Re: Grim Reapers to return
Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:36 pm
Oops 
Ment Air Force. Sorry i'm still in the 1940's LOL
Ment Air Force. Sorry i'm still in the 1940's LOL
Re: Grim Reapers to return
Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:01 pm
I am not qualified by anything other than having talked to veterans and read a lot of books - so there is my disclaimer.
No gun seems to be dumb idea. I can understand the weight issue and that certainly seems to be a good point - as long as you are fighting a 3rd world guerilla army. What if you are fighting a superpower? All of a sudden you are going to need a good strong CAP on top because your strike team can't shoot back should they need to. It seems to me that even in Afghanistan the gun in the revered "CAT" came in really handy even when it was not part of the planned mission.
Two engines? I might point out that ALL of the Navy's fighters were single engined in WWII. <runs and ducks for cover>
Tom P.
No gun seems to be dumb idea. I can understand the weight issue and that certainly seems to be a good point - as long as you are fighting a 3rd world guerilla army. What if you are fighting a superpower? All of a sudden you are going to need a good strong CAP on top because your strike team can't shoot back should they need to. It seems to me that even in Afghanistan the gun in the revered "CAT" came in really handy even when it was not part of the planned mission.
Two engines? I might point out that ALL of the Navy's fighters were single engined in WWII. <runs and ducks for cover>
Tom P.
Re: Grim Reapers to return
Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:44 pm
I have to laugh reading these posts because it just proves why DOD procurement is so broken. Even the "experts" and "enthusiasts" have fallen for "DoEverythingItis".
The F-35 is not primarily an Air Superiority Fighter. Thus, supercruise is superfluous, expensive, and wasteful. Supercruise is not some magic fuel economy creator. The F-22, without external fuel tanks (18,000 pounds of fuel) has a 410nm combat radius with 100nm in supercruise. The F-15 meanwhile on roughly the same fuel load has a combat radius 1,061nm.
Also, where did you get the information about the gun pod taking away a (stealth killing) externally mounted tank? Have you actually looked at the L/M website or any of the articles on the F-35? No? Okay. Come back when you have.
1) The F-35 is NOT an F-14 replacement. It's also not an A-6 replacement. It's sole purpose was to replace the Legacy Hornet which replace the A-7. The Super Hornet replace the F-14 and the A-6.
2) The internal bays can carry up to 12 GBU-39/40 SDBs or 4 JDAMs. Considering most F/A-18Cs launching off the deck today carry only a pair of JDAMs, I think you've got more than enough. If you need more, yeah, you can use the hardpoints externally. The aircraft is supposed to be stealthy, not pure stealth. Then again, you do realize that the F-22's carry a pair of drop tanks on almost every mission right?
Wrong. The redesign is the hook itself which was modified at the demand of the US Navy despite Lockheed telling them it wouldn't work. Might want to do a little more research on that one.
Sounds like a typical Navy Jet to me. Nothing new there and no worse than the Super Bug certainly.
As for the weight of the airplanes - find me a single airplane built for the US Military in the last 60 years that came in under weight. You can't. Every single one of them got heavier. Why? Because of "DoEverythingItis". Once they started developing the thing, someone (whether the USAF, USN, USMC, or US Army) decided they wanted to add this or that capability to the aircraft but somehow forgot that adding more equipment meant more weight and then tried to throw it on the designers when the plane got heavier because the service added 3000 pounds of weight to the aircraft. The test aircraft and early production aircraft are always overweight. Once they get them going they find ways to start trimming off weight and then where they can, retrofit the early aircraft as they go through depot maintenance. Look at the 747-8F/-8i. It's having the same problem, and it's a CIVILIAN aircraft.
Wildchild wrote:And, the F-35 does not have super cruse, unlike the F-22. so the 35's will be fuel hogs. And having a gun pod removes a belly mounted tank!!!
The F-35 is not primarily an Air Superiority Fighter. Thus, supercruise is superfluous, expensive, and wasteful. Supercruise is not some magic fuel economy creator. The F-22, without external fuel tanks (18,000 pounds of fuel) has a 410nm combat radius with 100nm in supercruise. The F-15 meanwhile on roughly the same fuel load has a combat radius 1,061nm.
Also, where did you get the information about the gun pod taking away a (stealth killing) externally mounted tank? Have you actually looked at the L/M website or any of the articles on the F-35? No? Okay. Come back when you have.
67Cougar wrote:The C model is turing into an overweight mess. Being able to leave the gun pod off for what will be the vast majority of missions (especially training) will make it easier to get off and on the boat. However, uploading it kills the 'stealth'. As far as cutting the warload because of the extra 1000 pounds, the warload is tiny anyway - the internal bays can't hold much at all, and as soon as you start hanging pylons and other crap off of it, well, there goes that nasty 'stealth' thing again. Isn't that why this thing is so blasted expensive, because it is supposed to be a 'stealth' jet? It is, along as you don't want it to actually do very much. Its not a replacement for the F-18/F-14/A-6/A-7.
1) The F-35 is NOT an F-14 replacement. It's also not an A-6 replacement. It's sole purpose was to replace the Legacy Hornet which replace the A-7. The Super Hornet replace the F-14 and the A-6.
2) The internal bays can carry up to 12 GBU-39/40 SDBs or 4 JDAMs. Considering most F/A-18Cs launching off the deck today carry only a pair of JDAMs, I think you've got more than enough. If you need more, yeah, you can use the hardpoints externally. The aircraft is supposed to be stealthy, not pure stealth. Then again, you do realize that the F-22's carry a pair of drop tanks on almost every mission right?
Oh, and by the way, the whole back end is being redesigned because they can't get the hook to engage the wires.
Wrong. The redesign is the hook itself which was modified at the demand of the US Navy despite Lockheed telling them it wouldn't work. Might want to do a little more research on that one.
Oh, and by the way - this jet may be stealthy from a distance, but if it is in visual range, it sticks out like a sore thumb. You can always see (and hear) it long before you can the ever present F-16 chase. And LOUD!!!!
Sounds like a typical Navy Jet to me. Nothing new there and no worse than the Super Bug certainly.
As for the weight of the airplanes - find me a single airplane built for the US Military in the last 60 years that came in under weight. You can't. Every single one of them got heavier. Why? Because of "DoEverythingItis". Once they started developing the thing, someone (whether the USAF, USN, USMC, or US Army) decided they wanted to add this or that capability to the aircraft but somehow forgot that adding more equipment meant more weight and then tried to throw it on the designers when the plane got heavier because the service added 3000 pounds of weight to the aircraft. The test aircraft and early production aircraft are always overweight. Once they get them going they find ways to start trimming off weight and then where they can, retrofit the early aircraft as they go through depot maintenance. Look at the 747-8F/-8i. It's having the same problem, and it's a CIVILIAN aircraft.
Re: Grim Reapers to return
Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:46 am
CAPflyer - are you in the F-35 program?
My info comes from folks who are.
My info comes from folks who are.
Re: Grim Reapers to return
Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:21 pm
My information is from the published reports from the Navy. The hook issue was because the Navy wanted to redesign the spoon to make it "lower impact" and that ended up backfiring on them because it started skipping more, thus the need for the rework. The only people who said it was the plane was the media. The airplane is overweight - again, what airplane built in the last 60 years hasn't been? Again, you're taking information and putting your own spin on it. I'm comparing the data to the specs in the original design. Anything added on since is the responsibility of the customer.
As for stealth - I would suggest that you read the RFP. It's available out there, but "Stealth" was not a requirement. "Low Observable Characteristics" was. All that means is that in certain configurations the airplane needs to be stealthy. As it is, the JSF, even with the pylons hung on it, is significantly stealthier than the Super Bug, so the plane is still an improvement. No one was looking for an F-117 replacement and if they were, then they were not paying attention to the requirements of the design.
Again, you're putting "DoEverythingItis" onto the airplane. You want it to carry a lot of ordinance, go a long way, be small in size so you can put a bunch of them on the deck, *AND* be stealthier than the F-117 all the time. Can't do it. There's a little thing called reality that gets in your way.
Oh, BTW, I've read some of the articles that were being published about another Lockheed Martin product about the time it was coming out that read a lot like your post. It was the (then) General Dynamics F-16. Funny how it's now the most prolific aircraft in the world and still being improved and built right now next door to the F-35.
As for stealth - I would suggest that you read the RFP. It's available out there, but "Stealth" was not a requirement. "Low Observable Characteristics" was. All that means is that in certain configurations the airplane needs to be stealthy. As it is, the JSF, even with the pylons hung on it, is significantly stealthier than the Super Bug, so the plane is still an improvement. No one was looking for an F-117 replacement and if they were, then they were not paying attention to the requirements of the design.
Again, you're putting "DoEverythingItis" onto the airplane. You want it to carry a lot of ordinance, go a long way, be small in size so you can put a bunch of them on the deck, *AND* be stealthier than the F-117 all the time. Can't do it. There's a little thing called reality that gets in your way.
Oh, BTW, I've read some of the articles that were being published about another Lockheed Martin product about the time it was coming out that read a lot like your post. It was the (then) General Dynamics F-16. Funny how it's now the most prolific aircraft in the world and still being improved and built right now next door to the F-35.
Re: Grim Reapers to return
Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:37 pm
Well, it appears that the F-35B/C models may have superceeded the Harrier as the most efficient machine man has invented to convert jet fuel into noise.
Walt
Walt
Re: Grim Reapers to return
Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:47 pm
Check out the first F-35C painted for VFA-101. This aircraft is scheduled for delivery later this year:
Navy’s F-35C gets VFA-101 high-visibility markings
Anthony
Navy’s F-35C gets VFA-101 high-visibility markings
Anthony
Re: Grim Reapers to return
Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:25 am
RareBear wrote:Well, it appears that the F-35B/C models may have superceeded the Harrier as the most efficient machine man has invented to convert jet fuel into noise.
Walt
Nah, Harrier still holds that distinction. Even in full AB, the F-35 is significantly quieter than the Hornet or Super Bug.
Re: Grim Reapers to return
Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:25 pm
67Cougar wrote: is decidely un-stealthy when it actually carries enough weapons to be useful.
They don't need to be stealthy all the time. Stealth is most important in first strikes. Once high value threats are taken out they will carry stores externally. The B-2, F-22 and F-35 will be used to "kick in the door" bring down the threat level for follow on strikes by oldier aircraft and for themselves with a larger weapon load.
Mike
Re: Grim Reapers to return
Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:58 pm
Can we have this thread moved to the "Military Matters" section of WIX? Not trying to be rude, but it really doesn't belong here.
Re: Grim Reapers to return
Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:43 am
Most logical post in this thread, Noah!
TXCOMT
TXCOMT
Re: Grim Reapers to return
Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:55 am
Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 101 received the Navy's first F-35C Lightning II carrier variant aircraft from Lockheed Martin yesterday at the squadron's home at Eglin Air Force Base:
Navy Receives First F-35C Lightning II
Anthony
Navy Receives First F-35C Lightning II
Anthony
Re: Grim Reapers to return
Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:03 pm
Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 101 has been granted Interim Safe For Flight status and completed its first flight in the F-35C Lightning II earlier today:
Strike Fighter Squadron 101 Granted Interim 'Safe for Flight' Completes First Flight in Navy F-35C Lightning II
Anthony
Strike Fighter Squadron 101 Granted Interim 'Safe for Flight' Completes First Flight in Navy F-35C Lightning II
Anthony
Re: Grim Reapers to return
Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:56 pm
The federal government may be shut-down, but that didn't stop the Navy's first F-35C Lightning II squadron from hosting a rollout ceremony for their new aircraft earlier today! The ceremony commemorated the long history of the "Grim Reapers" and the establishment of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 101 as the Navy's first F-35C Fleet Replacement Squadron:
‘Stealth from the sea’ rolled out
Anthony
‘Stealth from the sea’ rolled out
Anthony