Jets & Planes but no UAV's here. - Page 50

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**491** March 20th, 2019, 02:03 AM

I missed the competition? Those results don't surprise me that's why my post at the top of the page is relevant talking about the Harrier and A-10.

Poland honestly would be much better off buying the Gripen NG and keep pushing to join Germany and France in building the "EuroLeo". The 4th GEN +++ Gripen NG is just as capable as the borderline 5th GEN F-35, much cheaper to buy, operate and maintain and any road would do for a runway.

Poland needs quality and numbers in jets and tanks to hold back an aggressive resurgent Russia for deterrence and not a handful of Squadrons or less of F-35 fighters. Canada this goes for you to, you both need to get your GRIPEN!?!

https://www.airforce-technology.com/...n-fighter-jet/
(Para 2. makes my point.)
https://gripen4canada.blogspot.com/p...pable-and.html
(I can find more like this, a very easy reading comparison between the two. The GRIPEN NG is even faster then the F-35.)

USAF better barracks, tents with AC, prettier bases and supply airlines with pilots. Big Deal!!

On Saturdays we woke up with a drill and had a Field Day, Sliders (Cheese optional.) for lunch, Pizza for mid-rats and on Sundays Prime Rib or Steak and Shrimp all at hundreds of feet beneath the Ocean!! The USAF ain't got nothing on us!! Can't do that flying a Whoopi-d-do jet!

:

Anyway my USMC buddy is derrnnn right!?!

Well that felt good!

Regards,
Pat

As this ended up on the top of the page, Post #483 of the previous page is what I was referring to.

Imp · #**492** March 21st, 2019, 12:13 AM

Good point Pat unless you have a huge budget the F-35 has to be a bad option at $35000 an hour how much flight time do you think the pilots would get. Gripen is cheap to run for a fighter so they could buy more and still have cash to give each pilot more airtime.

Not entirely convinced on F-35 I have a horrible feeling it could be a lame duck within a few years of being operational.
Unlike F-22 it’s just not stealthy enough, I feel new radars may well make it not very stealthy at all, certainly not enough to outweigh the compromises to the airframe.

Suhiir · #**493** March 21st, 2019, 01:24 PM

I'm pretty sure the thought is the F-35 is more survivable as a ground attack aircraft because of it's stealth tech. The Russian air defense network is nothing to sneeze at and an aircraft that (in theory) can survive it is well worth five that can't.

oragus · #**494** March 22nd, 2019, 08:14 AM

There it is! Someone gets the big picture! Although the U.S. Navy's declaration that the F-35C is ready for combat with only a 12% readiness is concerning.

WilliamB · #**495** April 14th, 2019, 04:57 PM

It appears that the U.S. Air Force has put some of their F-117 stealth fighters back into service, although just what they are being used for is not clear. According to an article in the May issue of Combat Aircraft magazine, two F-117s were seen and photographed flying in the R-2508 range complex near Death Valley California on February 26th and 27th. There were two F-16s flying with them. The article also mentions an unconfirmed report from a Dutch magazine called "Scramble" that F-117s were used in Syria in 2017. I have attached a 7zip file containing some of the February photographs from the article. I hope this will prove to be of interest.

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**496** April 15th, 2019, 02:17 AM

Haven't seen anything yet on the F-117, however, the following is what a true "Fighter-Bomber" really looks like. Besides I wonder how happy Japan is at the moment with the F-35 after one crashed in the Pacific. Unfortunately the pilot after calling to break off from a training exercise due to a problem was unable to control his aircraft and apparently couldn't eject. I don't believe they recovered his body.

Anyway...
https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...r-eagle-f-15x/
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...cial-says.html
https://news.yahoo.com/boeings-f-15e...180000315.html

These jets will provide/serve the Air Force as it's Hyper-Sonic Missile platform. With the upgrades to the airframe, addition of the AESA Radar not only will they be able to fight their way in, complete the mission and fight it's way back out, it'll do it a little more stealthy. The F-15 starting with the "SE" has graduated to a 4th GEN ++ platform.

I need to get back to some "peace and quiet" have a good week!

Regards,
Pat

Changed the search a little on the F-117 also a note "SCRAMBLE" it is a very respected source concerning aircraft as well.
https://theaviationist.com/2019/02/2...-social-media/
https://theaviationist.com/2019/03/0...magazine-says/
https://sputniknews.com/military/201...st-syria-iraq/

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**497** April 21st, 2019, 03:48 AM

This should act as a follow-up to my last post, from DID apparently there were 7 incidents prior to the fatal crash of Japans 13 F-35A fighters. One of the incidents did involve a U.S. built F-35A as well. It is also reported the jet involved in the crash also had an issue prior to it. Japan has grounded all their F-35A fighters UFN. It has been identified that 3 separate systems failures are involved with the 7 prior crash incidents.

This taken from this past Friday the 19th.

"Asia-Pacific
Japan’s first F-35A stealth fighter reportedly made seven emergency landings in the months prior to crashing in the Pacific Ocean last week. The Japanese Air Force started using its fleet of 13 F35As in January. On April 9, the first plane of Mitsubishi assembly crashed. Of the 13 planes provided by the United States to Japan, five have been forced to make emergency landings in seven incidents. The plane that crashed made two of the emergency landings. Final assembly of four of the error reporting planes, including the fighter that went missing, was carried out in Japan by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. The other aircraft was built and assembled in the US. The crashed fighter reportedly had issues with its cooling and navigation systems twice. Japan grounded its fleet of 13 F-35As in the wake of the crash."

The next ref. was linked from DID were in bold above.
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles...0m/0na/006000c

Also note NAVAIR has not even declared FOC or for that matter IOC for these jets for either the USN F-35C or the USMC F-35B. The following two refs will show the "contrast" in how they list their jets starting with the F-35 entry.

Never mind, apparently the site is still down since I was on it just before the crash. As they say "Timing is everything."

For those that do Happy Easter!!

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir · #**498** April 21st, 2019, 03:00 PM

I keep having flashbacks to the MV-22.
To expensive.
To dangerous.
To whatever ...

Or the AV-8.
No problems for years then they let nuggets fly them and crash, crash, crash.

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**499** July 26th, 2019, 01:32 AM

Like Taiwan, I find that Argentina and the ongoing Falklands situation being somewhat related to the "window of opportunity" available to them and the benefit to each by making or getting if you will, that one piece of equipment that might make the difference in their current situation. For Taiwan that'll be the ABRAMS deal going through. It will cause a "pause" in China's "Sabra Rattling" when it knows it'll face even without D/U armor, a tank that'll still be a match or better to their best tank.

Argentina on the other hand, has a slightly "stronger hand" with an opportunity to reclaim the Falklands IF, they can just get the right fighter in the short term. But time is running out, at best they have 2 years before the window is shut maybe permanently. They have the "harder road" but the best opportunity to accomplish their long stated objective to recall the Falklands.

Britain's main two issues are that it has no long range bombers (Not that the VULCANS were very successful in their missions in the last Falklands War, they weren't.) or fighters (And in hindsight probably wish they'd kept a squadron of HARRIERS/or TORNADOS in active service in the Falklands. They even today would be much better then what Argentina has now.), sufficient air refueling, no carriers, surface combatants and are having issues with their fast attack submarines. In two years Britain will have it's carrier and F-35B fighters, however, only a fool would send in a carrier without it's support ships hence the term "Carrier Battlegroup", the window could possibly be closer to 5 years.

I'll be interesting what China and Russia decide to do. They might just decide to "two fingers in the eye" of two other countries and I wonder who they might be!?!

Ref. 2 is provided for context only as it is two years old now. Ref. 1 is current as of today, which is why I really like "DID", relevant stories continually kept up-to-date.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...planes-022821/
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/arg...s-e91f35fbd1ab

This could be an interesting situation worth checking on once in awhile.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir · #**500** July 26th, 2019, 05:26 AM

I suspect the UKs new carrier, tho obviously damn useful if they need to take independent action, is intended more for fleet defense rather then attack (even an F-35B beats no air cover at all) and it's assumed if things go seriously south it'll be operating as part of a US Carrier Battlegroup.