User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 5:26:47 PM EDT
F-35 CF-01 On first flight after receiving its final Navy finishes. http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=941 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 5:27:40 PM EDT
[#1]
That thing looks like its missing an engine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 5:48:59 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 5:54:43 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. I forgot the "insert sarcasm here" icon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 5:58:52 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 6:04:59 PM EDT
[#5]
The navy has been big on redundancy, so I'm kinda surprised they'd take a single engine jet after dumping the A-7. Does that thing have access panels so it can be worked on during a 6mo deployment? I wouldn't thing access panels would help its stealthiness.
ETA: I'm glad I put my coffee down OP before seeing your new avatar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 6:05:32 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 6:06:39 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. The last prop-driven single engine front line fighter/attack aircraft was the Douglas Skyraider, it was retired in 1971, although it has not been used as a fighter since the Korean War. The last single engine front line attack aircraft was the A-7 Corsair II, it was retired in 1991. The last single engine front line fighter aircraft was the F-8 Crusader, it was retired from active duty as a fighter in 1978, it retired from the reserves as a photo-recce bird in 1987. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 6:09:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 If I had a choice between surrendering to the Air Force and the Chinese I'd cross my fingers and hope the egg rolls were legit... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 6:13:05 PM EDT
[#9]
Love it.
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 6:14:25 PM EDT
[#10]
This jet will only be used to drop JDams on 1 insurgent hiding in a house...
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 6:15:53 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
This jet will only be used to drop JDams on 1 insurgent hiding in a house... I doubt that they'd fly it in OEF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 6:23:54 PM EDT
[#12]
I'm amazed by the internal fuel load of that aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 6:48:33 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. The last prop-driven single engine front line fighter/attack aircraft was the Douglas Skyraider, it was retired in 1971, although it has not been used as a fighter since the Korean War. The last single engine front line attack aircraft was the A-7 Corsair II, it was retired in 1991. The last single engine front line fighter aircraft was the F-8 Crusader, it was retired from active duty as a fighter in 1978, it retired from the reserves as a photo-recce bird in 1987. Don't forget the A4Ms operated by Marines at least up through the '80s and carrier capable. And turbofans have gotten nothing but more reliable since then. As I said, it's a poor critique of this bird, but I read it all the time. The squids have no stealthy attack jets nowadays, so this will be a nice addition to the Rhino's in the CAW if it works as promised. Oh, and sorry for missing the sarc' redfish861 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 6:54:06 PM EDT
[#14]
About time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 6:56:37 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 With the moves the Chinese are making in the Indian Ocean you might be right. If the USN doesn't get their F-35C's in decent number we'll be unable to play the adult when things get interesting between India and China. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 6:58:43 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 With the moves the Chinese are making in the Indian Ocean you might be right. If the USN doesn't get their F-35C's in decent number we'll be unable to play the adult when things get interesting between India and China. You think we would get between that fight? Hell, we rolled over for Georgia. When two nuclear powers decide to go at it, 100,000 F35s ain't gonna make a bit of difference. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 7:00:27 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 With the moves the Chinese are making in the Indian Ocean you might be right. If the USN doesn't get their F-35C's in decent number we'll be unable to play the adult when things get interesting between India and China. What exactly would our interests be to get involved in any sort of war between china and india? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 7:45:31 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. The last prop-driven single engine front line fighter/attack aircraft was the Douglas Skyraider, it was retired in 1971, although it has not been used as a fighter since the Korean War. The last single engine front line attack aircraft was the A-7 Corsair II, it was retired in 1991. The last single engine front line fighter aircraft was the F-8 Crusader, it was retired from active duty as a fighter in 1978, it retired from the reserves as a photo-recce bird in 1987. Don't forget the A4Ms operated by Marines at least up through the '80s and carrier capable. And turbofans have gotten nothing but more reliable since then. As I said, it's a poor critique of this bird, but I read it all the time. The squids have no stealthy attack jets nowadays, so this will be a nice addition to the Rhino's in the CAW if it works as promised. Oh, and sorry for missing the sarc' redfish861 Navy, not Marines. Naval aircraft yes, the question was Navy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 8:37:01 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
The navy has been big on redundancy, so I'm kinda surprised they'd take a single engine jet after dumping the A-7. Does that thing have access panels so it can be worked on during a 6mo deployment? I wouldn't thing access panels would help its stealthiness. Reasons for going SE: -focus on littoral ops vs open water -improved Reliability of modern engines -cost -range Are you serious asking about access panels? How long do you think any jet engine goes without maintenance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 8:39:15 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 With the moves the Chinese are making in the Indian Ocean you might be right. If the USN doesn't get their F-35C's in decent number we'll be unable to play the adult when things get interesting between India and China. What exactly would our interests be to get involved in any sort of war between china and india? Gotta use those F-35C's that we spent dozens of billions of dollars on somewhere, or there won't be a F-36 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 8:44:37 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 With the moves the Chinese are making in the Indian Ocean you might be right. If the USN doesn't get their F-35C's in decent number we'll be unable to play the adult when things get interesting between India and China. What exactly would our interests be to get involved in any sort of war between china and india? Gotta use those F-35C's that we spent dozens of billions of dollars on somewhere, or there won't be a F-36 No, They won't use the F35Cs because they are so expensive they can't afford to lose one because then there won't be enough when we need to use them which we won't because we can't afford to lose them. OOOOOOOHHHHHHH look, an airshow! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:22:33 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 With the moves the Chinese are making in the Indian Ocean you might be right. If the USN doesn't get their F-35C's in decent number we'll be unable to play the adult when things get interesting between India and China. What exactly would our interests be to get involved in any sort of war between china and india? Gotta use those F-35C's that we spent dozens of billions of dollars on somewhere, or there won't be a F-36 No, They won't use the F35Cs because they are so expensive they can't afford to lose one because then there won't be enough when we need to use them which we won't because we can't afford to lose them. OOOOOOOHHHHHHH look, an airshow! The USN put $1billion destroyers and amphibs in the same area where an Israeli ship got schwacked in 2006, in fact they were in the same piece of ocean when the Israeli ship got hit. Now we only have 59 destroyers and they cost $1billion each. I'm sure if the time comes the USN will put $100million aircraft in harm's way. Hell, in 2004 we put $1billion cruiser, a $1billion destroyer and an amphib in an area that just had a suicide boat attack, and our intel was saying that we were probably being targeted. If you want details you have my SIPR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:30:15 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
The USN put $1billion destroyers and amphibs in the same area where an Israeli ship got schwacked in 2006, in fact they were in the same piece of ocean when the Israeli ship got hit. Now we only have 59 destroyers and they cost $1billion each. I'm sure if the time comes the USN will put $100million aircraft in harm's way. Hell, in 2004 we put $1billion cruiser, a $1billion destroyer and an amphib in an area that just had a suicide boat attack, and our intel was saying that we were probably being targeted. If you want details you have my SIPR. How many losses could we survive? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:34:47 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 With the moves the Chinese are making in the Indian Ocean you might be right. If the USN doesn't get their F-35C's in decent number we'll be unable to play the adult when things get interesting between India and China. What exactly would our interests be to get involved in any sort of war between china and india? Gotta use those F-35C's that we spent dozens of billions of dollars on somewhere, or there won't be a F-36 No, They won't use the F35Cs because they are so expensive they can't afford to lose one because then there won't be enough when we need to use them which we won't because we can't afford to lose them. OOOOOOOHHHHHHH look, an airshow! The USN put $1billion destroyers and amphibs in the same area where an Israeli ship got schwacked in 2006, in fact they were in the same piece of ocean when the Israeli ship got hit. Now we only have 59 destroyers and they cost $1billion each. I'm sure if the time comes the USN will put $100million aircraft in harm's way. Hell, in 2004 we put $1billion cruiser, a $1billion destroyer and an amphib in an area that just had a suicide boat attack, and our intel was saying that we were probably being targeted. If you want details you have my SIPR. I love my black shoes, you know that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:35:36 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. It is, Budget cuts you know............ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:36:51 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 oh man the dirty looks im getting at the office for laughing loudly |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:41:41 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 With the moves the Chinese are making in the Indian Ocean you might be right. If the USN doesn't get their F-35C's in decent number we'll be unable to play the adult when things get interesting between India and China. What exactly would our interests be to get involved in any sort of war between china and india? Fucking WalMart Dude!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:44:24 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 With the moves the Chinese are making in the Indian Ocean you might be right. If the USN doesn't get their F-35C's in decent number we'll be unable to play the adult when things get interesting between India and China. What exactly would our interests be to get involved in any sort of war between china and india? Gotta use those F-35C's that we spent dozens of billions of dollars on somewhere, or there won't be a F-36 No, They won't use the F35Cs because they are so expensive they can't afford to lose one because then there won't be enough when we need to use them which we won't because we can't afford to lose them. OOOOOOOHHHHHHH look, an airshow! We understand the stakes when its our turn to step up to the plate. If it comes down to a force-on-force fight, all the BCTs in the world don't mean shit without control of the sea. They cannot be efficiently delivered, nor logged in any meaningful way, without sealift. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:45:05 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The USN put $1billion destroyers and amphibs in the same area where an Israeli ship got schwacked in 2006, in fact they were in the same piece of ocean when the Israeli ship got hit. Now we only have 59 destroyers and they cost $1billion each. I'm sure if the time comes the USN will put $100million aircraft in harm's way. Hell, in 2004 we put $1billion cruiser, a $1billion destroyer and an amphib in an area that just had a suicide boat attack, and our intel was saying that we were probably being targeted. If you want details you have my SIPR. How many losses could we survive? When it comes to continued sea dominance, as many as we need to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:46:58 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 With the moves the Chinese are making in the Indian Ocean you might be right. If the USN doesn't get their F-35C's in decent number we'll be unable to play the adult when things get interesting between India and China. What exactly would our interests be to get involved in any sort of war between china and india? All ambiguity aside, the US will not standby if the geopolitical map of Asia gets redrawn by force. It might not be a ground combat game, but maintenance of the peace requires the ability to shut down the SLOCs at will, and hold aggressors commerce at risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:47:57 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 With the moves the Chinese are making in the Indian Ocean you might be right. If the USN doesn't get their F-35C's in decent number we'll be unable to play the adult when things get interesting between India and China. What exactly would our interests be to get involved in any sort of war between china and india? Gotta use those F-35C's that we spent dozens of billions of dollars on somewhere, or there won't be a F-36 No, They won't use the F35Cs because they are so expensive they can't afford to lose one because then there won't be enough when we need to use them which we won't because we can't afford to lose them. OOOOOOOHHHHHHH look, an airshow! When it comes to defending a CVN, that fighter is a beer can in the economic order of things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:50:10 AM EDT
[#32]
Serious question - and I'm not asking it as a detractor to the F-35.
What advantages does the F-35A have over the F-35C? As I understand it, the C model has a longer range and higher payload. It's larger wings also give it better low speed handling for carrier ops. What about the A model makes it a better aircraft for the Air Force than the C model? Could they save money on the project by having the Air Force adopt the C model? -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:51:31 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Serious question - and I'm not asking it as a detractor to the F-35. What advantages does the F-35A have over the F-35C? As I understand it, the C model has a longer range and higher payload. It's larger wings also give it better low speed handling for carrier ops. What about the A model makes it a better aircraft for the Air Force than the C model? Could they save money on the project by having the Air Force adopt the C model? -K simply put, one lands on ships, one doesn't |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:53:42 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 With the moves the Chinese are making in the Indian Ocean you might be right. If the USN doesn't get their F-35C's in decent number we'll be unable to play the adult when things get interesting between India and China. What exactly would our interests be to get involved in any sort of war between china and india? Gotta use those F-35C's that we spent dozens of billions of dollars on somewhere, or there won't be a F-36 No, They won't use the F35Cs because they are so expensive they can't afford to lose one because then there won't be enough when we need to use them which we won't because we can't afford to lose them. OOOOOOOHHHHHHH look, an airshow! When it comes to defending a CVN, that fighter is a beer can in the economic order of things. I know that, my point is if there is a risk of actually losing multiple aircraft (like getting in between a shoving match between India and China 12,000 miles from home) I don't see us doing it. cruising the med and fucking with hiz b allah is one thing, nuclear powers are something else. What good is a CVN if there aren't any planes left to land on it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:53:55 AM EDT
[#35]
They still planning on using a version that utilizes vertical takeoff?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:57:43 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Serious question - and I'm not asking it as a detractor to the F-35. What advantages does the F-35A have over the F-35C? As I understand it, the C model has a longer range and higher payload. It's larger wings also give it better low speed handling for carrier ops. What about the A model makes it a better aircraft for the Air Force than the C model? Could they save money on the project by having the Air Force adopt the C model? -K Planes that can do carrier ops must be built like trucks, they really do take a beating hitting the steel deck over and over again. The AF version would not need the beefed up structure and giant (heavy) landing gear that the navy would require. Less weight means it can carry more fuel, ordnance, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 9:58:15 AM EDT
[#37]
Beautiful. That right there is in all likleyhood the last manned fighter program we ever develop.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:03:10 AM EDT
[#38]
Why does it have all the different flags on it. Is this some kind of global world initiative? It should have only one flag and that should be the US.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:13:30 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
They still planning on using a version that utilizes vertical takeoff? B model, for the Marines, and yes. It's in flight testing already, IIRC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:14:19 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Why does it have all the different flags on it. Is this some kind of global world initiative? It should have only one flag and that should be the US. The F35 is going to many of our allies, they helped fund its development. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:17:45 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: That's the strange part. Even with the wing fold mechanism, the Navy F-35C carries more internal fuel than the AF F-35A. I still don't understand how that happened. There has to be a tradeoff, increased drag from the C models low speed optimized wing, lower top speed, something. Otherwise it seems very stupid to have separate USN and USAF variants. Quoted: Serious question - and I'm not asking it as a detractor to the F-35. What advantages does the F-35A have over the F-35C? As I understand it, the C model has a longer range and higher payload. It's larger wings also give it better low speed handling for carrier ops. What about the A model makes it a better aircraft for the Air Force than the C model? Could they save money on the project by having the Air Force adopt the C model? -K Planes that can do carrier ops must be built like trucks, they really do take a beating hitting the steel deck over and over again. The AF version would not need the beefed up structure and giant (heavy) landing gear that the navy would require. Less weight means it can carry more fuel, ordnance, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:22:23 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. Planes cost a lot more now than they did then... I have it on good authority that if we don't procure at least 1726 F35s, we will be speaking russian with a chinese accent by 2016 With the moves the Chinese are making in the Indian Ocean you might be right. If the USN doesn't get their F-35C's in decent number we'll be unable to play the adult when things get interesting between India and China. What exactly would our interests be to get involved in any sort of war between china and india? Gotta use those F-35C's that we spent dozens of billions of dollars on somewhere, or there won't be a F-36 No, They won't use the F35Cs because they are so expensive they can't afford to lose one because then there won't be enough when we need to use them which we won't because we can't afford to lose them. OOOOOOOHHHHHHH look, an airshow! When it comes to defending a CVN, that fighter is a beer can in the economic order of things. I know that, my point is if there is a risk of actually losing multiple aircraft (like getting in between a shoving match between India and China 12,000 miles from home) I don't see us doing it. cruising the med and fucking with hiz b allah is one thing, nuclear powers are something else. What good is a CVN if there aren't any planes left to land on it? What good is having any of this capability if we're not going to use it? A resurgent China aggressively and kinetically pursuing its equitites is critical national security threat to the US, regardless if its occuring in the IO or Bering Strait. A Navy, if properly employed is all about that away game. For 50 years, the USAF tried to run with the Dale Brown meme that somehow carriers were inherently vulnerable, while the large, fixed bases upon which they depended were not. Laughable. In any fight with the Chinese, carriers are likely the only means of air power that we can imagine surviving. To answer your question, that would be why you want your airplanes to be as survivalbe as possible, thus the Nav's interest in the JSF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:24:21 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's the strange part. Even with the wing fold mechanism, the Navy F-35C carries more internal fuel than the AF F-35A. I still don't understand how that happened. There has to be a tradeoff, increased drag from the C models low speed optimized wing, lower top speed, something. Otherwise it seems very stupid to have separate USN and USAF variants.
Quoted:
Serious question - and I'm not asking it as a detractor to the F-35. What advantages does the F-35A have over the F-35C? As I understand it, the C model has a longer range and higher payload. It's larger wings also give it better low speed handling for carrier ops. What about the A model makes it a better aircraft for the Air Force than the C model? Could they save money on the project by having the Air Force adopt the C model? -K Planes that can do carrier ops must be built like trucks, they really do take a beating hitting the steel deck over and over again. The AF version would not need the beefed up structure and giant (heavy) landing gear that the navy would require. Less weight means it can carry more fuel, ordnance, etc. Agreed. There should have been a naval strike variant and the VSTOL variant, with the USAF buying a mix of the two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:33:52 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
What good is having any of this capability if we're not going to use it? . use it to do what exactly? take a non-decisive poke at one of two countries that has icbms pointed at us? that assumes that the indian navy isn't capable of dealing with the chinese threat and that airpower is the best way to neutralize the chinese fleet. neither is likely true. why is it in our interest to get in the middle of two nuclear armed states. no thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:49:25 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's the strange part. Even with the wing fold mechanism, the Navy F-35C carries more internal fuel than the AF F-35A. I still don't understand how that happened. There has to be a tradeoff, increased drag from the C models low speed optimized wing, lower top speed, something. Otherwise it seems very stupid to have separate USN and USAF variants. Quoted:
Serious question - and I'm not asking it as a detractor to the F-35. What advantages does the F-35A have over the F-35C? As I understand it, the C model has a longer range and higher payload. It's larger wings also give it better low speed handling for carrier ops. What about the A model makes it a better aircraft for the Air Force than the C model? Could they save money on the project by having the Air Force adopt the C model? Planes that can do carrier ops must be built like trucks, they really do take a beating hitting the steel deck over and over again. The AF version would not need the beefed up structure and giant (heavy) landing gear that the navy would require. Less weight means it can carry more fuel, ordnance, etc. The A model: -is lighter -has a smaller, non-folding wing -carries slightly less fuel (about 1000lb less) -is stressed for 9g instead of 7.5g -has a slightly higher top speed and acceleration due to lighter weight and smaller wing -has an internal gun -is available with a USAF-style refueling receptacle rather than the probe So, the C model therefore: -is heavier due to the strengthening required for carrier operations -has a larger wing than the A and B models, with folding mechanism and outboard ailerons -carries more fuel -has a lower g limit than the A, but still higher than the B -has lower approach speeds than the A, and slightly better sustained turning performance within its g envelope due to the larger wing -carries a gunpod on the centerline when needed (like the B) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 11:05:07 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks like its missing an engine. How many single engine Navy jets (and props) have there been? Plenty of criticism of the F35, but single engine ain't one of them. The last prop-driven single engine front line fighter/attack aircraft was the Douglas Skyraider, it was retired in 1971, although it has not been used as a fighter since the Korean War. The last single engine front line attack aircraft was the A-7 Corsair II, it was retired in 1991. The last single engine front line fighter aircraft was the F-8 Crusader, it was retired from active duty as a fighter in 1978, it retired from the reserves as a photo-recce bird in 1987. Don't forget the A4Ms operated by Marines at least up through the '80s and carrier capable. And turbofans have gotten nothing but more reliable since then. As I said, it's a poor critique of this bird, but I read it all the time. The squids have no stealthy attack jets nowadays, so this will be a nice addition to the Rhino's in the CAW if it works as promised. Oh, and sorry for missing the sarc' redfish861 While on gut alone, I agree with the single-engine criticism, logic compels me to point out that in a fighter, with the engines next to each other, whatever causes one engine to fail... 1. May well happen to the other engine at the same time (battle damage, bird ingestion), or... 2. ...may cause the failing engine to kill the other through fratricide of the good engine itself, or essential support systems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 11:17:20 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
What good is having any of this capability if we're not going to use it? . use it to do what exactly? take a non-decisive poke at one of two countries that has icbms pointed at us? that assumes that the indian navy isn't capable of dealing with the chinese threat and that airpower is the best way to neutralize the chinese fleet. neither is likely true. why is it in our interest to get in the middle of two nuclear armed states. no thanks. We wouldn't be in the "middle." One of these states, with the exception of its NPT stance, is pretty committed to the international community. One of these states has said maintaining its currency at its current level is just plum-dandy, and if it results in beggaring the rest of us, we should enjoy it, STFU and color. Even if the Indians weren't involved, any redrawing of the political map of Asia by force by anyone is a vital national security concern of the US. Airpower is necessary to operate in that part of the world, and any dependence by us on fixed bases, regardless of sovereignty, is a prescription for disaster. Fixed airbases weren't survivible in Germany in 1985, and they aren't now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 11:17:32 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Why does it have all the different flags on it. Is this some kind of global world initiative? It should have only one flag and that should be the US. Young, or havne't been paying attention? All of our principal combat jets are marked with the flags of our allied nations either participating in the program or who are principal customers. It's a marketing move. About 35yrs ago - 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 11:21:35 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What good is having any of this capability if we're not going to use it? . use it to do what exactly? take a non-decisive poke at one of two countries that has icbms pointed at us? that assumes that the indian navy isn't capable of dealing with the chinese threat and that airpower is the best way to neutralize the chinese fleet. neither is likely true. why is it in our interest to get in the middle of two nuclear armed states. no thanks. We wouldn't be in the "middle." One of these states, with the exception of its NPT stance, is pretty committed to the international community. One of these states has said maintaining its currency at its current level is just plum-dandy, and if it results in beggaring the rest of us, we should enjoy it, STFU and color. Even if the Indians weren't involved, any redrawing of the political map of Asia by force by anyone is a vital national security concern of the US. Airpower is necessary to operate in that part of the world, and any dependence by us on fixed bases, regardless of sovereignty, is a prescription for disaster. Fixed airbases weren't survivible in Germany in 1985, and they aren't now. Patching a hole is a lot easier than resurecting a ship. You know more about this shit than I do, but I don't think a CVN is a survivable asset against an India, China, Russia type enemy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2010 11:25:36 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The USN put $1billion destroyers and amphibs in the same area where an Israeli ship got schwacked in 2006, in fact they were in the same piece of ocean when the Israeli ship got hit. Now we only have 59 destroyers and they cost $1billion each. I'm sure if the time comes the USN will put $100million aircraft in harm's way. Hell, in 2004 we put $1billion cruiser, a $1billion destroyer and an amphib in an area that just had a suicide boat attack, and our intel was saying that we were probably being targeted. If you want details you have my SIPR. How many losses could we survive? When the Chinese stop buying our debt and Yao Ming shows up in his tow truck to repo our stuff... |
|
|
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.
