Warbirds Thread

bintananth

behind a desk
Is anyone else kind of unimpressed with the F-35?
*raises hand*

Air Force: here's what we need
Navy: similar, but carrier capable
Marines: our improvised airfield might be a short stretch of road next to a rural farm

Beancounters: we're buying a plane which meets all of that
Engineers: *headdesk*

We would have been better off with three different planes tailored to three different sets of requirements.
 

BF110C4

Well-known member
*raises hand*

Air Force: here's what we need
Navy: similar, but carrier capable
Marines: our improvised airfield might be a short stretch of road next to a rural farm

Beancounters: we're buying a plane which meets all of that
Engineers: *headdesk*

We would have been better off with three different planes tailored to three different sets of requirements.
Or at least make the F-35, F-36 and F-37 programs (or whatever number goes after the 35) and ensure that the proper development of one version doesn't delay or have a negative effect on the other two. All in all developing the F-35A and make it operational would have eased some of the political problems the program faced due to delays, allowed the B and C versions a more appropiate plataform that doesn't need to conform to the strict limits of the original F-35 of three very different planes in one frame requirement while still sharing some commonality in spare parts and training and long term to cancel part of the program that isn't working without having such a negative effect on the entire production run.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
It reminds me very much of the Messerschmidt Destroyers in that they saddled multiple roles onto a single aircraft that ended up sucking at all of them.

As for the F-35 itself, I don't think it really represents much of an improvement over the F-16 for the price tag, and I fucking laughed when they claimed it was going to somehow replace the A-10 as well. At least more recently they stopped claiming that and admitted that they were just getting rid of the A-10 and the role it filled. CAS isn't sexy enough for them, I guess. :cautious:
 

gral

Well-known member
Is anyone else kind of unimpressed with the F-35?
I'm not. The F-35 does its role quite well, and if what I've heard around is true(big if, I know), the air forces that have them are quite satisfied with their acquisition. The thing is, it's not supposed to be the glamourous fighter-killer, it's supposed to be a bomb truck - a stealthy A-7 more than a mini F-22.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
It reminds me very much of the Messerschmidt Destroyers in that they saddled multiple roles onto a single aircraft that ended up sucking at all of them.

As for the F-35 itself, I don't think it really represents much of an improvement over the F-16 for the price tag, and I fucking laughed when they claimed it was going to somehow replace the A-10 as well. At least more recently they stopped claiming that and admitted that they were just getting rid of the A-10 and the role it filled. CAS isn't sexy enough for them, I guess. :cautious:
The VTOL for carrier's and the STOL for Marines was a big part of the selling point, along with control surfaces that were designed with an eye to stealth and internal weapon bays. Plus, huge foreign market too; the F-35 just got picked by Finland not to long ago.

Personally I think an updated F-5/F-20 with RAM coating, similar to the Stealth Eagle, would be a wise investment in a proven airframe, and could be used as Loyal Wingmen if nothing else.
 

BF110C4

Well-known member
For what I understand paint serves to protect the very expensive alloys of the plane from the environment, pollution and other factors that may have a negative impact. Plus the F-22 paint is designed to reduce the radar return so despite the stratospheric cost of the special paint used I cannot think of a practical reason, beyond some resistance tests, to fly without a coat of paint.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
For what I understand paint serves to protect the very expensive alloys of the plane from the environment, pollution and other factors that may have a negative impact. Plus the F-22 paint is designed to reduce the radar return so despite the stratospheric cost of the special paint used I cannot think of a practical reason, beyond some resistance tests, to fly without a coat of paint.
My money would be so they have a baseline for RADAR return on the F-22 before they test coatings to defeat RADAR.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Chinese Y-20A Transport Aircraft spotted in Serbia's Nikola Tesla Airport.

Apparently one of the alleged purposes of the visit of numerous Y-20A's is to deliver Serbia the HQ-22 SAM system it apparently purchased, choosing it over the Russian S-300.

FP58U3vXIAIzXMf


 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
V-22 Ospreys of HMX-1, or Marine Helicopter Squadron One "Nighthawks", which is responsible for the transportation of the President, Vice President and other VIP's and government personnel. While Marine One (and Two) are typically the classic Sea Knight Helicopter (or the smaller newer White Hawk which is a modified Blackhawk) a lot of the other VIPs and staff and Secret Service fly around in one of the squadrons twelve V-22 Ospreys.

FRExpdjVIAAFbLx


FRExpdkVcAAuMmt


FRExpdlUcAAug2R


these Ospreys are so constantly well maintained to the point they are perpetually super glossy. Fun fact, this means that they can reflect radar, lasers and even whiteout optical guidance systems, rendering them not only immune to enemy missiles but in rare cases will reflect the targeting solutions back to their point of origin! This is science.

Sauce
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top