F35 Carrier testing

[CJ]

The F-4 Phantom was developed with the same mentality, long-range supersonic jet interceptor fighter/fighter-bomber originally developed for the United States Navy by McDonnell Aircraft. No internal machine guns were designed into the jet.


How wrong they were. With a top speed of over Mach 2.2, the thinking was that it was not needed. Later models incorporated a M61 Vulcan rotary cannon.

One of the main reasons that blew up in their faces was when the F4 went into it's first real combat in Vietnam with AIM missiles that had an 80% failure rate due to the humidity, which exacerbated that problem.

[BoostedGT]

As far as the engine goes, we have had it swallow chunks of concrete, a family of birds (three to be exact) and didn't even know it until a post flight borescope. That engine is a damn workhorse.

[likeitfast55]

One of the main reasons that blew up in their faces was when the F4 went into it's first real combat in Vietnam with AIM missiles that had an 80% failure rate due to the humidity, which exacerbated that problem.

Yea, had a good friend bail at high speed in the Gulf of Tonkin in an F-4 because of that. They had inside sparrow bay machine guns. but they jammed(very often happened) and the 2 aim's they had left malfunctioned. They got their ass shot up and didn't make it back to base. When the hydraulics went in the Phantom, you were fucked.

[Moose242]

The F15, introduced in 1972 has a combat record of 108 kills, zero losses. The F35, the most expensive project in the history of man is totally justified in the midst of America's economic downfall.

[Gargamel]

The F15, introduced in 1972 has a combat record of 108 kills, zero losses. The F35, the most expensive project in the history of man is totally justified in the midst of America's economic downfall.

Granted, the F-35 program has been managed poorly and is way over budget... heads should roll over it.... However, with the F-22 cut short at 187 airframes, we are pretty much stuck going full-throttle with the F-35.

The F-15 is a great bird, but the technology is out-dated and most F-15 airframes have tons of flight hours on them, so there's not a lot of life left in the aircraft themselves. (Same with most of the Vipers\F-16s).

They are no longer suited for the air-dominance role in the 21st century.

Google "Cope India F-15" when you have free time for example.
(Yes, the ROE sucked for the Eagles as well as the number of bandits, but the point is that to rely on the F-15 for the foreseeable future is a bad idea.)

F-15s are now considered "evenly matched" with probable foes instead of "dominant".

I don't know about you.... But considering the case that owning the air frequently spells out who owns the ground, I want "dominant"....

[Darren M]

The F35, the most expensive project in the history of man is totally justified in the midst of America's economic downfall.

Every time I read a statement like this I have to ask in what way? It sounds like this is compared to the US Dollar. If that is the case then it needs to be included in the statement. Otherwise, one should also point out that the statement excludes the untold thousands (if not more) that died in the making of the Great Wall of China, the Egyptian Pyramids, the many pyramids found in Central America, etc.
My point is, this endeavor isn't a new "thing". Humans have pushed technology since the beginning of time and well before later day history. In the past, cost was "human life" and effort because the, then, People in Power weren't judged by monetary, or human life, costs. Is the F35 expensive? Yes, but do you think Boeing would have been a cheaper route? I mean, seriously... this could have been the subject of the same discussion, and would likely have cost more. (I realize there is no way to quantify that last statement and accept it as just as fantastic as the original.)

[Darren M]

I don't know about you.... But considering the case that owning the air frequently spells out who owns the ground, I want "dominant"....

You make a great point. If one is REALLY intrepid, try to find out the last time any of our ground troops were killed by an enemy plane. Last time I checked, it's been a while, was Korea or Vietnam.

Air dominance is a safety blanket for our ground troops.

[2011GT]

Overpriced pos.

[propellerhead]

The F35, the most expensive project in the history of man is totally justified in the midst of America's economic downfall.

Blanket statements like this refer to the total cost to develop and field variants of the F-35, replacing a fleet of F-16s, F-18 and AV-8Bs. If you developed and fielded three different airplanes from different manufacturers, the USAF, USN and USMC will end up paying a whole lot more.

[Couver]

Blanket statements like this refer to the total cost to develop and field variants of the F-35, replacing a fleet of F-16s, F-18 and AV-8Bs. If you developed and fielded three different airplanes from different manufacturers, the USAF, USN and USMC will end up paying a whole lot more.

The only one that has a dire need to be replaced is the Harrier (and even it could have another good run with updated technology) When the price for one or two 35's is close to the cost of an entire squadron of new 16's or 18's makes my WTF radar go off.

If we needed the advanced technology so bad then why did we stop buying F-22's? All the research and development is paid for now. We have the technology, why did we not buy more of them if we are going to buy overpriced airplanes?

They still can't figure out how to make the 35 trap on a carrier, how much more cost will that add? Great plane but let the different services figure our their own requirements.

[propellerhead]

The main focus of the cost savings with the F-35 is that the USAF, USN, USMC and our allies will have common shared assets purchased in bulk from a common supply chain. When we deploy our F-35s to England, or USAF jets to a US Navy base, or USMC jets to a USAF base, we won't have to haul a shit ton of support equipment, spare parts and maintenance teams with it. The deployed jets can the support equipment of the host base. We can't do that with the F-22s.

The F-22 and F-35 are two different animals with very different roles. The Raptor has a specialized role while the F-35 is multi-role. The F-35 isn't all about advanced, cutting edge, latest and greatest technology. That's a common misconception. It's more about using and implementing existing technology. Take what we know is good about different weapon systems (F-16, F-18, F-14, etc.) and put them in a single airplane. This is way cheaper than upgrading all the existing weapon systems in use to bring them up to what the F-35 will provide. People like to focus on a very narrow band of weapon system capabilities, the cool warfighting technology stuff that Hollywood likes to show, and ignore everything else that happens behind the scenes.

Think of it like a smart phone when you go on a vacation. Take a good calculator, a good phone, a good media player, a good handheld game, a good organizer, a good camera, a small TV and merge them into one device. You have one case for it, one memory card to store all your music, contacts, and data. You bring along one charger and you're good to go. Compare that to having all separate devices made by different manufacturers. It's not all new cutting edge stuff in your smart phone but you (the US Gov't) don't have to have a separate case, a unique charger and a memory card for each and every device.

I could go on and on about how the common core logistics and maintenance are going to be far better than existing individualized airplane systems but that gets boring.

[likeitfast55]

You guys do know that the fighters we have are vastly different than what we sell to other countries right. While they may look like an F16, our jets have different (superior) components. Some parts might interchange, but I would venture to say that a lot would not.

Some of you ex-crew chiefs might add to this.

[95DRGT]

brown pants special- unintentional from what I understand. The vertical thruster fires due to software malfunction

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150113735642761

[Craizie]

Was that real? No way he was able to pull out of that.

[Downs]

Very fake. It's off a video game. Battlefield I'm pretty sure, look in the bottom right corner of the screen. I'm still trying to figure out how people think it's real because it keeps getting reposted all over the place