Xlucine Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 9 hours ago, Collimatrix said: LOLWUT? I think he means "carry in the tests", he moans about the A-10's not having a full loadout too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 2 hours ago, Xlucine said: I think he means "carry in the tests", he moans about the A-10's not having a full loadout too It's funny because the F-35 is heavily handicapped, and yet it's not fair to the A-10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted July 13, 2018 Report Share Posted July 13, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krieger22 Posted July 15, 2018 Report Share Posted July 15, 2018 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-airshow-f35/exclusive-lockheed-f-35-jet-price-falls-6-percent-to-below-90-million-sources-idUSKBN1K50D3? The latest round of negotiations over the next USAF F-35 batch has seen a drop in price of 6 percent. Unit cost for the F-35A is now $89 million. Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted July 15, 2018 Report Share Posted July 15, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juretrn Posted July 15, 2018 Report Share Posted July 15, 2018 The F-35 is bad because "it doesn't have armour". The F-35 is bad because "it's too heavy". Which one is it then!??!?! FFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holoween Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 17 hours ago, juretrn said: The F-35 is bad because "it doesn't have armour". The F-35 is bad because "it's too heavy". Which one is it then!??!?! FFS these statements arent mutually exclusive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juretrn Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 2 hours ago, holoween said: these statements arent mutually exclusive Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägerlein Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 1 hour ago, juretrn said: Why not? Depends on the intended role. A jet can be to heavy to be a fighter and yet to flimsy for a ground attack role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krieger22 Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 Well, according to Southfront, the F-35I has already tanked an S-200 hit and came out of it looking little worse than if it had flown into a bird. It's plenty armored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scolopax Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 S-200 would be a pretty big missile to take a direct hit from though and stay airborne. I'm under the assumption that most F-35 claims coming out of that region are too be taken with a grain of salt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krieger22 Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 I was hoping the absurdity of the situation (the first assumption already requires the existence of competent Syrian air defense soldiers, or the dumbest IAF pilot ever cleared for duty) would give the joke away. Anyway, Raytheon is waiting on a concrete timetable of integration of the SDB II. Quote Integrating the StormBreaker — GBU-53/B small diameter bomb II — is still included in the C2D2 integration, but the “dust hasn’t settled yet on exactly” when, Raytheon officials say. In the queue are several F-35 operators planning to integrate the StormBreaker before clearing the aircraft for operational service. Last year, for example, the State Department approved a potential StormBreaker sale to Australia. Meanwhile, the USN has resequenced the timing of StormBreaker integration, moving the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet ahead of the F-35C, Raytheon says. Who at marketing decided to CamelCase that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Krieger22 said: Well, according to Southfront, the F-35I has already tanked an S-200 hit and came out of it looking little worse than if it had flown into a bird. It's plenty armored. IIRC they just repost what Wael posted on his twitter account. There are no other sources and no other reports that i saw. And Wael is not reliable source of info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juretrn Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 3 hours ago, Jägerlein said: Depends on the intended role. A jet can be to heavy to be a fighter and yet to flimsy for a ground attack role. Because an F-35 is going to do ground support from below 1000 feet (not that the A-10 does much of that as well once you hang Hellfires and LGBs from it). What's next, judging an A-10 by its ability to go supersonic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägerlein Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 54 minutes ago, juretrn said: Because an F-35 is going to do ground support from below 1000 feet (not that the A-10 does much of that as well once you hang Hellfires and LGBs from it). What's next, judging an A-10 by its ability to go supersonic? I only showed that the two statements aren't mutually exclusive. No statement about the A-10 or F-35 included nor intended from my side. And yes, the ability for supersonic flight might be a plus on the F-35's side . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted July 18, 2018 Report Share Posted July 18, 2018 The A-10 doesn't really have that much armor. The pilot is indeed sitting in a big box: That is an inch to an inch of a half of titanium, which has similar thickness efficiency to RHA. There might be some armor protection for the engine nacelles too: Most of the rest of the vital systems are protected simply by being redundant; e.g. there are multiple hydraulic lines going to the same control, so it's harder to sever the line with a hit. The A-10 was supposed to have some survivability against other aircraft simply because it operated at low altitude. For a long time, air-to-air radars had difficulty tracking targets that were below the horizon, and ground-based radars had difficulty tracking targets near the horizon. Advances in signal processing have greatly reduced these blind spots, however, so the A-10 would have fared poorly against an enemy with actual air defenses and interceptors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krieger22 Posted July 19, 2018 Report Share Posted July 19, 2018 http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-airshow-2018/f-35-engine-upgrade-would-enable-directed-energy-weapons Pratt & Whitney's new Growth Option 2.0 package for the F135 has interesting potential benefits: Quote Additional power and thermal management capability will enable the use of directed energy weapons and other advanced offensive and defensive systems and, if approved, would feature in an upgrade package called Growth Option 2.0 (GO2). Pratt & Whitney, which would roll PTMS into a suite of compressor and turbine enhancements originally proposed in the first upgrade package, G01, says the complete upgrade could be available within four years of getting the official go-ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xlucine Posted July 19, 2018 Report Share Posted July 19, 2018 "Directed energy weapons" sure sounds a lot sexier than "uprated alternator" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted August 1, 2018 Report Share Posted August 1, 2018 Quote A sandstorm at the US Air Force airbase Luke in Arizona. Putin hacked sand and attacked F-35s, F-35s are not sandstorm proof, bring A-10 back! Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 The Israeli F-35 picture that had a super sekret something, the fact that one of the people in the photo was blurred is more interesting to me than whatever the munition was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krieger22 Posted August 13, 2018 Report Share Posted August 13, 2018 And now for some content that actually is the title. By which I mean, share my misery. Spoiler The Reddit post that resulted in this absurdity here. LostCosmonaut and Ramlaen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 6 hours ago, Krieger22 said: And now for some content that actually is the title. By which I mean, share my misery. Hide contents The Reddit post that resulted in this absurdity here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostCosmonaut Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 I haven't read all of it yet, but I like the part where he claims that the F-4, literally the internet meme plane for "bad dogfighter designed without a gun", was designed with an internal gun. Also, wasn't Pierre Sprey or one of those other dudes really into wing loading as the end all be all of aircraft performance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 It was Sprey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 10 hours ago, Krieger22 said: And now for some content that actually is the title. By which I mean, share my misery. Hide contents The Reddit post that resulted in this absurdity here. Whoever Mr. Gibbys is should point out that the F-35 is "fat" due to its internal weapons bays, not because it has a lift fan. F-35 deniers will continue their shrill shrieking well into the fighter's combat record, which will probably be exceptional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.