Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
Article:  F-35 can't use warm fuel >

Article: F-35 can't use warm fuel

Search
Notices
Military Military Aviation

Article: F-35 can't use warm fuel

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-10-2014, 04:51 AM
  #11  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
Why? The only bigger waste of paper and ink (next to anything congress produces) is writing to them. The aristocracy in DC could give a flip less about Joe Taxpayer.
I don't waste a stamp or kill a tree, either. Email; very easy....google "write your congressman/Senator." Gov-site; enter your zipcode, boom.

I agree that most of the time, it is as symbolic and pointless as the guy staring down the tank at Tianemen Square.

But there are successes. Due mostly, if not solely, to a grass-roots effort, Congress has forced the Air Force to keep the A-10 at least one more year.

They've also seen how far the Air Force will stoop to try and save this monstrosity. They've been exposed as disingenuous if not outright liars. I'm sure the Navy and Marines are right in step.

This thing should have met the same fate as the A-12.

Congress (and ALPA) only listen when a sizable audience complains and a threshold is met. Write; you might be the proverbial straw.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 12-10-2014, 10:36 AM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,670
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
Cut the losses, pinch this turd, and scrap them all.
I can't remember but I thought it was you that make the joke in a similar thread a while ago. Something along the lines of;

Just by the latest Russian made jets and equip them with the U.S. electronics, sensors, PFM, wizards and spells and call it done.
John Carr is offline  
Old 12-10-2014, 01:45 PM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,192
Default

Originally Posted by John Carr View Post
I can't remember but I thought it was you that make the joke in a similar thread a while ago. Something along the lines of;

Just by the latest Russian made jets and equip them with the U.S. electronics, sensors, PFM, wizards and spells and call it done.
Wasn't me, but a Flanker stuffed with all the toys in the JSF would make a formidable fighter.

The JSF is a lot of amazing technology wrapped in a mediocre airframe that they're trying to do way too much with. If the Hornet should've taught us anything, it's that the more multi-role you try and get, the more everything suffers.
Grumble is offline  
Old 12-10-2014, 01:47 PM
  #14  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

Watched the Flanker do a demo at Boscombe-Down (UK) back in '94.

I was VERY impressed.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 12-10-2014, 01:50 PM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
Watched the Flanker do a demo at Boscombe-Down (UK) back in '94.

I was VERY impressed.
You might not be if you really got a chance to study it.
sailingfun is offline  
Old 12-10-2014, 02:54 PM
  #16  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

I have.

It is a near-equal in maneuverability to the F-22; F-22 might have a slight edge. Weapons: AA-10 and AA-11 are impressive in range and off-boresite capability.

Cockpit ergonomics are nowhere near US standards, especially in ease of radar use, although I think their helmet-mounted sight is superior (been fielded longer and seems to work).

Maintenance? I think airframe would be strong, avionics average. Russian engines do not last as long as Western engines, but seem to be pretty stout. Watching the Flanker fly backwards in afterburner and not compressor stall is a loud testament to aerodynamic design, not only of the intake, but the front of the engine.

It's not stealthy. On the other hand, it is only about one-fourth the cost of an F-22.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 12-12-2014, 10:02 PM
  #17  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
I have.

It is a near-equal in maneuverability to the F-22; F-22 might have a slight edge. Weapons: AA-10 and AA-11 are impressive in range and off-boresite capability.

Cockpit ergonomics are nowhere near US standards, especially in ease of radar use, although I think their helmet-mounted sight is superior (been fielded longer and seems to work).

Maintenance? I think airframe would be strong, avionics average. Russian engines do not last as long as Western engines, but seem to be pretty stout. Watching the Flanker fly backwards in afterburner and not compressor stall is a loud testament to aerodynamic design, not only of the intake, but the front of the engine.

It's not stealthy. On the other hand, it is only about one-fourth the cost of an F-22.
The cost of an F-35 is now above the cost of the F-22 from what I've read.
80ktsClamp is offline  
Old 12-13-2014, 06:07 AM
  #18  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Default

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp View Post
The cost of an F-35 is now above the cost of the F-22 from what I've read.
No. Maybe if you divide R&D costs by the number in limited service today you could get a figure that big, but once they make thousands of the things the R&D will be amortized across a much larger number, and per-unit production costs will come down.

Still not cheap, or good taxpayer value IMO. I'm just about a proponent of scrapping it, buying some souped up 4.5 gen fighters and focusing R&D on a 5.5 or 6 gen system. The only thing that gives me pause on that is that so many of our allies are committed to the thing, and unfortunately it's probably worth pizzing a lot of money into the wind in order to maintain good relations with them.

Brilliant marketing scheme on the part of lockmart and their political hired guns...not only too big to fail, but too diverse to fail. The USAF of course gets credit for complete lack of discipline and oversight in a spiral development program (spiral development = spiral costs). Of course a lot of the spiral occurred post-9/11 when the sky was the limit on defense spending.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 12-13-2014, 09:02 PM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Fluglehrer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: Pipers & RV-12
Posts: 236
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
but once they make thousands of the things
Sounds like the start of a dystopian novel. I think the incredible avionics in a not-so-stellar airframe is something like what the mods did to their scooters. I hope we don't have to reach any deeper into our kid's piggy bank to pay for this, or we may need all those mirrors to look back on better days.

How to Become an Obnoxious Mod in Five Easy Steps | Mole Empire

Fluglehrer is offline  
Old 12-14-2014, 04:58 AM
  #20  
Callsign Duchess
 
DangaZone's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 92
Default

Taxpayers should be absolutely furious about this, and Lockheed should be fully held to account for their FAILURES in both the F-22 and F-35 programs.

Cost overruns, O2 doesn't work, plane doesn't operate well in weather, plane can't use hot fuel, payload sucks, etc etc...
DangaZone is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JonnyKnoxville
Major
5
09-03-2014 01:47 PM
Aero1900
Major
0
06-30-2014 09:27 PM
Golden Bear
Military
86
04-18-2013 09:06 PM
ToiletDuck
Major
32
12-21-2006 02:23 PM
prezbear
Cargo
31
11-05-2006 08:12 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices