Engine fault grounds entire F-35 fleet in latest blow to Britain's stealth fighters - Polidicks

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;45287613]I just hope that my country pulls its head out of its ass and doesn't pick the F-35 to replace our ageing fleet. We wasted so much money on these things and we have fuck all to show for it. The whole thing is a national joke here in Canada.[/QUOTE] remember to weep and salute in the memory of the avro arrow and the death of the Canadian military aviation industry

MiG plane best plane

F22 > F35 The F-35 is a repeat of what we wanted to do with the F111 Aardvark. We wanted the plane to do everything. It could do everything, but just not as good as all of the specialized ones. Was it a good plane? Hell yes. Was it the end all, beat all that we spent shitloads of cash on? No.

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;45290228]remember to weep and salute in the memory of the avro arrow and the death of the Canadian military aviation industry[/QUOTE] I do this every time a military plane is mentioned. The most advanced plane of its generation canned because some fuck face politician was like "we don't need this".

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;45290672]F22 > F35 The F-35 is a repeat of what we wanted to do with the F111 Aardvark. We wanted the plane to do everything. It could do everything, but just not as good as all of the specialized ones. Was it a good plane? Hell yes. Was it the end all, beat all that we spent shitloads of cash on? No.[/QUOTE] the F-22 could probably use a few upgrades from the F-35 project (new weather-resistant stealth coating) though

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;45287724]if you were out of missiles why would you be closing that 100km engagement gap anyway?[/QUOTE] Because BVR's have a really low probability of kill, save in situations with a high saturation of AWACS and an incompetent enemy.

Why does the F-35 have no close range combat capability. What were they thinking. It isn't agile, it isn't fast, it has no built in cannon.

[QUOTE=laserguided;45292178]Why does the F-35 have no close range combat capability. What were they thinking. It isn't agile, it isn't fast, it has no built in cannon.[/QUOTE] ~multirole philosophy~ can't do anything well but hey you need less planes

[QUOTE=laserguided;45292178]Why does the F-35 have no close range combat capability. What were they thinking. It isn't agile, it isn't fast, it has no built in cannon.[/QUOTE] This is the plane that will replace the A-10. Think about that.

"A gun with wings." best describes the A-10, whatever replaces it must also be a gun with wings. :c

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;45290672]F22 > F35 The F-35 is a repeat of what we wanted to do with the F111 Aardvark. We wanted the plane to do everything. It could do everything, but just not as good as all of the specialized ones. Was it a good plane? Hell yes. Was it the end all, beat all that we spent shitloads of cash on? No.[/QUOTE] you try launching an F-22 off a carrier you try sinking a ship with an F-22 you try ground attack with an F-22

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;45293792]you try launching an F-22 off a carrier you try sinking a ship with an F-22 you try ground attack with an F-22[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://lh6.ggpht.com/-wneACea-axU/Uo11rr2m7OI/AAAAAAAALaY/BTAug1ZZ8hs/s0/T-50-PAK-FA-055-Fifth-Gen-Fighter-Aircraft-Russia-04.jpg[/IMG] There is another option..

[QUOTE=seano12;45286145]It doesn't matter because the future will be about drones rather than piloted aircraft.[/QUOTE] did u hear that on nbc news

[QUOTE=laserguided;45293826][IMG]https://lh6.ggpht.com/-wneACea-axU/Uo11rr2m7OI/AAAAAAAALaY/BTAug1ZZ8hs/s0/T-50-PAK-FA-055-Fifth-Gen-Fighter-Aircraft-Russia-04.jpg[/IMG] There is another option..[/QUOTE] yes i'm sure russia will sell the PAK FA to the us absolutely that's definitely going to happen no possible reason for it not to

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;45294484]yes i'm sure russia will sell the PAK FA to the us absolutely that's definitely going to happen no possible reason for it not to[/QUOTE] Britain could have designed their own but too late I guess.

So what is the core of the problem with the F-35 program? What caused it to fuck up so much?

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;45293792]you try launching an F-22 off a carrier you try sinking a ship with an F-22 you try ground attack with an F-22[/QUOTE] you try taking off with a F-35 you try flying with an F-35

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;45294760]you try taking off with a F-35 you try flying with an F-35[/QUOTE] But it's grounded.

[QUOTE=laserguided;45294771]But it's grounded.[/QUOTE] Here, your sarcasm, detector seems to be broken.

Funny enough it could be worse [t]http://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/f-32/images/df-sd-03-15738.jpg[/t] This was the plane that managed to be worse than the F-35. Just watch a documentary about the JSF trials to see.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;45294760]you try taking off with a F-35 you try flying with an F-35[/QUOTE] i hope no one thinks i'm defending the F-35 just the justification for a JSF not that i actually think that there's a justification for carrier groups in the first place they're purely a powerful offensive weapon that the west has and the rest of the world really lacks, they serve no defensive purpose at all [editline]4th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;45294571]Britain could have designed their own but too late I guess.[/QUOTE] what an awful waste of money

[QUOTE=Jon27;45286266]Come on. The AV-8B/GR.7 isn't the piece of junk that the early GR.1 Harrier was. It has massively improved payload and wing loading, and addressed many of the issues that came up from a completely new propulsion configuration. Nozzles moving independently just meant an extra maintenance procedure was necessary. Can you imagine the sheer amount of revisions that have already been made to the procedures that'll be released with the Lightning II? I suppose we should be fair to the Lightning and give it the same chance; back when the P.1127 (The Harrier prototype 'Kestrel') was being demonstrated, people said the same things, that it was too sophisticated and the costs weren't worth the capability. And the engine troubles during design were just as bad. This is part of developing a new aircraft which pushes the envelope. The F-22 still has faults today. Might I also point out that the engines on the A380 had a fault for a pretty long time that had the potential to, and did, cause them to straight-up [i]explode[/i]? Have I made my point? It's unfair to judge the aircraft based on its development troubles. It's just unfortunate that Lockheed has handled this project so inefficiently.[/QUOTE] Pretty big "made in Britain god save the queen" Harrier circlejerk itt GR.1s and 8As were pretty damn bad, and Harriers to this day still have an abysmally high accident rate (8Bs are called widowmakers for a reason) Guess it just comes with trying to make a STOVL craft [editline]4th July 2014[/editline] I'd rather be paying in money than in blood for early V/STOL operation tbh

[QUOTE=laserguided;45294571]Britain could have designed their own but too late I guess.[/QUOTE] would have been a huge waste of money seeing as they already have the eurofighter typhoon. rolling their own stealth air-superiority fighter would cost a ridiculous amount of cash.

[QUOTE=iFail;45295906]would have been a huge waste of money seeing as they already have the eurofighter typhoon. rolling their own stealth air-superiority fighter would cost a ridiculous amount of cash.[/QUOTE] Russia did it. Now they will be able to export it for decades to come and it fully meets their own specific requirements such as being able to be adapted for carrier use. Plus it's a multirole stealth fighter so it can carry bombs, missiles and anti-ship missiles. All while being able to cruise at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners. Probably a more sound idea than adapting a vtol aircraft for air superiority.

[QUOTE=laserguided;45295983]Russia did it. Now they will be able to export it for decades to come and it fully meets their own specific requirements such as being able to be adapted for carrier use. Plus it's a multirole stealth fighter so it can carry bombs, missiles and anti-ship missiles. All while being able to cruise at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners. Probably a more sound idea than adapting a vtol aircraft for air superiority.[/QUOTE] I was under the impression that the PAK-FA is far from done? They've had delays in getting prototypes done, and they also had an engine fire a while back. Furthermore, in the age of stealth fighters the ability to detect the enemy and maintain situational awareness is key. The AN/APG-81 radar on the F-35 is better than the PAK-FA's Byelka radar. The F-35's AN/ASQ-239 EW suite is better than the PAK-FA's Himalayas. IIRC the PAK-FA's stealth capability is likely to be worse than that of its competitors. In all fairness the F-35's stealth only performs best frontally, but it's still likely to be competitive or better than the PAK-FA's. Also the AIM-120 AMRAAM is likely to be better in detection and range than the R-77M. In terms of quality missile seeking and electronics the US has Russia beat by a fair margin.

[QUOTE=iFail;45296098]I was under the impression that the PAK-FA is far from done? They've had delays in getting prototypes done, and they also had an engine fire a while back. Furthermore, in the age of stealth fighters the ability to detect the enemy and maintain situational awareness is key. The AN/APG-81 radar on the F-35 is better than the PAK-FA's Byelka radar. The F-35's AN/ASQ-239 EW suite is better than the PAK-FA's Himalayas. IIRC the PAK-FA's stealth capability is likely to be worse than that of its competitors. In all fairness the F-35's stealth only performs best frontally, but it's still likely to be competitive or better than the PAK-FA's. Also the AIM-120 AMRAAM is likely to be better in detection and range than the R-77M. In terms of quality missile seeking and electronics the US has Russia beat by a fair margin.[/QUOTE] Source?

[QUOTE=laserguided;45296110]Source?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.janes.com/article/38971/russian-t-50-pak-fa-fighter-prototype-catches-fire[/url] I just checked again and I was wrong about AN/APG-81. Of course I have no idea how good the Byelka is since the Russians have kept most of the good stuff under wraps, but from its number of t/r modules it's probably stronger than AN/APG-81, assuming they have LPI. Regardless the point stands. The PAK-FA's sensor fusion is very minimal. The [URL="http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Protection-Systems/Himalayas_a002985001.aspx"]Himalayas[/URL] have one array dorsally and then they piggyback off the Byelka's antenna. The F-35's [URL="http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/217/Electronic-Warfare"]Barracuda[/URL] has 10 distributed RF antenna. This is a poor comparison anyway. Despite Russian claims that the PAK-FA is multirole, they are seriously optimistic about its weapons loadout when it comes to keeping all that stuff in internal bays. Its weapons load may very well be close to that of the F-22, and the F-22's radar and EW is damn good and matches or bests PAK-FA performance where it matters. edit: I might have been wrong [I]again[/I] about AN/APG-81. Early info said 1200 T/R modules to the Byelka's 1526, but [URL="http://img.cjdby.com/data/attachment/forum/201308/02/103749lvjjn9jls6718u1v.jpg.thumb.jpg"]images[/URL] show 1676 modules on the AN/APG-81. welp. also keep in mind that the US has been making AESA radar for longer than the russians and has spent a hell of a lot more on their development. The relative quality of the t/r modules on an/apg-81 may very well be better than that of pak-fa.

[QUOTE=iFail;45296220][url]http://www.janes.com/article/38971/russian-t-50-pak-fa-fighter-prototype-catches-fire[/url] I just checked again and I was wrong about AN/APG-81. Of course I have no idea how good the Byelka is since the Russians have kept most of the good stuff under wraps, but from its number of t/r modules it's probably stronger than AN/APG-81, assuming they have LPI. Regardless the point stands. The PAK-FA's sensor fusion is very minimal. The [URL="http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Protection-Systems/Himalayas_a002985001.aspx"]Himalayas[/URL] have one array dorsally and then they piggyback off the Byelka's antenna. The F-35's [URL="http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/217/Electronic-Warfare"]Barracuda[/URL] has 10 distributed RF antenna. Regardless this is a poor comparison. Despite Russian claims that the PAK-FA is multirole, they are seriously optimistic about its weapons loadout when it comes to keeping all that stuff in internal bays. Its weapons load may very well be close to that of the F-22, and the F-22's radar and EW is damn good and matches or bests PAK-FA performance where it matters.[/QUOTE] The F-22 isn't a fair comparison since it isn't being exported. Russian missile and radar technology is matching or exceeding U.S. missile technology and they have more missiles under development than they have ever had at one point in time. Yes, sensor fusion is probably not at the same level but that sensor fusion won't matter much when the F-35 pilot finds out he can't run away. Regardless, it will perform a lot better than the F-35 ever will when it comes to air combat, that's for sure. The F-35 is more of a jack of all trades, the PAK FA is a fifth gen multi role fighter.

Don't most experts agree that the F-35 is an over-engineered POS and that 5th generations "stealth" "multi-role" aircrafts are pretty much a sham? [editline]4th July 2014[/editline] Something like this: [video=youtube;mxDSiwqM2nw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw[/video]

[QUOTE=laserguided;45296264]The F-22 isn't a fair comparison since it isn't being exported. Russian missile and radar technology is matching or exceeding U.S. missile technology and they have more missiles under development than they have ever had at one point in time. Yes, sensor fusion is probably not at the same level but that sensor fusion won't matter much when the F-35 pilot finds out he can't run away. Regardless, it will perform a lot better than the F-35 ever will when it comes to air combat, that's for sure.[/QUOTE] IMO sensor fusion is more important than you think it is. In an engagement where multiple fighters are low observability, the importance of quality sensor suites increases. The F-35 may not be able to outrun a PAK-FA but its LO is likely better and that means the likelihood of a WVR fight increases, so successfully running away is much harder for both parties. Also I find it highly unlikely that Russian missiles are better. I keep hearing that the Russians are scrapping the lattice fin design for this year's Izdeliye 180 upgrade, and that they've scrapped the ramjet R-77 too. In the end their design is very similar to AMRAAM. [editline]5th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=StrawberryClock;45296313]Don't most experts agree that the F-35 is an over-engineered POS and that 5th generations "stealth" "multi-role" aircrafts are pretty much a sham? [editline]4th July 2014[/editline] Something like this: [video=youtube;mxDSiwqM2nw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw[/video][/QUOTE] Pierre Sprey is a moron and a self-aggrandizing bastard. He claims to have helped design the A-10 and F-16, when in reality he helped write the program requirements alongside Boyd and others who were much more qualified than he was. He's basically talking out his ass and even amateur aerospace enthusiasts consider him completely insane. He still believes the F-16 is the best fighter ever made, and refuses to acknowledge that it's been completely surpassed in almost every aspect by newer planes. When the Air Force wanted changes made to the F-16 such as the use of drop tanks and took a more multirole approach he was against that too. Ironically those were probably the best things anyone's ever done for the F-16 design, as he and Boyd wanted it to be some kind of close in dogfighter that would replace longer ranged air-superiority fighters.