Navy F-35C Landed So Precisely, It Tore Up a Runway

[Bleipriester]

To do what?

Destroy things, kill people, look around, and electronically mess with stuff. I can't believe you're retired military and don't know what a multirole fighter does.

I damn well know what multi-tasking aircraft are SUPPOSED to do! That's the problem with this turkey. They still haven't fully solved the helmet and oxygen problems. The F-22 was a whole lot cheaper and also does a good job.

You just used an F-22 problem to ding the F-35A/C. And the F-18 has a similiar problem. The F-22 cured the problem by changing out a valve and adding a canned backup system. The Altitudes that are the problem are rarely operated at. Operating above 50K is a whole different world and has more in common with Space Flight than military or civilian flights.

Almost all of the high altitude birds, the aircrews are either in a pressurized cockpit or they are wearing appollo style pressurized suits. Without this, liquids start to boil including fuel and blood. A Pilot may visit 60K but he won't stay there. He may zip up but he zips right down again.

AS for cost and numbers, the F-22 in full production would still cost about 144 million per copy. The initial cost of the handful that were produced at first was over 240 mil per copy but in the end, it stabalized at 143 mil per copy. The F-35A, before mass production, is about 110 mil per copy but after it goes into production, the cost will be about 85 mil. It's at about 95 mil right now before mass production. This includes the engine.

Is the F-35A Stealthy? It's so stealthy that they have to turn on their transponders so the ground forces can find them in war games. Anytime they want to go off grid, they just shut their transponders down and virtually disappear from all sensors and radar. While the F-35 is still a week or two from front line service, the affect of stealth has already been shown by the F-22. If the Russian or Syrian fighter/bombers get too close to our special forces, the Russian/Syrian knows that they are being locked on and a simple phrase is spoken on a channel that all military flights can here, "I think you should leave". The handful of times, the Russian/Syrian promptly vacated the area. ROE says that if they drop one single bomb in that area, they are fair game for all US Forces including Fighters and will be fired on and killed.

Once the F-35A gets into full production (there will be thousands made) the cost will be about 85 mil. Now, tell me one single bird that costs 85 mil or less that could handle the F-35. Even the F-15 is still above 100 mil a copy these days and the F-35 can handle the F-15 with ease. All you are aware of is when you see incoming missiles within a short distance. You are too busy dodging missiles to try and find anything except sky.

The reports say the F35 stealth capabilities can´t compete with that of the F22. About money saving.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

To do what?

Destroy things, kill people, look around, and electronically mess with stuff. I can't believe you're retired military and don't know what a multirole fighter does.

I damn well know what multi-tasking aircraft are SUPPOSED to do! That's the problem with this turkey. They still haven't fully solved the helmet and oxygen problems. The F-22 was a whole lot cheaper and also does a good job.

You just used an F-22 problem to ding the F-35A/C. And the F-18 has a similiar problem. The F-22 cured the problem by changing out a valve and adding a canned backup system. The Altitudes that are the problem are rarely operated at. Operating above 50K is a whole different world and has more in common with Space Flight than military or civilian flights.

Almost all of the high altitude birds, the aircrews are either in a pressurized cockpit or they are wearing appollo style pressurized suits. Without this, liquids start to boil including fuel and blood. A Pilot may visit 60K but he won't stay there. He may zip up but he zips right down again.

AS for cost and numbers, the F-22 in full production would still cost about 144 million per copy. The initial cost of the handful that were produced at first was over 240 mil per copy but in the end, it stabalized at 143 mil per copy. The F-35A, before mass production, is about 110 mil per copy but after it goes into production, the cost will be about 85 mil. It's at about 95 mil right now before mass production. This includes the engine.

Is the F-35A Stealthy? It's so stealthy that they have to turn on their transponders so the ground forces can find them in war games. Anytime they want to go off grid, they just shut their transponders down and virtually disappear from all sensors and radar. While the F-35 is still a week or two from front line service, the affect of stealth has already been shown by the F-22. If the Russian or Syrian fighter/bombers get too close to our special forces, the Russian/Syrian knows that they are being locked on and a simple phrase is spoken on a channel that all military flights can here, "I think you should leave". The handful of times, the Russian/Syrian promptly vacated the area. ROE says that if they drop one single bomb in that area, they are fair game for all US Forces including Fighters and will be fired on and killed.

Once the F-35A gets into full production (there will be thousands made) the cost will be about 85 mil. Now, tell me one single bird that costs 85 mil or less that could handle the F-35. Even the F-15 is still above 100 mil a copy these days and the F-35 can handle the F-15 with ease. All you are aware of is when you see incoming missiles within a short distance. You are too busy dodging missiles to try and find anything except sky.

The reports say the F35 stealth capabilities can´t compete with that of the F22. About money saving.

How about a cite on that statement. Just tossing it out there doesn't cut it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

There are a lot of rumors and hints among the various military-related websites that serious consideration is being given to allow highly skilled enlisted personnel fly drones.

It's true, they're not just rumors and hints. In October the Air Force is going to start training 10 pilots, and then start adding from there. By 2020, they want to have at least half the force be enlisted pilots.

Here's the article..................

air-force-plans-100-enlisted-drone-pilots-2020 | AirForceTimes

 

[Picaro]

They're flight testing the F-35s here for the last couple of weeks. Can't see the northern end of the runway so I don't know if they're practicing carrier landings with cables on the runway on that end or not. It is a good plane, and bugs will be worked out, they nearly always are. These planes, and the F-22, are 'expensive' because they include a lot of projects and research on new tech hidden in their budgets, so the price per copy isn't a big concern of mine at this point. Manned aircraft is on its way out, anyway, and a looming pilot shortage will accelerate that trend soon; modern aircraft can't be flown at their full abilities with pilots on board anyway, like the F-16. Providing for manned fighters and aircraft is a huge expense that will go away soon, and doing away with them will drop the costs over a third and increase the payload capacity as well.

You know the reason that there is a pilot shortage that is only going to get bigger?

Capitalism.

Actually its the dramatic fall in people qualified to be pilots. The education system is more focused on indoctrinating Snowflakes than education.

The airlines are looking for pilots and they are offering our military pilots a lot of money to get out and work for them. Matter of fact, that is why they are considering giving pilots significant reenlistment bonuses.

Self-inflicted shortage; the pay drop so low for years airline pilots made less than cab drivers at many airlines.

But you're right, UAV's are the way of the future.

It's way past the point where modern planes' capabilities far exceed the abilities of pilots to use them to the limits; they black out long before, or would be killed by the forces. Lose the pilots and you quadruple the performance, drop a third off the costs, drastically decrease weight, etc., etc.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I was talking about the military giving significant reenlistment bonuses to military pilots.

Why do they have to do that? Because the pay for the military is next to nothing compared to their civilian counterparts.

And, you're right...................if you lose the pilot element, you significantly reduce not only the weight and increase the capabilities, but you also have many systems that you DON'T have to put into the aircraft, thereby also reducing costs, meaning that you have more money to pay for bombs.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Long live the A-10, that is all.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Long live the A-10, that is all.

You know, for close air support, there isn't another aircraft that can beat it. Say what you will, but I think that the A-10 should be kept in service, because it simply can't be beat for battlefield ops.

Besides...................that is the only aircraft that I know of where you can shoot it full of holes and it will STILL be able to make it back to base.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Long live the A-10, that is all.

You know, for close air support, there isn't another aircraft that can beat it. Say what you will, but I think that the A-10 should be kept in service, because it simply can't be beat for battlefield ops.

Besides...................that is the only aircraft that I know of where you can shoot it full of holes and it will STILL be able to make it back to base.

Everything you have said is why I love that aircraft. Shoot it full of holes and make it back is why I love the WW2 era P-47 as well. Tanks of the air.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Long live the A-10, that is all.

You know, for close air support, there isn't another aircraft that can beat it. Say what you will, but I think that the A-10 should be kept in service, because it simply can't be beat for battlefield ops.

Besides...................that is the only aircraft that I know of where you can shoot it full of holes and it will STILL be able to make it back to base.

Everything you have said is why I love that aircraft. Shoot it full of holes and make it back is why I love the WW2 era P-47 as well. Tanks of the air.

And you know, a lot of people say that it's one of the ugliest airframes in the sky, but for my money, there is something sexy about the way the engines sit up on the fuselage and then there's the gun.....................nothing better than that big ass gatling gun in the front.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Long live the A-10, that is all.

You know, for close air support, there isn't another aircraft that can beat it. Say what you will, but I think that the A-10 should be kept in service, because it simply can't be beat for battlefield ops.

Besides...................that is the only aircraft that I know of where you can shoot it full of holes and it will STILL be able to make it back to base.

Everything you have said is why I love that aircraft. Shoot it full of holes and make it back is why I love the WW2 era P-47 as well. Tanks of the air.

And you know, a lot of people say that it's one of the ugliest airframes in the sky, but for my money, there is something sexy about the way the engines sit up on the fuselage and then there's the gun.....................nothing better than that big ass gatling gun in the front.

I could care less how it looks I like that despite not being the fastest or flashy it gets it's pilots back home, and can do a shit ton of damage.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There are a lot of rumors and hints among the various military-related websites that serious consideration is being given to allow highly skilled enlisted personnel fly drones.

It's true, they're not just rumors and hints. In October the Air Force is going to start training 10 pilots, and then start adding from there. By 2020, they want to have at least half the force be enlisted pilots.

Here's the article..................

air-force-plans-100-enlisted-drone-pilots-2020 | AirForceTimes

Wow, didn't know that. Thanks.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Not a problem Daryl. I like to help others find the things they're looking for.

Matter of fact, that was one of the things I was famous for in the various commands I served in the Navy. You want it, I got it. If I don't have it, I can get it. If I can't get it, forget it, it can't be had.

True story....................

While I was stationed with VFA 131 and we were deployed to the Persian Gulf, my 1st Class made Chief, and was given a whole list of impossible stuff to find for his Chief's initiation, and one day he came to me with the list and asked if I could help.

Know how hard it is to find crayons and a coloring book on a U.S. Navy carrier that has been deployed for 3 months already? I did it. Matter of fact, Chief Savage was the only Chief going through initiation that was able to obtain them.

And it was because of me.

 

[Bleipriester]

To do what?

Destroy things, kill people, look around, and electronically mess with stuff. I can't believe you're retired military and don't know what a multirole fighter does.

I damn well know what multi-tasking aircraft are SUPPOSED to do! That's the problem with this turkey. They still haven't fully solved the helmet and oxygen problems. The F-22 was a whole lot cheaper and also does a good job.

You just used an F-22 problem to ding the F-35A/C. And the F-18 has a similiar problem. The F-22 cured the problem by changing out a valve and adding a canned backup system. The Altitudes that are the problem are rarely operated at. Operating above 50K is a whole different world and has more in common with Space Flight than military or civilian flights.

Almost all of the high altitude birds, the aircrews are either in a pressurized cockpit or they are wearing appollo style pressurized suits. Without this, liquids start to boil including fuel and blood. A Pilot may visit 60K but he won't stay there. He may zip up but he zips right down again.

AS for cost and numbers, the F-22 in full production would still cost about 144 million per copy. The initial cost of the handful that were produced at first was over 240 mil per copy but in the end, it stabalized at 143 mil per copy. The F-35A, before mass production, is about 110 mil per copy but after it goes into production, the cost will be about 85 mil. It's at about 95 mil right now before mass production. This includes the engine.

Is the F-35A Stealthy? It's so stealthy that they have to turn on their transponders so the ground forces can find them in war games. Anytime they want to go off grid, they just shut their transponders down and virtually disappear from all sensors and radar. While the F-35 is still a week or two from front line service, the affect of stealth has already been shown by the F-22. If the Russian or Syrian fighter/bombers get too close to our special forces, the Russian/Syrian knows that they are being locked on and a simple phrase is spoken on a channel that all military flights can here, "I think you should leave". The handful of times, the Russian/Syrian promptly vacated the area. ROE says that if they drop one single bomb in that area, they are fair game for all US Forces including Fighters and will be fired on and killed.

Once the F-35A gets into full production (there will be thousands made) the cost will be about 85 mil. Now, tell me one single bird that costs 85 mil or less that could handle the F-35. Even the F-15 is still above 100 mil a copy these days and the F-35 can handle the F-15 with ease. All you are aware of is when you see incoming missiles within a short distance. You are too busy dodging missiles to try and find anything except sky.

The reports say the F35 stealth capabilities can´t compete with that of the F22. About money saving.

How about a cite on that statement. Just tossing it out there doesn't cut it.

Here it is:

"Ziel des Projektes ist es, ein Kampfflugzeug mit Stealth-Technologie und moderner Avionik zur Verfügung zu stellen, dessen Stealthfähigkeiten gegenüber der F-22 Raptor zwar verringert sind, das aber aufgrund des daraus resultierenden niedrigeren Preises die Anschaffung großer Stückzahlen ermöglicht."
Lockheed Martin F-35 – Wikipedia

Translation:
The goal of the project is to provide a fighter with stealth technology and modern avionics, whose stealth capabilities are reduced compared to the F-22 Raptor on one hand but the resulting lower price allows the F-35 to be produced in greater numbers on the other hand.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Destroy things, kill people, look around, and electronically mess with stuff. I can't believe you're retired military and don't know what a multirole fighter does.

I damn well know what multi-tasking aircraft are SUPPOSED to do! That's the problem with this turkey. They still haven't fully solved the helmet and oxygen problems. The F-22 was a whole lot cheaper and also does a good job.

You just used an F-22 problem to ding the F-35A/C. And the F-18 has a similiar problem. The F-22 cured the problem by changing out a valve and adding a canned backup system. The Altitudes that are the problem are rarely operated at. Operating above 50K is a whole different world and has more in common with Space Flight than military or civilian flights.

Almost all of the high altitude birds, the aircrews are either in a pressurized cockpit or they are wearing appollo style pressurized suits. Without this, liquids start to boil including fuel and blood. A Pilot may visit 60K but he won't stay there. He may zip up but he zips right down again.

AS for cost and numbers, the F-22 in full production would still cost about 144 million per copy. The initial cost of the handful that were produced at first was over 240 mil per copy but in the end, it stabalized at 143 mil per copy. The F-35A, before mass production, is about 110 mil per copy but after it goes into production, the cost will be about 85 mil. It's at about 95 mil right now before mass production. This includes the engine.

Is the F-35A Stealthy? It's so stealthy that they have to turn on their transponders so the ground forces can find them in war games. Anytime they want to go off grid, they just shut their transponders down and virtually disappear from all sensors and radar. While the F-35 is still a week or two from front line service, the affect of stealth has already been shown by the F-22. If the Russian or Syrian fighter/bombers get too close to our special forces, the Russian/Syrian knows that they are being locked on and a simple phrase is spoken on a channel that all military flights can here, "I think you should leave". The handful of times, the Russian/Syrian promptly vacated the area. ROE says that if they drop one single bomb in that area, they are fair game for all US Forces including Fighters and will be fired on and killed.

Once the F-35A gets into full production (there will be thousands made) the cost will be about 85 mil. Now, tell me one single bird that costs 85 mil or less that could handle the F-35. Even the F-15 is still above 100 mil a copy these days and the F-35 can handle the F-15 with ease. All you are aware of is when you see incoming missiles within a short distance. You are too busy dodging missiles to try and find anything except sky.

The reports say the F35 stealth capabilities can´t compete with that of the F22. About money saving.

How about a cite on that statement. Just tossing it out there doesn't cut it.

Here it is:

"Ziel des Projektes ist es, ein Kampfflugzeug mit Stealth-Technologie und moderner Avionik zur Verfügung zu stellen, dessen Stealthfähigkeiten gegenüber der F-22 Raptor zwar verringert sind, das aber aufgrund des daraus resultierenden niedrigeren Preises die Anschaffung großer Stückzahlen ermöglicht."
Lockheed Martin F-35 – Wikipedia

Translation:
The goal of the project is to provide a fighter with stealth technology and modern avionics, whose stealth capabilities are reduced compared to the F-22 Raptor on one hand but the resulting lower price allows the F-35 to be produced in greater numbers on the other hand.

That was the original idea but somewhere it changed. And using Wikipedia as a source is bad form. Are you aware that anyone can make a Wiki Page? How about a credible source.

 

[longknife]

I was talking about the military giving significant reenlistment bonuses to military pilots.

Why do they have to do that? Because the pay for the military is next to nothing compared to their civilian counterparts.

And, you're right...................if you lose the pilot element, you significantly reduce not only the weight and increase the capabilities, but you also have many systems that you DON'T have to put into the aircraft, thereby also reducing costs, meaning that you have more money to pay for bombs.

Pilots are commissioned officers and do not receive reenlistment bonuses.

 

[IsaacNewton]

$1.5 trillion dollars for this program through 2070. But who thinks the air force would ever go 55 years without a new fighter. A year or two after this thing is operational they will start taking bids on it's replacement. $2 trillion dollars anyone?

The American people are big fat waddling milk cows and they get milked daily and don't even notice.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Pilots are commissioned officers and do not receive reenlistment bonuses.

No they can receive an Aviator Retention Bonus (Air Force) or (Aviator Career Continuation Pay) for agreeing to stay past a service obligation commitment (basically completing a contracted required term for such things as the AF Academy, ROTC, Pilot Training, etc.).

Gee, it's still a bonus for remaining on active duty.


>>>>

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I was talking about the military giving significant reenlistment bonuses to military pilots.

Why do they have to do that? Because the pay for the military is next to nothing compared to their civilian counterparts.

And, you're right...................if you lose the pilot element, you significantly reduce not only the weight and increase the capabilities, but you also have many systems that you DON'T have to put into the aircraft, thereby also reducing costs, meaning that you have more money to pay for bombs.

Pilots are commissioned officers and do not receive reenlistment bonuses.

It's not a reenlistment bonus. They sometimes receive a bonus to stay in. It has happened from time to time in the AF and I suspect it may happen again. It's called a Retention Bonus or something like that.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

$1.5 trillion dollars for this program through 2070. But who thinks the air force would ever go 55 years without a new fighter. A year or two after this thing is operational they will start taking bids on it's replacement. $2 trillion dollars anyone?

The American people are big fat waddling milk cows and they get milked daily and don't even notice.

When you have the right buy gas, move from one part of the country to another, and many other liberties, that should explain it. It's been a long time since it was demanded to "Show Me Your Papers". Or have to file to move from one state to another.

 

[RubberGloveSeduction]

I damn well know what multi-tasking aircraft are SUPPOSED to do! That's the problem with this turkey. They still haven't fully solved the helmet and oxygen problems.

So which from the list I wrote can the F-35 not do? I'd be happy to provide examples of it doing all of them very well.

The F-22 was a whole lot cheaper and also does a good job.

F-22 wasn't cheaper, and while it is the best air superiority fighter in the world it is nowhere near as capable in other roles as F-35.

I can't believe you're retired military and think problems with a helmet during development of an airplane means it can't function as a multirole fighter. Are you thinking issues with helmet will never be solved, ever?