quick, we have a good thread, lets shit it up some more
quick, we have a good thread, lets shit it up some more
Originally Posted by Loire
This is neither armed nor rusty, but it's still infinitely better than Armchair General Razor & Co. (how does "more engines" make a plane worse to fly again?)
What are you on about, faggot?
I think he meant that 2 engines would consume even more fuel and F-35A isn't exactly a strategic bomber as it is. There are design limits that didn't, in this case, allow a plane with internal weapon bays to be any bigger without going over mass and size restrictions asked for a light fighter.
So yes, he was kind of right.
I still don't get the concept though - internal bays suppose wide fuselage which works good with twin engines...
Also F-35 resembles a penguin.
Last edited by RazoR; August 2 2012 at 05:44:28 PM.
Don't care what people say, that's sexy.
You probably don't know sexy.
Was referring to the Tuscano.
WAT?
the damn things weigh between 13 and 16 tons empty, almost twice of a F-16 that's sitting at 8.5 ton.
the only "light fighter" in production in the west is the JAS 39 Gripen, at almost 7 tons.
the F-35 is many things, but a "light fighter" it is not.
F-22 must be a tactical bomber then?
Or are you saying Pentagon drew up two identical programs?
Like soviets almost did with Su-27 and Mig-29, that went well.
This is what I meant by "unflyable" the data that I've seen puts the operational range of the F-35B at somewhere between 450 and 1000 nautical miles.
It's payload is limited to 4 AMRAAMS + 2 WVR AIM-9s. It cannot carry external fuel tanks.
It has the same limitations that the Harrier had in that it can't land vertically with maximum load (figures vary for this, some sources claim that it can't land unless it has no load and 30% fuel)
For comparison the MiG-21, an aircraft from the 1960s, designed for short range interception and limited air superiority has an operational range of 900 nautical miles and with the Romanian Lancer upgrade can carry 4 AMRAAMS. I know you can't really compare these two aircraft on very many points but operational range is a parameter that applies to all aircraft.
All this is kind of a recipe for an aircraft that's basically useless. I don't care if you can fly it perfectly with one hand or if some guy that's been in a public simulator thinks it's really cool it's just not going to be tremendously useful.
Putting 2 engines in it would, as Razor says, limit the fuel and armament capacity even more for very little benefit.
It's also the most expensive aircraft ever made and Lockheed Martin say that this is an aircraft with an operational lifetime of 50 years
I'm sorry, and I don't like to say it but the F-35B is an awful piece of machinery that is going to be a black hole in the UK defence budget for probably it's whole operational lifetime, a black hole that we really REALLY can't afford.
The F-35C doesn't even work because it's arrestor hook doesn't work although is actually shaping up to be a rather capable carrier-based fighter. The F-35A is probably going to be worse in every significant way to the Eurofighter, the F-22 and the Su-27.
This whole thing is a jobs program that the Royal Navy, the RAF, the RAAF and the USMC are all relying on to replace the Harriers and F-18Cs and will cripple their operational capacity by doing so.
Razor can you please sell us MiG-29Ks for our fleet carriers?
Doubt UK carriers are big enough for MiG-29K.
You'd be better off with Harriers, oh wait...
It's a Pilatus PC-21. They look somewhat similar as they both are single engine low wing turboprop trainers. However the Pilatus has a swept monoplane wing.
This is neither armed nor rusty, but it's still infinitely better than Armchair General Razor & Co. (how does "more engines" make a plane worse to fly again?)
They would if the UK would buy them. I think that most countries in the west could do better if they for a change were looking into buying Russian jets. If you want to buy them, Russians will gladly make them NATO compliant. And if they won't, send them via Israel to get the avionics done by IAI.
nevar forget
The new British fleet carriers have a 65k ton displacement and are 284 metres long. I think they're big enough. (they're just not built yet)
Are you certain? I thought there were definite issues with certain armaments and avionics that the Russians don't even let India use let alone a NATO member?They would if the UK would buy them. I think that most countries in the west could do better if they for a change were looking into buying Russian jets. If you want to buy them, Russians will gladly make them NATO compliant. And if they won't, send them via Israel to get the avionics done by IAI.
That is why you get them replaced by NATO weapons.The new British fleet carriers have a 65k ton displacement and are 284 metres long. I think they're big enough. (they're just not built yet)
Are you certain? I thought there were definite issues with certain armaments and avionics that the Russians don't even let India use let alone a NATO member?They would if the UK would buy them. I think that most countries in the west could do better if they for a change were looking into buying Russian jets. If you want to buy them, Russians will gladly make them NATO compliant. And if they won't, send them via Israel to get the avionics done by IAI.
nevar forget
I think I'm unconvinced that it could work, Russia would never let us use their radars surely, we'd have to bodge one in ourselves? I don't know how much effort that would be, I'd have thought it would be quite an expensive enterprise.That is why you get them replaced by NATO weapons.The new British fleet carriers have a 65k ton displacement and are 284 metres long. I think they're big enough. (they're just not built yet)
Are you certain? I thought there were definite issues with certain armaments and avionics that the Russians don't even let India use let alone a NATO member?They would if the UK would buy them. I think that most countries in the west could do better if they for a change were looking into buying Russian jets. If you want to buy them, Russians will gladly make them NATO compliant. And if they won't, send them via Israel to get the avionics done by IAI.
Here's an image of Indian MiG-29Ks flying formation with an Indian Sea Harrier... I'm pretty jelly.
And just for luck here's a MiG-29K:
And another one with partially folded wings:
Pretty nice. I, too think that we could benefit quite a lot from considering Russian aircraft. I think looking into using the Rafale on our new carriers is a good idea too.
the russains will sell to anyone there number 1 black market salesmen after all
That PAK FA T-50 looks nice, if its anything like the T-50 tank I need to start practicing my Russian.
The F-35 has more range than the Harrier and there is this crazy new thing these days called inflight refueling.
Last edited by Sickpuppy; August 3 2012 at 03:39:22 PM.
well it performs like one in mock dockfights compared to the Gripens and Typhoons...
the F-22 was designed to be the definitive air superiority fighter while the F-35 was designed to be the "lighter, cheaper, unified/export" option.
reality however, has a nasty habit of turning out somewhat differently compared to even the best laid plans, so what the americans seem to have made is a very capable air superiority fighter with a tendency to murder its pilots, and a grossly overweight "light fighter" that weighs about twice as much as the planes its trying to compete with, while costing three to four times as much.
not that the F-35 wont be a export success regardless of that.
they are designed to carry and launch F-35C's, the reason the Royal Navy seems to be going with the F-35B's is because BAE believes EMALS is going to be "too expensive" to put on the QE carriers.
of course, the F-35C cant land on carriers and the F-35B's are out-ranged by some helicopters, but all is well!
(or so i am told)
Wern't they also part of the international group that developed the F-35? I would think that has alot to do with the selection.well it performs like one in mock dockfights compared to the Gripens and Typhoons...
the F-22 was designed to be the definitive air superiority fighter while the F-35 was designed to be the "lighter, cheaper, unified/export" option.
reality however, has a nasty habit of turning out somewhat differently compared to even the best laid plans, so what the americans seem to have made is a very capable air superiority fighter with a tendency to murder its pilots, and a grossly overweight "light fighter" that weighs about twice as much as the planes its trying to compete with, while costing three to four times as much.
not that the F-35 wont be a export success regardless of that.
they are designed to carry and launch F-35C's, the reason the Royal Navy seems to be going with the F-35B's is because BAE believes EMALS is going to be "too expensive" to put on the QE carriers.
of course, the F-35C cant land on carriers and the F-35B's are out-ranged by some helicopters, but all is well!
(or so i am told)
a cynical man might look at who's building the carriers, and who's building what parts of each F-35 model and suddenly see a connection.
i am not cynical however, os i am just going to get a +1 in here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks