User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/30/2014 8:27:15 AM EDT
[#1]
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 11:13:40 AM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 11:19:12 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 11:19:58 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Link The Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is on track for sea trials onboard the carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-65) in November off the West Coast. That is despite flight envelope restrictions imposed after an engine fire destroyed a land-based F-35A aircraft on take-off in July.
“The event we have planned in November to bring to two C-model F-35s to an aircraft carrier on the U.S. West Coast is still on track,” JSF program manager Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan told reporters at an F-35 Joint Executive Steering Board (JESB) meet in Oslo, Norway, on Thursday. Important to note that this is Developmental testing. Initial Operational Capability is slated for 2018-2019. At this rate, it'll be obsolete before it becomes "operational". 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 11:23:40 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
why is the C version so much further behind in IOC? I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets? Yes, they pushed the B-version. The USMC's birds are very long in the tooth. That's been mitigated somewhat by the purchase of the entire UK Harrier fleet, some with very low hours, but the plan was set before anyone knew that would be an option. ETA: The USMC still has F/A-18A's in service. Those are old by any definition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 11:25:23 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
why is the C version so much further behind in IOC? I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets? C is the smallest buy Navy needed it less than the USMC/USAf B has a large FMS component |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 11:25:59 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At this rate, it'll be obsolete before it becomes "operational". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Link The Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is on track for sea trials onboard the carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-65) in November off the West Coast. That is despite flight envelope restrictions imposed after an engine fire destroyed a land-based F-35A aircraft on take-off in July.
“The event we have planned in November to bring to two C-model F-35s to an aircraft carrier on the U.S. West Coast is still on track,” JSF program manager Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan told reporters at an F-35 Joint Executive Steering Board (JESB) meet in Oslo, Norway, on Thursday. Important to note that this is Developmental testing. Initial Operational Capability is slated for 2018-2019. At this rate, it'll be obsolete before it becomes "operational". It is a huge cash cow. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 11:30:20 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: C is the smallest buy Navy needed it less than the USMC/USAf B has a large FMS component Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets? C is the smallest buy Navy needed it less than the USMC/USAf B has a large FMS component |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 11:40:28 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, they pushed the B-version. The USMC's birds are very long in the tooth. That's been mitigated somewhat by the purchase of the entire UK Harrier fleet, some with very low hours, but the plan was set before anyone knew that would be an option. ETA: The USMC still has F/A-18A's in service. Those are old by any definition. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets? Yes, they pushed the B-version. The USMC's birds are very long in the tooth. That's been mitigated somewhat by the purchase of the entire UK Harrier fleet, some with very low hours, but the plan was set before anyone knew that would be an option. ETA: The USMC still has F/A-18A's in service. Those are old by any definition. The only F/A-18As in service with the 3rd MAW in 2004 was in VMFAT-101, which was a training squadron. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 11:42:02 AM EDT
[#10]
F-22 FTW
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:28:41 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
why is the C version so much further behind in IOC? I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets? They needed the B model first, because the Navy bought another round of Super Hornets to gap fill until the C model hits IOC. In reality, the A model should never have been developed. The USAF should have been given the C model. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:32:46 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:34:11 PM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:37:58 PM EDT
[#14]
That is one ugly plane?
Would fly faster if that australian pilot stayed away from the barbie |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:45:36 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him. Depends on which model. OT squadron might be flying the C, but not Fleet squadrons. The B - next year I think it hits Fleet squadrons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:48:11 PM EDT
[#16]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 5:49:24 PM EDT
[#17]
Nimitz is not CVN-65 that was the Enterprise then they built two oil burners 66 and 67 then the Nimitz was CVN-68
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 6:37:53 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him. IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:03:53 PM EDT
[#19]
I don't recall if the C model "went to the boat" previously, but I believe it flunked the first round of carrier suitability trials, namely the ability to catch a wire reliably.
The back end of the airplane dealing with the hook configuration required substantial redesign resulting in the long delay being experienced. Presumably the new configuration has passed simulated carrier landings on land, and they're ready to head to sea once again. If my recollection is faulty, I'm sure somebody will provide a correction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:10:50 PM EDT
[#20]
Fugly
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:11:24 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They needed the B model first, because the Navy bought another round of Super Hornets to gap fill until the C model hits IOC. In reality, the A model should never have been developed. The USAF should have been given more F-22's the C model. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets? They needed the B model first, because the Navy bought another round of Super Hornets to gap fill until the C model hits IOC. In reality, the A model should never have been developed. The USAF should have been given more F-22's the C model. Fixed it for you. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:12:08 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't recall if the C model "went to the boat" previously, but I believe it flunked the first round of carrier suitability trials, namely the ability to catch a wire reliably. The back end of the airplane dealing with the hook configuration required substantial redesign resulting in the long delay being experienced. Presumably the new configuration has passed simulated carrier landings on land, and they're ready to head to sea once again. If my recollection is faulty, I'm sure somebody will provide a correction. You're right on the hook redesign, but I believe they found that in land testing. I don't believe they ever went to sea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:20:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nimitz is not CVN-65 that was the Enterprise then they built two oil burners 66 and 67 then the Nimitz was CVN-68 How the hell did they screw up that little detail? I remember when Nimitz was the newest carrier. Now it's the oldest active one. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:31:10 PM EDT
[#24]
Reminded me of this
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 7:39:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't recall if the C model "went to the boat" previously, but I believe it flunked the first round of carrier suitability trials, namely the ability to catch a wire reliably. The back end of the airplane dealing with the hook configuration required substantial redesign resulting in the long delay being experienced. Presumably the new configuration has passed simulated carrier landings on land, and they're ready to head to sea once again. If my recollection is faulty, I'm sure somebody will provide a correction. First the launch bar had to be redesigned to reach the shuttle. Fundamental failures of geometry on both ends of the airplane. We're stuck with them, and the good news is that the next fighter series will come from LM. Most likely that will fulfill Norm Augustine's prediction; one airplane that every pilot shares, and hopefully the readiness rate is high enough to keep three or four of them current. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 5:58:07 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him. IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC. Doubt it. The goal line always moves for this bitch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 6:35:12 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fixed it for you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets? They needed the B model first, because the Navy bought another round of Super Hornets to gap fill until the C model hits IOC. In reality, the A model should never have been developed. The USAF should have been given more F-22's the C model. Fixed it for you. The graft and consultant jobs on the F-22 were too few and already handed out regardless. Procurement must move FORWARD! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 6:38:39 AM EDT
[#28]
I am very nervous about these F-35's
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 6:49:01 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am very nervous about these F-35's Go on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 6:52:05 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am very nervous about these F-35's Go on. Only 1 engine. I know it worked ok for the F-16 but it still makes me nervous ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 7:04:10 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At this rate, it'll be obsolete before it becomes "operational". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Link The Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is on track for sea trials onboard the carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-65) in November off the West Coast. That is despite flight envelope restrictions imposed after an engine fire destroyed a land-based F-35A aircraft on take-off in July.
“The event we have planned in November to bring to two C-model F-35s to an aircraft carrier on the U.S. West Coast is still on track,” JSF program manager Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan told reporters at an F-35 Joint Executive Steering Board (JESB) meet in Oslo, Norway, on Thursday. Important to note that this is Developmental testing. Initial Operational Capability is slated for 2018-2019. At this rate, it'll be obsolete before it becomes "operational". Kind of scary isn't it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 7:19:25 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only 1 engine. I know it worked ok for the F-16 but it still makes me nervous ... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am very nervous about these F-35's Go on. Only 1 engine. I know it worked ok for the F-16 but it still makes me nervous ... You'd be right to be nervous. Compressor stall caused by ingesting steam from the catapult during take off is one of the reasons the Navy got away from single engine planes the first time. At +$120million each, every time it happens with this plane and an aircraft is lost, the crash will negate the savings to the program from only having one engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 9:50:50 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: First the launch bar had to be redesigned to reach the shuttle. Fundamental failures of geometry on both ends of the airplane. We're stuck with them, and the good news is that the next fighter series will come from LM. Most likely that will fulfill Norm Augustine's prediction; one airplane that every pilot shares, and hopefully the readiness rate is high enough to keep three or four of them current. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't recall if the C model "went to the boat" previously, but I believe it flunked the first round of carrier suitability trials, namely the ability to catch a wire reliably. The back end of the airplane dealing with the hook configuration required substantial redesign resulting in the long delay being experienced. Presumably the new configuration has passed simulated carrier landings on land, and they're ready to head to sea once again. If my recollection is faulty, I'm sure somebody will provide a correction. First the launch bar had to be redesigned to reach the shuttle. Fundamental failures of geometry on both ends of the airplane. We're stuck with them, and the good news is that the next fighter series will come from LM. Most likely that will fulfill Norm Augustine's prediction; one airplane that every pilot shares, and hopefully the readiness rate is high enough to keep three or four of them current. <em style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'trebuchet ms'; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
Law Number XVI: In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day. [/span] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 10:49:17 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doubt it. The goal line always moves for this bitch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him. IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC. Doubt it. The goal line always moves for this bitch. It's flying now. I doubt it's going to move much more, if at all. It's just like every other major weapon system development in the last three decades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 10:58:11 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am very nervous about these F-35's So am I. If, IF, the technology pans out like they plan for it, it may become the greatest military aircraft ever. If it does not, it will set our military back decades paying for it. Kind of like when an NFL team would draft a QB high in the draft before the rookie salary cap. If the QB was a bust it set the team back many years, and this plane is either going to be peyton manning or ryan leaf. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 11:37:08 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You'd be right to be nervous. Compressor stall caused by ingesting steam from the catapult during take off is one of the reasons the Navy got away from single engine planes the first time. At +$120million each, every time it happens with this plane and an aircraft is lost, the crash will negate the savings to the program from only having one engine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am very nervous about these F-35's Go on. Only 1 engine. I know it worked ok for the F-16 but it still makes me nervous ... You'd be right to be nervous. Compressor stall caused by ingesting steam from the catapult during take off is one of the reasons the Navy got away from single engine planes the first time. At +$120million each, every time it happens with this plane and an aircraft is lost, the crash will negate the savings to the program from only having one engine. We fixed the steam ingestion stall problem in the A-7 in the late 60's by modifying the engine. We've been testing the JSF engines against the issue since 2003. I've heard of it happening one time in an F/A-18 series aircraft. One might also note that CVN-78 class will not have steam catapults. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 12:02:23 PM EDT
[#37]
Other than the extreme costs and the "can kicked down the road" release dates, why all the F-35 hate? I see them in flight almost daily. The F-35B can stop mid air with no issues. Hell, our V-22s have crashed more than the 35s.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 12:08:33 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Other than the extreme costs and the "can kicked down the road" release dates, why all the F-35 hate? I see them in flight almost daily. The F-35B can stop mid air with no issues. Hell, our V-22s have crashed more than the 35s. It's mostly people who are pissed the F22 was canxed and believe that the JSF is a piece of shit because it's not an F22. The other group is people who think weapons development is cheap and the JSF is too expensive. I tend to agree that that its development was expensive, but it's a great capability increase in a whole lot of ways for all the services. My main gripe with it is that there was zero need to make three variants -- all we needed was the B and C models and the USAF could have flown the C model without any issues -- the capability differences between the A and C models are not enough to justify carrying both in inventory, and the A model cannot be CVN capable, so they should have canxed the A model. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 6:37:57 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We fixed the steam ingestion stall problem in the A-7 in the late 60's by modifying the engine. We've been testing the JSF engines against the issue since 2003. I've heard of it happening one time in an F/A-18 series aircraft. One might also note that CVN-78 class will not have steam catapults. I've seen the video of a F-18 getting a compressor stall. I think it's happened a lot more than once. The odds that it only happened once and during that one time there was also a camera man filming is miniscule at best. There's only going to be one Ford coming into service every 6 years, the vast majority of F-35's will live out most of their lives on Nimitz carriers. Considering how LM fucked up the known-known of tail-hook geometry, I'm not getting my hopes up that they made the 35's invulnerable to steam induced CS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 6:56:03 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's mostly people who are pissed the F22 was canxed and believe that the JSF is a piece of shit because it's not an F22. Two camps with some overlap. First camp is what Josh describes above - the "we should only be buying F-22s" group that sees F-35 as a waste because it lacks the badass kinematics of the F-22. They think that the F-35 isn't high performance enough. The second camp is the Super Tucano/A-10 fanboy crowd. They think that the F-35 is gold plated and too high performance to be an effective mud mover. There is significant overlap between the two camps - that's the bang-for-the-buck crowd who just think F-35 costs too much for the capability it will deliver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 7:30:16 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Two camps with some overlap. First camp is what Josh describes above - the "we should only be buying F-22s" group that sees F-35 as a waste because it lacks the badass kinematics of the F-22. They think that the F-35 isn't high performance enough. The second camp is the Super Tucano/A-10 fanboy crowd. They think that the F-35 is gold plated and too high performance to be an effective mud mover. There is significant overlap between the two camps - that's the bang-for-the-buck crowd who just think F-35 costs too much for the capability it will deliver. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's mostly people who are pissed the F22 was canxed and believe that the JSF is a piece of shit because it's not an F22. Two camps with some overlap. First camp is what Josh describes above - the "we should only be buying F-22s" group that sees F-35 as a waste because it lacks the badass kinematics of the F-22. They think that the F-35 isn't high performance enough. The second camp is the Super Tucano/A-10 fanboy crowd. They think that the F-35 is gold plated and too high performance to be an effective mud mover. There is significant overlap between the two camps - that's the bang-for-the-buck crowd who just think F-35 costs too much for the capability it will deliver. The F-22 fleet was gutted because the unit costs for the F-35A was supposed to be roughly half that of the F-22A. That was the whole rationale. Now that the F-35A costs just as much as the F-22A, there is no doubt the USAF is getting the shaft (from it's own senior leadership). Whether you believe in the magic helmet or not, the F-22A is superior to the F-35A in every measurable performance parameter. FOR THE SAME MONEY, we could have a full fleet of more capable aircraft. But the F-22A ship has sailed, so for the sake of our pilots, I hope the avionics perform as advertised. And yes, I am very skeptical. The F-35B would be an "OK" program if it had been left alone as a Harrier replacement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 7:51:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's mostly people who are pissed the F22 was canxed and believe that the JSF is a piece of shit because it's not an F22. I believe the F-35A's status as a POS can stand on it's own merits. Seriously, the design is very compromised by maintaining commonality with the F-35B. (which was largely undone by the extreme weight reduction measures in the F-35B to get that pig down to a functional weight) F-35A Performance is not only degraded, but cannot be "fixed" since a lot of it is directly tied to the overly wide and deep fuselage needed to accomodate all the VSTOL equipment. I do not have a major problem with the F-35B as a Harrier replacement. But the F-35A is a flawed aircraft. It will be produced in big numbers and declared a success. But just like the F-111 from 40+ years earlier, it will only be viable as an attack/strike aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 10:23:08 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've seen the video of a F-18 getting a compressor stall. I think it's happened a lot more than once. The odds that it only happened once and during that one time there was also a camera man filming is miniscule at best. There's only going to be one Ford coming into service every 6 years, the vast majority of F-35's will live out most of their lives on Nimitz carriers. Considering how LM fucked up the known-known of tail-hook geometry, I'm not getting my hopes up that they made the 35's invulnerable to steam induced CS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We fixed the steam ingestion stall problem in the A-7 in the late 60's by modifying the engine. We've been testing the JSF engines against the issue since 2003. I've heard of it happening one time in an F/A-18 series aircraft. One might also note that CVN-78 class will not have steam catapults. I've seen the video of a F-18 getting a compressor stall. I think it's happened a lot more than once. The odds that it only happened once and during that one time there was also a camera man filming is miniscule at best. There's only going to be one Ford coming into service every 6 years, the vast majority of F-35's will live out most of their lives on Nimitz carriers. Considering how LM fucked up the known-known of tail-hook geometry, I'm not getting my hopes up that they made the 35's invulnerable to steam induced CS. There's one video that I could find. The F/A-18 has been operational for what, three decades now? And every launch and every recovery is filmed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 12:02:23 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's one video that I could find. The F/A-18 has been operational for what, three decades now? And every launch and every recovery is filmed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We fixed the steam ingestion stall problem in the A-7 in the late 60's by modifying the engine. We've been testing the JSF engines against the issue since 2003. I've heard of it happening one time in an F/A-18 series aircraft. One might also note that CVN-78 class will not have steam catapults. I've seen the video of a F-18 getting a compressor stall. I think it's happened a lot more than once. The odds that it only happened once and during that one time there was also a camera man filming is miniscule at best. There's only going to be one Ford coming into service every 6 years, the vast majority of F-35's will live out most of their lives on Nimitz carriers. Considering how LM fucked up the known-known of tail-hook geometry, I'm not getting my hopes up that they made the 35's invulnerable to steam induced CS. There's one video that I could find. The F/A-18 has been operational for what, three decades now? And every launch and every recovery is filmed. I'll concede that I can't find any more examples either. What do you think the odds are that LM fucked up the F-35C and it is vulnerable to CS? I'd almost like to take bets that LM never actually tested for it outside computer simulation, if at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 1:15:01 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll concede that I can't find any more examples either. What do you think the odds are that LM fucked up the F-35C and it is vulnerable to CS? I'd almost like to take bets that LM never actually tested for it outside computer simulation, if at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We fixed the steam ingestion stall problem in the A-7 in the late 60's by modifying the engine. We've been testing the JSF engines against the issue since 2003. I've heard of it happening one time in an F/A-18 series aircraft. One might also note that CVN-78 class will not have steam catapults. I've seen the video of a F-18 getting a compressor stall. I think it's happened a lot more than once. The odds that it only happened once and during that one time there was also a camera man filming is miniscule at best. There's only going to be one Ford coming into service every 6 years, the vast majority of F-35's will live out most of their lives on Nimitz carriers. Considering how LM fucked up the known-known of tail-hook geometry, I'm not getting my hopes up that they made the 35's invulnerable to steam induced CS. There's one video that I could find. The F/A-18 has been operational for what, three decades now? And every launch and every recovery is filmed. I'll concede that I can't find any more examples either. What do you think the odds are that LM fucked up the F-35C and it is vulnerable to CS? I'd almost like to take bets that LM never actually tested for it outside computer simulation, if at all. Their engine has been extensively tested irl, since at least 2003. It's almost like they knew it was important to address the issue somehow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 1:28:52 AM EDT
[#46]
Seems overkill for Zeros.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 1:31:57 AM EDT
[#47]
Does the C in F-35C stand for Cuckold?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 1:32:20 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him. IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC. IOC is initial, not full operational capability. IOC squadrons do not deploy, FOC ones do. I'll believe the IOC date when we see the B model reach IOC next year, as promised (well the fourth or fifth schedule slip anyway). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 5:35:28 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IOC is initial, not full operational capability. IOC squadrons do not deploy, FOC ones do. I'll believe the IOC date when we see the B model reach IOC next year, as promised (well the fourth or fifth schedule slip anyway). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him. IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC. IOC is initial, not full operational capability. IOC squadrons do not deploy, FOC ones do. I'll believe the IOC date when we see the B model reach IOC next year, as promised (well the fourth or fifth schedule slip anyway). IOC is defined by the service. Navy will deploy VAW-125, the E-2D IOC squadron, this spring, before any other deploying squadron has its complement of 5 E-2Ds. We deploy at IOC all the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 5:39:03 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IOC is defined by the service. Navy will deploy VAW-125, the E-2D IOC squadron, this spring, before any other deploying squadron has its complement of 5 E-2Ds. We deploy at IOC all the time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years. Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him. IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC. IOC is initial, not full operational capability. IOC squadrons do not deploy, FOC ones do. I'll believe the IOC date when we see the B model reach IOC next year, as promised (well the fourth or fifth schedule slip anyway). IOC is defined by the service. Navy will deploy VAW-125, the E-2D IOC squadron, this spring, before any other deploying squadron has its complement of 5 E-2Ds. We deploy at IOC all the time. the E-2D is an update to a design that has been in service for decades, pretty low risk vs an entirely unproven airframe. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
