h a l f b a k e r yFaster than a stationary bullet.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Okay, this is uncalled for. Here, I'll supply the first bone.
(But seriously, F the F-35.)
I'll add one thing, when the F35 goes over mach 1 for more than 60 seconds and has to slow down to protect its delicate radar absorbing coating the autopilot starts sobbing uncontrollably saying "I just need
some time to myself."
Pilot: "Are you okay Baby Harp Seal 256?"
F-35 autopilot: "What do you care? Leave me alone."
Pilot: "Okay, but we're in combat now, can I get a little kick in speed here?"
F-35 autopilot: "I just did my nails! I mean had my coating redone and you're just going to ruin it! Fine, what do I care? You always loved that slut F-22 more anyway!"
BLA-BOOM!!
XKCD: Duty Calls
https://imgs.xkcd.c...mics/duty_calls.png
[Voice, Jan 02 2023]
This guy has my proxy about all things air combat tech related.
https://www.youtube...sktop&v=N1Z_DuF87Sc
Very clearly spells out the issues the F-35 has. [doctorremulac3, Jan 03 2023]
Ilyushin Il-2
https://en.wikipedi.../wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2
Commonly rendered Shturmovik, Stormovik, and Sturmovik [a1, Jan 04 2023]
This pilot was angling for that medal
https://www.npr.org...-jet-south-carolina
Plane continued on automatic after pilot ejected. [a1, Sep 18 2023, last modified Sep 19 2023]
Cardboard Drone
https://www.abc.net...a-warfare/102804120
[bs0u0155, Sep 22 2023]
Carboard - Kettering Bug
https://en.wikipedi.../wiki/Kettering_Bug
Fuselage of wood laminates and papier-mâché, wings of cardboard [a1, Sep 22 2023]
Lost F-22s
https://thediplomat...-hurricane-michael/
[bs0u0155, Sep 25 2023]
Tyndall AFB F-22 losses
https://www.thedriv...g-hurricane-michael
"Considering how finicky the F-22 is and that the base has some of the oldest jets, getting 70 percent of the fleet up (was) damn good." [a1, Sep 25 2023]
Air supremacy? That's such a baby boomer idea, get with the times.
https://abcnews.go....b/story?id=16270127
And isn't the idea of deterrence exactly this? Nobody to fight because we own the skies? [doctorremulac3, Sep 26 2023]
If you're interested in the "What were they thinking?" question ...
https://www.youtube...fQ&ab_channel=Perun
... this video might tell you some relevant things. [pertinax, Sep 27 2023]
[link]
|
| |
Keep it up and I'll have to thoroughly destroy your misconceptions about the F-35. You don't want that do you? |
|
| |
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of amazing aspects to this plane, but being so incredibly expensive and having had issues I feel like we may have lost air superiority that we clearly had with the much cheaper (and faster and better in my opinion) F-22. |
|
| |
Put it this way, I just don't trust the military industrial complex. Am I wrong to hold it in such low esteem? Maybe. But for this price this machine should just look at a sky full of enemy fighters and have them drop out of the sky. |
|
| |
Some background, this all started with the very suspect abandoning of the F-22. I was already pissed when I heard about what would be replacing it. |
|
| |
The F-35 is in no way a plane to replace the F-22. Fortunately it won't have to. If a peer conflict happens the US will be churning out F-22s again fairly easily due to care taken to preserve the knowledge needed to manufacture them. If a peer conflict doesn't happen the F-22 is ultimately convenient but unnecessary. |
|
| |
//Am I wrong to hold it in such low esteem?// |
|
| |
Absolutely not, but that's a different question from whether the F-35 can totally kick ass in its domain. Which is not air to air conflict against fifth generation fighters. |
|
| |
//But for this price this machine should just look at a sky full of enemy fighters and have them drop out of the sky.// |
|
| |
I see you've been taken in by the 1.7 trillion dollar figure. A figure which takes into account all anticipated upgrades, repairs and weapons systems of the entire F-35 program, including inflation, modifications, and initial development over its entire lifetime. |
|
| |
I'm certainly uncomfortable with that price tag, no doubt. |
|
| |
At some point this is a logistical question no? What's the expression, amateur generals concentrate on tactics, professional general concentrate on logistics? |
|
| |
Not sure if that's a real saying, but we've got other concerns besides defense. |
|
| |
But hoping for the best, too late to turn back now. |
|
| |
(Excellent link by the way.) |
|
| |
Here's my boy's criticism of the F-35 and A-10 divestment from Wikipedia: |
|
| |
Sprey was a frequent critic of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II program. He argued, paralleling his earlier arguments against the F-15, that despite its high cost the F-35 is less agile than the F-16. Sprey argued that compared to the F-16 or A-10 (in both of whose operational roles it is marketed to operate) the F-35 was overweight and dangerous, stating "It's as if Detroit suddenly put out a car with lighter fluid in the radiator and gasoline in the hydraulic brake lines: That's how unsafe this plane is…" and "full of bugs". |
|
| |
He argued that in the close air support (CAS) role, the F-35 is a poor replacement for the A-10 as it flies too fast for pilots to spot targets by eye and lacks maneuverability at low speeds. He said it lacks the necessary radios, cannot survive small arms fire (or anti-aircraft guns) and has poor loiter time. Sprey contended that close air support should be the Air Force's most important mission and that the USAF has been trying to retire the A-10 for years simply because it does not want the CAS mission." |
|
| |
Sprey was interviewed on his views of the F-35 by the popular press, on the politics and policy news network C-SPAN, at a meeting of the activist group "Stop the F-35", and during a podcast of a debate between Sprey and a retired US Marine Corps combat pilot and instructor at the "TOPGUN" United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program who had piloted both the F-35B STOVL variant and the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, on the website of Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine. |
|
| |
When my son was serving with the Marines in Iraq, he said nothing was more soothing than "BRRRRRT!" of an A-10. I meant everything was going to turn out okay. |
|
| |
If you want an unstealthy aircraft to perform CAS just pop on a couple of drop tanks or, if you have air superiority, use a few refueling drones. It won't get real up close and personal but bombs and missiles are enough to ruin anyone's day. Communications are fine and targeting is excellent. Sorry about losing the knife fight aspect of CAS, but that's more nostalgia and morale than combat effectiveness. |
|
| |
Well it’s probably obvious that I love the A10, the flying tank. I think the number one job of our air power is to keep or brave front line soldiers alive. This thing puts a titanium cage around the pilot, his engines hidden above armored elevators and is basically a flying gun. It’s also relatively cheap so you can have more of them. And hey, numbers count. |
|
| |
WW2 saw the equivalent in I think it was called the Schtumovic (spelling guaranteed wrong) that devastated Nazi tanks and had a big part in defeating Hitler. |
|
| |
Dropping bombs is great for getting the enemy’s attention, but boots in the ground wrap things up and end the war. |
|
| |
Sensors, software, electronics. The airframe is only half the cost and the capability. The point of the F35 is that it doesn't have to be a superior dogfighter or the fastest out there. It can dominate the air with all kinds of capability before the enemy knew it was there. |
|
| |
The A10 was fraught with difficulties upon its launch as well, including metal fatigue. |
|
| |
The harrier needed a replacement, and that was the impetus for the program. Trying for two programs would've killed one of them at least. |
|
| |
// WW2 … Schtumovic (spelling guaranteed wrong) // |
|
| |
I think you mean the Ilyushin IL-2 (link). You can’t spell it in English because it’s Russian, but phonetically you aren’t too far off. |
|
| |
// I just don't trust the military industrial complex. Am I wrong to hold it in such low esteem?// |
|
| |
I think they did an excellent job with the F-35. You just have to judge the program on what it actually achieved. Generation on generation, aircraft have become exponentially more complex & complicated. Developing complex & complicated things is exponentially more complex and complicated than the thing itself. As such, the whole process is a massive risk. Boeing bet the firm on the 747, and the 747 was an enlargement/evolution of other Boeing designs. They won. Others didn't. Rolls Royce had to be government bailed out because the development of the RB211 broke them. Where are Grumman, McDonnall Douglas, General Dynamics? Lockheed even made a really brilliant airliner in the L1011, then no more. |
|
| |
So Lockheed taking on the F-35 meant they had to make it resilient to politics. They distributed the construction to multiple states, they made it vital to the USAF, NAVY and Marine Corps. As Sydney Camm said of the TSR-2. "Aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics, the TSR-2 simply got the first 3 right". They built a multi generational un-cancelable revenue stream that ensured the survival of Lockheed Martin for decades. |
|
| |
//in the close air support (CAS) role, the F-35 is a poor replacement for the A-10 as it flies too fast for pilots to spot targets by eye and lacks maneuverability at low speeds. He said it lacks the necessary radios, cannot survive small arms fire (or anti-aircraft guns) and has poor loiter time.// |
|
| |
He's not being entirely fair here. If you want to look out of a window with a human eye and shoot things you see, sure the F-35 is worse than an A-10. The F-35 will do CAS by cruising around out of small arms/MANPADs range looking through a wealth of optics before selecting just the right amount of precision-guided death to kill the appropriate amount of enemy. Just like how F-16s do it now, only the stealth makes much RADAR guided AA useless. You could use the same argument against the A-10, it flies far too fast for ID via visual means than, for example an Apache. |
|
| |
//nothing was more soothing than "BRRRRRT!" of an A-10// |
|
| |
//Sorry about losing the knife fight aspect of CAS, but that's more nostalgia and morale than combat effectiveness.// |
|
| |
Psychology/morale/resolve are important. Always have been. Having CAS move to more, Stand-Off Air Support should be considered a big factor of front line morale, the A-10 is the modern cavalry. It's clear the AF don't want the gig. Possibly because all the USAF higher-ups are all ex-fast jet jockeys. So why not transfer it to the Army? |
|
| |
//his engines hidden above armored elevators and is basically a flying gun. It’s also relatively cheap so you can have more of them. And hey, numbers count.// |
|
| |
Armor isn't as good as not getting hit, hitting loud, hot things is easier and punchier than ever. The flying gun aspect is part of the problem. The aircraft is built around something that isn't up to the job of killing tanks, even mobility kills are unlikely on newer kit. Similarly, spraying 100's of huge lumps of DU around is inaccurate overkill for soft targets. I'd love a replacement for the A-10. I wonder if the industry/politics can get there any more? Should be simple to adopt the same brilliant philosophy of double sided parts, redundancy, replaceable panels etc, throw some more efficient biz jet engines on a massively over-strength composite airframe. |
|
| |
//WW2 saw the equivalent in I think it was called the Schtumovic// |
|
| |
Effective, but also lost in staggering numbers. The battle of Britain saw ~250 Spitfires lost. The Soviets lost 10,000 IL-2s. |
|
| |
//The harrier needed a replacement, and that was the impetus for the program.// |
|
| |
For the A-10, or the F-35? The A-10 was flying around a few years before the AV8-B turned up. I'll assume you mean the F-35. Lockheed managed to position the F-35 as a replacement for the Harrier, F/A-18 and F-16. |
|
| |
//The Soviets lost 10,000 IL-2s// |
|
| |
And the Germans lost the war, which is the only bottom line that counts. |
|
| |
And B, is comparing the efficacy of various fighter plane designs at the dawn of the age of drone warfare a bit like arguing about the best cavalry sword after the machine gun was introduced? Dunno, maybe. |
|
| |
//a bit like arguing about the best cavalry sword after the machine gun was introduced?// |
|
| |
They were still talking about cavalry for decades after, say, Omdurman. So in the same tradition... Anyhow, isn't the F-35 quite obviously dronable? The F-106 was remote controllable and that was right in the middle of the jet fighter age. |
|
| |
//isn't the F-35 quite obviously dronable?// |
|
| |
Sure, I suppose you could turn a billion dollar aircraft carrier into a drone too, but the point of drones is they're cheap so you can make a lot of them. What's the thing Stalin said? Quantity has a quality all its own or something. Speaks to the swarms of those Ill-2 Shturmoviks the Soviets rained down on those top of the line German tanks. |
|
| |
I have no idea what the main weapon will be in coming years but the most killed for the least money has always been a factor. Except with nukes because can't really win anything but MAD with those, but if you can have 20 $5,000 AI piloted drones go up against 1 hundred grand fighter jet, I wouldn't want to be the pilot of the latter. |
|
| |
Even older cardboard (Link - Kettering Bug) - papier-mâché, too. The "age of the drone" started about a hundred years earlier than most people realize - not just the Kettering Bug but also the British Aerial Target. |
|
| |
Re: Cardboard link. LOL! I could imagine somebody getting a big government grant to create stealth drones and walking in with this thing, pointing out it does what they were contracted for, has the specified radar signature etc. |
|
| |
When asked what they did with the 100 million dollar research grant they'd just say "Overhead." Or better yet, "It's very high quality cardboard. We spared no expense." |
|
| |
Whoever created that thing is my hero. |
|
| |
Wonder what the glide ratio is for F-35s. Seems like all that VTOL stuff and lumpy airframe would add a lot of weight. I heard that one that crashed the pilot bailed out at 2,000 feet, that I know from my time flying little Cessnas is plenty of room to get you to a stretch of road, or a field or something. |
|
| |
Is the F-22 glide ratio any better? Dunno, think that stuff's pretty well classified. |
|
| |
The flat-pack Australian SYPAQ fomecor drone has changed warfare. Send in 100 $500 SYPAQs and 2 SCALPs and you’ve distracted and overwhelmed the missile defense network and allowed your big boys to get the work done. These budget drones will get the pilots out of the cockpit unless absolutely necessary. Staged refueling using tanker drones will extend the range of the F-16s slated for shipment to Ukraine, known for limited range unless drop or conformal tanks are employed. Makes for more carrying capacity, range, and maneuverability. |
|
| |
Exactly, that's why I'm saying discussing the differences between manned multi million dollar fighter jets is like arguing about the best feathered helmet to wear when leading a calvary charge towards a machine gun nest. |
|
| |
And don't get me wrong, that sucks. Fighter pilots are the bold knights of the air, they're badass. The idea that they get replaced by a bunch of glorified buzzing iPhones with wings and explosives sounds incredibly boring. |
|
| |
And a war with no gallantry is no war for me. Might as well just have boring peace. |
|
| |
//Even older cardboard (Link - Kettering Bug) - papier-mâché, too.// |
|
| |
I've read a fair amount of contemporary WW1 literature, and "aerial torpedoes" are mentioned quite a bit in a matter-of-fact way in the skies of the western front. But I never looked into what they actually might be. |
|
| |
//When asked what they did with the 100 million dollar research grant they'd just say "Overhead.// |
|
| |
"Production optimization development, version 1.0 was a stressed skin carbon fiber flying wing. We brought in the best in the business in terms of value engineering. If you look closely at the propeller you'll see that we could have gone with a $2 off the shelf commercial part. Instead we developed a carefully twisted bit of sheet aluminium" |
|
| |
Actually, the cardboard thing does look like a flying wing with a vertical stab. Not obvious in the article, but googling around the subject reveals it has trailing edge control surfaces. Since there's no wing sweep, I'm wondering how pitch is controlled? My first thought was that the obvious hobby-grade brushless outrunner on the front was something of an extravagance. A brushed Mabuchi etc. motor would get 90% of the power without the need for a fancy electronic speed controller or rare-earth magnets, but then I read that it can hang around for hours, so throttling and efficiency are needed, plus, I know from experience that cheap brushed motors can corrode in the wrong conditions. |
|
| |
//Wonder what the glide ratio is for F-35s.... Is the F-22 glide ratio any better?// |
|
| |
Like Rolls Royce used to list top speed as "adequate" I'd say the answer to this is "Irrelevant". Fighter jets are bricks, possibly slightly denser than bricks in some cases. The bail out decision must be carefully trained, with the saving the pilot a priority, I'm guessing first hint of a control problem at low altitude: punch out. I wonder if that changes slightly with aircraft that are a finite resource like the F-22? |
|
| |
//Staged refueling using tanker drones will extend the range of the F-16s slated for shipment to Ukraine, known for limited range unless drop or conformal tanks are employed.// |
|
| |
Every fighter is known for limited range, except possibly the F-15/22. That's the dirty secret of all fighter jets up to now. The Top Trumps supersonic max speed is an operational fiction. To go anywhere and do anything you need to strap on huge drop tanks, targeting pods, bombs, missiles etc. Those all preclude supersonic flight & high G maneuvers. That means the turbojet is a silly choice, the fancy intakes are unnecessary and the swing wing was just adding maintenance. Which is why with the F-35, it's performance might look poor, but at least it's closer to being in operational trim vs legacy competitors. Refueling is interesting, no record on drone-to-drone refuelling that I can find, that's tricky flying, I'll be impressed when drones can do that. |
|
| |
//Fighter pilots are the bold knights of the air, they're badass. The idea that they get replaced...// |
|
| |
In some scenarios, sure. But the pilot is for the foreseeable future an unjammable decision making officer in the right place. |
|
| |
While I'm normally careful about generating conspiracy, everything about this <link> stinks. I know an ex cold war Phantom pilot and saving front line fighters from threats was a serious operational consideration. Incoming threat to the airbase? They'd fly a Phantom out on one engine with no canopy. |
|
| |
A hurricane is not a surprise event, it rumbles toward you with progressively increasing certainty. I can think of multiple ways to save what is near-infinitely valuable airframes:
Hurricanes move at 0-20mph, so just commandeer/buy truck tractor units and tow them down the road, even if you move at 5mph, with a head start and moving inland you'll easily be out of danger. |
|
| |
Or, dig 3 holes for each aircraft's landing gear. Push aircraft so it's in the holes, fill holes with concrete/plaster. Aircraft aren't going anywhere. Now surround aircraft with shipping containers full of heavy stuff/tanks/APCs Fire appliances. Get in earth movers to build mounds (like on every cold-war air base I've seen) to deflect blast/wind (leave some holes for drainage) |
|
| |
Or... plug up the holes and bury the things in sand. They're worth enough that you can pay qualified airframe techs to remove the sand with tweezers. |
|
| |
//Hurricanes move at 0-20mph// |
|
| |
Hmm, and the Raptor's top speed is Mach 2 with afterburners. Hold on, let me get my crayons out.... let's see, carry the one... divide by... invert the average... delineate the integers... apply the gaussian distribution... |
|
| |
Okay, this is a rough calculation but I think, and don't hold me to this, I think with full afterburners the Raptors could outrun the oncoming hurricane by flying away at about 75 times the rate of the oncoming hurricane. |
|
| |
That would require some kind of magic to know when the hurricane is actually approaching though. Turning on the weather channel or something. |
|
| |
Maybe they can start installing radars at airports? |
|
| |
And that... is my best 8th impression. Pales in comparison to the great one I know, but it's about paying tribute eh? |
|
| |
//Hmm, and the Raptor's top speed is Mach 2 with afterburners.// |
|
| |
They flew a bunch out, The ones left behind I presume were the worst of the 50% of Raptors that aren't mission ready at any given time. |
|
| |
//And that... is my best 8th impression.// |
|
| |
He'd have a rant at the work rate of peacetime military aircraft mechanics: "Doesn't matter how much shouting you do sarge, there's only so fast you can drink 12 cups of hot coffee when it takes a minimum of 20 minutes round trip to get each one..." |
|
| |
Not so surprising. Tyndall AFB was destroyed. The planes that were sheltered in place were the ones not operational when the storm hit. |
|
| |
//Tyndall AFB was destroyed// |
|
| |
Still inexcusable that the USAF couldn't get 17 F-22s out at ~$150 million/priceless each. This is the air force designed to deploy a force force big enough to repel the Soviets over the atlantic in days. It would be worth taking a C-17, cutting horrible ugly slots in the fuselage for the F-22 wings and flying them out one by one, C-17s are replaceable. |
|
| |
The damage to Tyndall was impressive to my eye. The 5-6 Air force bases I've been on were all RAF fighter bases. Aircraft lived in hardened aircraft shelters and the base layouts were clearly designed with bomb, probably nuclear, damage in mind. Low brick buildings for the barracks etc. usually surrounded by artificial hill type earthworks. Workshops/storage etc were often concrete structures overlaid with earth and turf, well protected and pretty invisible from above. Probably entirely hurricane proof. You definitely wouldn't have the space to store a C5/Malaysian airliner/alien spacecraft though. |
|
| |
//Still inexcusable that the USAF couldn't get 17 F-22s out at ~$150 million/priceless each.// |
|
| |
No kidding! I don't care of these things were in a pile of pieces undergoing maintenance, put them on flatbed trucks and get 'em out of there. |
|
| |
Almost makes you wanna put on your tinfoil hat like when they left billions of dollars worth of planes in Afghanistan rather then putting fuel in the tanks and flying them out. |
|
| |
I don't really need to get my crayon out to do the math on that one. Cheaper to fly them out than to leave them there. But hey, what makes more money for the military industrial complex? And do the generals who made that decision get to work for Lockheed after they retire? Just sayin'. |
|
| |
Oh my god, this is really embarrassing that I just figured this out. |
|
| |
Raptors can't be exported, F-35s can. |
|
| |
Whenever I'm slow to figure something out and I finally realize it's a "follow the money" situation, AGAIN! I just gotta take a deep breath and tell myself "Can we start with looking at the financial incentives whenever something doesn't make sense at first? We can save a lot of time." |
|
| |
The job needed was making money, not providing air supremacy. They even come right out and say the second part. (link) |
|
| |
Great link Pert, worth checking out. |
|
| |