[quote] The demonstration took place on April 2 with Marine Corps Major C.R. Clift in the pilot's seat. The F-35B is currently preparing for a series of at-sea trials, and this exercise tested its capacity for abbreviated takeoffs as well as impressive vertical landings.
What makes this instance unique is that the plane has never attempted a nighttime landing before. As demonstrated in the video, Clift — and the F-35B — pulled off the maneuver with flying colors.[/quote]
[url]http://www.technewsdaily.com/17638-warplane-nighttime-vertical-landing.html[/url]
Video in source
Not really 'good news', it confirms that their bad idea is able to operate, which has been known for a while.
I would hope so. I mean if it couldn't do what a jet is designed to do, then they'd have to fire everyone involved and cancel their contract with the maker for being such a colossal failure.
[QUOTE=laserguided;40240597]Not really 'good news', it confirms that their bad idea is able to operate, which has been known for a while.[/QUOTE]
It shows progression despite the firestorm that just happened. I think hearing about good progression is good news.
[QUOTE=O'Neil;40241199]It shows progression despite the firestorm that just happened. I think hearing about good progression is good news.[/QUOTE]
Its been able to fly for awhile. Doesn't mean its a good idea. The firestorm won't be over until they cancel the program, they won't because they spent so much money on it though.
[QUOTE=laserguided;40241214]Its been able to fly for awhile. Doesn't mean its a good idea.[/QUOTE]
Meant the Vtol thing, besides most jets in there development had issues from what I've seen, like the Airacomet, Thunderchief(or was it thunderstreak...), Cutlass, harrier...
[QUOTE=O'Neil;40241220]Meant the Vtol thing, besides most jets in there development had issues from what I've seen, like the Airacomet, Thunderchief(or was it thunderstreak...), Cutlass, harrier...[/QUOTE]
No jet is comparable to the spending and utility bomb the F-35 is. Its going to cost even more because all those people who might've bought it are scaling back or cancelling their partnership because of the cost and so on. By the way, the vtol thing's only utility is the fact that it can be carried on decks without a ramp or a catapult, which also limits the rest of the F-35 in design.
[QUOTE=laserguided;40241236]No jet is comparable to the spending and utility bomb the F-35 is. Its going to cost even more because all those people who might've bought it are scaling back or cancelling their partnership because of the cost and so on. By the way, the vtol thing's only utility is the fact that it can be carried on decks without a ramp or a catapult, which also limits the rest of the F-35 in design.[/QUOTE]
It is meant to be for a lot of roles, though I personally prefer the F/A-18 Super Hornet as my jet type. F-35 could've been a great Jet if the money didnt go out of control, it is cheaper and easier to maintain then current Jets like the raptor, and its stealth coating is a lot more "friendly" i suppose and cheaper once more.
[QUOTE=O'Neil;40241254]It is meant to be for a lot of roles, though I personally prefer the F/A-18 Super Hornet as my jet type. F-35 could've been a great Jet if the money didnt go out of control, it is cheaper and easier to maintain then current Jets like the raptor, and its stealth coating is a lot more "friendly" i suppose and cheaper once more.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that is actually the basic problem though! They designed it for 3 services, the marines, navy and the air force. All of which have different requirements, its essentially trying to be a jack of all trades. Its a bad idea!
[QUOTE=laserguided;40241268]Yeah that is actually the basic problem though! They designed it for 3 services, the marines, navy and the air force. All of which have different requirements, its essentially trying to be a jack of all trades. Its a bad idea![/QUOTE]
I think its more like the Centurion program where they try to use the Hull as much as they could under the term "universal tank" to reduce cost, but that didnt get far and this isnt as well, sadly. Though F-35 does show some interesting technology like the helmet HUD, to bad its not upto scratch currently.
[QUOTE=laserguided;40240597]Not really 'good news', it confirms that their bad idea is able to operate, which has been known for a while.[/QUOTE]
The B variant has been a bag of issues. STOVL and VTOL are generally hard as hell to design and produce. The B variant is the one variant who I can forgive for having issues.
Look at the development that eventually produced the AV-8B Harrier. That took decades upon decades.
Hope they solve a lot of the issues, Australian Air Force bought 100 these bad boys to replace our current fighter jets.
[QUOTE=-n3o-;40241899]Hope they solve a lot of the issues, Australian Air Force bought 100 these bad boys to replace our current fighter jets.[/QUOTE]
But the Super Hornet is already awesome.
Does anyone have the list of planes the F-35 is supposed to replace? 'cause it's crazy diverse, and not in a good way.
[editline]11th April 2013[/editline]
Oh yeah. All F/A-18 variants, F-16 and A-10.
Yep. Replacing the A-10 with this piece of crap. Does the A-10 even need a replacement? It seems like a tool that, while not all [I]that[/I] advanced for it's time, does it's job perfectly. No reason to reinvent the hammer and all.
[QUOTE=Riller;40242083]Does anyone have the list of planes the F-35 is supposed to replace? 'cause it's crazy diverse, and not in a good way.
[editline]11th April 2013[/editline]
Oh yeah. All F/A-18 variants, F-16 and A-10.
Yep. Replacing the A-10 with this piece of crap. Does the A-10 even need a replacement? It seems like a tool that, while not all [I]that[/I] advanced for it's time, does it's job perfectly. No reason to reinvent the hammer and all.[/QUOTE]
The A-10 is a plane built around a gun, not a gun on a plane.
Any plane to really replace it needs to be build the same way. Gogo 30mm Cannon.
[QUOTE=Senscith;40242304]The A-10 is a plane built around a gun, not a gun on a plane.
Any plane to really replace it needs to be build the same way. Gogo 30mm Cannon.[/QUOTE]
That, and the A-10 doesn't really... At least, as far as I understand it's role, NEED anything more than what it has. It works because it is, in a time where most planes are more computer than machine, brutally simple. It works with one engine shot off, and a third of the wings missing. It carries a bigass gun and a huge missile load. It's slow to provide for better loiter-times. I just don't see much reason to replace it with something faster and lighter when it's whole upside is being slow and heavy. And it's not like it has a bad rep, both pilots and soldiers friggin' love the thing to death.
[QUOTE=Riller;40242318]That, and the A-10 doesn't really... At least, as far as I understand it's role, NEED anything more than what it has. It works because it is, in a time where most planes are more computer than machine, brutally simple. It works with one engine shot off, and a third of the wings missing. It carries a bigass gun and a huge missile load. It's slow to provide for better loiter-times. I just don't see much reason to replace it with something faster and lighter when it's whole upside is being slow and heavy. And it's not like it has a bad rep, both pilots and soldiers friggin' love the thing to death.[/QUOTE]
exactly, why would you replace this awesome machine?
[t]http://www.murdoconline.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/a10_afghanistan.jpg[/t]
just look at that thing, it's pissed off and ready to fuck shit up
[editline]11th April 2013[/editline]
here's the minigun in its entirety next to a volkswagen for scale
[t]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J0LibhHB4Ug/Se0cnyrJFxI/AAAAAAAABNw/UjqEuHZcPRc/s1600/A10%2Bgun.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Furioso;40242326]here's the minigun in its entirety next to a volkswagen for scale[/QUOTE]
How the fuck is that mini?
[QUOTE=Azaz3l;40242417]How the fuck is that mini?[/QUOTE]
it's a big minigun
[QUOTE=Riller;40242318]That, and the A-10 doesn't really... At least, as far as I understand it's role, NEED anything more than what it has. It works because it is, in a time where most planes are more computer than machine, brutally simple. It works with one engine shot off, and a third of the wings missing. It carries a bigass gun and a huge missile load. It's slow to provide for better loiter-times. I just don't see much reason to replace it with something faster and lighter when it's whole upside is being slow and heavy. And it's not like it has a bad rep, both pilots and soldiers friggin' love the thing to death.[/QUOTE]
It may have a lot to do with the air frames.
Notice that the A-10 is Fairchild, not Boeing or Lockeed. Fairchild has a fairly rocky history and may no longer possess the means to produce new air frames.
They didn't even want to produce the A-10 in the first place (Notice that nearly all of their aircraft are civilian aircraft or transport aircraft, except for the A-10), the YA-10 was rapidly produced just to give the Northrop YA-9 something to compete against so the government could say they didn't have a no bid contract. The YA-9 had seen a long development cycle and was very true to the current ideals of the era in regards to how a ground attack aircraft should look and function. Then some clown at Fairchild goes all Tony Stark in a cave and builds a war machine out of what was basically off the shelf parts. It was ugly and didn't look at all like what aerospace engineers of the era thought would be good for a ground attack aircraft, but it ultimately slaughtered the YA-9 in the testing stage and forced the government to accept an aircraft it didn't want that was going to be produced by a company that didn't want to produce combat aircraft at all. Nobody was happy until years later when the air force finally recognized that they had somehow stumbled across the god of all close air support aircraft.
[editline]11th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Azaz3l;40242417]How the fuck is that mini?[/QUOTE]
It isn't. A minigun only refers to electrically powered rotating barreled machine guns chambered in rifle calibers. Technically that isn't even true as Minigun is actually the name of the M134, not its class, so only the M134 is actually a minigun.
The Avenger is classed as a rotary cannon.
[QUOTE=O'Neil;40242051]But the Super Hornet is already awesome.[/QUOTE]
We only have the F/A-18F Super Hornets until we get our F-35As I believe, and apparently our Douglas F/A-18 Hornet are going to be pretty much "out of date" by 2020.
[QUOTE=-n3o-;40243547]We only have the F/A-18F Super Hornets until we get our F-35As I believe, and apparently our Douglas F/A-18 Hornet are going to be pretty much "out of date" by 2020.[/QUOTE]
They'll most likely get that electronics package/conversion when we get the F-35's
[QUOTE=laserguided;40241236]No jet is comparable to the spending and utility bomb the F-35 is. Its going to cost even more because all those people who might've bought it are scaling back or cancelling their partnership because of the cost and so on. By the way, the vtol thing's only utility is the fact that it can be carried on decks without a ramp or a catapult, which also limits the rest of the F-35 in design.[/QUOTE]
Steady on there. I know it's not comparable on a cost level, but you should take a look at the design history of these magnificent Great British flying machines.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Nimrod_AEW3[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Nimrod_MRA4[/url]
Years late, millions over budget (£4.6bn spent on both projects together) with not one plane entering operational service with the RAF. The best part is, just as the first few MRA4s were just about finished the government cancelled the program, and then inexplicably broke up the completed airframes.
I fear F35 won't be quite the cluster that Nimrod is until about 500 jets have been constructed, and then destroyed on the ground for no reason at all.
[QUOTE=Riller;40242083]
Oh yeah. All F/A-18 variants, F-16 and A-10.
Yep. Replacing the A-10 with this piece of crap. Does the A-10 even need a replacement? It seems like a tool that, while not all [I]that[/I] advanced for it's time, does it's job perfectly. No reason to reinvent the hammer and all.[/QUOTE]
Hell no it doesn't need a replacement. The A-10 replaced the A-1 sky raider, and it was still kickin' ass while A-10's were flyin around.
[img]http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Aircraft/Attack/NakedFanny2oClock.jpg[/img]
This bad mother fucker was the guardian angel of troops in Korea and Vietnam. It had 4 20 mm cannons and enough hard points to carry a metric fuck-load of ordnance. During the Korean war, this bad mofo produced so much torque from it's engine that it was at risk of having the plane spin instead of the propeller if the pilot gave too much throttle on take off.
The A-10 was able to replace this legend of an aircraft and surpass it in almost every way, theres not an aircraft on this planet that could replace an A-10.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;40245235]
The A-10 was able to replace this legend of an aircraft and surpass it in almost every way, theres not an aircraft on this planet that could replace an A-10.[/QUOTE]
Su-25T
I said it
I think replacing the A-10 is not a good idea.
I mean, I'd like to see an F-35 recreate the menacing psychological effect of having an A-10 around.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuYmn_xYB78[/media]
Now those are our allies, imagine what it does to the enemy. I wouldn't want anything to do with that battle after seeing that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.