Search
Notices
Military Military Aviation

F18

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-26-2013, 03:39 PM
  #11  
Custom User Title
 
AZFlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,270
Default

Originally Posted by crewdawg View Post
We'll never be able to roll out jets like we used to
I guess this is just something I'll have to begrudgingly accept. It's purely a wild guess but somehow I wouldn't be surprised if China and Russia don't have as much of an issue with acquisition as we have.
...but the 35 program has gotten ridiculous.
Agreed 100%. I'd like us to cut our losses, apply the lessons learned both technologically and logistically from the F-35 program to improving the solid platforms that we have easy access to today.

Re: JamesNoBrakes,

I do agree with your points that those aircraft you listed all had their teething problems to varying degrees, but a big difference between all of those and the F-35 is that none of those were intended to replace so many aircraft roles, airframes, and airframe types as they dreamed of with the F-35. I believe that the scale of the problems being faced with the F-35 is far greater than the older jets that had their issues, and thus puts it in its own league of failure.

Those other jets went to on to eventually be pretty successful. I'm not hopeful of the same with the F-35.
AZFlyer is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 05:09 PM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
chrisreedrules's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: CRJ FO
Posts: 4,599
Default

The NAVY can't be that smart... The enemies we would need the 35's capabilities to fight against have access denial weapons that outrange our aircraft's ability to fly from the carrier and strike targets ashore. And our enemies that don't have those capabilities wouldn't require an F-35 to drop a bomb on their heads. Not to mention it doesn't even have a gun. Everyone I've talked to who has worked on or around the 35 has just about the same thing to say: its a POS. The USMC's "B" has incredibly short legs. The USAF's "A" has underperformed in almost every category (even though it is the only version of the 3 that is remotely on schedule). The NAVY's "C" has had constant development problems. I know none of the projects will go the way of the buffalo anytime soon, but damn... I can't see much good in the whole program. Should of just built more F-22s for the USAF and built more Super Hornets for the NAVY.
chrisreedrules is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 05:50 PM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 595
Default

RAH-66.


I feel for y'all.
Hobbit64 is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 07:23 PM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Fluglehrer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: Pipers & RV-12
Posts: 236
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
In hind-sight maybe the AF should have given the contract to Cessna, with Mathias Rust as a consultant.
I didn't realize how Mathias Rust single-handedly brought about the demise of the Soviet Union -- until I read Wikipedia:

"Rust's flight through a supposedly impregnable air-defense system had great effect on the Soviet military and led to the dismissal of many senior officers, including Defence Minister Marshal of the Soviet Union Sergei Sokolov and the head of the Soviet Air Defense, former World War II fighter ace pilot Chief Marshal Alexander Koldunov. The incident aided Mikhail Gorbachev in the implementation of his reforms (by removing numerous military officials opposed to him), and reduced the prestige of the Soviet military among the populace, thus helping bring an end to the Cold War.[1]"

There is no weapon too short for a brave man (which Rust proved a few years later when he stabbed a co-worker who spurned him).
Fluglehrer is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 07:30 PM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Default

Originally Posted by AZFlyer View Post

I do agree with your points that those aircraft you listed all had their teething problems to varying degrees, but a big difference between all of those and the F-35 is that none of those were intended to replace so many aircraft roles, airframes, and airframe types as they dreamed of with the F-35. I believe that the scale of the problems being faced with the F-35 is far greater than the older jets that had their issues, and thus puts it in its own league of failure.
Well, my point is just that history repeats itself. The F111 and F14 were originally intended to be the same aircraft, as a "multirole" fighter/attack aircraft that would be purchased by the Navy and AF. It ended badly.
JamesNoBrakes is offline  
Old 03-26-2013, 09:28 PM
  #16  
Get me outta here...
 
HuggyU2's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Boeing right seat
Posts: 1,541
Default

It's really eye opening to talk to a knowledgeable F-35 pilot like the one I met recently. I won't write a lengthy post about it, but the capes are really out of this world. If and when it all begins to work, it has the potential to be a game changer.

It simply boils down to cost: can we afford it? Or should I say... do we need to afford it?

Every time I've ready something in the press directly related to my area of expertise, I'm ****ed off at how inaccurate the article is, and how the author spun it to something it is not.
So when I read about something I do not know much about (like the F-35), I have to figure that Joe-sh!t-the-reporter has completely dorked up the facts. I'm guessing he wouldn't know a data link from a sausage link.
Take it with a grain of salt.
HuggyU2 is offline  
Old 03-27-2013, 02:02 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: C47 PIC/747-400 SIC
Posts: 2,100
Default

Originally Posted by HuggyU2 View Post
It's really eye opening to talk to a knowledgeable F-35 pilot like the one I met recently. I won't write a lengthy post about it, but the capes are really out of this world. If and when it all begins to work, it has the potential to be a game changer.

It simply boils down to cost: can we afford it? Or should I say... do we need to afford it?

Every time I've ready something in the press directly related to my area of expertise, I'm ****ed off at how inaccurate the article is, and how the author spun it to something it is not.
So when I read about something I do not know much about (like the F-35), I have to figure that Joe-sh!t-the-reporter has completely dorked up the facts. I'm guessing he wouldn't know a data link from a sausage link.
Take it with a grain of salt.
I am very glad to hear that, especially since Marine air is so heavily committed.
727C47 is offline  
Old 03-27-2013, 07:55 AM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
BDGERJMN's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Walmart Greeter
Posts: 694
Default

Originally Posted by HuggyU2 View Post
It's really eye opening to talk to a knowledgeable F-35 pilot like the one I met recently. I won't write a lengthy post about it, but the capes are really out of this world. If and when it all begins to work, it has the potential to be a game changer.

It simply boils down to cost: can we afford it? Or should I say... do we need to afford it?

Every time I've ready something in the press directly related to my area of expertise, I'm ****ed off at how inaccurate the article is, and how the author spun it to something it is not.
So when I read about something I do not know much about (like the F-35), I have to figure that Joe-sh!t-the-reporter has completely dorked up the facts. I'm guessing he wouldn't know a data link from a sausage link.
Take it with a grain of salt.

Spot on, Shack!
BDGERJMN is offline  
Old 03-27-2013, 08:12 AM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,192
Default

Originally Posted by HuggyU2 View Post
It's really eye opening to talk to a knowledgeable F-35 pilot like the one I met recently. I won't write a lengthy post about it, but the capes are really out of this world. If and when it all begins to work, it has the potential to be a game changer.

It simply boils down to cost: can we afford it? Or should I say... do we need to afford it?

Every time I've ready something in the press directly related to my area of expertise, I'm ****ed off at how inaccurate the article is, and how the author spun it to something it is not.
So when I read about something I do not know much about (like the F-35), I have to figure that Joe-sh!t-the-reporter has completely dorked up the facts. I'm guessing he wouldn't know a data link from a sausage link.
Take it with a grain of salt.
Talking with the guys at VPS, they say the same thing. When fully mature the thing will be freakin' klingon-cloaking-device-star-wars-laser-beam-death-from-above-super-100%-SA.

As a fighter, they have some not so nice things to say. "All the thrust of a Hornet with all the alpha of a Viper" is what I hear over and over again.

You're right, for the money what could we have done instead to current platforms?
Grumble is offline  
Old 03-27-2013, 08:39 AM
  #20  
Get me outta here...
 
HuggyU2's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Boeing right seat
Posts: 1,541
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
... freakin' klingon-cloaking-device-star-wars-laser-beam-death-from-above-super-100%-SA.
Don't forget the "sharks with laser beams"!
HuggyU2 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
skypine27
Cargo
78
08-09-2007 12:27 PM
DazednConfused
Military
29
10-10-2006 09:31 AM
captain_drew
Hangar Talk
33
06-09-2006 08:41 PM

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