|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I like the Temptations (Motown in general.) one of their hits was a song titled "Ball of Confusion" though the title fits the next, a line from that song "And the band played on... seems to fit the story below better.
http://www.janes.com/article/63907/u...ing-line-issue It won't be too long depending on the severity of this issue (Which is more then a minor one.) before NAVAIR will make it's decision to ground the F-35B/C aircraft to conduct inspections of those lines. This plane is getting noticed again the AERO L-39NG. The current model is making headway in Africa and parts of Asia in sales and general interest where funding is limited. The plane gives these countries a less expensive option which covers the need for a Trainer/Interceptor/Ground Attack aircraft. Keeping my eye on this one. http://www.janes.com/article/63912/a...of-development Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
This would be comical if the bloody thing was not so expensive, etc... |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
I was not able to discern from the reading if the issue is design or maintenance, where the maintenance contractor did not use parts to specification. ===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Update on the F-35 ejection seat issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s7-3EUXC_w |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
I would prefer to know who published the video, although Martin Baker the mfgr of the ejection seat is listed as a source. I don't know of any 135 pound pilots. Anyone know the Air Force or Navy physical requirements? As for missile kills in SE Asia, the document sources describes missile kills while not addressing gun kills or the low ratio of 2:1 US vs Vietnamese engagements that inarguably was attributed to lack of dog fighting training. Two quotes: The F-4 was brought into the Air Force inventory for the air superiority role without a gun, but by the onset of the Vietnam War the fighter employed the M-61 Gatling gun carried externally in the SUU-16 pod. And: During the 1972 campaign, fifty-percent of the kills were made with guns. However, it was standard procedure to fire missiles as a deterrent, this tended to bias the statistical base on the relative effectiveness of missiles for this time period.Sparrow (AIM-7) long-range air-to-air missile Source: http://www.afarmamentmuseum.com/vietnamwar.html I'd venture to say Lockheed Martin public relations contracted this Dragon029 to produce these so-called myth busters. ===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
The only real difference would be USN pilots will of course have to meet carrier deck quals, it's not enough to just land on an airfield (Naval Air Station)which they will do of course when the squadron isn't deployed. Physical standards should be about the same, below are the current USAF one's...
1. What are the vision requirements if I hope to be an Air Force Pilot? Pilots must have normal color vision, near visual acuity of 20/30 without correction, distance visual acuity of no worse than 20/70 in each eye correctable to 20/20 and meet other refraction, accommodation and astigmatism requirements. Corrective eye surgery may also disqualify applicants for pilot or other specific roles. In addition to vision requirements, becoming an Air Force Pilot requires you to meet strict physical, medical and academic requirements. A final determination on your eligibility will be determined by working with a recruiter through the full application process. 2. What are the general qualifications to fly? Becoming an Air Force Pilot requires you to meet strict physical, medical, vision and academic requirements. Applicants must achieve qualifying scores on the AFOQT exam, meet all requirements and pass a selection board prior to age 28. A final determination on your eligibility will be reached by working with a recruiter through the full application process. Generally speaking, pilot candidates must: Have a standing height of 64–77 inches and sitting height of 34–40 inches. Meet Air Force weight and physical conditioning requirements. Have no history of hay fever, asthma or allergies after age 12. Have normal color vision with near visual acuity of 20/30 without correction and distance visual acuity of no worse than 20/70 in each eye, correctable to 20/20. Meet refraction, accommodation and astigmatism requirements—corrective eye surgery could be a disqualifier Have or be within 365 days of receiving a baccalaureate degree (BA or BS) in any major with a GPA of at least 2.5. Note that if you have prior flight time, this is a plus in being considered for a Pilot/Combat Systems Officer (CSO) assignment. 3. What are the height and weight requirements to join the Air Force? Air Force careers are often physically demanding. We maintain strict height and weight requirements throughout your career. If you have attained full-grown height and are too short or too tall to meet our requirements, there is no possible recourse. You can, however, manage your weight to meet our requirements. Learn more about Air Force height and weight requirements. Applicants should check with their local Air Force Recruiter for the requirements and must meet these requirements in order to apply for the Air Force. Note that applicants must be a minimum of five pounds under their max weight. If the maximum weight for your height is 190 pounds, you must be 185 pounds or less. If an applicant is within five pounds of the maximum weight or over their maximum weight and has a muscular build, they may be authorized to apply. For advice regarding your specific situation, talk to your local recruiter. Well as recently measured for my body armor, I meet the height and sitting height (Does not include your butt.) standards @ 75" and 36" (I'm torso long)I can qualify. The rest is another story!?! By example I fall between medium to large boned/75"/or 190.5cm/250lbs/or 17.85 stone. By current military standards for my height I should not weigh more than 215lbs/or 15.35 stone. Though I've lost around 30lbs and am keeping it off over the last 16 months, I'll just say I haven't weighed that much (215) since I played "European" Football in college. I in my career saw about three different standards while in for Ht./Wt. The above example came about ~3yrs after I retired in 2002. It is still used today with some minor variation. The only exception to all this, is in the USMC (And I've seen this a few times.) where a Marine will fully meet all physical requirements but, due to their uniform appearance fail to meet the standards. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I forgot to add all the information I posted in the last came from FAQ's from this website. Didn't want anyone to think "I pulled it out of the thin air" or for that matter anywhere else, have to get ready for work and "Matthew" and it looks like from the latest models he's going to be a real SOB!!
https://www.airforce.com/careers/det...FcscgQod1vsJuQ Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Oh don't get me wrong I know those vids are paid propaganda, but they still provide useful (if slanted) information.
As to 135# or less pilots, the more females that get into aviation the more this will come up. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
This was a very useful website for the news side of things but more importantly because it covers the full range of MiG aircraft from the beginning (1940 MiG-1) in a very detailed manner. As I've recovered this from a much earlier post for my Jets/Planes system folder, I thought why not re-post it here as well. I think some of you would find it interesting. I think you'll figure out who's behind the website but, again no "hoopla" just "the straight dope" is presented.
http://toad-design.com/migalley/index.php/history/ Enjoy! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
1 Attachment(s)
That link throws up a great big nasty red warning screen for me
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1479096706 |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
It came up clean twice on mine before this posting though, last night when I found this one I had two other "safe" sites from Russian sources at the time of posting that, last night my current system blocked them as Malicious Software.
All I can say is go with your "gut", I used to use "Defender" and "Security Essentials (SE)" from MS however I got away from them as I had virus intrusions with both one which led to a system crash (My old XP PC with Defender.). I learned my lesson at first, both were backed by top rated compatible freeware software as well. Then I'd put the MS products to the background and upgraded to the AVASTI security suite but their independent lab test results started to drop off. I've been using Bitdefender Total Security now for about 4yrs. The 2017 suite is the only one currently offering "Ransomware Protection." Another reason for the switch was the .mil site servers would block access from hotmail accounts because of the weak security protocols MS had in place for several years. The current MS Security Essentials Anti Virus is the best they've ever had to date. That being said and everyone knows how I "look into things" I'm very happy where I'm at. The independent test lab results are very good in my case. I've said several times out here I'm not the software/programmer type, but security is after all security whether it's physical or otherwise-enough said. Do your research, I do recommend paying for a anti-virus protection suite based on independent lab testing which places like PC World, PC Mag and CNET etc. etc. refer to in their recommendations. NEVER put "All your eggs in one basket.", Find yourself a strong compatible anti-virus freeware to back up your system currently AVIRA, AVG, AVASTI (Getting back in the game again with top ranked tested products.) and a couple of others offer a lot of features. Again make sure this software is compatible to your OS and your current protection program, if not, in order of degrees your computer will run slow, you can get conflicting reports, Blue screen (Happened to me once way back.) and finally the software can conflict with each other to the point your system is less protected or in rare cases NOT AT ALL PROTECTED. Know how your security software works, the risk will always be there sometimes the box will come up because it's a software certificate issue to malicious software detected or in my case an attack has been blocked. I'll see around 3000 blocked events in a week for various reasons that my weekly/or real-time security report breaks down. Like the game, make yourself safe and follow your instincts this is not an area I choose to "blow off" with the amount of increased/increasing hacker activity we're seeing over the last few years now. Don (Everyone) sorry for this but this is a topic I take very seriously. I don't want to see anyone hurt financially or otherwise because they weren't properly protected. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well I use NOD32 and Malwarebytes on the Edge browser (Win 10) and I get the exact same screen DRG does.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Firefox, Kaspersky, Win 10, etc - I see the site no problem
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
FWIW...........It's OK for me today...
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Just a little news:
Finland: Will start to phase out it's F/A-18C/D's in 2025. Seeking new options that might or might get into the game. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-procu-431832/ India: Is the only country left to fly the Sepecat JAGUAR. It would appear they intend to keep it that for sometime to come with a major upgrade package being installed. These aircraft were designed primarily for the ground attack role a mission greatly enhanced by the upgrade which the first three have already reached IOC. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...an-ioc-431779/ Sweden: How do you arguably make the best 4th GEN+ fighter better and more appealing to current and potential new buyers? Simply you make a bold business decision and add future technologies now. And yes this fighter is that good. It is generally considered the most technically capable cost effective fighter in the world. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...oftwar-431790/ Switzerland: MOD requesting "emergency" funding to maintain it's F/A-18C/D and F-5 current fleet. Also seeks new fighter being operational by 2025. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-fight-431755/ 8+ hours to go, the rest of you have a great weekend! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Mark though I really appreciate the information on the book, I have to at the same time think in game terms out here, which is to say, does a particular site provide me with all the data PLUS a little more to get, improve upon or get deleted a particular piece of equipment entered into a game. Some know that I've "tracked" equipment literally for years out here and my past submissions are littered with them, also this goes for the research side of things I.E. from a simple question presented to the forum about the status of the French 105mm which took about three years to resolve with Don. It would also lead to changes in the French and a couple of other countries in some minor changes to other related artillery units, the "rabbit hole".
So please know this, I spend more time keeping track of my own sources than I do equipment, I constantly am looking for consistency in the data from my all sources as compared against each other and a couple I keep in my "hip pocket" if you will. Many times over the years Don has asked how I feel about that source or another (And I appreciate it.) and sometimes we go with it, hold off on it and rarely not pursue the issue knowing I'm watching (Or he's watching.) if any changes occur to warrant me resubmitting or you find it in the next or future released patch from you know who. Equipment just changes to quickly, I only own one book on equipment in my library on the matter and it's on WWII aircraft I've had since I can't remember-I guess it reminds that we must not forgot the past and learn from it, but, it hasn't changed. These websites are more fluid and current a book on equipment would be an anchor if you will to what I do here. And you have to admit I cover a lot of areas (Maybe too many.) and all the countries I can as they pop up and have even handled requests for research and submission of equipment from forum members (All are in and thank you again for those.). As you can see it gets complicated and I need to find a "middle ground" somewhere because this will be my 4th year I haven't submitted something of any length and I don't like it. I do love my books finishing one on the 1916 Easter Rising I got while in Dublin and my next will be one on the battle of Waterloo and Wellington, while in Dublin I saw the Wellington Monument (It is reopened to the public.) to him and the troops that fought it. While looking at that monument (And the tallest obelisk in Europe and tallest 3-sided one in the world.) I wondered why he would design it (The original one.) and put it into the Capital city of Ireland when he supposedly disliked his own Irish background and country. But it was Britain's Ireland then and maybe he was sending his own message too them? But that's what a book is to me the start of an adventure and hopefully not a chore. I owed you more than a thanks or a whatever (God I hate that term!). Besides books cost money and the one's I'd want from my military background would cost a fortune every year to buy and update but, that's John's department and the fund raising ain't worked out to this point!?! And can you imagine how annoying I'd be to Don!?! He's already pulled enough hair out of his head already because of me, I'll just let'em keep whats left. So to get why the threads here...So what does it take to develop your own stealth fighter program? The next should provide some insight. Consider this an update because you're right been tracking it almost from the start. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...rogram-010647/ The next shows where the F-35 stands and why those F-35A models were grounded this past September. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...program-07501/ A little more "cover" from my last post in this thread. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...ntracts-06392/ https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...hornets-05739/ Sorry to the rest of you but the man deserved a better response and one I'd give to anyone out here under the same circumstances on a matter of personal importance to me. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
The F-35 link above does not seem to be working?
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Your good. They updated the one from the 28th with one from the 29th. When they do that, and the article is locked out (Red Padlock.) it drops the previous one into the text so that only paid subscribers can access the full document. They're good but not JANE's good to where I'd pay for it. It's still a good source but for major programs it's getting harder and forces me to look elsewhere for "hot" issues when all I can access is the update where Israel is upping their buy to 50 F-35 fighters.
What I posted was the update concerning a sub contractor having manufacturing issues in the cooling parts related to a key electrical suite which caused the grounding of many F-35A fighters this past summer. Also another milestone has been reached and it looks like the USAF will probably get more F-35A fighters. So again "red padlock" you'll only be able to read the update. Eventually they will unlock the story and when that happens it's "pad of paper & pen time" and take notes on any new data I didn't already have. Here's a supplement for the F-35... http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...ntract-5681234 And while I'm at it I've been watching this one for many years as well, the real big deal here is the AESA radar. http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...grades-5677199 So because China been "misbehaving" the above country will get those F-16 fighters brought up to the F-16V platform which is the most advanced version of the F-16. China blew it here (Though N. Korea doesn't get off lightly either.) Because our Congress for years has blocked any significant improvements to these F-16's so as not to upset China. http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...-role-fighter/ http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/fe...the-F-16V.html http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-first-flight/ Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
With reference to STOVL F-35B. I think we can consider it fairly safe not to be cancelled now, given the new US Secretary of Defense is a Marine and the USMC really want that aircraft, alongside the RN Fleet Air Arm.
Wonder what Suhiir thinks of him? |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
I was with 2nd MarDiv during Gulf I, Mattis commanded 1st MarDiv, so all I know is when the reserve units were activated it was decided to transfer most of the active duty MP's to 1st MarDiv and 2nd MarDiv got the activated reserve MP's. A few of us in specialized roles were retained in 2nd MarDiv; the CID folks (the US Navy/USMC equivalent of a police detective) , myself as a counter-terrorist specialist with an extensive background in NBC, and a couple others I don't recall. As it turned out the reserve MP's had better training/background in convoy escort and POW handling then the active duty folks. Not too surprising as the active duty folks spend very little time training and concentrate almost entirely on law enforcement. I do believe this is the first time the Secretary of defense has ever been a former Marine tho. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Hopefully it will be a case of 'Semper Fi'. Saw him answering questions from assorted US Marines on a USMC YouTube channel (easy enough to find) and from that he came across as professional, straight talking, yet thoughtful, 'Gung ho' but with a good brain if you like. I rather liked him. Reminded me a bit of my Grandfather who was also a professional soldier (inter war on North West Frontier of India and then WWII) although my granddad only reached the giddy heights of CSM, although senior NCO's are the actual backbone of any military force.
Have to say I wish Great Britain could have a Minister of Defence like this man, someone who knew the military from the inside. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I know it may sound a bit strange but the whole time I was in I never met anyone Colonel or above, or a Sgt Major that I ever had any issues with, and very few light Colonels or 1st Sgts (like 1 or 2 each) that struck me as "unworthy". So being a former General and a division commander (vice a purely staff type) I'll assume he's competent until I see otherwise.
While the senor NCO's definitely keep things operating on a day-to-day basis it's the long-term planning and equipment acquisition senior officers do that fosters a military force effectiveness and reputation in the long run. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Mattis is described in this article as being a" Marine's Marine"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gen-jame...orable-quotes/ I like him. He sounds like me....... I may add a quote or two to the game :D Don |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKIJKQRb53o He definitely seems to know the Mid East and it's issues. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
To say I've not been a fan of the F-35 would at times, be an understatement. I've been watching and posting on the project from the start and I feel good or bad I've been fair in the posting the "news" concerning this project. That being said I'm not very happy about some of the conclusions the following have come to especially, as what it means potentially to the air crew flying them. The sources are legitimate and surprising as to where it comes from and by whom. They patch together the many various data points I've already posted and revealed some "tidbits" that to some degree I'm somewhat surprised by. I've taken from Ref. 1, the highlighted "memo" by Dr. Michael Gilmore, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) Ref. 2 and Senator John McCain's memo to the SECDEF Mr. Ashton Carter Ref. 3. All other highlighted words or phases are a click away for further reading. I would say given this recent information, the A-10 might just be sticking around a little longer beyond games end.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-jeopardy.html https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...gress-and.html http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/...D-5D157784085F I need to do a better job of following my resources I guess. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I'll be very curious to see what happens when Trump and (probably) Mattis get in place. Obviously it will (should) take a bit of time for them to find out what's going on and formulate a strategy. I'm hoping defense contractors actually start being held accountable rather then just getting more money tossed at them as has been happening more and more often in recent years.
Of course there's also the problem of the DOD having reasonable expectations when it comes to new weapons systems ... sometimes I start to wonder in growing up watching Star Trek/Wars has led to unreasonable expectations. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Looking at this from a British point of view (and UK has actually put a lot of money into F-35)
I see an aircraft that is vital to the new Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers, because those carriers, although second in size only to USN Carriers, do not have cats and traps. I see an aircraft that is not dedicated to the RN Fleet Air Arm, as it should be, but instead will be under at least partly RAF control (and the RAF see F-35B as a Tornado replacement for some reason). Cannot help thinking that my views back in the early 2000's (make both the new British Carriers cats and traps and buy Super Hornet but with the option to also buy Rafale, and, maybe, later down the track F-35C) would have been better than the position now. UK making 70,000 ton Carriers STOVL only ever really made (some) sense if their had been a smooth transfer from Harrier to F-35, as was the original plan back in the 90's. FAA Sea Harrier has been gone for years now and so have all Harriers from British service, due to an RAF (who had been given control of the British 'joint' Harrier force) choice to scrap them. So why build very large carriers and make them carry STOVL F-35B a aircraft that has less range, less internal weapons capacity (and you only keep the limited F-35 stealth capacity with internal weapons) and less agility than F-35C, will cost more per unit to buy and will inevitably require more maintenance (because it has an extra dirty great heavy 'lift' fan, that is entirely useless to the aircraft except in landing, or taking off vertically, which has no real use in actual ops). HMS Queen Elizabeth (named after Elizabeth I of defeat of the Spanish Armada fame) Does sea trails next year, but is unlikely to have a single fixed wing jet aboard before 2020 and will not have even a very modest 24 F-35B air group much before 2023 (the plan is, in a major conflict this would rise to at least 36 fixed wing aircraft). Assuming that is the RAF cooperates... The whole thing strikes me as a hugely expensive mess, that passed by while most attention was on fighting expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that we did not bloody win in any case. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I agree the F-35B is needed as a replacement for the Harrier, the F-35C is also very useful as an attack aircraft. The F-18E/F seems to be perfectly adequate as an air superiority aircraft. Tho the A-10 is getting a bit long in the tooth it's still a fine ground support platform. And the F-15E seems to fill the USAF needs for a "resistant to enemy air defense systems" attack plane. So I'm not really sure why the USAF needs the F-35A, it may be a simple case of it having been shoved down their throats.
The question is ... how much would eliminating the F-35A and keeping the B and C help? If at all? |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I am not sure any air force needs almost any new aircraft 'forcing down their throats'. It is just new and shiny and sure I may be being a little biased against air forces.
F-35 is often sold because of its, limited, stealth. Radar is catching up with stealth, just like any other military competition (gun v armour, for example). F-35B is pretty vital to the Royal Navy right now, but I wish to hell it was not. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Gotta be quick back to the "grind" later this afternoon. All this I've posted on in here.
1) QE Carriers "Thank God" will be multi-decked capable if required with the HMS Prince of Wales though I can't remember if they got it done with the Queen Elizabeth or it'll be retro-fitted (Has?). 2) Current A-10 fleet has had significant airframe and wing structural work done on it. Also new avionics suite (Which includes defensive upgrades as well.) plus new cockpit suite to modernize it, and tie into the above items as well as increase it's offensive capabilities in targeting etc. (I.E. Laser RF) plus the targeting pods that have for sometime now include defensive capabilities as well. 3) F-15E/SE without a doubt our best all around fighter/fighter bomber to include deep penetration ops which it was designed for. 4) Latest F-16 version also much improved over all previous versions if the exception of maybe the last possibly two previous versions. 5) FA-18E/F also seeing major upgrades to include FA-18/C/D being brought up to the E/F+ standard if you will. 6) F-22 also has had and is continuing to be updated as well. As the USAF has stated the F-35 would be irrelevant without the F-22. That's an eye opener. 7) Can you figure out why we're upgrading those USN/USAF planes? Well lets just say "It's all those delays..." caused by the F-35 program. It's all in here already. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
For Fixed wing aircraft the entire British Carrier programme (20 years in the making) is entirely dependent on F-35B... |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
You can launch some conventional aircraft off a carrier with a ramp, trouble is they cannot carry all that much weight in terms of fuel and weapons.
To land them on again you need arrestor wires. F-35B is going to use a 'rolling landing' so it can bring back unexpended munitions (often very expensive these days). That means, I would guess, that the QE Carriers will need some kind of barrier system, to avoid what could be very, very, expensive accidents... I suspect the Russian carrier problems are as much about lack of experience and practice as anything else. The RN has got air and deck crews working with the USN and USMC to keep up skills and has plenty of officers and men with Carrier experience from the Invincible class ships. The last of which, HMS Illustrious, is about to head to Turkey for scrapping sadly, would have been nice to keep her as a Museum ship. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
The F-35 was designed and is intended to be primarily a ground support/naval attack aircraft NOT a "fighter". The A-10 sucks as a fighter too ... so I guess it's a useless aircraft? |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I guess I'm all "hosed up" about the F-22 based on the previous response, but didn't I mention I posted on this and the other topics over the years in my post? I don't know due to the vagueness of that response concerning what I posted concerning the F-22 is the issue. So...
1) F-35 is irrelevant without the F-22: https://theaviationist.com/2014/02/0...f-22-acc-says/ It's good to know the memory is not too far gone-yet!! ;) 2) Now about those ongoing upgrades to the F-22 still on track pretty much as a hurdle was just cleared. Also from ref. 2 (And you better note the date of it-please!! :D) the weapons set has been increased and I think by now the "Usefulness in small Wars..." has clearly been demonstrated. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...updated-02908/ https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...ersies-019069/ https://www.airforcetimes.com/articl...ars-with-f-35s USAF General Data Package but, before you use this package, you MUST read "Primary Function:" data point: http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...22-raptor.aspx http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...g-variant.aspx http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...-15-eagle.aspx http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...ike-eagle.aspx http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...erbolt-ii.aspx Note the difference in the F-15 vs. F-15SE "Primary Function" as again defined by the USAF. The A-10 seems to be accomplishing it's mission pretty well in Syria and Iraq as "defined" by the USAF. I think it should be clear to anyone that the F-35 is a fighter plane with land attack capability, hence the name, The F-35 Lightning II Program (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter Program) not close Air Support Fighter etc. etc. All you need to do is see what planes it designed to replace for the USAF the F-16 and at some point the A-10 maybe, because Congress has already mandated to the USAF that they will find a more mission capable plane for that role. For the USN/USMC that would be the F/A-18 fleet. We have no F-22 to escort our F-35 MR Fighters into combat. They will have to provide CAP for the carrier battle-group or invasion force, and they'll be expected to fight their way into or out of an assigned target package as the F-15SE does now without a combat loss with around 99 kills that would be enemy fighters of course. I can ensure you that'll pretty much be the same for the F-35A if not going after a very high value target where the F-22 will be riding shotgun. Concerning the UK carriers last I heard was they've designed them so the ski jump could be removed with the infrastructure in place for a catapult system and adding re-enforced decking to support conventional flight ops. Also haven't heard much since this past Summer concerning taking one of the carriers and modifying it to support helicopter assault mission as well. What news of this? A little something on a fine class of carrier in it's day and a good ship meets a sad end. Better to have used it as an artificial reef than to be scrapped. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-38224115 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-for-scrapyard Never did make to Portsmouth, that got ruined for us by the Soviets. Too bad!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
:) But we all know the USAF as an institution doesn't like ground support in the first place ... tho the USAF pilots that fly such aircraft generally do. :)
The US Navy has some need for "battlefield introduction" and "deep strike" aircraft, thus are planning to keep the F-18E/F around to escort it's F-35C's as F-22s aren't carrier capable. Tho frequently pressed into service for the above missions the USMC isn't all that interested in them, that sort of thing is the USAF/USNs job. The USMC is primarily interested in battefield close air support and operating from less then optimal airfields/carriers. I'm not convinced the replacement of F-18E/Fs in the USMC with F-35Cs is the best idea, but I never wore stars on my collar so maybe I'm missing something. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
The best place to keep up to date with everything about the Royal Navy including the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers:
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/ A search on that site will give you all the latest news. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Good documentary on the Harrier and the USMC perspective on close air support.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryrajzZICMI |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
The latest official info on F-35...
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/ Midway down under DOD Programs It is a long list of very varied problems, from this aircraft that seems to have been under development for such a very long time... I will be amazed if this aircraft is anything like fully operation much before 2022/23. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
USMC will deploy a F-35B squadron to Japan. The first F-35B to be forward based.
“'The unique combination of stealth, cutting-edge radar and sensor technology and electronic warfare systems bring all of the access and lethality capabilities of a fifth-generation fighter, a modern bomber and an adverse-weather, all-threat environment air support platform,' said 3rd MAW in a statement." Find the full article here: https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/fir...n-leaves-japan. ===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
And yet, if you read the very long report in my last post, it clearly states that, as of now F-35's are, even when working, and they are not up to their availability expectations, they are not able to perform any mission as well as current aircraft. I know the USMC, no doubt for their own reasons, are rushing these things into some sort of service, but it really does not look like this aircraft is going to be much use to anyone much more 2021 at the very best. They are strongly suggesting even the initial testing will not be done until 2019 As it stands at the moment the guns don't work due to sighting issues, the software is as yet nowhere close to what was promised and their are assorted other problems too (read the report if anyone is interested). Myself I really hope they get it working, since the Royal Navy Carrier programme depends on the damn thing. But they look to be some way off having a useful aircraft, let alone a world beating one... |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
What is interesting is the MAW did not describe the F-35 as an air superiority fighter, which I suspect still is the domain of the Raptor. The Brits may have bigger issues with the F-35 as the US president elect has called into question the cost and role of the plane. It may get killed. And, that maybe why the Marines have "rushed" this squadron as a device to show the F-35 is already a fabric of the it's air element. ===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
Yes I did wonder if that had something to do with the very early USMC deployment. In British service F-35B will have to do CAP for fleet defence. In the same way Sea Harrier did until it was scrapped. I don't see Trump scrapping it, too much money already spent, including by UK who is the only tier 1 partner on the aircraft, and if you scrap it the US (and other western nations) are left with no aircraft at all to replace the F15's and F16's. Have to say I was never a fan of the VSTOL F-35B, wish the Brits had gone cats and traps and Super Hornet myself. It never made real sense to me to go STOVL on 70,000 ton Aircraft Carriers, especially once there was going to be a significant gap in service between Harrier ending (thanks RAF) and F-35B starting (Aircraft the RAF is highly reluctant to allow the RN Fleet Air Arm much control of) Of course the RAF were very against cats and traps because you have to train hard and often to do that, and they seem to think you will not have to to use F-35B (with a 'rolling landing') from a carrier at sea. We shall see... |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
Trump won't or cannot kill the F-35 but as with the Raptor the F-35 could be dramatically reduced. His pledge for a 350 ship navy may stay the Navy until Boeing delivers on the FA/XX super super hornet. The USAF still has the best air superiority fighter in the Raptor. ===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
F-35 stories from 16 Dec. 2016 to now - top to bottom. Only need this one source for these stories.
1) Israel: 6 days to win a war but it takes that long to fly their first two F-35I fighters there. Why? Must've been flying in "Long Distance Runaround (LRD)" ;) operational mode. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...to-israel.html 2) Everything's about money. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...are-bogus.html 3) A "twitter who tweeted" wonder from whom, but, seems to like the Super Hornet!?! http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...e-to-f_35.html 4) There'll be a "Rumble in the Desert" well in the skies over it anyway. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...e/180015/.html 5) Navy pilots see "stars" happened in 2014 (I guess we better update our comms in the USN also!) and it's still an ongoing issue. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...e/180020/.html 6) Cancel, cancel, cancel this will probably get as close as it will come-maybe. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...5-program.html 7) It was really a classified test of the fire suppression system, trust me -really!! http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...e/180097/.html The rest are from today... 8) Australia it's bombs away! http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...aveway-ii.html 9) Delays and more delays, this is a very controversial software system in which some people are asking why are they flying without this being fixed? http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...re-months.html 10) HEeREes Johnny...Sorry, that'll be our 200th F-35!! :party:, apparently though some might prefer to bring this to the party :viking: (Fire might've been to controversial?!?) while they try to fix all these software issues maybe I can help :typing: :pc: :smash:, I did say maybe!?! That's the latest and greatest. Have a great day! I will because "Everyday at the Bay" is a GREAT DAY! That'd be work don't ya know. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
It's really a matter of the F-35B replacing the Harrier.
Even if it's not up to it's potential (real or imagined) it's still and improvement over the Harrier and it's a new aircraft, not one suffering from an old airframe and a critical shortage of parts for maintenance. Once again I remind people, the F-35 was never designed or intended to be an air superiority aircraft, while the UK Fleet Air Arm will press it into that role, and it will, again, be an improvement over the Harrier, to compare it to the F-22 or any other air superiority aircraft is just plain stupid. Will it have better survivability vs air superiority aircraft then the Harrier or A-10? Yes ... then it's an improvement. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
No one is comparing the pitiful F-35B to the Raptor. Just pointing out the USAF has Raptors in the event congress stunts the F-35A. The Navy has the Super Hornet and Boeing is close to deliver the much anticipated Super Super Hornet. The USMC may shug along with an F-35B as long as her boats remain under the CAP of the Navy, where the jar heads belong. Or, the Marines may come to their senses and tasks helos with CAS until a F-35B is worked out. No one is comparing the Raptor to the F-35B. I'm not. ===== |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.