• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The F-35B!

No big deal. I've been pulling off much more impressive landings since BF2.
 
Gah, I'm torn because as a nerd I love the tech but at the same time the A-10 is/was retired for this overpriced jet and I think the F-15 met the same fate. As far as videos go, I still remember seeing the A-10 rolling backwards on the ground from the recoil of its insane depleted uranium payload.
 
sdifox said:
Pretty sure the plane cost more than its weight in hundred dollar bills.
Click to expand...

Lets see, a 100 dollar bill weighs 1g.
Unloaded weight is 13,199 kg, so approximately 13,199,000 bills are required at a cost of 1,319,900,000 dollars.

Wiki says


F-35A: US$98M (low rate initial production, full production in 2018 to be $85M)[9][10]
F-35B: US$104M (low rate initial production)[9][10]
F-35C: US$116M (low rate initial production)[9][10]



$59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012[8]Not bad.
 
Why am I thinking that the back-hinged "hood" over that front thruster seems like a bad idea.

The front hood closure fails or is damaged in a dog fight, aerodynamics and stealth is ruined so the pilot is now a sitting duck because his hood flew open.
 
NoTine42 said:
Why am I thinking that the back-hinged "hood" over that front thruster seems like a bad idea.

The front hood closure fails or is damaged in a dog fight, aerodynamics and stealth is ruined so the pilot is now a sitting duck because his hood flew open.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make sense

1) Dogfights don't exist anymore. And even if they did, if the hood got damaged, chances are that the turbine itself would get damaged too.

2) The only issue would be that he wouldn't be able to do STOVL anymore.

3) If the hood got damaged open, it would rip off during flight

4) Any damage at all to the F35 would seriously damage its stealth capabilities, so meh
 
I agree that we're unlikely to see the traditional dogfight return again given capabilities of fire control systems and antiair ordanance. Doesn't mean these craft are good enough to effectively replace some airframes such as the A10.
 
lupi said:
I agree that we're unlikely to see the traditional dogfight return again given capabilities of fire control systems and antiair ordanance. Doesn't mean these craft are good enough to effectively replace some airframes such as the A10.
Click to expand...

With all this talk about salvaging the A10 - what about the advances in portable MANPAD systems that the A10 would be highly vulnerable to these days compared with planes that do high-altitude precision bombing?

Maybe a STOVL F35 overall is a waste of money (it was also for replacing the Harrier, not the A10). Perhaps helicopters and relying on full carrier based or land-based jets would have been a better value for the Marines.
 
Last edited:
NoTine42 said:
Why am I thinking that the back-hinged "hood" over that front thruster seems like a bad idea.

The front hood closure fails or is damaged in a dog fight, aerodynamics and stealth is ruined so the pilot is now a sitting duck because his hood flew open.
Click to expand...

im pretty sure the aeronautical engineers at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics are way smarter than you at building advanced fighter aircraft.
 
lupi said:
I agree that we're unlikely to see the traditional dogfight return again given capabilities of fire control systems and antiair ordanance. Doesn't mean these craft are good enough to effectively replace some airframes such as the A10.
Click to expand...

Thumbs up to the Warthog.
 
NoTine42 said:
Engineers, absolutely yes

Project managers....I really wonder.
Click to expand...

Project managers are brilliant imo. They pushed all the cost of their screw ups onto the taxpayer for a decade. What better way to prolong a gravy train than screw it up and get paid?
 
Genx87 said:
Project managers are brilliant imo. They pushed all the cost of their screw ups onto the taxpayer for a decade. What better way to prolong a gravy train than screw it up and get paid?
Click to expand...

😀
Yah, thath a spethial kind of brialliance going there.
 
Brainonska511 said:
With all this talk about salvaging the A10 - what about the advances in portable MANPAD systems that the A10 would be highly vulnerable to these days compared with planes that do high-altitude precision bombing?

Maybe a STOVL F35 overall is a waste of money (it was also for replacing the Harrier, not the A10). Perhaps helicopters and relying on full carrier based or land-based jets would have been a better value for the Marines.
Click to expand...

As a harrier replacement it's good. For CAS, see some of the documentaries or read accounts where deep recon or seal squads have to call in for support on their perimeter and how difficult it is when nearest available is via "precision" bomb.
 
NikolaeVarius said:
Lets see, a 100 dollar bill weighs 1g.
Unloaded weight is 13,199 kg, so approximately 13,199,000 bills are required at a cost of 1,319,900,000 dollars.

Wiki says


F-35A: US$98M (low rate initial production, full production in 2018 to be $85M)[9][10]
F-35B: US$104M (low rate initial production)[9][10]
F-35C: US$116M (low rate initial production)[9][10]



$59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012[8]Not bad.
Click to expand...

"Not bad", are you F-ing joking dude?, it's the equivalent of a flying "black-hole" money pit and it can't even come close to the performance of the F-22.
 
Gibsons said:
I'm a little surprised the C is costing more than the B. Maybe it would change if you assigned the R&D costs of STOVL only to the B?
Click to expand...

Naval version does have some significant differences (larger wing, frame\gear enhancements) and the cost is based on a lower numbers of planes. For the time being, there are more B variants than C so the cost spread favors the B
More planes, lower $$$.
 
BUTCH1 said:
"Not bad", are you F-ing joking dude?, it's the equivalent of a flying "black-hole" money pit and it can't even come close to the performance of the F-22.
Click to expand...

My comment was obviously sarcastic as fuck.

Also, the F-22 was also a giant ass money pit that is ACTUALLY useless. The F35 at the very least attempted to be a bit less useless, (Though in the process it became a jack of all trades, shitty at all) plane.

Both are giant boondoggles. I would know. I worked on the F35 engine for a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top