• The F35 will be combat ready by next year.
    61 replies, posted
I'm still unsure about how this plane will turn out...I always trust in Skunk Works, I miss the F-117. I wish the F-35 would be a pure class jet not a multi-role fuckup.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46073236]Worst military investment in the modern day.[/QUOTE] As a ratio of effectiveness:$$$efficiency? Sure. But it's a solid plane.
[QUOTE=ZenZill;46078720]I'm still unsure about how this plane will turn out...I always trust in Skunk Works, I miss the F-117. I wish the F-35 would be a pure class jet not a multi-role fuckup.[/QUOTE] The F22 replaced the 117, it has double the capacity for aa missiles and is newer generation stealth.
[QUOTE=deadoon;46078849]The F22 replaced the 117, it has double the capacity for aa missiles and is newer generation stealth.[/QUOTE]Plus the F-22 can, you know, be a fighter and not a flying ninja star that handles like an autistic mime on a unicycle.
[QUOTE=deadoon;46078849]The F22 replaced the 117, it has double the capacity for aa missiles and is newer generation stealth.[/QUOTE] Actually the F-117 had no A-A missile capability. Also, the F-22 didn't replace it. Its missions were largely supplanted by the B-2 Spirit. F22 is purely an air-superiority fighter, largely replacing the F-15C.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46078185]The Chinook has been in service for more than 50 years. The U-2 spy plane has been in service for almost 60 years. The B-52 has been in service for more than 60 years. I don't see what's so unbelievable about that.[/QUOTE] Don't forget the other planes! C-130's have been around since the mid 50's, F-15,16,18 since the mid 70's
[QUOTE=Apache249;46079443]Actually the F-117 had no A-A missile capability. Also, the F-22 didn't replace it. Its missions were largely supplanted by the B-2 Spirit. F22 is purely an air-superiority fighter, largely replacing the F-15C.[/QUOTE] F22 has ground attack capabilities, and it is a replacement for the 117. [URL]http://archive.today/20120805134431/http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123030185#selection-1197.0-1197.284[/URL] It is primarily an air-superiority fighter, yes, but it still has ground attack capabilities and can forgo stealth to use more weapons. Also, it is being used as a ground attack craft right now: [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-raptors-in-syrian-airstrikes-2014-9[/url] [url]http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-22-s-takes-first-shot-against-ground-not-air-target[/url]
[QUOTE=deadoon;46078849]The F22 replaced the 117, it has double the capacity for aa missiles and is newer generation stealth.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about, the F117 doesn't even have a radar, how is it supposed to launch missiles at enemy aircraft? The only thing it carries are laser/gps guided bombs.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;46080219]What are you talking about, the F117 doesn't even have a radar, how is it supposed to launch missiles at enemy aircraft? The only thing it carries are laser/gps guided bombs.[/QUOTE] I went on a tangent a bit(awkward wording, it was meant to be double the load capacity in A-A missiles not for), but was referring to weapons capacity.
[QUOTE=deadoon;46080224]I went on a tangent a bit(awkward wording, it was meant to be double the load capacity in A-A missiles not for), but was referring to weapons capacity.[/QUOTE] I still wouldn't say that the F22 was a replacement for the F117, they got different mission profiles. F22 is primarily an air superiority fighter. It can use GPS guided bombs, but against moving targets, it can't laser targets by itself and needs other units for that. Thats what the F35 is better fitted for.
[QUOTE=deadoon;46080201]F22 has ground attack capabilities, and it is a replacement for the 117. [URL]http://archive.today/20120805134431/http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123030185#selection-1197.0-1197.284[/URL] It is primarily an air-superiority fighter, yes, but it still has ground attack capabilities and can forgo stealth to use more weapons. Also, it is being used as a ground attack craft right now: [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-raptors-in-syrian-airstrikes-2014-9[/url] [url]http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-22-s-takes-first-shot-against-ground-not-air-target[/url][/QUOTE] I thought the B-2 replaced the F-117? The article you posted mentions that the F-22's ground attack capabilities were added as an afterthought years later.
[QUOTE=wewt!;46080428]I thought the B-2 replaced the F-117? The article you posted mentions that the F-22's ground attack capabilities were added as an afterthought years later.[/QUOTE] The F35 is more of a replacement of the F117. With the F35, you got anti radiation missiles to strike radars, laser guided missiles and bombs against moving targets, gps guided munitions against static targets, cluster munitions against enemy groups, standoff weapons if you are too lazy to go in close, anti ship missiles if you dont like getting your feet wet, and superior anti ground sensors.
[QUOTE=deadoon;46080201]F22 has ground attack capabilities, and it is a replacement for the 117. [URL]http://archive.today/20120805134431/http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123030185#selection-1197.0-1197.284[/URL] It is primarily an air-superiority fighter, yes, but it still has ground attack capabilities and can forgo stealth to use more weapons. Also, it is being used as a ground attack craft right now: [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-raptors-in-syrian-airstrikes-2014-9[/url] [url]http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-22-s-takes-first-shot-against-ground-not-air-target[/url][/QUOTE] I never said anything about the F-22's air-to-ground capabilities, just that the F-22 was intended to replace the F-15C, not the F-117. It's air-to-ground capabilities were an afterthought, just like those of the F-15C it replaced.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;46080219]What are you talking about, the[B] F117 doesn't even have a radar[/B], how is it supposed to launch missiles at enemy aircraft? The only thing it carries are laser/gps guided bombs.[/QUOTE] Is that true? I remember reading that years ago and it was a rumor that also explains how the F-117 over Serbia was shot down so easily(besides modifying the SAM emplacement and knowing where it would be going)
[QUOTE=Dr.C;46082081]Is that true? I remember reading that years ago and it was a rumor that also explains how the F-117 over Serbia was shot down so easily(besides modifying the SAM emplacement and knowing where it would be going)[/QUOTE] It wasn't shot down easily at all. They shot a huge number of missiles at the F-117's flying sorties. They eventually got lucky. A number of different factors like rain, perfect placement of ground stations, they knew what target was probably going to be hit, and the nighthawks flew predictable routes. And it still took a lot of luck.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;46082081]Is that true? I remember reading that years ago and it was a rumor that also explains how the F-117 over Serbia was shot down so easily(besides modifying the SAM emplacement and knowing where it would be going)[/QUOTE] The F117 was shot down because Serbia used low frequency radars to detect the craft, it has nothing to do with the plane having a radar or not.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;46082152]The F117 was shot down because Serbia used low frequency radars to detect the craft, it has nothing to do with the plane having a radar or not.[/QUOTE] This. They also happen to know exactly where the plane was going to be beforehand
[QUOTE=Apache249;46081340]I never said anything about the F-22's air-to-ground capabilities, just that the F-22 was intended to replace the F-15C, not the F-117. It's air-to-ground capabilities were an afterthought, just like those of the F-15C it replaced.[/QUOTE]Actually it was intended for both. See, the F-117 opened up a new type of aircraft for the USAF, some type of stealth ground-killer that could be used when the air defense was too hot for conventional aircraft. Nighthawks were actually supposed to be real fighters at one point, like, it was intended from the start of the program to be able to sneak up on enemy aircraft (or meandering Russian bombers) and scare the shit out of them. This was actually well before the Nighthawk was even a thing, the idea came up during Have Blue program (the smaller prototype ancestor of the Nighthawk) and it gave all the brass giant war boners. When it became clear that the F-117 was not in any way capable of doing that there was a lot of effort put into making the aircraft an excellent attack aircraft, but for some odd reason it kept the F in F-117, when really, it should have been A-117. Why? Air Force witchcraft, we will never know. Either way, the actual F-117 wasn't ever going to be a real fighter but it [i]was[/i] a stealth aircraft that was a bitch to fly and couldn't really do much. So when the F-22 was becoming a real thing, they looked at it and went "well, this bird's going to be replacing the F-15, which already has a strike capability, so why don't we replace the F-117 which is stealth and can only do ground strikes?" Everyone agreed, because the Nighthawk may have looked cool and was cool but it was actually kind of a terrible aircraft and really expensive to operate. You're right though, the F-22 was supposed to be a pure fighter initially and it's use against ground targets was (like the F-15) something that came later. [QUOTE=GunFox;46082147]It wasn't shot down easily at all. They shot a huge number of missiles at the F-117's flying sorties. They eventually got lucky. A number of different factors like rain, perfect placement of ground stations, they knew what target was probably going to be hit, and the nighthawks flew predictable routes. And it still took a lot of luck.[/QUOTE]It took an equal amount of skill though, the SAM crews had trained hard to narrow their interception time down to a bare minimum using several different types of systems, and then they trained to get the fuck out of dodge so prowling F-15s wouldn't spam them with anti-radiation missiles from outside their interception range. Yeah, they got lucky, but they had narrowed it down to [i]just[/i] being lucky. [QUOTE=Impact1986;46082152]The F117 was shot down because Serbia used low frequency radars to detect the craft, it has nothing to do with the plane having a radar or not.[/QUOTE]Actually it does, because those old Soviet radar sets could fly a SAM right up your ass by turning the targeting radar into a directional receiver. Keep the target's radar in your invisible crosshairs, and as long as that radar is on and transmitting you're essentially guiding something toward a flying beacon. Nighthawks didn't have radar sets for this reason, but it's [i]likely[/i] that they had detection equipment (as in a receiver and not a transmitter) that would alert them of the presence of other radars. I suppose flying over Yugoslavia at night would have made that fucking pointless, because there would be a swarm of radar signals searching for your baseball-sized ass as you streaked across the night sky.
I think you guys are unfairly judging a craft that is still undergoing testing. I mean shit the F-35 can launch a missile to hit a plane BEHIND it.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;46084533]I think you guys are unfairly judging a craft that is still undergoing testing. I mean shit the F-35 can launch a missile to hit a plane BEHIND it.[/QUOTE] With good sensor coverage, that's the IRIS-T's doing, not the plane's.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;46084533]I think you guys are unfairly judging a craft that is still undergoing testing. I mean shit the F-35 can launch a missile to hit a plane BEHIND it.[/QUOTE] In theory, but that's not really a practical thing to do in any plane. If the enemy is so close that you can hit them with a missile that needs to expend enough energy to turn around you've probably already died.
[QUOTE=Clavus;46077629]Weird to realize that people are being born right now that will end up being bombed by this aircraft. Assuming we don't fix world peace in the next decade.[/QUOTE] I laughed when I read "World Peace" Only the Dutch can hold this hope
[QUOTE=Why485;46084827]In theory, but that's not really a practical thing to do in any plane. If the enemy is so close that you can hit them with a missile that needs to expend enough energy to turn around you've probably already died.[/QUOTE] You can also be well below or well above them. You basically never need to maneuver in order to engage with missiles. That is extremely useful. Also useful for deploying HARM missiles. Fly over a site, get spiked, and you only need to worry about dodging an inbound SAM because you've already dropped a HARM on the ground station despite facing an entirely different direction.
[QUOTE=GunFox;46085037]You can also be well below or well above them. You basically never need to maneuver in order to engage with missiles. That is extremely useful. Also useful for deploying HARM missiles. Fly over a site, get spiked, and you only need to worry about dodging an inbound SAM because you've already dropped a HARM on the ground station despite facing an entirely different direction.[/QUOTE] The thing with this is the sensors and avionics associated with them have little to do with the plane itself. It's actually likely, of all the pieces of the F-35 project that came toether to the F-35 itself, things like avionics/sensors were likely the most $$$ efficient. Systems like this were done likely long before they had hardware to fly in. I feel dirty being sourceless, but software and small components tend to exist as concepts/proof of concepts long before things like entire planes.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;46076376]Does the VTOL variant still suck balls?[/QUOTE] From the last couple articles I've read, the VTOL variant is supposed to be the best one, with all the other ones being gimped just so the VTOL version can exist.
I've noticed an interesting trend on the internet where public opinion on a subject flip-flops every few years. People like to be ahead of the curve which is why the "hipster" and "cool to hate" phenomena happen. It's happened with a whole bunch of subjects on the internet, and I see it happening with the F35 next. There's only so much misinformed speculation you can take before you gotta stop and go "alright guys enough is enough".
Nice. :)
[QUOTE=Mbbird;46085088]The thing with this is the sensors and avionics associated with them have little to do with the plane itself. It's actually likely, of all the pieces of the F-35 project that came toether to the F-35 itself, things like avionics/sensors were likely the most $$$ efficient. Systems like this were done likely long before they had hardware to fly in. I feel dirty being sourceless, but software and small components tend to exist as concepts/proof of concepts long before things like entire planes.[/QUOTE] Yes and then the entire plane is designed to allow it to fly in to relatively dense enemy air defense fields and annihilate them due to the difficulty surrounding getting a fix on the plane's specific location. Also the whole looking in every direction at once and monitoring basically everything surrounding the aircraft at all times isn't exactly a simple piece of tech. Even assuming you could separate the tech from the aircraft, you'd need to make some pretty extensive retrofits of existing aircraft in order to make such avionics work. Everything working together WITH the airframe is what is going to make this particular selection of equipment work.
The shit in fighter jets blows my mind [t]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--eZnylx7q--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/giwzveyuab9cvjejbwrc.png[/t] [editline]26th September 2014[/editline] I know laser gyroscopes have been around for a while, but I hadn't known they existed until recently.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;46084442] Actually it does, because those old Soviet radar sets could fly a SAM right up your ass by turning the targeting radar into a directional receiver. Keep the target's radar in your invisible crosshairs, and as long as that radar is on and transmitting you're essentially guiding something toward a flying beacon. Nighthawks didn't have radar sets for this reason, but it's [i]likely[/i] that they had detection equipment (as in a receiver and not a transmitter) that would alert them of the presence of other radars. I suppose flying over Yugoslavia at night would have made that fucking pointless, because there would be a swarm of radar signals searching for your baseball-sized ass as you streaked across the night sky.[/QUOTE] I was responding to that one case, and if you read my post earlier you would see that I told him that it doesn't have a radar. It still doesn't matter if there is a radar built in or not, see F35 and F22. They got radars. But it would be pointless trying to invent anti air radar homing missiles simply because planes use fire-and-forget weapons, only turning on their radar for a short time. And then the missile loses its lock.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.