is important if you are the aggressor. If you are the defender, it makes little difference and there is little value in stealth for them.

The first rule of all air combat is to see the opponent first. Like the hunter who stalks his prey and maneuvers himself unnoticed into the most favourable position for the kill, the fighter in the opening of a dogfight must detect the opponent as early as possible in order to attain a superior position for the attack.

Stealth helps the defender as it makes it more difficult for opponents to track your assets and engage you at their own terms. Adolf Galland once said that having the initiative in aerial combat (being able to decide when to engage, under what conditions, and how) is one of the most important aspects of aerial combat. By reducing the ability of your opponent to detect you first, you remove from him the ability to set the terms of a battle, thus robbing him of the initiative.

Coupled with improve situational awareness (both the F-22 and the F-35 have in spades), it means that a pilot with both stealth and improved situational awareness can better dictate the engagement terms, throwing the opponent into a defensive posture where they are reacting to your movements and actions, and thus cannot act against you. Remember, the majority of kills in aerial combat over the past century have been against pilots who never saw their opponent in the first place. We should not be thinking aerial combat as an all out bar brawl, but more of assassination.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7663 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11267 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Remember, the majority of kills in aerial combat over the past century have been against pilots who never saw their opponent in the first place. We should not be thinking aerial combat as an all out bar brawl, but more of assassination.

Considering the majority of ariel combat last centuary took place in WW1 & WW2 you statement doesn't ring true.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11237 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 25):
Considering the majority of ariel combat last centuary took place in WW1 & WW2 you statement doesn't ring true.

And jet fighters could be compared to slow piston engined fighters with machine guns? The big difference is missiles, before the missile you would only down an enemy if you could get the enemy in your gun sight.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4057 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11343 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 25):
Considering the majority of ariel combat last centuary took place in WW1 & WW2 you statement doesn't ring true.

I'd struggle to agree with that...

Some other wars which saw major aerial combat outside of WW2 are:

Korean War, 1950 - 1953
Vietnam War, 1965 - 1975
Six-day War, 1967
Yom Kippur War, 1973
Iraq-Iran War, 1980 - 1988
Gulf War, 1991
Falklands Conflict, 1982


User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2639 posts, RR: 17
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11360 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While Russian jet engines in general do have shorter service lives, it is not because of these reasons:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
The average service of a Russian serviceman is usually for a couple of years.

Not true at all. Soldiers serve for 2 years, yes, however dedicated mechanics go through a 4 year program before being assigned (much like a university, except in the military). Afterwards it is their career. The soldiers (privates) on any Russian air base help out with daily tasks but they would never be touching an engine.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
If a engine has problem with a fuel pump, the Russians would simply remove the entire engine and send it back to the factory and install a new one

No, they simply replace the fuel pump at the dedicated maintenance facility on base - known as a "TECh" - ТЭЧ


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11318 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
Stealth mostly is important if you are the aggressor. If you are the defender, it makes little difference and there is little value in stealth for them.

If you have stealth and are unseen, you will always be the aggressor. If the other party doesnt know you are there... you are the aggressor because you have control of the encounter (or if there is even to be an encounter).


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7663 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 11148 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 27):
Some other wars which saw major aerial combat outside of WW2 are:

Korean War, 1950 - 1953
Vietnam War, 1965 - 1975
Six-day War, 1967
Yom Kippur War, 1973
Iraq-Iran War, 1980 - 1988
Gulf War, 1991
Falklands Conflict, 1982

Those wars were all tiny in comparison to WW1 & WW2.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 11143 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 30):
Those wars were all tiny in comparison to WW1 & WW2.

By tiny you mean less globally devastating?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 32, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 11069 times:

Just has the space shuttle fly around my home BTW, before landing at LAX......

Back to F-35. One of the main arguments against this massive program is that it is an "All Eggs In One Basket" strategy. If the enemy finds an effective way to neutralize it - we're cooked for a long time. No military should ever pour such a large percentage of resources into one basket, especially if that basket has as many problems as the F-35 has had and continues to have.

Who knows if new modern L-band AESA radars, new sensitive IR sensors or X-band network radars (centrally processing signals from various angles), datalinking strategies, won't be able to easily pick off the F-35 - or anything else yet unknown?

If this plane had been operational 10 years ago, it would have made sense. But not in 2020.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11053 times:

What iteration of the F35 do you think is the least useful? IMO the F35A is the worst idea, I would rather pay for more F22s for the Air Force and let NAVY/Marines have the F35. The F22 would have to become a better bomber though.

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11056 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 32):
If this plane had been operational 10 years ago, it would have made sense. But not in 2020.

Come 2020 there will be nothing new coming out of factories besides the F35. "4th" and "4th+" gen aircraft won't be able to touch it and the pakfa will still be in the testing stages. The JSF is in a league of its own and there is nothing that the "bad guys" are building that can touch it. You'll be lucky to see 100 pakfa's leaving the factory IMO.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11042 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 33):
What iteration of the F35 do you think is the least useful?

F-35B by a long shot. It is for the USMC, which is pretty much a redundant branch of the US military, in a role that can be handled by existing aircraft and helicopters.


The F-35A will cost significantly less than the F-22. Yes, right now unit costs are near that of the F-22, but once full rate productions starts, those numbers will go way down.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8703 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11023 times:

If you want to make billions, you need to go to the infinite generator and distributor of dollars. You need to go to Washington. Programs like VH-71, F-35 are nothing more than carefully planned, criminal racketeering in my opinion. I try to share this with people in the field, but the beauty is, the Pentagon and the Department of Health and Human Services do not understand the professionalism of the criminals with whom they deal. When businesses control the government, they control the creator of all dollars. An Air Force general knows how to win wars, but hopefully he can deal with Washington parasite infestations too.

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10960 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 25):
Considering the majority of ariel combat last centuary took place in WW1 & WW2 you statement doesn't ring true.

I will ask that you examine the kill records of the successful aces during those wars. Most of the aces will tell you that the vast majority of their kills were against opponents who never saw them in the first place; the first instance of them attacking was when tracers started flying across their cockpit. The very successful aces deliberately try to avoid dogfights whenever they can and only if they are forced to engage in such combat.

The pilot that sees first will be able to set the engagement on their terms by maneuvering to gain better angles for shooting or moving to gain more energy for the attack, and from there, the pilot can dictate the battle accordingly.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15811 posts, RR: 27
Reply 38, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10932 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 35):
F-35B by a long shot. It is for the USMC, which is pretty much a redundant branch of the US military, in a role that can be handled by existing aircraft and helicopters.

   Would it be nice for the Marines to have a plane to operate from assault ships? Sure, but the benefits don't outweigh the costs. And the F-35 can do a lot of things that the Marines will likely never have use for but with still need to pay for. I'd like to see some A-10s be sent to the Marines, either restarting the line or updating older airframes (USAF probably won't miss them) since that is the plane the Marines really need and I think the inability to work off of carriers or assault ships can be worked around.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1697 posts, RR: 2
Reply 39, posted (2 years 2 months 5 days ago) and read 10954 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you can see the fan module straight on, like you can in the pakfa, you'll bounce radar waves back to the Raptor like a golf ball on concrete.

Because "S-ducts" is the only way to hide the compressor face from radar waves, right?. Which is funny considering how much you like to drag the Superbug into this type of threads.

Anyway, Sukhoi got a few patents for several radar blocker designs including a moveable one.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
That and those two massive afterburner and VEN sections sticking out the back don't help either.

If you knew anything about the sukhoi way of going about with prototypes, you'd know that it is too soon to tell.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
I guess their own concoction of "stealth paint" must be some special stuff if they truly consider the thing 5th gen.

You seem to give too little credit to russian engineers, from what I can see.

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/240/2408531.html

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/237/2379387.html

http://www.itae.ru/obsh_sved_e.htm

Quote:
State contract No U0875/2268 within the frames of Presidential Program “Integration” is aimed at development and diagnostics of amorphous, nano-crystallized and nano-structured materials with unique high-frequency magnetic properties, 2001 – 2006.
Quote:
1. The research in radio physics and material technologies helped to develop optimal compositions for:

- Highly-filled polymer and elastomer composites of magneto-dielectric and dielectric types;

- High-temperature composite materials of dielectric and magneto-dielectric types.

It has led to a series of highly efficient multi-layer materials for radar absorbing coatings for solving problems of electromagnetic compatibility and radar detection.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 32):
Who knows if new modern L-band AESA radars

In theory, L-band radars could be able to pick up stealth aircrafts more easily since they are optimized to be stealth against X-band emissions.

[Edited 2012-09-21 19:28:49]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10834 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 34):
Come 2020 there will be nothing new coming out of factories besides the F35.

Who says you need a new airframe to neutralize the F-35?


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7663 posts, RR: 4
Reply 41, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10823 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 34):
"4th" and "4th+" gen aircraft won't be able to touch it

You have absolutely no way of proving this comment.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10601 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 41):
You have absolutely no way of proving this comment.

Nor do you have a way to disprove it.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7663 posts, RR: 4
Reply 43, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10583 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 42):

Nor do you have a way to disprove it.

But I'm not passing it off as a proven fact which is your intention.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10533 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 43):
But I'm not passing it off as a proven fact which is your intention.

I am? There have been little facts posted WRT F35 discussion on this forum in particular. I really doubt anyone has a clue what really goes on inside Lockheed or Sukhoi. Nor do they know the true capabilities of a particular fighter unless they are a pilot, even then they can't discuss it due to OPSEC. I'll just go on believing that the F35 will be a major success, regardless of final cost and the PAKFA will be another above average product from Russia with poor international sales.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 10277 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
I'll just go on believing that the F35 will be a major success

Kinda a head in the sand way to look at it, but it is probably true.

We (aviation enthusiasts) have no where near all the facts about pretty much any in service fighter.

Whine and complain about Lockheed, the DoD, the numb skulls buying the thing. If the F-35 was going to barely be better than current 4+ gen fighters, it would get killed. Yeah, the money spent developing it would be gone, but a lot of that tech would be used elsewhere, as the tech from the RAH-66 survived in various forms. The development costs are high, but purchasing them will be even higher.

Your not really going to save money on buying 4+ gen fighters because they are not the jets that rolled out in the late 70's and 80's, they are jammed with so much new (expensive) stuff, the become nearly as expensive as 5th gen fighters.

The F-35 WILL be better than 4th gen fighters, it will do things you could never consider doing 10 years ago. No, it will not be at the level of the F-22, it is not ment to be. It is a multi purpose work horse that can sneek in on day one of a war, remove high value and risk targets, then load it to the tits externally and it becomes a bomb truck.

If the F-35 needed? No, nor the F-22, but who wants to fight a war on even terms? A strike force of B-2s, F-22s, and F-35s could pretty much reduce any foes military to staying out of the air on day one. That is a package worth working a little harder to get.

[/rant]


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 9836 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 38):
Would it be nice for the Marines to have a plane to operate from assault ships? Sure, but the benefits don't outweigh the costs.

It would be nice to give some to the USCG, on their (would be nice to have) LHD carriers outfitted for search and rescue and disaster relief duties.

There is no real reason the USMC need STOVL stealth fighter jets to support ground troops. Apaches, Cobras, and warthogs (when airfields are available) would do quite nice.


User currently offlinenasula From Finland, joined Sep 2010, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8907 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
I'll just go on believing that the F35 will be a major success, regardless of final cost and the PAKFA will be another above average product from Russia with poor international sales.

You do know what they say about assumptions? Especially about the future and products that you really have very little hard data on?

As an example, The F-22 is supposed to be THE air superiority fighter by a large margin. Then again take a look at the number of F-22 kill marks, the German Eurofighters (a non-stealthy 4th gen? aircraft) painted on their hulls during red flag. Does that mean the F-22 is immune? Or that the Eurofighter is superior? Neither, because the full circumstances and possible limitations are not known nor are the kills by the F-22s. But if this can be done, why wouldn't a newer design by the chinese or russians have similar success against the F35, which seems to be a little less capable as an air superiority fighter than the F22?

Just sayin'.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8840 times:

Quoting nasula (Reply 47):
As an example, The F-22 is supposed to be THE air superiority fighter by a large margin. Then again take a look at the number of F-22 kill marks, the German Eurofighters (a non-stealthy 4th gen? aircraft) painted on their hulls during red flag. Does that mean the F-22 is immune?

Oh my god, why must we cover everything over and over again.  Typhoons Best Raptors? (by connies4ever Sep 5 2012 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)


User currently offlinenasula From Finland, joined Sep 2010, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8822 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 48):

Heh. The details of that encounter are not fully known, but the most likely reasons for the result are yes. But you clearly missed the whole point. If in certain conditions a 4th gen. fighter can best the best 5th gen fighter, why couldn't a brand spanking new 5th gen fighter be a real threat to a brand spanking new (but not as capable in the fighter role as the F-22) F-35 in more diverse situations?

I'm not trying to downplay an F22, I'm just trying to illustrate a point that in the many different circumstances that exist in the battlefield a russian or chinese 5th gen fighter just might be a potent threat to an F-35 since in the right circumstances (yes a tight visual range dogfight) a 4th gen plane can down the best 5th gen.

Many people and corporations underestimate the competition before it's too late (iPhone a good example). Overconfidence is the downfall of many a champion. Many a battle has been lost due to overconfidence as well.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 50, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8782 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 48):
Oh my god, why must we cover everything over and over again. Typhoons Best Raptors? (by connies4ever Sep 5 2012 in
Quoting nasula (Reply 49):
Heh. The details of that encounter are not fully known, but the most likely reasons for the result are yes. But you clearly missed the whole point.

If you care to read the article in AIR International regarding Red Flag, almost certainly the Raptors/Typhoons were in a turning fight where the Typhoon can dance around the Raptor.

BTW, current display copy of AIR International has a very detailed article on what bedevils the F-35. But, I guess since it doesn't meet the preconceived ideas of some, it must be sh*ite.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinenasula From Finland, joined Sep 2010, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8586 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 50):
If you care to read the article in AIR International regarding Red Flag, almost certainly the Raptors/Typhoons were in a turning fight where the Typhoon can dance around the Raptor.

I read the article a few weeks ago from the magazine. A very interesting article that was. And yes, the gist I got from the article is as you stated. The other gist was that the americans had a differing point of view. What it did not state was for example how the raptors were handicapped or how many kills each side made. But the main point was that the Raptor is not invincible in all conditions and that others are actively looking for and possibly finding ways around the Raptor's benefits. But like many said in the other thread, the Typhoons didn't have all the upgrades either and with new tech (advanced IR, newer radars etc) many stealthy things become less stealthy.

But, the only point I was trying to make (and obviously failing miserably) was: "If a 4th gen fighter can kill the best 5th gen fighter in certain conditions, what makes one believe that a new 5th gen fighter will not be a threat to another 5th gen fighter?". Just because it wasn't made in the USA?


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 52, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8411 times:

Quoting nasula (Reply 51):
But, the only point I was trying to make (and obviously failing miserably) was: "If a 4th gen fighter can kill the best 5th gen fighter in certain conditions, what makes one believe that a new 5th gen fighter will not be a threat to another 5th gen fighter?". Just because it wasn't made in the USA?

Oh no, I got that. There is no reason to think that the J-20 might well turn out better than the Raptor. But it still must be borne in mind that the J-20 is basically using Russian engines, which have traditionally lagged technologically vis-a-vis Western counterparts.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7797 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 12):
yes, you're right...they have no idea what they're doing over there. You know, because historically Sukhoi is one of the most successful fighter design bureaus in the world right up there with Lockheed. Is the T-50 late to the party? Perhaps, but because for the last 20 years there has been no money for it. But it most certainly is 5th gen. You should stop being in denial that other countries can and are close to matching the technology the USA has.

While I don't disagree with you, the US does have a 20 year advantage in stealth aircraft and that will be hard to make up but with most technologies I do agree I think the rest of the world has caught up.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 22):
Rather like the V-22 Osprey engines which last only a few hours before needing a complete rebuild, it's not only the Russians who have engine longevity issues.

Coming from an American I can honestly say I think the V-22 is the largest waste of government spending in several decades. This aircaft is unsafe and shouldn't have gotten off the drawing boards. But I believe the F-35 will surpass that in a few years and be the largest waste of money even seen.

[Edited 2012-10-08 17:42:39]

User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7802 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 33):
What iteration of the F35 do you think is the least useful? IMO the F35A is the worst idea, I would rather pay for more F22s for the Air Force and let NAVY/Marines have the F35. The F22 would have to become a better bomber though.

The F-22 was designed as an interceptor when they started wanting a do all plane is when the costs shot up. The F-22 is not a viable bomber they should have built more B-1's.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 55, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7386 times:

I'm just curious why we even need new generation aircraft.

American and British pilots could shoot down anything you wanted from the flight deck of a hang glider, and I'm pretty sure there's no wars going on against people with, you know, functioning economies or governments - much less air forces.


NS


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7212 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 55):
I'm just curious why we even need new generation aircraft.

American and British pilots could shoot down anything you wanted from the flight deck of a hang glider, and I'm pretty sure there's no wars going on against people with, you know, functioning economies or governments - much less air forces.

Well, we thought the same during the early 1990's after the fall of the Iron Curtain, but the Persian Gulf and Yugoslav Wars happened.

[Edited 2012-10-11 19:30:16]

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7175 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 55):
I'm just curious why we even need new generation aircraft.

Why advance technologically as a species all together? Lets just call it good.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15811 posts, RR: 27
Reply 58, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7168 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 55):
I'm just curious why we even need new generation aircraft.

The capabilities of potential opponents are only going one direction. We need to make sure we're heading the same direction at least as quickly.

The USAF can blast basically anything they want and it should stay that way. If any servicemen enter a fair fight, we've already failed them.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12846 posts, RR: 25
Reply 59, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7078 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 57):
Why advance technologically as a species all together? Lets just call it good.

Indeed, but there's a point where we hit "good enough" and stop putting in super-linear amounts of resources so we can see linear or less gains.

Note that the USS Ford "super carrier" is less super than the Nimitz class it's replacing, but "good enough".

Lots of tech has reached the "good enough" stage. The internal combustion engine is there IMHO, and the microprocessor is rapidly reaching that point. They need super-linear investments (see Bugatti Veyron, $4B for a new chip making plant) to make linear gains.

The termination of F-22 production is an indication that it has hit "good enough" stage. Enough were built to serve as a large deterrent, but there's no point in making more, just like there's no point in everyone having a Veyron. IMHO the F-35 will be the last manned super-fighter. It's already clear that these kinds of assets are being parked while drones are being produced and flown in record numbers.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7663 posts, RR: 4
Reply 60, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7049 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 59):

Note that the USS Ford "super carrier" is less super than the Nimitz class it's replacing, but "good enough".

Please explain, how can it be less super?


User currently offlinenasula From Finland, joined Sep 2010, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6632 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 59):
The internal combustion engine is there IMHO, and the microprocessor is rapidly reaching that point. They need super-linear investments (see Bugatti Veyron, $4B for a new chip making plant) to make linear gains.

The internal combustion engine is not good enough. It's not all that efficient in translating fuel into motion at about 30% efficiency, which is evident in the amount of excess heat it produces. Once the regulations became tighter, suddenly the combustion engine we have today takes up 1/3rd of the fuel to produce the same amount of power and torques as my first Volvo did in the early nineties and it just seems to be getting better in big steps.

The Veyron was just a thing that a megalomaniac CEO wanted to create. Nothing to do with technological advances or the need of those. Hybrids would be a better viewpoint which seems to be a good direction to go. The less energy a car converts to heat, the better it is.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12846 posts, RR: 25
Reply 62, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6609 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 60):
Please explain, how can it be less super?

It can be less super by saying it can increase operating tempo whilst having one less elevator and one less hangar deck.

Quoting nasula (Reply 61):
The internal combustion engine is not good enough. It's not all that efficient in translating fuel into motion at about 30% efficiency, which is evident in the amount of excess heat it produces.

It's good enough in the sense that it serves its intended purpose, and it takes non-linear amounts of money invested to get linear (if that) returns.

Quoting nasula (Reply 61):
Hybrids would be a better viewpoint which seems to be a good direction to go. The less energy a car converts to heat, the better it is.

That would suggest then that the ICE in a hybrid primarily be a genset so that when it runs it will run at its optimal speed.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinenasula From Finland, joined Sep 2010, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6465 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 62):
t's good enough in the sense that it serves its intended purpose, and it takes non-linear amounts of money invested to get linear (if that) returns.

I might of misunderstood your sentence 180 degrees so don't shoot me here.... I feel that there are plenty of low hanging fruit in the ICE.

Currently many of the mid-sized cars in Europe run with 1.1-1.4l petrol engines giving up to 180bhp and up to 260Nm torque with 40-50+mpg and I feel this is just the start of the advancements. This has happened in the last 5 years or so and likely just the start of similar advancements.

But I could be just as well just as wrong about the future of the ICE.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 62):
That would suggest then that the ICE in a hybrid primarily be a genset so that when it runs it will run at its optimal speed.

Definitely. That's the way it should be in my opinion. A well-tuned Diesel engine running at an optimal RPM against a fixed load (generator) would be better consumption-wise than the current solution. Why are they not doing it for the masses? Could it have to do with charging of the batteries or the limitations of some challenges with the electric motors?

This approach would also facilitate an easy replacement of the ICE if/when a better and more efficient alternative becomes available for providing electricity.

BTW, has anyone seen studies on how much energy could be harvested from the suspension of a normal car?


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7663 posts, RR: 4
Reply 64, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6474 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 62):
It can be less super by saying it can increase operating tempo whilst having one less elevator and one less hangar deck.

Aircraft carried is the same, Fords elevators can carry 2 aircraft, Nimitz only a single, due to the rearranged flightdeck and no restriction on catapult 4 they can launch more aircraft, looks like Ford is an improvement.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic “the Worst I’ve Ever Seen.” - Air Force General
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...
Did The Royal Air Force Ever Operate The Neptune? posted Thu Mar 22 2007 20:22:58 by SkidMarque
Air Force One And The E4B posted Fri May 4 2012 21:31:42 by Max Q
Inside Air Force One - The Independence (Video) posted Tue Nov 8 2011 14:21:55 by rohanghosh
CASA, Chilean Air Force, Gone Down In The Pacific posted Fri Sep 2 2011 23:16:30 by AR385
Air Force Two In HLN Over The Weekend posted Wed Jul 6 2011 07:52:53 by HLNspotter
F-15 Exports / German Air Force In The Cold War posted Sat Jun 11 2011 09:55:54 by racko
Should The U.S. Air Force Start A Cargo Airline? posted Thu Apr 7 2011 22:24:17 by kaitak744
Stunning Shots Of The Royal Air Force posted Mon Jan 10 2011 14:47:27 by skinny
Wrist Watches For The US Air Force Pilots? posted Mon Dec 20 2010 21:37:02 by wardialer
What's The Deal With Beale Air Force Base? posted Sat Dec 11 2010 10:29:34 by 26point2

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format