24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
-->
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 5 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,168
Likes: 16
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,168
Likes: 16
Originally Posted by jwp475
Burns has to be the biggest idiot on 24 Hour, he claims to know more about fighter planes than Jorge, yet Jorge flew carrier based fighters and commanded an airwing

Jeez Loueez

There is a reason Ross took me seriously and you for a joke.

Just Sayin.


John Burns

I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.

GB1

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 9,021
Likes: 18
L
LBP Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
L
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 9,021
Likes: 18
Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Beware you are about to incur the wrath of the USAF gas station attendant. The F-35 does have some pretty state of the art gizmos, then again you can put them on a 747 and get the same results. As a fighter, it's a DOG, particularly in multi-bandit environments AFTER the merge, not to mention the idiocy of a single engine platform for Naval Aviation.
F-35s have been supplying very good ISR on this conflict. Being able to open a 50 mile AESA aperture is ground breaking, pun intended.

Not going to do that with the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of a 747.

The 2 engined Tomcat has a much worse safety record than the F-35.

It's fun to correct old cogers who can't keep up with current millitary aviation.

Originally Posted by ...HorHay69 yelling at clouds
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by jorgeI
1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

Obviously I know quite a bit more than you concerning the F-35.

The F-35 has a much better safety record than the Tomcat. That's simply a fact.

The F-35 excels at the merge because it can employ weapons 360 degrees and can PID at much longer range than anything else.

The world of mil aviation has gone well beyond your limited experience.

Originally Posted by HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]


Burns has to be the biggest idiot on 24 Hour, he claims to know more about fighter planes than Jorge, yet Jorge flew carrier based fighters and commanded an airwing

Jeez Loueez

Burns has got to be joking, he can’t be this stupid can he?


Will Munny: It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.

The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.

Will Munny: We all got it coming, kid.
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,524
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,524
Originally Posted by LBP
Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Beware you are about to incur the wrath of the USAF gas station attendant. The F-35 does have some pretty state of the art gizmos, then again you can put them on a 747 and get the same results. As a fighter, it's a DOG, particularly in multi-bandit environments AFTER the merge, not to mention the idiocy of a single engine platform for Naval Aviation.
F-35s have been supplying very good ISR on this conflict. Being able to open a 50 mile AESA aperture is ground breaking, pun intended.

Not going to do that with the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of a 747.

The 2 engined Tomcat has a much worse safety record than the F-35.

It's fun to correct old cogers who can't keep up with current millitary aviation.

Originally Posted by ...HorHay69 yelling at clouds
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by jorgeI
1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

Obviously I know quite a bit more than you concerning the F-35.

The F-35 has a much better safety record than the Tomcat. That's simply a fact.

The F-35 excels at the merge because it can employ weapons 360 degrees and can PID at much longer range than anything else.

The world of mil aviation has gone well beyond your limited experience.

Originally Posted by HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]


Burns has to be the biggest idiot on 24 Hour, he claims to know more about fighter planes than Jorge, yet Jorge flew carrier based fighters and commanded an airwing

Jeez Loueez

Burns has got to be joking, he can’t be this stupid can he?


Tell us about how incapable the F-35s are...

Please, be specific.

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,049
Likes: 12
J
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
J
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,049
Likes: 12
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by jwp475
Burns has to be the biggest idiot on 24 Hour, he claims to know more about fighter planes than Jorge, yet Jorge flew carrier based fighters and commanded an airwing

Jeez Loueez

There is a reason Ross took me seriously and you for a joke.

Just Sayin.


You forgot to post a stupid meme.


Actually he didn't like what you were doing



I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,876
Likes: 13
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,876
Likes: 13

video posted to YouTube on Sep 8, 2022



video posted to YouTube on Dec 30, 2022



video posted to YouTube on Feb 17, 2023


YouTube channel: Ward Carroll
Ward Carroll is a veteran F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer, writer, and military storyteller.

IC B2

Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,524
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,524
Originally Posted by BFaucett

video posted to YouTube on Sep 8, 2022



video posted to YouTube on Dec 30, 2022



video posted to YouTube on Feb 17, 2023


YouTube channel: Ward Carroll
Ward Carroll is a veteran F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer, writer, and military storyteller.


The F-14 was a plane before I was born.

Do you think it is better than a F-35?

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,684
Likes: 15
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,684
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by LBP
Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Beware you are about to incur the wrath of the USAF gas station attendant. The F-35 does have some pretty state of the art gizmos, then again you can put them on a 747 and get the same results. As a fighter, it's a DOG, particularly in multi-bandit environments AFTER the merge, not to mention the idiocy of a single engine platform for Naval Aviation.
F-35s have been supplying very good ISR on this conflict. Being able to open a 50 mile AESA aperture is ground breaking, pun intended.

Not going to do that with the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of a 747.

The 2 engined Tomcat has a much worse safety record than the F-35.

It's fun to correct old cogers who can't keep up with current millitary aviation.

Originally Posted by ...HorHay69 yelling at clouds
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by jorgeI
1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

Obviously I know quite a bit more than you concerning the F-35.

The F-35 has a much better safety record than the Tomcat. That's simply a fact.

The F-35 excels at the merge because it can employ weapons 360 degrees and can PID at much longer range than anything else.

The world of mil aviation has gone well beyond your limited experience.

Originally Posted by HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]


Burns has to be the biggest idiot on 24 Hour, he claims to know more about fighter planes than Jorge, yet Jorge flew carrier based fighters and commanded an airwing

Jeez Loueez

Burns has got to be joking, he can’t be this stupid can he?

Oh yes he can. He just spends some time on google and parrots a lot of bullshit and half truths. For example, comparing the safety record of an aircraft that served for over 25 years(Tomcat and the F-16) to a relatively new one (35) is absurd. He avoids the central issue that a single engine aircraft (35)is at a disadvantage over a twin engine (F-14) one over water for reasons that are so obvious to a moron (thus Burns) SHOULD capture and the issue of the F-35s superb weapons system with (on paper 360 engagement envelope which is has), but eventually, you get to the "merge" and in that regard the 35 is a DOG.

Overwight (hint) and underpowered. There are a lot more issues with the 35 that are carrier specific issues to list here, but why bother? listen to Burns, he "knows" his stuff!. And for the record, one does not need to have actually FLOWN a particular airframe to discuss it intelligently (thus leaving Burns and other out) . And no I wasn't a Fighter guy, just a lowly Viking driver, but I was a Top Gun graduate, fought and flew in a lot of different platforms and I am well versed in the 35, the biggest over budgeted boondoggle in aviation history. But again, listen to a guy whose experience is limited to Google and a couple of years as a gas station attendant in the Air Force. I only spent 30 years in the Navy with over five thousand hours and combat tours in several theaters.


A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,684
Likes: 15
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,684
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by ribka
Have you flown the F 35?

How does it do in scenarios with employed air defense systems?

You can go back to your rocking chair now boomer





Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by ribka
The US wastes trillions of dollars on failed air craft and weapons systems yet we still cant even win a war against a Stone Age third world country like Afghanistan




The F-35

One of the biggest boondoggles in the US DoD budget—and the focus of this article—is the F-35, the most expensive weapons system in history. And of course, the costs continue to go up, according to a recent DoD report. The Pentagon first put out the project for bids in 1996, and the first F-35s were manufactured and flown in 2006. However, it wasn’t until 2018 that they saw combat for the first time when Israel deployed them. Since then, the USMC, USAF, and RAF have used them in combat only rarely. For a plane that is supposed to be sufficiently versatile and modular to replace virtually all other combat aircraft, the F-35 has been used very little.

The F-35 program will cost about $1.5 trillion, or approximately what the US government spent on the entire Iraq war.
Perhaps you’re wondering if this is a typical timeframe for a high-tech military project. Well, in 2001, the DoD expected to have its first combat-capable F-35s in 2010. That did not happen—not by a long shot. At least as late as 2013, these fifth-generation fighter jets could not fly in bad weather or at night. Despite all this, the F-35 program will cost about $1.5 trillion, or approximately what the US government spent on the entire Iraq war.

Last year, Defense News identified 13 significant deficiencies in one or more F-35 models, including the possibility of a blown tire destroying the entire aircraft, inadequate vision and sensor systems, and not being to fly too high, too fast, or in certain maneuvers without either apparent or actual major problems. Other issues included logistical and security concerns. Many of these have solutions in progress, although several additional issues with the weapons systems have been identified since then.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Beware you are about to incur the wrath of the USAF gas station attendant. The F-35 does have some pretty state of the art gizmos, then again you can put them on a 747 and get the same results. As a fighter, it's a DOG, particularly in multi-bandit environments AFTER the merge, not to mention the idiocy of a single engine platform for Naval Aviation.

F-35s have been supplying very good ISR on this conflict. Being able to open a 50 mile AESA aperture is ground breaking, pun intended.

Not going to do that with the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of a 747.

The 2 engined Tomcat has a much worse safety record than the F-35.

It's fun to correct old cogers who can't keep up with current millitary aviation.

Originally Posted by ...HorHay69 yelling at clouds
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

To whom are you addressing this post to sir?


A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,524
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,524
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by ribka
Have you flown the F 35?

How does it do in scenarios with employed air defense systems?

You can go back to your rocking chair now boomer





Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by ribka
The US wastes trillions of dollars on failed air craft and weapons systems yet we still cant even win a war against a Stone Age third world country like Afghanistan




The F-35

One of the biggest boondoggles in the US DoD budget—and the focus of this article—is the F-35, the most expensive weapons system in history. And of course, the costs continue to go up, according to a recent DoD report. The Pentagon first put out the project for bids in 1996, and the first F-35s were manufactured and flown in 2006. However, it wasn’t until 2018 that they saw combat for the first time when Israel deployed them. Since then, the USMC, USAF, and RAF have used them in combat only rarely. For a plane that is supposed to be sufficiently versatile and modular to replace virtually all other combat aircraft, the F-35 has been used very little.

The F-35 program will cost about $1.5 trillion, or approximately what the US government spent on the entire Iraq war.
Perhaps you’re wondering if this is a typical timeframe for a high-tech military project. Well, in 2001, the DoD expected to have its first combat-capable F-35s in 2010. That did not happen—not by a long shot. At least as late as 2013, these fifth-generation fighter jets could not fly in bad weather or at night. Despite all this, the F-35 program will cost about $1.5 trillion, or approximately what the US government spent on the entire Iraq war.

Last year, Defense News identified 13 significant deficiencies in one or more F-35 models, including the possibility of a blown tire destroying the entire aircraft, inadequate vision and sensor systems, and not being to fly too high, too fast, or in certain maneuvers without either apparent or actual major problems. Other issues included logistical and security concerns. Many of these have solutions in progress, although several additional issues with the weapons systems have been identified since then.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Beware you are about to incur the wrath of the USAF gas station attendant. The F-35 does have some pretty state of the art gizmos, then again you can put them on a 747 and get the same results. As a fighter, it's a DOG, particularly in multi-bandit environments AFTER the merge, not to mention the idiocy of a single engine platform for Naval Aviation.

F-35s have been supplying very good ISR on this conflict. Being able to open a 50 mile AESA aperture is ground breaking, pun intended.

Not going to do that with the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of a 747.

The 2 engined Tomcat has a much worse safety record than the F-35.

It's fun to correct old cogers who can't keep up with current millitary aviation.

Originally Posted by ...HorHay69 yelling at clouds
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

To whom are you addressing this post to sir?


I'd assume Burns.

Are the sensors better on the F-35? BVR...is that a thing?

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,684
Likes: 15
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,684
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by ribka
Have you flown the F 35?

How does it do in scenarios with employed air defense systems?

You can go back to your rocking chair now boomer





Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by ribka
The US wastes trillions of dollars on failed air craft and weapons systems yet we still cant even win a war against a Stone Age third world country like Afghanistan




The F-35

One of the biggest boondoggles in the US DoD budget—and the focus of this article—is the F-35, the most expensive weapons system in history. And of course, the costs continue to go up, according to a recent DoD report. The Pentagon first put out the project for bids in 1996, and the first F-35s were manufactured and flown in 2006. However, it wasn’t until 2018 that they saw combat for the first time when Israel deployed them. Since then, the USMC, USAF, and RAF have used them in combat only rarely. For a plane that is supposed to be sufficiently versatile and modular to replace virtually all other combat aircraft, the F-35 has been used very little.

The F-35 program will cost about $1.5 trillion, or approximately what the US government spent on the entire Iraq war.
Perhaps you’re wondering if this is a typical timeframe for a high-tech military project. Well, in 2001, the DoD expected to have its first combat-capable F-35s in 2010. That did not happen—not by a long shot. At least as late as 2013, these fifth-generation fighter jets could not fly in bad weather or at night. Despite all this, the F-35 program will cost about $1.5 trillion, or approximately what the US government spent on the entire Iraq war.

Last year, Defense News identified 13 significant deficiencies in one or more F-35 models, including the possibility of a blown tire destroying the entire aircraft, inadequate vision and sensor systems, and not being to fly too high, too fast, or in certain maneuvers without either apparent or actual major problems. Other issues included logistical and security concerns. Many of these have solutions in progress, although several additional issues with the weapons systems have been identified since then.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Beware you are about to incur the wrath of the USAF gas station attendant. The F-35 does have some pretty state of the art gizmos, then again you can put them on a 747 and get the same results. As a fighter, it's a DOG, particularly in multi-bandit environments AFTER the merge, not to mention the idiocy of a single engine platform for Naval Aviation.

F-35s have been supplying very good ISR on this conflict. Being able to open a 50 mile AESA aperture is ground breaking, pun intended.

Not going to do that with the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of a 747.

The 2 engined Tomcat has a much worse safety record than the F-35.

It's fun to correct old cogers who can't keep up with current millitary aviation.

Originally Posted by ...HorHay69 yelling at clouds
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

To whom are you addressing this post to sir?


I'd assume Burns.

Are the sensors better on the F-35? BVR...is that a thing?

IT has EXCELLENT BVR capabilities, hence my comment (and it's not mine, but from a well documented analysis of the 35) on the 747. Basically put the 35 sensors on a 747 and in a BVR scenario, it's damned good. I will say the 35 IS a tad better than a 747 in the merge though smile


A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
IC B3

Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,524
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,524
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by ribka
Have you flown the F 35?

How does it do in scenarios with employed air defense systems?

You can go back to your rocking chair now boomer





Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by ribka
The US wastes trillions of dollars on failed air craft and weapons systems yet we still cant even win a war against a Stone Age third world country like Afghanistan




The F-35

One of the biggest boondoggles in the US DoD budget—and the focus of this article—is the F-35, the most expensive weapons system in history. And of course, the costs continue to go up, according to a recent DoD report. The Pentagon first put out the project for bids in 1996, and the first F-35s were manufactured and flown in 2006. However, it wasn’t until 2018 that they saw combat for the first time when Israel deployed them. Since then, the USMC, USAF, and RAF have used them in combat only rarely. For a plane that is supposed to be sufficiently versatile and modular to replace virtually all other combat aircraft, the F-35 has been used very little.

The F-35 program will cost about $1.5 trillion, or approximately what the US government spent on the entire Iraq war.
Perhaps you’re wondering if this is a typical timeframe for a high-tech military project. Well, in 2001, the DoD expected to have its first combat-capable F-35s in 2010. That did not happen—not by a long shot. At least as late as 2013, these fifth-generation fighter jets could not fly in bad weather or at night. Despite all this, the F-35 program will cost about $1.5 trillion, or approximately what the US government spent on the entire Iraq war.

Last year, Defense News identified 13 significant deficiencies in one or more F-35 models, including the possibility of a blown tire destroying the entire aircraft, inadequate vision and sensor systems, and not being to fly too high, too fast, or in certain maneuvers without either apparent or actual major problems. Other issues included logistical and security concerns. Many of these have solutions in progress, although several additional issues with the weapons systems have been identified since then.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Beware you are about to incur the wrath of the USAF gas station attendant. The F-35 does have some pretty state of the art gizmos, then again you can put them on a 747 and get the same results. As a fighter, it's a DOG, particularly in multi-bandit environments AFTER the merge, not to mention the idiocy of a single engine platform for Naval Aviation.

F-35s have been supplying very good ISR on this conflict. Being able to open a 50 mile AESA aperture is ground breaking, pun intended.

Not going to do that with the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of a 747.

The 2 engined Tomcat has a much worse safety record than the F-35.

It's fun to correct old cogers who can't keep up with current millitary aviation.

Originally Posted by ...HorHay69 yelling at clouds
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

To whom are you addressing this post to sir?


I'd assume Burns.

Are the sensors better on the F-35? BVR...is that a thing?

IT has EXCELLENT BVR capabilities, hence my comment (and it's not mine, but from a well documented analysis of the 35) on the 747. Basically put the 35 sensors on a 747 and in a BVR scenario, it's damned good. I will say the 35 IS a tad better than a 747 in the merge though smile


So, today...

Would you want flying capability over sensors?

Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,524
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,524
They are developing NGAD...

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,876
Likes: 13
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,876
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by BFaucett
YouTube channel: Ward Carroll
Ward Carroll is a veteran F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer, writer, and military storyteller.

The F-14 was a plane before I was born.

Do you think it is better than a F-35?


I'm not qualified to make an informed judgment on that. I do think the F-35 program has been a big boondoggle financially.

Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,524
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,524
Originally Posted by BFaucett
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by BFaucett
YouTube channel: Ward Carroll
Ward Carroll is a veteran F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer, writer, and military storyteller.

The F-14 was a plane before I was born.

Do you think it is better than a F-35?


I'm not qualified to make an informed judgment on that. I do think the F-35 program has been a big boondoggle financially.


So, not qualified but says it is crap...

Ok.

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,168
Likes: 16
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,168
Likes: 16
Originally Posted by jorgeI
IT has EXCELLENT BVR capabilities, hence my comment (and it's not mine, but from a well documented analysis of the 35) on the 747. Basically put the 35 sensors on a 747 and in a BVR scenario, it's damned good. I will say the 35 IS a tad better than a 747 in the merge though smile

Nothing flying but the F-22 has a chance with it at the merge or in any aspect.

FACT.

While the F-35 has even better HOA than the SuperBug it does not need to turn to employ missles.

F-35 can target everything 360 degrees. The adversary is no safer on it's six than right off the nose.

You're simply well beyond your understanding about modern aircraft and systems.

Originally Posted by ...Joint Strike Fighter enters the thread
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]


John Burns

I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,909
Likes: 19
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,909
Likes: 19
They should just scrap the F-35 right now and move to the next thing. In today’s age there is absolutely no reason to have an airframe that is a compromise in so many ways.

Take the sensors suite and electronics package of the F-35 and build airframes that do what you want. Make them modular and plug and play. The airframe is the cheap part of the package. Just add some more or less standardized software and go.

You could have a 4.5 generation non-stealthy bomb truck with F-35 sensors. You could have a stealthy tubby strike airframe with F-35 sensors. You could have a stealthy dedicated air superiority airframe with the sensors. You could have a high and very fast interceptor version with the sensors.

Standardize on the software as much as you can instead of the airframe. Airframes are relatively easy. We’ve got 75 years of building jets and we’ve reached the point where the limits of what can be done are more about the human body than technology. The engineering behind building an airframe that will do anything we want it to do isn’t too hard. But the air frame isn’t what makes the F-35 special. So why take the “special” part and force it into an inferior airframe designed to do ten different roles instead of being the best at one or two.

Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,524
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,524
Originally Posted by JoeBob
They should just scrap the F-35 right now and move to the next thing. In today’s age there is absolutely no reason to have an airframe that is a compromise in so many ways.

Take the sensors suite and electronics package of the F-35 and build airframes that do what you want. Make them modular and plug and play. The airframe is the cheap part of the package. Just add some more or less standardized software and go.

You could have a 4.5 generation non-stealthy bomb truck with F-35 sensors. You could have a stealthy tubby strike airframe with F-35 sensors. You could have a stealthy dedicated air superiority airframe with the sensors. You could have a high and very fast interceptor version with the sensors.

Standardize on the software as much as you can instead of the airframe. Airframes are relatively easy. We’ve got 75 years of building jets and we’ve reached the point where the limits of what can be done are more about the human body than technology. The engineering behind building an airframe that will do anything we want it to do isn’t too hard. But the air frame isn’t what makes the F-35 special. So why take the “special” part and force it into an inferior airframe designed to do ten different roles instead of being the best at one or two.


So, the B-21?

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,684
Likes: 15
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,684
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
[
Nothing flying but the F-22 has a chance with it at the merge or in any aspect.

FACT.

Show me the V/N diagrams on the 35 (Hint: they are classified so I know you haven't seen them. Hint #2 I have) and then maybe we can discuss. Hint# 3 there are QUITE A FEW Fourth Generation fighters with superior V?N diagrams to the 35. Both the F-16 and the 15 FAR out climb the the 35.... Choke on it gas passer.


A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 16
T
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
T
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 16
Originally Posted by ribka
Hey what was your MOS in the military?



Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by TreeMutt
To believe that the Russians will employ T34s is about the most ridiculous assertion I have heard about this war yet! A bad joke, nyet?

The notion that the Russians are back to their Soviet WWII tactics of "human wave" attack is even more ludicrous and another example of establishment media propaganda. Their tactics are based mostly on ISR which is basically locate and identify the enemy and smash him with stand off weaponry. If human wave tactics are being employed it's by the Ukrainians.

Do you think the Russians are going to pull out all stops, use every weapon and tactic they have in Ukraine, when the specter of a NATO incursion is obviously a major consideration for them? Their stockpiles are there for a possible future conflict with NATO, That's called contingency planning.

MAGA!

TreeMutt,

Did you watch the video starting at 55 seconds where the Russian propogandist actually talked about pulling T-34's off war monuments and sending many thousands of them to Ukraine? If not watch the video, it's quite humorous of the current propaganda war. If the absurdity of this went over your head, there's a thread on good single malt whiskey's that might help.

MOS?, None but I been in my share of bar fights with military guys and I was not impressed.

Some play the "what military" thing over and over, ad nauseam, like a libtard plays the race card when they are at a loss and losing an argument.

What makes you think all military experts were in the military?

MAGA!


"an armed society is a polite society"
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,876
Likes: 13
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,876
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Jcubed
So, not qualified but says it is crap...

Ok.

That's not what I stated. I said I think the F-35 program was a big boondoggle financially. That is not a comment about the actual aircraft.

Page 5 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
AX24



158 members (160user, 12344mag, 338rcm, 300_savage, 325wsm1, 16 invisible), 10,533 guests, and 566 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,197,416
Posts18,588,431
Members74,114
Most Online21,066
May 26th, 2024


 


Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.190s Queries: 55 (0.067s) Memory: 0.9623 MB (Peak: 1.1273 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-06-17 10:24:17 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS