The F-35B!

[John Connor]

I'm fine with the USMC having aviation, I was in the Air Wing myself myself, not a pilot.

Just some things are a waste of money.

B-2 *cough*

You obviously don't know any of the missions the B-2 has done. It was proven in Desert Storm, Allied Force, Operation Iraqi Freedom and runway bombings in Libya to name a few.

 

[NoTine42]

I am pretty sure that you are not an engineer....

im pretty sure the aeronautical engineers at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics are way smarter than you at building advanced fighter aircraft.

Not every decision in an engineered product is the result of an engineers best, proven idea. Sometimes engineers have to sign off on stuff that is not ideal.
I've known engineers to design, test and prove an improvement to get told, no thanks by non-engineering designers.

In a simplistic sense, look when Chevy introduced the Tahoe hybrid. The engineers did a really nice job making the combined gas/electric drive transmission that resulted in 50% greater city fuel economy....but the marketing department also wanted to advertise better highway fuel economy. So, they removed extra body trim pieces, added more ground effects for better aero under the SUV and used low rolling resistance tires. All of those highway fuel economy improvements are stuff their engineers knew since high school (or earlier) but they were never allowed to implement them because marketing.

 

[K1052]

You obviously don't know any of the missions the B-2 has done. It was proven in Desert Storm, Allied Force, Operation Iraqi Freedom and runway bombings in Libya to name a few.

All of which could have been accomplished using other platforms or weapons systems we already owned or have since developed. The B2 was designed to carry and deploy strategic nuclear weapons through the the world's most dense and advanced surface to air defenses (Soviets) not hang out over Libya to crater a few runways.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Awesome! Second pilot had the best landing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAFnhIIK7s4

Seeing that thrust vectoring nozzle move downwards before taking off is a great sight to see.

Amazing to see it hover. I got curious how it does that and found the article below.

I was wondering seeing this picture were that pipe on the side was for.
An interesting article explains it.
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/how-does-the-f-35b-hover

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_LiftSystem

 

[Pocatello]

The B-2 was effective against the Serbian air defense, which wasn't the best, but still dangerous, and managed to shoot down a few NATO jets. I wouldn't put the B-2 against newer Russian radars and missiles. The U.S will continue to improve on its stealth technologies, while the Russians are doing their best to sell technologies to detect stealth bombers. Good business.

 

[Remobz]

Is it safe to say that the glory days of dog fights was WW2?

Last war for true dog fighting was korea?

Where does WW1 fit into this scenario?

By the way, I always thought Verner Woss was a better pilot pound for pound than the Red Baron.

 

[Linflas]

Is it safe to say that the glory days of dog fights was WW2?

Last war for true dog fighting was korea?

Where does WW1 fit into this scenario?

By the way, I always thought Verner Woss was a better pilot pound for pound than the Red Baron.

https://youtu.be/Zh-gsi2tYpE

 

[Phoenix86]

Okay, but if they're looking for CAS, it seems like a harrier replacement is kind of stupid. If jets bad because they're too high and fast, how about a newer turbo-prop based plane? They're showing up in other militaries as anti-insurgency platforms. And they could probably operate them off the amphibious assault ships they're using for the F35B. Plus, for CAS, they'd be able to linger longer, they'd still be faster than helicopters, and they'd be likely as effective against low-tech forces as the A10 is. And to top it off, we, the taxpayers, would probably save a bundle of money.

I absolutely LOVE the A-10, but CAS should go to drone route, imo. You can get far more intel, precision and enough firepower (for CAS).

Sure, you might need a small swarm of drones to fill the role, but I think it'd be far more effective.

 

[zinfamous]

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.

so you're saying this is all your fault!

 

[pauldun170]

Is it safe to say that the glory days of dog fights was WW2?

Last war for true dog fighting was korea?

Where does WW1 fit into this scenario?

By the way, I always thought Verner Woss was a better pilot pound for pound than the Red Baron.

Ethiopia\ Eritrea conflict in late 90's.
Ethiopian Flankers vs Eritrea Fulcrums.

 

[Brainonska511]

I absolutely LOVE the A-10, but CAS should go to drone route, imo. You can get far more intel, precision and enough firepower (for CAS).

Sure, you might need a small swarm of drones to fill the role, but I think it'd be far more effective.

Drones might be the way to go, but can they carry the amount of ordinance needed for CAS? They might not currently have the capability to fly "swarms" of drones at the moment.

The whole thing is just strange. They want CAS stuff, but the A10 is an old platform, can't operate off amphibious assault ships like STOVL planes, and will likely only see action against low-tech forces these days. If you need a jet for CAS due to more advanced anti-aircraft systems, sure, the F35B could fill that role, but then why not just use carrier-based assets or land-based assets instead? The branches of the military can't keep treating the taxpayer like a never ending pocketbook and duplicating each others services within their own.

But if they need a non-drone CAS plane for COIN-type operations or against low-tech enemies, it just seems like the more economical and just as practical option would be a modern turbo-prop, like a Super Tacano or Beechcraft AT-6, or a modern OV-10 (Boeing has proposed an OV-10X). Armchair engineering here, but I bet something like one of those could operate off the smaller decks of the amphibious assault ships (googling shows some pictures of OV-10s on Tarawa-class ships) that the Marines use.

 

[Phoenix86]

Drones might be the way to go, but can they carry the amount of ordinance needed for CAS? They might not currently have the capability to fly "swarms" of drones at the moment.

The whole thing is just strange. They want CAS stuff, but the A10 is an old platform, can't operate off amphibious assault ships like STOVL planes, and will likely only see action against low-tech forces these days. If you need a jet for CAS due to more advanced anti-aircraft systems, sure, the F35B could fill that role, but then why not just use carrier-based assets or land-based assets instead? The branches of the military can't keep treating the taxpayer like a never ending pocketbook and duplicating each others services within their own.

But if they need a non-drone CAS plane for COIN-type operations or against low-tech enemies, it just seems like the more economical and just as practical option would be a modern turbo-prop, like a Super Tacano or Beechcraft AT-6, or a modern OV-10 (Boeing has proposed an OV-10X). Armchair engineering here, but I bet something like one of those could operate off the smaller decks of the amphibious assault ships (googling shows some pictures of OV-10s on Tarawa-class ships) that the Marines use.

You would need significantly less ordinance with greater information/accuracy and load is spread over multiple drones. Send out a dozen smaller drones to circle an area with sensors. Video, IR, motion detection, etc. Send in a several larger drones with ordinance, some with missiles for hard targets and ones with 7.62 machine guns for soft.

A-10 chews through it's ammo pretty quick. You'd have to switch sheer destructive power for accuracy a bit, but it's not like the A-10 can attack for extended periods of time.

Obviously I'm talking about future, but we aren't that far from this idea currently.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Not every decision in an engineered product is the result of an engineers best, proven idea. Sometimes engineers have to sign off on stuff that is not ideal.
I've known engineers to design, test and prove an improvement to get told, no thanks by non-engineering designers.

In a simplistic sense, look when Chevy introduced the Tahoe hybrid. The engineers did a really nice job making the combined gas/electric drive transmission that resulted in 50% greater city fuel economy....but the marketing department also wanted to advertise better highway fuel economy. So, they removed extra body trim pieces, added more ground effects for better aero under the SUV and used low rolling resistance tires. All of those highway fuel economy improvements are stuff their engineers knew since high school (or earlier) but they were never allowed to implement them because marketing.

So just for shits ands grins can we agree that we would choose the engineers at Lockheed over some unknown person posting in ATOT???

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Is it safe to say that the glory days of dog fights was WW2?

Last war for true dog fighting was korea?

Where does WW1 fit into this scenario?

By the way, I always thought Verner Woss was a better pilot pound for pound than the Red Baron.

i'm not sure ww2 has to be dogfighting's glory days. in ww1 masses of planes would engage each other, with wildly varying skill and equipment levels. it was nuts.

every year that goes by has seen fewer numbers but improvement in skill and equipment, obviously, but more important is the raising of the minimum. the concept of close-range machine gun combat will never be eliminated after the experience of the flawed f-4 phantom.

was korea the last true dogfighter's war? maybe, only because wars aren't often fought between 2 capable, symmetrical opponents any more.

 

[NoTine42]

So just for shits ands grins can we agree that we would choose the engineers at Lockheed over some unknown person posting in ATOT???

Or ATOT members could have an intelligent discussion, and discuss why the opening is different than landing gear side openings. Perhaps the flap directs more air into the fan or it actually increases lift by increasing the distance has to travel over the fuselage.

Wait, I forgot this is ATOT

 

[foghorn67]

i'm not sure ww2 has to be dogfighting's glory days. in ww1 masses of planes would engage each other, with wildly varying skill and equipment levels. it was nuts.

every year that goes by has seen fewer numbers but improvement in skill and equipment, obviously, but more important is the raising of the minimum. the concept of close-range machine gun combat will never be eliminated after the experience of the flawed f-4 phantom.

was korea the last true dogfighter's war? maybe, only because wars aren't often fought between 2 capable, symmetrical opponents any more.

Dude, the F8 Crusader. Last of the gunfighters. Lets take those out of mothballs.

 

[Pocatello]

i'm not sure ww2 has to be dogfighting's glory days. in ww1 masses of planes would engage each other, with wildly varying skill and equipment levels. it was nuts.

every year that goes by has seen fewer numbers but improvement in skill and equipment, obviously, but more important is the raising of the minimum. the concept of close-range machine gun combat will never be eliminated after the experience of the flawed f-4 phantom.

was korea the last true dogfighter's war? maybe, only because wars aren't often fought between 2 capable, symmetrical opponents any more.

A symmetrical warfare with the U.S is suicidal. Asymmetrical warfare is the way of the future, to offset the advantages the U.S has over everybody. Supersonic stealth fighters are useless against suicide bombers and IEDs. The cost of fighting in a low intensity, but long lasting war is just too costly for the U.S. We might killed thousands of the enemies with fancy missiles, but in the end the U.S still cut and run.

 

[Sonikku]

100+ million each. Damn. Every single one of those things represents what could have been a brand new school. What a racket.

 

[ctbaars]

Is it safe to say that the glory days of dog fights was WW2?

Last war for true dog fighting was korea?

Where does WW1 fit into this scenario?

By the way, I always thought Verner Woss was a better pilot pound for pound than the Red Baron.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=8B45C199E9E71ADF19BD8B45C199E9E71ADF19BD

This doesn't count?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

100+ million each. Damn. Every single one of those things represents what could have been a brand new school. What a racket.

 

[Tsavo]

I invented battery powered jet fighter technology, but the gummint wasn't interested.

I think the flight time of .02 second might have had something to do with it.

Back to the drawing board.

 

[Nograts]

Every penny of this stupid ass program should have went to drones.

 

[StrangerGuy]

These things are WAY too expensive for the job they do. It would certainly be a lot cheaper to bribe enemies to off themselves.

Find a pilot of one of these planes that says they suck.... then we'll talk. They're upset with the politicians, the delays, the stupidity of their commanders - but I have yet to see any of the actual pilots say these things don't deliver.

People whose very livelihood that entirely depends on these new planes saying they don't suck?

No shit.

 

[Ventanni]

Against a low tech opponent like ISIS and the Taliban, the F-35 is an overly expensive money pit. In these types of environments, the cheapest, most effective way to deliver a bomb is by the truckload; bombers. Bombers like the B-52 and B1B have vastly longer loiter times, significantly higher payload, and when they're done leveling the side of a mountain, will simply fly to the next job and do it again. Yes, they are expensive to operate, but given how the battlefield operates where there are multiple bombing missions being called at the same time, a bomber is most efficient and cheapest at the job.

Against a higher tech opponent like Russia or potentially China (hope not!), the F-35 will be necessary. Conventional bombers like the B-52 and B1B and ground attack platforms like the A-10 are much more vulnerable against more advanced ground to air munitions. Is the F-35 as efficient as the others at doing air to ground operations? Absolutely not. But they can help deliver bombs where the others can't.

I'm very critical of the F-35 program too, but we have to remember that not all of our enemies are in the Middle East.

 

[Ns1]

Dude you can get 10 A10's for the price of 1 F35.