Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Posted: 3/17/2006 5:11:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 5:15:50 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 5:29:00 AM EDT
What's that flushing sound I hear?


SUPERBUGS FOR EVERYONE!

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:10:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:16:55 PM EDT
Hmm. What's that? The lower cost "it will be just as good" isn't actually "just as good?"



It may be that the Eurofighter is a better option for those who cannot afford an F-22

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:17:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
What's that flushing sound I hear?


SUPERBUGS FOR EVERYONE!




Yup. They already have some bugs so that would be an easy transition. As much as I like the JSF, I can't fault that logic either. I can't see the need for both of the LO aircraft...not at those prices.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:18:19 PM EDT

Wait - is this because the stealth is not as good as they thought it was, or because of a political decision to not give the Aussies full access to all the technology goodies?

Maybe my reading skills are bad - I'll try again.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:20:07 PM EDT
So....

Did we downgrade it for export, or LIE about how Un observable it was?
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:24:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:27:22 PM EDT
Shit! Then scrap it and quit wasting my money!!
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:28:00 PM EDT
Color me surprised. If this is the case, I guess the SuperBug really would be a better choice for future purchases than to continue with the JSF. We already have it, it is currently being built, its capabilities aren't half-bad, all the development is paid for, and with upgrades over time it will still be way cheaper in the long run vs. the F-35.

I'm disappointed...but also a realist.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:30:33 PM EDT
Even if the JSF goes into production, I have lived to see the last manned US fighter. As a child I read about such things and couldn't comprehend it.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:31:38 PM EDT
the F-35 should be cut and the funding used to buy more F-22's. The F-22 is a better jet that is alredy finished with R&D and ready to buy off the shelf.

I see the F-35 easily becoming another Comanchee or A-12. This pig will be a money pit until the day it dies. It's a jet designed by comittee, which has taken all the piss poor attributes from all the services and put it into one jet.

The Air Force version would be the only really effective version, but it looks like the AF is going to have its version bastardized by the Navy/Marines. Instead of getting a fast, light F-35, the AF will be saddled with a pig with HEAVY Navy landing gear, and a HEAVY VTOL system from the Marine version of the jet.

What a waste
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:34:34 PM EDT
this is just another step in the move to unmanned vehicles.. part of rummy's vision. why build something that needs a pilot at all. hasn't it been stated there will be no more manned fighters in britain after the next 'big thing'?

i bet that is behind this 'sudden announcement'...
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:36:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 12:37:16 PM EDT by dport]

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
the F-35 should be cut and the funding used to buy more F-22's. The F-22 is a better jet that is alredy finished with R&D and ready to buy off the shelf.


The problem is the USAF doesn't have a replacement for the F-16 lined up. I'd say they'd be fine with the SuperBug.


I see the F-35 easily becoming another Comanchee or A-12. This pig will be a money pit until the day it dies. It's a jet designed by comittee, which has taken all the piss poor attributes from all the services and put it into one jet.


F-111 would be a better analogy.


The Air Force version would be the only really effective version,

Actually, by all accounts the USN version would have been the most effective. It would have a larger payload an longer legs. IIRC the USAF was looking to go to this version at one point. The USAF has even considered the USMC version.


but it looks like the AF is going to have its version bastardized by the Navy/Marines. Instead of getting a fast, light F-35, the AF will be saddled with a pig with HEAVY Navy landing gear, and a HEAVY VTOL system from the Marine version of the jet.


The USAF version would not have the gear nor the STOLV system.

What a waste
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:38:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
the F-35 should be cut and the funding used to buy more F-22's. The F-22 is a better jet that is alredy finished with R&D and ready to buy off the shelf.

What a waste

Agreed
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:39:10 PM EDT
Bye-Bye, JSF
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:39:14 PM EDT
Hell if I was the Aussies I would buy the SU-27. To be honest the Su-27 isn't a bad plane, for the price it's actually pretty good. but Politics would doom this from ever happening.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:44:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
Just to clarify… US DoD has downgraded the LO specs for the F-35 and that applies to the US ones as well.

'A marble to a beach ball' means the F-35 is not significantly stealthier than the SuperBug now… and that was not the original sales pitch.

ANdy



Not entirely true, vito. The F-35 is still better than the Rhino in stealthiness. As I read the article, it said that the increased radar signature was from the back - that is not really as big a deal as they make it out to be. Stealthiness is also not the end-all, be-all of tactical aircraft - it is simply a tool that makes our lives easier (and longer).

As for it not being able to compete with the Flankers (Su-27 family), I have no doubt that it is unable to compete with them in some regimes. But, let's be honest, it's hardly in the same class of aircraft. The F-15C and the F-22 are designed to take out flankers. The JSF is designed for other things - things that happen after all the flankers are dead. That, however, does not mean that when a flanker shows up on radar, the JSF will fall out of the sky in fear. It means that it would do what any medium-sized fighter would do - it would call its buddies (the F-15s, Rhinos or F-22s) to come deal with the problem.

No aircraft will be the Jack-of-all trades - they are part of a multi-layer concept of strike. Again, the concern commonly seen on this board about this aircraft (like the concern about the F-22 and the Rhino) is rooted in a basic and complete misunderstanding of how modern wars are fought and how these aircraft are meant to be employed.
Matt
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:03:24 PM EDT
Not to hijack, but.....

Could the F-23 have delivered some of what the F-35 is supposed to? I seem to recall that they were considering it again as a bomb truck.

It was a neat looking aircraft. Anyone got pics?

-K
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:09:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By azcopwannabee:
So....

Did we downgrade it for export, or LIE about how Un observable it was?



Creative embellishment by export-starved defense contractors............again.

This is very disappointing to hear, but not surprising.

Then again, who is Australia going to engage in aerial combat? Or even 'need' to penetrate the air defenses of?

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:11:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
the F-35 should be cut and the funding used to buy more F-22's. The F-22 is a better jet that is alredy finished with R&D and ready to buy off the shelf.

I see the F-35 easily becoming another Comanchee or A-12. This pig will be a money pit until the day it dies. It's a jet designed by comittee, which has taken all the piss poor attributes from all the services and put it into one jet.

The Air Force version would be the only really effective version, but it looks like the AF is going to have its version bastardized by the Navy/Marines. Instead of getting a fast, light F-35, the AF will be saddled with a pig with HEAVY Navy landing gear, and a HEAVY VTOL system from the Marine version of the jet.

What a waste



+1 on using the money for F-22.

JSF is a POS
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:14:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Not to hijack, but.....

Could the F-23 have delivered some of what the F-35 is supposed to? I seem to recall that they were considering it again as a bomb truck.

It was a neat looking aircraft. Anyone got pics?

-K





right now NASA owns both of those jets. I have also heard that they were thinking of making this into a bomber, but i have also heard they will develop a delta wing F-22 to do it.

Personally, I think the USAF has already bought its last human piloted bomber. bombing is very easily accomplished with UAV's, and for much cheaper. hell, they could make a cruise missle that drops bombs on several targets, then crashes into the last one.

air to air will be the last thing to go UAV just because of the very dynamic nature of air combat. there may be an air to air fighter after the F-22, but i think once our big 3 bombers are gone, that will be it for manned bomb trucks.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:15:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Not to hijack, but.....

Could the F-23 have delivered some of what the F-35 is supposed to? I seem to recall that they were considering it again as a bomb truck.

It was a neat looking aircraft. Anyone got pics?

-K



As much as it pains me to say, no, the YF-23 would not be a good replacement for the F-35. One, it was way too good looking; two, it's too big and not suitable for carrier use.
Matt
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:16:07 PM EDT
I've never been a big fan of the 35.

They want to replace far far too many aircraft. Replacing a F-111 with a F-35 seems to make as much sense as replacing the A-10 with an F-35.

Remember the bomber version of the F-23 that was being tossed about? There's your bomb truck.


The only thing anybody should consider replacing with a F-35 is the Harrier and the F-16. And quite frankly, since the F-16 is far far cheaper than the F-35 and has a pretty good record as being pretty versitile, I don't see why we shouldn't just keep on upgrading the 16.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:16:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By redfisher:

Originally Posted By azcopwannabee:
So....

Did we downgrade it for export, or LIE about how Un observable it was?



Creative embellishment by export-starved defense contractors............again.

This is very disappointing to hear, but not surprising.

Then again, who is Australia going to engage in aerial combat? Or even 'need' to penetrate the air defenses of?




The largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:19:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:
I've never been a big fan of the 35.

They want to replace far far too many aircraft. Replacing a F-111 with a F-35 seems to make as much sense as replacing the A-10 with an F-35.

Remember the bomber version of the F-23 that was being tossed about? There's your bomb truck.


The only thing anybody should consider replacing with a F-35 is the Harrier and the F-16. And quite frankly, since the F-16 is far far cheaper than the F-35 and has a pretty good record as being pretty versitile, I don't see why we shouldn't just keep on upgrading the 16.



agreed!!!

Why not make a "Super Viper" type jet like the F-18E? Take your current Viper, tweak it, make it stealthier, not F-117/F-22 stealthy, but enough to get the job done, and there you go. I bet the flyaway cost would be a quarter of the F-35, and could be ready in half the time
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:20:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
the F-35 should be cut and the funding used to buy more F-22's. The F-22 is a better jet that is alredy finished with R&D and ready to buy off the shelf.

I see the F-35 easily becoming another Comanchee or A-12. This pig will be a money pit until the day it dies. It's a jet designed by comittee, which has taken all the piss poor attributes from all the services and put it into one jet.

The Air Force version would be the only really effective version, but it looks like the AF is going to have its version bastardized by the Navy/Marines. Instead of getting a fast, light F-35, the AF will be saddled with a pig with HEAVY Navy landing gear, and a HEAVY VTOL system from the Marine version of the jet.

What a waste



+1 on using the money for F-22.

JSF is a POS



So, you're either an aero engineer or you're a tactical pilot. Which is it? I'm all for more money for the F-22, but not at the expense of a good replacement for the F-16, the baby hornet and the harrier. The JSF is hardly a POS.

We have A LOT of aging aircraft in our inventory - we MUST replace them soon. And the F-22/Rhino combination isn't going to cut it.
Matt
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:21:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Just to clarify… US DoD has downgraded the LO specs for the F-35 and that applies to the US ones as well.

'A marble to a beach ball' means the F-35 is not significantly stealthier than the SuperBug now… and that was not the original sales pitch.

ANdy



Not entirely true, vito. The F-35 is still better than the Rhino in stealthiness. As I read the article, it said that the increased radar signature was from the back - that is not really as big a deal as they make it out to be. Stealthiness is also not the end-all, be-all of tactical aircraft - it is simply a tool that makes our lives easier (and longer).

As for it not being able to compete with the Flankers (Su-27 family), I have no doubt that it is unable to compete with them in some regimes. But, let's be honest, it's hardly in the same class of aircraft. The F-15C and the F-22 are designed to take out flankers. The JSF is designed for other things - things that happen after all the flankers are dead. That, however, does not mean that when a flanker shows up on radar, the JSF will fall out of the sky in fear. It means that it would do what any medium-sized fighter would do - it would call its buddies (the F-15s, Rhinos or F-22s) to come deal with the problem.

No aircraft will be the Jack-of-all trades - they are part of a multi-layer concept of strike. Again, the concern commonly seen on this board about this aircraft (like the concern about the F-22 and the Rhino) is rooted in a basic and complete misunderstanding of how modern wars are fought and how these aircraft are meant to be employed.
Matt



This arm-chair pilot thinks the JSF's strength will be it's electronics. Not sure how hard it would be to take The F-35's tech and retro-fit it to the Super-Hornet. I know it was mentioned awhile back that a future block of the Superbug would include even more stealth and I think there has been talk of uprated engines as well.YMMV.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:24:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By Spade:
I've never been a big fan of the 35.

They want to replace far far too many aircraft. Replacing a F-111 with a F-35 seems to make as much sense as replacing the A-10 with an F-35.

Remember the bomber version of the F-23 that was being tossed about? There's your bomb truck.


The only thing anybody should consider replacing with a F-35 is the Harrier and the F-16. And quite frankly, since the F-16 is far far cheaper than the F-35 and has a pretty good record as being pretty versitile, I don't see why we shouldn't just keep on upgrading the 16.



agreed!!!

Why not make a "Super Viper" type jet like the F-18E? Take your current Viper, tweak it, make it stealthier, not F-117/F-22 stealthy, but enough to get the job done, and there you go. I bet the flyaway cost would be a quarter of the F-35, and could be ready in half the time



Why is everyone so scared to build a new airframe?!? The super hornet is a great airplane, but we do NOT need to make a habit of "supering" all of our existing airframes - that will lead to technical and tactical stagnation.
Matt
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:26:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Just to clarify… US DoD has downgraded the LO specs for the F-35 and that applies to the US ones as well.

'A marble to a beach ball' means the F-35 is not significantly stealthier than the SuperBug now… and that was not the original sales pitch.

ANdy



Not entirely true, vito. The F-35 is still better than the Rhino in stealthiness. As I read the article, it said that the increased radar signature was from the back - that is not really as big a deal as they make it out to be. Stealthiness is also not the end-all, be-all of tactical aircraft - it is simply a tool that makes our lives easier (and longer).

As for it not being able to compete with the Flankers (Su-27 family), I have no doubt that it is unable to compete with them in some regimes. But, let's be honest, it's hardly in the same class of aircraft. The F-15C and the F-22 are designed to take out flankers. The JSF is designed for other things - things that happen after all the flankers are dead. That, however, does not mean that when a flanker shows up on radar, the JSF will fall out of the sky in fear. It means that it would do what any medium-sized fighter would do - it would call its buddies (the F-15s, Rhinos or F-22s) to come deal with the problem.

No aircraft will be the Jack-of-all trades - they are part of a multi-layer concept of strike. Again, the concern commonly seen on this board about this aircraft (like the concern about the F-22 and the Rhino) is rooted in a basic and complete misunderstanding of how modern wars are fought and how these aircraft are meant to be employed.
Matt



This arm-chair pilot thinks the JSF's strength will be it's electronics. Not sure how hard it would be to take The F-35's tech and retro-fit it to the Super-Hornet. I know it was mentioned awhile back that a future block of the Superbug would include even more stealth and I think there has been talk of uprated engines as well.YMMV.



I can't talk much about future stealth technology, but there ARE some engine upgrades that COULD be had. Right now, I think all we'd really like is straight pylons and a civilian ILS (for cross country's)
Matt
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:32:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
the F-35 should be cut and the funding used to buy more F-22's. The F-22 is a better jet that is alredy finished with R&D and ready to buy off the shelf.

I see the F-35 easily becoming another Comanchee or A-12. This pig will be a money pit until the day it dies. It's a jet designed by comittee, which has taken all the piss poor attributes from all the services and put it into one jet.

The Air Force version would be the only really effective version, but it looks like the AF is going to have its version bastardized by the Navy/Marines. Instead of getting a fast, light F-35, the AF will be saddled with a pig with HEAVY Navy landing gear, and a HEAVY VTOL system from the Marine version of the jet.

What a waste



+1 on using the money for F-22.

JSF is a POS



So, you're either an aero engineer or you're a tactical pilot. Which is it? I'm all for more money for the F-22, but not at the expense of a good replacement for the F-16, the baby hornet and the harrier. The JSF is hardly a POS.

We have A LOT of aging aircraft in our inventory - we MUST replace them soon. And the F-22/Rhino combination isn't going to cut it.
Matt



Naw, I’m an "IT liaison" weenie. I've got nothing to do with flying or building either aircraft.

JSF X-35 A,B,C,...,Z is pissing money down an apparently very deep hole. And as others have said, J-UCAS is obviously where things are headed for the strike/bomber role anyway. Why waste time/money?
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:52:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
Why not make a "Super Viper" type jet like the F-18E? Take your current Viper, tweak it, make it stealthier, not F-117/F-22 stealthy, but enough to get the job done, and there you go. I bet the flyaway cost would be a quarter of the F-35, and could be ready in half the time



Didn't they do just that with the "Agile Falcon" program some years ago? I don't believe it went anywhere, however.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:56:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
Why not make a "Super Viper" type jet like the F-18E? Take your current Viper, tweak it, make it stealthier, not F-117/F-22 stealthy, but enough to get the job done, and there you go. I bet the flyaway cost would be a quarter of the F-35, and could be ready in half the time



Didn't they do just that with the "Agile Falcon" program some years ago? I don't believe it went anywhere, however.



They've played with a few F-16 concepts over the years including a delta winged one back in the early 90's. It was faster, could carry more, but it was deemed that it would not be needed at the time. I think it should be re-visited.

and valheru21: i'm NOT an aero-engineer, but do hope to be a tactical pilot in 2 years or so. I start USAF pilot school in a few months.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:57:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By valheru21:
Why is everyone so scared to build a new airframe?!? The super hornet is a great airplane, but we do NOT need to make a habit of "supering" all of our existing airframes - that will lead to technical and tactical stagnation.
Matt


It's not a matter of being scared to build a new airframe. It's a matter of not pouring money into a new airframe that offers no significant advantages over the airframes in service now. If there is significant advantages over, say, the SuperBug, then by all means produce it.


The really funny thing about the original article? They're using the F-35 to replace the F-111, and they're worried about the F-35's ability to mix it up with Su-27s? Like the old Aardvark could win an A2A with a Sukhoi.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:13:05 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:22:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:23:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:29:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 2:32:21 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:31:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Just to clarify… US DoD has downgraded the LO specs for the F-35 and that applies to the US ones as well.

'A marble to a beach ball' means the F-35 is not significantly stealthier than the SuperBug now… and that was not the original sales pitch.

ANdy



Not entirely true, vito. The F-35 is still better than the Rhino in stealthiness. As I read the article, it said that the increased radar signature was from the back - that is not really as big a deal as they make it out to be. Stealthiness is also not the end-all, be-all of tactical aircraft - it is simply a tool that makes our lives easier (and longer).

As for it not being able to compete with the Flankers (Su-27 family), I have no doubt that it is unable to compete with them in some regimes. But, let's be honest, it's hardly in the same class of aircraft. The F-15C and the F-22 are designed to take out flankers. The JSF is designed for other things - things that happen after all the flankers are dead. That, however, does not mean that when a flanker shows up on radar, the JSF will fall out of the sky in fear. It means that it would do what any medium-sized fighter would do - it would call its buddies (the F-15s, Rhinos or F-22s) to come deal with the problem.

No aircraft will be the Jack-of-all trades - they are part of a multi-layer concept of strike. Again, the concern commonly seen on this board about this aircraft (like the concern about the F-22 and the Rhino) is rooted in a basic and complete misunderstanding of how modern wars are fought and how these aircraft are meant to be employed.
Matt



The operative term here is 'significantly better'… the whole sales pitch of the F-35 over the F/A-18 was that it would be 'significantly (orders of magnitude) better than the Bug. The Bug is in the 'Beachball' Class, the F-35 was supposed to be a credible 'first strike' plane. Well it is, but now it's looking like its 'good' but not as 'good' as the sales pitch was implying.

ANdy



I don't recall that sales pitch (which is not to say that it didn't exist - just that I didn't hear it). The JSF is not meant to replace the Rhino - it is meant to replace the baby hornets, vipers and harriers. The JSF and Rhino are meant to work together.
Matt
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:32:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By valheru21:
Why is everyone so scared to build a new airframe?!? The super hornet is a great airplane, but we do NOT need to make a habit of "supering" all of our existing airframes - that will lead to technical and tactical stagnation.
Matt


It's not a matter of being scared to build a new airframe. It's a matter of not pouring money into a new airframe that offers no significant advantages over the airframes in service now. If there is significant advantages over, say, the SuperBug, then by all means produce it.


The really funny thing about the original article? They're using the F-35 to replace the F-111, and they're worried about the F-35's ability to mix it up with Su-27s? Like the old Aardvark could win an A2A with a Sukhoi.



The Ardvaark wouldn't have need to go A2A… it was faster than the speed o' heat! The F-35 is many things, but 'fast' is not one of them.

F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck.

ANdy


IMO that's misplaced confidence.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:37:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By valheru21:
Why is everyone so scared to build a new airframe?!? The super hornet is a great airplane, but we do NOT need to make a habit of "supering" all of our existing airframes - that will lead to technical and tactical stagnation.
Matt


It's not a matter of being scared to build a new airframe. It's a matter of not pouring money into a new airframe that offers no significant advantages over the airframes in service now. If there is significant advantages over, say, the SuperBug, then by all means produce it.


The really funny thing about the original article? They're using the F-35 to replace the F-111, and they're worried about the F-35's ability to mix it up with Su-27s? Like the old Aardvark could win an A2A with a Sukhoi.



The Ardvaark wouldn't have need to go A2A… it was faster than the speed o' heat! The F-35 is many things, but 'fast' is not one of them.

F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck.

ANdy


IMO that's misplaced confidence.



Remember the speed runs that the Iraqis tried with the MIG-25 in GW1?

The Saudis shot them down before they ever got over the water.

Misplaced is right.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:38:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 2:41:18 PM EDT by Wobblin-Goblin]

Originally Posted By vito113:
F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck.


A Phantom could...and then some.

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:38:20 PM EDT
And the price would only go down if more folks bought them:



Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:43:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 2:44:13 PM EDT by Chairborne]

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By vito113:
F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck.


A Phantom could...and then some.

www.ila-media.de/galerie_2004/McDonnell_Douglas_F4-Phantom.jpg



It was a fast bastard, for sure.




Sageburner, flown by an early F4H-1 (Bureau Number 145307), set a low-altitude speed record on 28 August 1961 that has not been bettered.


www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4e-237096.html

ETA: That's 902 MPH, in death valley.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:45:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By vito113:
F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck.


A Phantom could...and then some.

www.ila-media.de/galerie_2004/McDonnell_Douglas_F4-Phantom.jpg



It was a fast bastard, for sure.

www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4e-237096.jpg


Sageburner, flown by an early F4H-1 (Bureau Number 145307), set a low-altitude speed record on 28 August 1961 that has not been bettered.


www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4e-237096.html

ETA: That's 902 MPH, in death valley.


I'd give my left nut to science for a ride in one of those.

And I'm not kidding.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:46:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:51:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
Why not make a "Super Viper" type jet like the F-18E? Take your current Viper, tweak it, make it stealthier, not F-117/F-22 stealthy, but enough to get the job done, and there you go. I bet the flyaway cost would be a quarter of the F-35, and could be ready in half the time



Didn't they do just that with the "Agile Falcon" program some years ago? I don't believe it went anywhere, however.



They've played with a few F-16 concepts over the years including a delta winged one back in the early 90's. It was faster, could carry more, but it was deemed that it would not be needed at the time. I think it should be re-visited.

and valheru21: i'm NOT an aero-engineer, but do hope to be a tactical pilot in 2 years or so. I start USAF pilot school in a few months.



Congrats! where are you going to primary? I went to Vance in Enid for mine.
Matt
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:53:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
They've played with a few F-16 concepts over the years including a delta winged one back in the early 90's. It was faster, could carry more, but it was deemed that it would not be needed at the time. I think it should be re-visited.



The F-16XL:

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:57:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:58:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By valheru21:
Why is everyone so scared to build a new airframe?!? The super hornet is a great airplane, but we do NOT need to make a habit of "supering" all of our existing airframes - that will lead to technical and tactical stagnation.
Matt


It's not a matter of being scared to build a new airframe. It's a matter of not pouring money into a new airframe that offers no significant advantages over the airframes in service now. If there is significant advantages over, say, the SuperBug, then by all means produce it.


The really funny thing about the original article? They're using the F-35 to replace the F-111, and they're worried about the F-35's ability to mix it up with Su-27s? Like the old Aardvark could win an A2A with a Sukhoi.



The Ardvaark wouldn't have need to go A2A… it was faster than the speed o' heat! The F-35 is many things, but 'fast' is not one of them.



It doesn't need to be fast. The F4 was faster than it needed to be - there is such a thing as "too fast," unless you're trying to bug. With today's weapons and digital flight controls, that isn't much of an option anyway.


F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck.


Unfortunately, that still leaves a live flanker. I'd rather kill it and then run away than simply run away from it.
Matt
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 3:01:15 PM EDT
A friend of mine who is a Lt. Col in the USAF who currently flys 16 said that when he was flying in the older F-111s that he came damn near close to mach III in one and the paint pealed off the leading edge of the swing wings after the run. He said it was under rated in speed intentially by the DOD. He was also involved with the bombing of Sadaams palace in GW1 with the bunker buster bomb that was made out of gun barrel from a Iowa Class battleship
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Top Top