germany wasn't much smaller than us at the time, we had about 30-50% more people similar productivity.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Wtf is "American Language"? And if you are such a fan of English then quit with the !!!!!!
Settle down beavis we know you are very, very, very enthusiastic about being a republican fanboi.
Sorry for going OT in your thread, CaptnKirk. 
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5398
Posted on Monday...Long discussion over there.
Couple of questions...
1.) Is Israel still suspended from the F-35 JSF program? I know they were last year, but I didn't hear anything new about their re-instatement and if they already were, when?
2.) Does this thing have 2 engines now? I thought congress restored funding for the British engine after the Brits were thinking about a secret "Plan B" aircraft.
Two engines are better than one I'd say.
And also, the original name F-35 JSF sounds much more cool than F-35 Lightning II
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5398
Posted on Monday...Long discussion over there.
Couple of questions...
1.) Is Israel still suspended from the F-35 JSF program? I know they were last year, but I didn't hear anything new about their re-instatement and if they already were, when?
2.) Does this thing have 2 engines now? I thought congress restored funding for the British engine after the Brits were thinking about a secret "Plan B" aircraft.
Two engines are better than one I'd say.
And also, the original name F-35 JSF sounds much more cool than F-35 Lightning II
It's all how you keep the score; we've lost 3,000 they've lost a half million (Iraqi combatants/civilians). We 'lost' Viet Nam and 58,000; they lost 2 million people and 'won'.
The technology works. Our larger issue is how it's used. Our history for a long time, ok forever, includes using it a lot for economic gain at someone's expense. This goes back to the day Columbus discovered America, and had his men show the natives their swords so he could measure their reaction; his diary notes that it was clear they had not seen sharpened steel before, and he wrote that a few hundred men could conquer the locals, which is what happened as 90% of the population was killed in the next few decades.
It's not a US thing; I know of no country who has ever not abused the technology they had, some more than others.
But as the #1 arms seller, it has special relevance to us and our values. Those who simply see all weapons we make as good and useful are ethically challenged IMO.
See, that's the problem right there. You already have all these other aircrafts that could've been setup to be the one-stop-shop for all those different parts of the military you just mentioned. My question to you is: if this is supposed to be the "end all, be all", why wasn't it thought of earlier? My guess is that it'll most likely replace just one of those airplanes and the others will get their own special aircraft, like clockwork.
As a benefit of the end of the cold war, couldn't the U.S. have skipped a generation of manned planes to concentrate on making the UCAV a cornerstone of U.S. air strike capability?
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
that has to be some sort of irony there
I think he means redneck...
I kinda laughed at the A-10 replacement too. This thing doesn't seem to be the ideal low-level assault plane that the A-10 is. It doesn't have the pylons that the A-10 has, the durability of two massive engines, nor the armor protecting needed to get down close to the dirt and take some fire while doing so. The biggest difference is that it doesn't have a massive rotary cannon to blow the crap out of anything that is left over.
I guess that's why they are upgrading the A-10 to the "C" version so it can last for another 20+ years.
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
The Most Technically Advanced . . and Sophisticated Aircraft of the Century . .????
Considering the fact that no other nation is putting even a small fraction of the money we put into developing new fighter aircraft I might be more impressed with a thread reading like this:
The Most Technically Advanced . . and fuel efficient AUTOMOBILE of the Century
Considering the fact that no other nation is putting even a small fraction of the money we put into developing new fighter aircraft I might be more impressed with a thread reading like this:
The Most Technically Advanced . . and fuel efficient AUTOMOBILE of the Century
This aircraft isn't going to help us win wars.
All the best tech in the world is not going to make the U.S invade any country easier. Attacking a country easier, sure.
What country has weapons that can beat our current aircraft? None.
This IMO is a waste of money. We should build 5 and keep the plans ready in case China or Russia decide to build better aircraft.
All the best tech in the world is not going to make the U.S invade any country easier. Attacking a country easier, sure.
What country has weapons that can beat our current aircraft? None.
This IMO is a waste of money. We should build 5 and keep the plans ready in case China or Russia decide to build better aircraft.
Labor cost is too high in the old USA. The F-35 should be built in Russia or China for 1/3 the cost of building/testing here.
funny how its called maiden flight, I guess that meets actual production models as we have both F22 and F35 overflights here in Georgia
F16s that came out in the 70s, I think 18s did too.
The nice thing about these planes is that all 3 services will share the same basic airplane which they don't now. this should reduce the long term costs to the armed services.
Most people would be shocked to see when the first models of planes they think are current actually entered into service. F16s were flying when I was in the service in the 80s
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
I just giggled out loud now envisioning you running a command post from underneath your bed.
This is a great accomplishment CaptnKirk, :thumbsup:
We have been doing that since 9/11. Fly off course and dont respond in time to ATC and watch how fast a pair of F-16s show up on your wing. My dad knows, he used to fly King Airs. Sometimes in certain area's and at certain altitudes you lose radio contact for extended periods of time. One day while flying a routine medical flight he was flying just a tad out of his course and a pair of f-16s showed up to escort him back into the correct lane.
They could have but they werent. Also many of them are 30 year old designs. Newer more fuel efficient and better designs will reduce operating cost right along with the standardization.
As others have said, this aircraft is being tasked with too many roles and it will suck at most of them. Yes, it's going to cut costs, I guess, but ultimately I think we are going to lose capability across the board.
That being said, I also think the F-22 is an impracticable aircraft.
It's stealthier than it needs to be, goes faster than it needs to go, and is more expensive than even we can afford. Upgrading/building more F-15's, 16's and 18's would be a much better investment. These aircraft are already proven platforms that are still light years ahead of anything our potential adversaries have.
I also agree with others that we need a real A-10 replacement. We need a non-stealthy flying tank that can linger in a the battlespace for a long period of time, at a slow enough speed to provide direct fire to infantry on the ground.
Stealth capabilities are not needed for the majority of our aircraft, only the first strike waves need this. We can gain complete air superiority within a matter of days and in these new aircraft all the comprises made to make it stealthy end up biting us in the ass for the 99% of the time that capability is not needed.
I think we could conceivably keep the current gen of aircraft going for another 30 to 40 years with no problems and still maintain complete air dominance. After that, we will be going unmanned for strike craft anyways, so this seems like an enormous waste of resources.
That being said, I also think the F-22 is an impracticable aircraft.
It's stealthier than it needs to be, goes faster than it needs to go, and is more expensive than even we can afford. Upgrading/building more F-15's, 16's and 18's would be a much better investment. These aircraft are already proven platforms that are still light years ahead of anything our potential adversaries have.
I also agree with others that we need a real A-10 replacement. We need a non-stealthy flying tank that can linger in a the battlespace for a long period of time, at a slow enough speed to provide direct fire to infantry on the ground.
Stealth capabilities are not needed for the majority of our aircraft, only the first strike waves need this. We can gain complete air superiority within a matter of days and in these new aircraft all the comprises made to make it stealthy end up biting us in the ass for the 99% of the time that capability is not needed.
I think we could conceivably keep the current gen of aircraft going for another 30 to 40 years with no problems and still maintain complete air dominance. After that, we will be going unmanned for strike craft anyways, so this seems like an enormous waste of resources.
Maybe, or maybe not.
Lots more info at the above link. Here's some more info and other good pics, including comparison top views of the F-16, F-22 and F-35.
I was referring specifically in air to air combat role when I made that statement.
Ground attack role, F-35 >>> F-22.
Like I've been trying to say, they should stop trying to make this aircraft the "Jack of all trades, Master of none" aircraft.
Replacement to F-16, F/A 18, Harriers and F-117 is fine.
Replacement to A-10 Warthog and F-22(which is replacing the F-15) is not.
Sorry, I just don't see the F-35 having a better(or as good) role in providing Close Air Support as the A-10 Warthog.
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
How could there be ANY F-35 overflights in Georgia, of all places?
Consider this:
1) The X-35 DFlight Concept Demonstrator was built and assembled in Palmdale, and has flown all of it's demonstration missions
in and around the Edwards Flight Test Facility, 35 miles Northeast of Lancaster California.
2) Air Vehicle 2AA:1 is the frirst of the production prototypes, which is this particular aircraft which first flew last Friday.
It is the ONLY configuration that will be made in the CTOL prototype design of 2AA:1, since it's purpose is to refine assy
tools, techniques, and isolate vendor and supplier irregularities that will lead to changes in the subsequrent madels of design.
The next vehicle that will be made, several in a row actually, is the STVOL Short Takeoff and Landing configuration - 2BJ:1 - @BJ:3
which incorporates the Lift Fan and transfer drive mechanism that allow the vertical deflection for the takeoff and landing cycles.
Then they return to the 2AF:1 Conventional Takeoff design which incorporates the design corrections and enhancements
that were found during the fit and mating of the 2AA:1 unit, which made the 2BJ series and the subsequent 2AF series better vehicles.
Later on, as more refinements are developed, the Carier Version with larger (and Foldable) wings and controll surfaces
along with a stronger nose gear strut (Catapult Launch) and tail hook (Arresting Device) will be developed and flown
all refinements based on data accumulation from the 2AF, 2AF, and 2BJ deesigns as flight testing matures.
The engines in the JSF are almost the same as the F-22 uses, except only 1 in the F-35 design.
This is the most powerful single engine ever placed into an airplane, and it's performance will approach that of the F-22
and many of the F-22 features will be able to be phased into the functionality of the F-35 as the airframe design matures.
For those of you who think that it cannot replace the A-10, you're in for a rude awakening.
The A-10 Warthog served quite admirably, and is continuing to be fixed by band-aid to salvage the functional airframe . . .
until the much more capable F-35 variants are available to replace them.
There has been considerably less problems in the design and development of this aircraft than any other aircraft in the history of aviation.
Don't underestimate any of the capabiliities of the F-35, although it dosen't propose to replace the F-22 - it's not supposed to.
Few other aircraft in the world will be able to perform and deliver with the capabilities of this aircraft, multiple variants and all.
You guys don't have a clue as to what the armament capabilities for this weapon system will encompass.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter