F-35 news thread III

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: F-35 news thread III
jessmo_24 1/12/2011 7:23:24 AM

BF-2s 1st vertical landing. *ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS3ngl1GcaI&feature=player_embedded NAVAIRSYSCOM 10 Jan 2011 "F-35B test aircraft BF-2 accomplishes its first vertical landing and conversion back to normal flight mode at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The integrated test team is testing both the STOVL and carrier variants of the F-35 for delivery to the fleet. Video courtesy Lockheed Martin."

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NEXT

keffler25 4/29/2015 3:47:01 PM

Shut up with the lies.

You said that we needed another expensive two engine stealth aircraft... thank goodness that among your insults I found out that you are now backpedaling from those cow-boy ideas to the current one of using F-15. Unfortunately the F-15 is old... plus is not the same as the F-35 or the F-22 when it comes to penetrating contested air space. So in your numbers what exchange ratio do you think it will have against the current crop of Chinese aircrafts... with what you say will be good pilots. I still say the F-35 is the key.

Quote Reply

JFKY Boyz 4/29/2015 3:51:44 PM

not on topic...F-35...not "liar"...

Quote Reply

keffler25 4/29/2015 4:01:49 PM

Should I tell him again that the YF-23 was designed as a fighter BOMBER and that it would have been a multi-role aircraft that would have done the F-22s and F-35s jobs at the same time? Or should I tell him that if the YF-23 had been bought INSTEAD of the F-22 ( that's what I wrote) it would have cost what the F-35 is projected to cost, would carry internally weapons (more of them and LARGER ones) than the F-35 at ranges on internal fuel allowing 1200+ km combat radius? That the reason we didn't buy it was because some chicken USAF general who was part of the Spey influenced fighter mafia wanted yank and bank over missile throw.

I still am angered when I think of the blown opportunity.

Quote Reply

jessmo_24 4/29/2015 6:22:38 PM

I personally, with the plane could be navalized, as a F-18E replacement. I wonder if you could get it to trap below 140 knots. Maybe use an apg-81 radar, and das to keep costs down.

Quote Reply

jessmo_24 4/29/2015 6:23:43 PM

*I personally wonder. Lol mobile phones

Quote Reply

HR Keffler 4/29/2015 7:57:42 PM

The reason you are angry is that you still think like a sailor instead of an admirald. What part of we can't afford two of those expensive two engined aircrafts you have problem grasping? We are wayyyy ahhead with the F-36 in larger numbers.

Quote Reply

jessmo_24 4/30/2015 2:03:54 AM

WASHINGTON — The Air Force will send some perfectly fine fighter jets to the boneyard or delay its F-35 Lightning II rollout for a year if Congress blocks retirement of the A-10 Thunderbolt, according to a document recently provided to military oversight committees.

The tradeoffs would occur at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, due to limited number of personnel to maintain the A-10s, F-16 Fighting Falcons and the first advanced F-35 joint strike fighters slated to arrive later this year, the service told lawmakers.

The Air Force and Congress have been grappling over the future of the A-10, known as the Warthog, for the past year. Hill recently unveiled plans to mothball 18 of the aircraft. The service wants to eliminate the close-air-support aircraft to save money but the House Armed Services Committee said it will vote this week on a draft defense budget that will bar the move.

“The Air Force, if compelled to retain the A-10, does not possess a sufficient number of experienced maintainers to sustain the original Hill AFB conversion plan [to] stand up [a] new F-35 fighter squadron and then convert two F-16 units,” the service wrote to the committee in an unclassified talking paper obtained by Stars and Stripes. The undated document was recently provided to House and Senate armed service committees, congressional staff said.

The F-16s were to be relocated to other bases – Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and Fort Wayne Air National Guard Base in Indiana – to replace A-10 units and make room for the F-35s.

Instead, the jets would be sent to the “boneyard” storage area at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, the service said.

If lawmakers try to block F-16s from the boneyard, the lack of qualified maintenance personnel would delay the F-35 from flying at Hill for “at least a year,” it said.

The Air Force has repeatedly asked Congress to support the A-10 retirement, which it says will save about $4.2 billion over the next four years and allow the fleet to be modernized. The A-10 has been flying since the 1970s and is now deployed in Iraq and Europe.

Lt. Col. Christopher Karns, an Air Force spokesman, said it is premature to speculate on what actions the service will take before Congress hashes out the annual defense budget.

“The Air Force has actively explored a range of options to address its maintainer shortage,” Karns wrote in an email. “An inability to divest A-10s will impact the ability to provide experienced maintainers to support the F-35 mission.”

The chairman of House Armed Services released his draft of the annual defense budget Monday and it included a measure fully funding the A-10 program, though it would allow the Air Force to mothball a maximum of 18 aircraft.

However, Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., said she plans to introduce an amendment Wednesday that will prohibit any retirement of the aircraft.

[email protected]
Twitter: @Travis_Tritten

How long before we hear " The F-35 cannot replace the F-16 blah blah total anarchy, mass hysteria, cats and logs living together ect"

Quote Reply

jessmo_24 4/30/2015 2:04:20 AM

http://www.stripes.com/air-force-if-a-10s-stay-f-16s-headed-to-the-boneyard-1.342983

Quote Reply

jessmo_24 4/30/2015 3:28:47 AM

BTW, what is this weapon? I havent never heard of it.

A Florida lawmaker's bid to push the Air Force to develop new electronic weapons failed on Tuesday when the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said the effort was technically flawed.

Rep. Richard Nugent, R-Florida, said the Air Force "has been dragging its feet" on preparing the weapon for deployment and instead redirecting $10 million the service received in 2015.

"The Air Force has really been skating around this congressional intent a lot lately, and almost everyone has experienced frustration [with their] tactics," Nugent said, citing the service's determination to retire the A-10 Thunderbolt over the will of Congress.

Nugent hoped to remedy that by including an amendment in the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act ordering the Air Force to direct $10 million to the Counter-electronics High-powered Microwave Missile Project.

The missile is considered non-lethal because it is designed to knock out electronics systems but not directly harm people or destroy structures.

The Air Force started developing the $40 million program in 2009. Service officials completed what was called a successful test in 2012 when the missile was flown on the wing of a B-52. The program is led by Boeing.

The amendment failed to get a vote, however, after HASC Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, opposed it on technicalities, "not because I disagree with anything that [Nugent] said about the program itself," Thornberry told the hearing.

Nugent first pitched using the CHAMP system on a cruise missile in June 2014, arguing the Air Force could have it ready for combat within 18 months.

He said the Air Force appears to be holding off developing the system for use until they can put it onto a reusable vehicle.

"The problem is, they can have the best of intentions in wanting something reusable, but they have nothing in design now and no idea of what it would be," he told Military.com. "By the time they do the development and testing, and then get to procurement, it'll be way down the road."

Combatant commanders have asked for this capability, he said.

"And we're saying use it, on short term put them on cruise missiles that we have that are sitting there in warehouses because we've removed the nuclear devices off them" he said.

Nugent told the committee the Air Force can place the system onto cruise missiles while developing a reusable vehicle.

Quote Reply

keffler25 4/30/2015 9:26:24 AM

The reason I think that you are an idiot is

1. You still claim you are an American when you are a Belgian.

2. On the topic, we planned to buy over 600 of the planes (YF-22 or YF-23) The reason we cut the run to 169+ m3 spares (F-22) was because the USAF discovered after that rotten crooked general that chose it retired, that the plane's structural design was flawed at the wing root to the barrel about midway through the production run because LOCKMART chose and did not report the wrong titanium alloys (not the ones they said they used--> a criminal offense in any other country including Russia), that the plane's avionics architecture was uniquely incompatible to datalink with the rest of the air force and a few other issues that meant the plane could not yank and bank as hard as hoped by the fighter mafia and it couldn't talk to the computers the USAF used over the force wide common datalink without giving itself away.

3. Those mistakes were and ARE expensive to fix in that force, doubling the cost from $160 M USD per bird to about $320 M USD. The YF-23 was not known to have those issues. Its issues were that its signal management was a little less robust and it was never intended to just acrobatically fly. It was a fighter bomber in defiance of the "not a pound for air to ground". It was a strike plane dressed up as an air superiority fighter. 600 of them would have been half as effective as 1200 F-35s. Now... With that in mind, what would a force of 2000 YF-23s at $ 160 M USD have cost?

$320 Billion, as opposed $550 billion we spent and expect to spend on the F-35 to date these past ten years and future five years?

Who is thinking like a Belgian again, you Belgian?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NEXT