Manonthestreet
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2014
- 37,483
- 27,340
- 2,945
Congrats you allowed the military industrial complex maneuver you into a corner so you must buy crap that doesn't work.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #2,082
Hey, glad you are back. I missed kicking your ass.
I spent over 20 years on many different weapons system. From Antiques to cutting edge. I once stepped of a C-130 returning from a TDY and was handed PCS orders to work on a C-124 that the Air Force claimed was not in the inventory. Not to mention working on Goooneys, C-119s, C-54s, C-118 (Generals Birds), C-130A,D and E, AC-130A and E and a ton of others. I also worked around the F-15A at the first forward operational base. I would say that the F-4 got long on the tooth and cost way too much per flying hour. The F-15 that was replacing it also costs a ton per flying hour. But in 6 years, it dropped to half of what the F-4 did in it's best year. I wasn't on the F-16 but it also replaced the F-4 and had it's fair share of teething problems but the original F-16 was a motorscooter with jet engines, very simple and easy to maintain. But it didn't start day one cheaper to operate the the old Phantom it was replacing either. It's just the F-16 came on faster because it was a lot simpler bird than the F-15. The F-16 you see today ain't the F-16 your Father might have flown (or your Grand Father). And neither is the F-15. You keep comparing a brand new weapons system to a matured weapons system. But you weren't around to help them get to that maturity.
The F-35 has problems and they are being addressed but that doesn't change the fact that it can hit ANY known ground target with impunity right now and will chalk up a 20-1 kill rate against anything in the sky with the exception of the F-22. So it's guns don't work as well as the F-15E or the F-16C. You should have seen the problem with guns we had with the F-15A. When the Radar went off line, ALL weapons systems went dead including the gun. That was corrected for the Guns in 1981 when the F-15C was introduced and the As were upgraded. 6 years. When we flew wargames against the F-4s, they might have one or two F-4s with working radar and the rest of the flight would be blind. Their guns and Sidewinders operated independently from the Radar. They mounted 7 power Weaver Hunting Scopes so the pilots could see farther and used the heat seeker heads to pick up targets. We could only generate 33% of our fighters at any one given time and the Phantoms reached 95% when they included their flying dead. Considering we had the same number of fighters, we were faced with 3 fighters for every one of ours in the Air. The end result was, we had a 4 to 1 kill rate. BTW, 33% sounds like a lower figure but we had the best Sortie Generation in the AF in the late 70s and early 80s. Bitburg V Sondy. At the end of the War Games, we still had airframes left. Sondy had zero left.
So don't give me this crap. The F-35A with all it's problems is still worth 20 of the other Fighters.
DrainBamage
Gold Member
- Dec 31, 2016
- 1,750
- 183
- 140
It's funny isn't it? Manonthestreet has been proven so wrong in this thread, every prediction he's made about F-35 has been fail, every prediction about international condemnation has turned wrong on him, so he's reduced to desperately googling for any "bad news" item so he can rush in here to gleefully post it.
Gun pod passed tests on B/C. They will get the gun fixed on A.
Meanwhile Poland has officially signed for about 32 F-35s, you know the Poland that was one of Manonthestreet's last "bad news" posts on here, yet another one that blew up in his face.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #2,084
Looking back on the old F-4, we put gun pods on our castrated F-4 but they weren't that accurate. But they certainly made the enemy close that hatch. I don't know if they have ever gotten gun pods to work as well as internals or ever will. And I imagine that the internal guns on the A has a much higher level to reach than the gun pods on the other two. But I don't think gun mounts are that hard of thing to correct. Give me enough baling wiring, glue and duct tape and I can make it work for at least one flight.
DrainBamage
Gold Member
- Dec 31, 2016
- 1,750
- 183
- 140
Only when we define "nonexistant" as something manonthestreet is ignorant about.
From RF-IR Stealth (Techniques/Benefits)
On skin:
Modern stealth aircraft such as F-22 and F-35 are coated with IR-suppressive skin coatings, the exact composition of the coatings is unknow but in general, they have very low emissivity. Emissivity is of the surface of a material is its effectiveness in emitting energy as infrared radiation, coating with a lower emissivity mean the aircraft emit a lower level of IR radiation at any given temperature.
For example it is reported that the Top coat on F-22 , F-35 can reduce their skin infrared signature in long and infrared wavelength (8–12 microns) by more than half. Some type of IR suppression coating also has the ability to shift the the infrared radiation to non-atmostpheric window region, making the IR radiation of aircraft better absorbed by the atmosphere. The main advantage of this IR surpression coating is that it can help lower the inner temperature of the coated object, since the broad-band coating acts as a thermal insulator, the temperature of the underlying object is increased to a much greater extent.
On engine:
For the F-35, the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine and LOAN balanced the requirements of LO and efficient aeromechanical performance. It offered a lightweight (especially for the F-35B STOVL variant), low-cost configuration. The F-35A and F-35C variants use the same nozzle configuration. A shorter version was readily configured for compatibility with the F-35B STOVL 3BSM to meet ground clearance needs while landing vertically. Since the engine exhaust system is the primary contributor to aft sector infrared signature, engine and nozzle design needed to incorporate effective methods to reduce infrared emissions. This was accomplished using reduced radar cross-section-compatible techniques, including hiding, shaping, and temperature control. The F-35 exhaust system employs a cooled turbine face blocker, effectively eliminating the temptation to employ more impacting techniques like a serpentine exhaust duct. The F135 exhaust system does use a cooled nozzle to significantly reduce the aft sector infrared signature. With these techniques, the cooled blocker and nozzle tail-on infrared signature is significantly less than the signature of an uncooled exhaust system.
Approved for public release 5/8/18, JSF18-365
from Aviation week:
Pratt points out that the F119 and F135 are the only production engines with stealthy augmentors. Their design eliminates conventional spray bars and flame holders and integrates multi-zone reheat fuel injection into curved vanes that block the line-of-sight to the turbine.
Also, like the F119 augmentor, the F135 augmentor is stealthy: The design of the two engines’ augmentors places multi-zone fuel injection into curved vanes which eliminate conventional spray bars and flame holders and block the line of sight to the turbine when looking into the engine from behind
Of course we know you will ignore this post demonstrating you have no idea what you're talking about just like the dozens of other posts that have exposed you in this thread.
Enjoy your reputation as untrustworthy source.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #2,086
Here is another tidbit. ALL Aircraft or even Objects heat up the faster they travel. When the F-22 and F-35 enter the combat area, they can defeat it simply by going under Mach 1. The same goes for almost any object. If you exhaust isn't visible (i.e. you are facing the detector) slowing down removes the IR caused by the drag of atmosphere. If we have a F-22 using super cruise at Mach 1.5 to 1.8, he's going to light up the sky for miles. So he slows down the second he detects a possible adversary. Using this method, the F-35 and the F-22 can get much closer before detection than a conventional fighter. But the adversary is already lit up like a Christmas
Tree.
Tree.
- Banned
- #2,088
Israel took delivery on some F-35's last July; don't know if they're fully operational yet, since the Israelis buy them customized to be fitted out with Israeli gear in Israel, including a weapons pod, but they've already been used in fly-overs of Iran.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #2,089
That's why that region that Israel keeps the SA missiles clean in Syria is so important. While the F-35 may be "Invisible" the refuelers aren't. And without that refueling the F-35 doesn't have the range to get to Iran, take the pictures and return.
What many don't understand ( and you do) is that some of the really highly sensitive gear and coding are left out of anything the US exports. Even in the F-15. The F-15EX has more capability than the F-15SA that is exported and I am sure that Israel has packages for those F-15SAs and Is waiting to be installed. But I doubt if Israel will install the really good stuff into the SAs that they install in their own Is.
DrainBamage
Gold Member
- Dec 31, 2016
- 1,750
- 183
- 140
While I'm quite sure Israel will customize their F-35s, they were fully operation when they landed in Israel.
Have already been used in air strikes:
Israel Says F-35s See First-Ever Combat With IDF Over Syria | Christians United for Israel
Israel’s air force commander says recent airstrikes against Iranian targets in Syria were carried out by the F-35 stealth fighter – the first time the newly fielded warplane has been used in an “operational attack.”
DrainBamage
Gold Member
- Dec 31, 2016
- 1,750
- 183
- 140
You could make the same comment about F-22 since it's oxygen system was having problems well into it's operational lifespan.
In fact you could find a mechanical flaw in every aircraft after they achieve operational use, so your comment, like most other useless bilge you release, is pointless and driven more by a stubborn desire to have been right about this aircraft.
- Banned
- #2,092
Israeli pilots flew them around in training exercises before they left here, so yeah, they were 'operational' or they wouldn't have taken delivery of them. Modular construction allows systems to be built independently from the airframe factory floor and plugged in pretty quick.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #2,093
One thing should be noted, for export, operational versus fully operational is two different things. Plus, there are systems left out and other systems from the host country installed at the factory before delivery. It's Operational for the host country but it may not be operational for the United States.
Like it or not we are stuck with it. And they need to build a lot of them and sell a of of them to recoup some of the costs. The fixes will come and the upgrades will occur.
- Banned
- #2,095
Spending on a lot of projects get buried in big projects, so it's not just about the F-35 alone, it's about hiding your real budget for any given program to make it harder for snoops and industrial and foreign military spies to track what one is doing. And yes, it also helps hide corruption, but there is less of that than most would like to imagine.
DrainBamage
Gold Member
- Dec 31, 2016
- 1,750
- 183
- 140
Yep. As in the "Ta da! We've had four squadrons of operational stealth fighters for a few years now" unveil by USAF in 1988.
Silver Cat
Gold Member
F-35 is a lame duck, and, as we see, they don't even have a plan to correct it.
www.defensenews.com
The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
The Navy's and Marine Corps' versions of the F-35 will have restrictions on how long they can fly at supersonic speeds because of a risk of damage to the tail section.
www.defensenews.com
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,389
- 4,952
- 290
F-35 is a lame duck, and, as we see, they don't even have a plan to correct it.
The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
The Navy's and Marine Corps' versions of the F-35 will have restrictions on how long they can fly at supersonic speeds because of a risk of damage to the tail section.
No lame duck at all,
ask Russians and their Iranian friends.
But sure, instead they'll keep selling it for astronomic prices
while as usual waiting for the IAF to figure things out...
Last edited:
miketx
Diamond Member
- Dec 25, 2015
- 121,555
- 70,605
- 2,645
- Banned
- #2,099
HOw many times you flown it?F-35 is a lame duck, and, as we see, they don't even have a plan to correct it.
The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
The Navy's and Marine Corps' versions of the F-35 will have restrictions on how long they can fly at supersonic speeds because of a risk of damage to the tail section.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #2,100
F-35 is a lame duck, and, as we see, they don't even have a plan to correct it.
The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
The Navy's and Marine Corps' versions of the F-35 will have restrictions on how long they can fly at supersonic speeds because of a risk of damage to the tail section.
The Swiss Army Fighter will had restrictions. It's a real quagmire to design a subsonic Swiss Army Fighter and a Supersonic Fighter. Let's face it, the F-35 is a compromise all the way and they knew that going in. Having one Air Frame to do it all was not a good idea in the first place. But it ended up being a home run overall.
The problem you keep harping about is the lift fan and extra fuel area for the F-35B and C. It shortens the ability to carry weapons. The A doesn't have that restriction because it's the lightest and has a full length weapons bay. The solution is for the creation of a shorter weapon and they are doing just that.
And let's not forget they had to add extra wing area for the C model and the fact that the B model has to operate at much lower speeds. Guess what, you get a different style tail section for both of those. But they didn't so the restrictions. The A is lighter and less stress is placed on the Airframe (Tail Section). Hence, it's a bit faster and has less drag. If you look at that F-35A, it's got a lot of F-4 built in. The F-35 (all models) fly under the same pretense, if you put a big enough engine on a Brick you can make it fly. But you can't have anything else if you build that Swiss Army Fighter. The F-4 was the jet ages first Swiss Army Fighter. The F-8 was a better fighter but it lost out to the Swiss Army Fighter because just being able to turn and burn isn't money well spent.
Yes, it would have been better to have 3 completely different designs but it would also have taken much longer and 3 times the cost to produce those 3 different airframes. I am sure that the AF would have much rather have had a baby F-22, the Navy would have rather had a stealth F-18 and the Marines would have gotten pretty much the same bird as the F-35B anyway. But even the US doesn't have deep of pockets. So the AF and Navy get compromises while the Marines get what they wanted in the first place. And those compromises are just part of the package. As it stands, nothing can do the Swiss Army Fighter as well as the F-35 of any type. And will they ever fix all the compromises? No. That would require a completely different Airframe, tail section and Wing. And that's left for the follow on aircraft for the USAF and the Navy.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Trump Nominates A Witch Doctor To Be Surgeon General
- Started by Highlight
- Replies: 3
-
-
Why are trains in Europe faster than here in the USA?- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 9
-
