Author Topic: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)  (Read 1351307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

air533

  • Guest
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2005, 14:26:33 »
.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2005, 18:35:57 by air533 »

Offline IST Joeschmo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,051
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 795
  • Getting 1's and 0's to flow...
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2005, 14:38:57 »
Quote
I thought the primary reason for two-engine interceptors was for reliability and safety over the high arctic.
I think the JSF would be a better chioce for missions over the north, so would the F-22, but at 100m (US) per, I don't think we're going to get any of those babies.

air533

Two engines is also great for survivability/taking a hit. That is why the F-14 was originally designed with engines placed so far apart, so that if it took a missle it could hopefull still operate on 1 engine and make it back to the carrier.

I would agree 2 engines would be best, but we certainly don't get what we want! Look at what happened between the two helicopters, what did we end up with? The one with 2 engines, not 3...

Joe
"When I retire, I want to become a gay Hollywood actor, they always make more money!"... My old boss's plans ;)

Offline MrWhyt

  • Civillian
  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 28
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2005, 16:45:03 »
Quote
The Eurofighter might also be cheaper because it uses some "off-the-shelf" components like the F-16's front fuselage/cockpit section fitted with forward wing canards

The Eurofighter does not use the F-16's front fuselage, it is a clean sheet design. At the offical site: www.erofighter.com you can read about the development history. Using the search function on the site "f-16" showed up only twice, both times as aircraft that the Eurofighter is in competition to replace.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 182,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,673
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2005, 17:03:51 »
Another advantage of the STOVL JSF - Forward Air Control and Ground Support

Harriers in Iraq have been used like jet propelled Helicopters, hovering over cities and directing artillery strikes.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050319-harrier-iraq.htm

Finally answering the question about Fast Movers like the F16 FAC the USAF, prefers or slow movers like the A-10 and the Helicopters the Army prefers.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,233
  • CH124 Driver
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2005, 18:06:24 »
I would agree 2 engines would be best, but we certainly don't get what we want! Look at what happened between the two helicopters, what did we end up with? The one with 2 engines, not 3...

I can't speak for every helo pilot, but given the complexity of a helicopter, adding an even more complex gearbox to the mix is not what I wanted and I know a lot of other helo pilots feel the same way.  There is a reason that the EH101 is one of a handful of 3 engined helos, the CH53E being the other one that comes to mind. Sikorsky has stated that they only put the third engine in the CH53E so that it had enough power, other wise they wouldn't have done it since the gear box for 3 engines is an engineering nightmare and IMO, an accident waiting to happen.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline IST Joeschmo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,051
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 795
  • Getting 1's and 0's to flow...
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2005, 22:11:24 »
Quote
The Eurofighter might also be cheaper because it uses some "off-the-shelf" components like the F-16's front fuselage/cockpit section fitted with forward wing canards

The Eurofighter does not use the F-16's front fuselage, it is a clean sheet design. At the offical site: www.erofighter.com you can read about the development history. Using the search function on the site "f-16" showed up only twice, both times as aircraft that the Eurofighter is in competition to replace.

My bad for not providing confirmation of where I attained my info, the Discovery Channel. Can't claim to how accurate that info was/is but that's what the narrator said!

Quote
I can't speak for every helo pilot, but given the complexity of a helicopter, adding an even more complex gearbox to the mix is not what I wanted and I know a lot of other helo pilots feel the same way.  There is a reason that the EH101 is one of a handful of 3 engined helos, the CH53E being the other one that comes to mind. Sikorsky has stated that they only put the third engine in the CH53E so that it had enough power, other wise they wouldn't have done it since the gear box for 3 engines is an engineering nightmare and IMO, an accident waiting to happen.

Naturally, I hadn't considered those factors since I have no experience in those areas (mechanics or piloting of any aircraft!). I suppose the third engine would only be good/wanted if we were to be using the EH101 as a heavy lift helo. Which, I don't think we are trying to do right???
"When I retire, I want to become a gay Hollywood actor, they always make more money!"... My old boss's plans ;)

Offline Kilo_302

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 5,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 522
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2006, 14:06:31 »
http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

Here's a link to a series of articles debating the JSF and RAAF's replacement for its F/A-18s. The authors make some good points which could apply to Canada's situation. While Canada does not have the same level of strategic interest Asia as Australia does, we do have a large geographical area to cover, and as China and India emerge as superpowers, the Canadian Forces will have to shift its focus from Europe and the Middle East. I was also not previously aware of the multi-role nature of the Raptor (hence the "A" designation), nor actual cost of the JSF versus the Raptor(one of the articles quotes a figure of 70 Raptors for the price of 100 JSFs). Canada, if the US allows the F/A-22A to be exported, should definitely consider it as a replacement for the CF-18, rather than the inferior JSF. What do you guys think?

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2006, 15:25:04 »
http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

Here's a link to a series of articles debating the JSF and RAAF's replacement for its F/A-18s. The authors make some good points which could apply to Canada's situation. While Canada does not have the same level of strategic interest Asia as Australia does, we do have a large geographical area to cover, and as China and India emerge as superpowers, the Canadian Forces will have to shift its focus from Europe and the Middle East. I was also not previously aware of the multi-role nature of the Raptor (hence the "A" designation), nor actual cost of the JSF versus the Raptor(one of the articles quotes a figure of 70 Raptors for the price of 100 JSFs). Canada, if the US allows the F/A-22A to be exported, should definitely consider it as a replacement for the CF-18, rather than the inferior JSF. What do you guys think?

The F-22 Raptors are EXPENSIVE jets. How much? Here's a link:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm
And the US Air Force just dropped the A designation of the F-22, so it is now F-22A... in reality, the F-22 is a crap multi-role fighter, as it can only fit pair 1000lb JDAM's, and you sacrifice all but 2 AAMRAM's and a pair of Sidewinders.

A more suitable fighter would be the US Navy's F/A-18E Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Dassault Rafale. All are more multi-role fighters than a pure air superiority fighter, which is what the CF uses our CF-18's as more often.

Offline Gues t

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 75
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2006, 17:33:27 »
There is so much wrong with that whole webpage.. I don't even know where to begin.  ::)

Too much information compiled by those with "book smarts".. as oppsed to "real world experience smarts"

Another fine example of reading Jane's, compiling un-related reports out of context, with a nice smattering of "Educated Guessing"

Explain to me, Armymatters.

How the F/A-18E Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Dassault Rafale will make a better choice than the JSF in 2010.

These are all fine aircraft, but they are using "Todays Tech" while the JSF is a true 5th gen aircraft.

By the time we get ready to buy aircraft in 2010-2012, I want my Tax money going to the most current, not tech 16 years old.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2006, 17:36:49 by Guest »

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #34 on: January 30, 2006, 18:09:36 »
There is so much wrong with that whole webpage.. I don't even know where to begin.  ::)

Too much information compiled by those with "book smarts".. as oppsed to "real world experience smarts"

Another fine example of reading Jane's, compiling un-related reports out of context, with a nice smattering of "Educated Guessing"

Explain to me, Armymatters.

How the F/A-18E Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Dassault Rafale will make a better choice than the JSF in 2010.

These are all fine aircraft, but they are using "Todays Tech" while the JSF is a true 5th gen aircraft.

By the time we get ready to buy aircraft in 2010-2012, I want my Tax money going to the most current, not tech 16 years old.
Problems with JSF:
1. Range. The aircraft will have insufficient range compared to the types it is replacing. This will require either external fuel tanks (destroying the stealth capabilities of the aircraft) or increase air-to-air refueling. The aircraft also lacks the ability to supercruise, compared to the other types I have mentioned
2. Price. Costs per unit are starting to rise, meaning cost effectiveness per unit has decreased compared to other types.
3. Weight issues. The F-35 is already 8% overweight (in the F-35B variant), and weight cutting programs are cutting into capability of the aircraft. Also, the internal weapons are stored offline to the external air flow, which will make for some interesting weapons certification work. The JSF has yet to drop a bomb, fire a missile, or fire a gun airborne - no demonstrations of weapons delivery capability were done during the 'winner take all' fly off prior to contract award.
4. Weapons loadout. Due to the fact that the F-35 carries its weapons internally, there are restrictions as to what can be carried by the airplane. The F-35 carries less than the F-16 it is due to replace, which makes for a very demanding one shot one kill requirement.

JSF may be the most current aircraft available, but it surely isn't going to be the most capable for the tasks it is being given.

Offline Astrodog

  • Member
  • ****
  • 400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2006, 21:54:48 »
The aircraft also lacks the ability to supercruise, compared to the other types I have mentioned

  don't think the superbug can supercruise
Aspiring Zoomie

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #36 on: January 30, 2006, 22:14:39 »
  don't think the superbug can supercruise

Of course. However, the other two have that capability. The gist of the point I was making that the JSF is not as capable as the airplanes it is replacing, and there are aircraft that may be superior already on the market is clear enough.

Offline STONEY

  • Member
  • ****
  • 5,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 185
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2006, 00:31:40 »
1. None of the aircraft you mentioned can supercruise. The F-22 is the only a/c with this capeability.
2. The JSF has in fact more range on internal fuel than the a/c it is replacing.
3. The JSF is still cheaper than Eurofighter or Rafale.
4. All Fighters have problems with becoming overweight that's why they keep putting uprated engines in them.
5. Of course it carrys less bombload internally , it was designed that way. If you hang bombs all over the wings it slows you down, shortens your range and makes you more visible to people trying to kill you. If you want more bombs buy a B-52.
6. All a/c that haven't flown yet, also havent dropped any bombs, fired a missle or a gun. Whats your point , that Lockheed isn't smart enough to think of these things when designing JSF, give me a break. The reason they do a flight test program is so they can fix bugs and modify the a/c before Production.

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2006, 01:35:40 »
1. None of the aircraft you mentioned can supercruise. The F-22 is the only a/c with this capeability.
2. The JSF has in fact more range on internal fuel than the a/c it is replacing.
3. The JSF is still cheaper than Eurofighter or Rafale.
4. All Fighters have problems with becoming overweight that's why they keep putting uprated engines in them.
5. Of course it carrys less bombload internally , it was designed that way. If you hang bombs all over the wings it slows you down, shortens your range and makes you more visible to people trying to kill you. If you want more bombs buy a B-52.
6. All a/c that haven't flown yet, also havent dropped any bombs, fired a missle or a gun. Whats your point , that Lockheed isn't smart enough to think of these things when designing JSF, give me a break. The reason they do a flight test program is so they can fix bugs and modify the a/c before Production.
1. Eurofighter Typhoon can supercruise:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/
Quote
The four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon is a foreplane delta-wing, beyond-visual-range, close air fighter aircraft with surface attack capability. Eurofighter has 'supercruise' capability: it can fly at sustained speeds of over Mach 1 without the use of afterburner.
Dassault Rafale also has supercruise, albiet with a engine upgrade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale
2. F-35 has a estimated range of over 600 nautical miles, or 1111.2km, in a air combat loadout:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jsf-specs.htm
Rafale has a range of 1150 miles, or 1850km in a air combat loadout:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafale
Eurofighter Typhoon has the following range listed:
ground attack, lo-lo-lo : 601 km
ground attack, hi-lo-hi : 1389 km
air defence with 3hr CAP : 185 km
air defence with 10-min loiter : 1389 km
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter-specs.htm
With the other fighters, I am getting strange ranges comparisons that make comparing them side to side difficult, so I will leave it at that.
3. Eurofighter's fly away cost is around €62.9 million Euros each or 76 million dollars US. That includes training for pilots and ground crew, logistics, maintenance, and a simulator
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0309/FR0309d.htm
Rafale's fly away cost is around €53 million Euros each or 64 million dollars US.
F-35A's fly away cost is around 45 million dollars US (as reported Asia Pacific Defence Reporter, September 2005). However, costs are rising significantly, as reported by the DoD in 2003, and the program has fallen behind schedule. Cuts to the estimated number of jets bought are also driving up per unit costs, and there is a very strong threat of cancellation of the A variant, while leaves the B STOL variant ($60 million dollars US) and the C variant ($55 million dollars US).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jsf-specs.htm
The Brits are also starting to voice significant displeasure over the capabilities of the jet and technology transfer, which may lead them to pull out as well.
Right now, claiming JSF is cheaper right now is a bit premature. Wait until the full costs have been tabulated, and the airplane is actually in production in 2010, and then see what happens, because right now, there is a threat that the A variant might be cancelled, and the Brits may seriously pull out, leaving everyone else in the program to foot the bill.
4. I will have to agree with you there, so no further comments.
5. That is why it is called tactical bombing. You don't use a B-52 for tactical bombing.
6. Compared to the other fighter programs, the fact that there has been no weapons tests during selection of who won is highly notable.

Offline Slim

  • Just sliding along...
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,172
  • Daylight in the swamp
    • Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #39 on: January 31, 2006, 02:38:24 »
Armymatters

other than a book what are basing your conclusions on?

You are speaking with people who have first hand knowledge of the subject being discussed.

You do not and, to my knowledge, have never served a day.

back in your lane!

Staff
"The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

Edmond Burke

Offline big bad john (John Hill)

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,681
  • I am a poser
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #40 on: January 31, 2006, 02:58:38 »
Armymatters

other than a book what are basing your conclusions on?

You are speaking with people who have first hand knowledge of the subject being discussed.

You do not and, to my knowledge, have never served a day.

back in your lane!

Staff

In more than one thread!

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 160,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,631
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #41 on: January 31, 2006, 03:57:22 »
Armymatters, it might help your credibility if you would stop regurgitating articles from magazines...some of them are either misleading or incorrect.

Case in point...both Typhoon and Rafale can supercruise, but guess what they don't tell you in the article...only possible clean since both are 4th gen a/c that have most stores external.  Source: I spoke with the German Typhoon chief test pilot at the EADS factory in 2001 and asked him about supercruise...I doubt an engine upgrade could overcome external stores drag to allow loaded-supercruise.  I think you'll agree with me that supercruising without any armament is somewhat self-defeating.

Second case in point...B-52's ARE used for tactical bombing.  I only recently spoke with a USAF ETAC (enlisted terminal attack controller) who noted that B-52s were fantastic for staying on station for extended periods in both OIF and OEF theatres to distribute LGBs one at a time, if required.  I think most here in the know will agree that a single LGB being directed by an ETAC or FAC from a B52 for a specific small target is tactical, notwithstanding how the B-52 first started life in SAC.

Perhaps either some research/interviewing to at least pick up some second-hand information or more in-depth analysis of open-source material might assist you in gaining some credibility here.

Back on thread, I think the JSF would make a good future aircraft for the CF...I would personally go for a mix of B's and C's, but I think we'd get all A's...can't fault the air force for that so long as we have decent MOBs & FOBs to operate from.

Duey
« Last Edit: January 31, 2006, 04:01:43 by Duey »

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #42 on: January 31, 2006, 08:16:37 »
Back on thread, I think the JSF would make a good future aircraft for the CF...I would personally go for a mix of B's and C's, but I think we'd get all A's...can't fault the air force for that so long as we have decent MOBs & FOBs to operate from.

Agreed.  I doubt that the airforce will ever again operate a mixed-bag of anything.  I'm not a big fan of JSF myself but it is certainly our best bet for replacing the 18s.  As mentioned earlier, rafale & Typhoon  are "now" aircraft and do not fit the Canadian time frame.  Don't get me wrong , i would love to see  a section of rafales here in the QRA facility but....

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2006, 15:20:04 »
Well, with the current upgrades to the CF-18, now planned to go to 2017 (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q1/060118b_nr.html), and they will probally serve until 2020. But I am thinking we should not put our all of our eggs into one basket (JSF), as the Brits are right now threatening to pull out of the project, and potential NATO customers in Europe have either raised flags regarding the program and are turning to other aircraft types to renew their fleets. Basically, this year is key for European fighter decisions. It can either make or break the JSF program all together.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1370943&C=America
I can see Spain and Italy going JSF, as they need to replace their Harriers on their carriers, and F-35B is the only way to do so. With everyone else, not too sure. Best to wait and watch and see whenever or not these nations go through with JSF.

Offline blueboy

  • New Member
  • **
  • 20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 43
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #44 on: February 02, 2006, 03:00:14 »
I'm very surprised that with all of the quoting that Armymatters writes that he hasn't listed any Russian aircraft to replace the F-18's. I'm sure he can dig up some wonderful quotes regarding the SU-27 airframe. It looks like the Chinese and Indian Airforces love them. It surely has the range and capabilities? If one is to peruse Armymatters background he certainly lives up to his function of wishing to be merely a bureaucrate. Those that can,...do, Those that can't (nor never have) only criticize  those of us who have done it.
It's better to live one day as a lion, than a thousand years as a lamb.   Middle Eastern Proverb

Offline Slim

  • Just sliding along...
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,172
  • Daylight in the swamp
    • Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #45 on: February 02, 2006, 05:11:49 »
Well, with the current upgrades to the CF-18, now planned to go to 2017 (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q1/060118b_nr.html), and they will probally serve until 2020. But I am thinking we should not put our all of our eggs into one basket (JSF), as the Brits are right now threatening to pull out of the project, and potential NATO customers in Europe have either raised flags regarding the program and are turning to other aircraft types to renew their fleets. Basically, this year is key for European fighter decisions. It can either make or break the JSF program all together.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1370943&C=America
I can see Spain and Italy going JSF, as they need to replace their Harriers on their carriers, and F-35B is the only way to do so. With everyone else, not too sure. Best to wait and watch and see whenever or not these nations go through with JSF.


Stop posting out of your league.

Next time you're getting a warning.

Staff
"The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

Edmond Burke

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,282
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,337
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #46 on: February 02, 2006, 10:39:33 »
Ok - this is getting tiresome on all accounts.

Everyone that is a current CF-18 fighter pilot (or anyone else that flies fighters for an allied force) please chirp up now.

I imagine that no one will respond who hasn't already.  Therefore there are zero SME's on these means about this current subject.  I therefore surmise that all of us are out of our lane and should therefore take staff direction and STFU.  Armymatters may be talking above his operational experience level, but at least he is making attempts to research what he is saying and attempting to draw out a conversation from forum members.  I highly suggest that the rest of you take a break from attempting to slag the lad and just sit back and continue posting in other threads.  If you notice, most AF pers are giving this subject a wide berth, mostly because our corporate knowledge may not be quite up to speed on the JSF/F-22 topic.  I personally couldn't care less about the fighters in the CF aresenal.

This board and it esteemed members like to jump all over the new members and slag all their posts.  We are all posers in every right on these means.  Most senior members are an excellent source of information - however a post count does not equal military experience.  So here is a shot in the arm of all the discouraged posters - buck up and continue posting...
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,070
  • Freespeecher
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #47 on: February 02, 2006, 11:34:28 »
Canada has several unique factors which stick us between a rock and a hard place:

Canada is so vast that even doing northern patrols is difficult for a conventional fighter. Getting overseas to deploy also needs a plane with a long ferry range. Long range usually equates to larger (think F-15 sized)

When we ARE deployed in the far north or overseas on a PSO, it would be wise to assume we will be operating from an austere airfield. This tends to favor small, light and relatively unsophisticated aircraft (or at least easy to maintain like the SAAB Gripon).

We really need two tactical aircraft, a long range fighter/interceptor to cover the north and the oceans off our coasts, and a nimble fighter/bomber to support deployed task forces.

Being a small force, there isn't a budget available to design and build multiple aircraft for our unique requirements. Perhaps we could go really out of the box and ask Scaled Composites (builders of "SpaceshipOne" and the Voyager around the world aircraft, among other designs) to make a proposal, but even then we would have a small fleet of aircraft which are logistically incompatible with our allies.

The best bet is to do what we do already, find something which is close, accept compromises and kit bash to make a closer fit to our needs.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Kilo_302

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 5,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 522
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #48 on: February 02, 2006, 12:06:39 »
I don't see why we cant debate something on this site unless people who have first hand knowledge participate. Talking about army issues is one thing, there are enough vets or currently serving members here who can contribute. But next gen fighter aircraft? There are very few pilots in the world, if any, who have flown all the aircraft we have been talking about, so until someone who has flown the F-22, Eurofighter, Super hornet etc shows up, I say let the debate go on. Technical data does not lie, and an aircraft will be selected on technical data as well as first hand evaluation. If someone has an opinion which as no merit at all and with no background, then I agree, stay in your lane.

Offline Astrodog

  • Member
  • ****
  • 400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #49 on: February 02, 2006, 12:21:33 »
Ok - this is getting tiresome on all accounts.

Everyone that is a current CF-18 fighter pilot (or anyone else that flies fighters for an allied force) please chirp up now.

I imagine that no one will respond who hasn't already.  Therefore there are zero SME's on these means about this current subject.  I therefore surmise that all of us are out of our lane and should therefore take staff direction and STFU.  Armymatters may be talking above his operational experience level, but at least he is making attempts to research what he is saying and attempting to draw out a conversation from forum members.  I highly suggest that the rest of you take a break from attempting to slag the lad and just sit back and continue posting in other threads.  If you notice, most AF pers are giving this subject a wide berth, mostly because our corporate knowledge may not be quite up to speed on the JSF/F-22 topic.  I personally couldn't care less about the fighters in the CF aresenal.

This board and it esteemed members like to jump all over the new members and slag all their posts.  We are all posers in every right on these means.  Most senior members are an excellent source of information - however a post count does not equal military experience.  So here is a shot in the arm of all the discouraged posters - buck up and continue posting...

  thank you zoomie!!
Aspiring Zoomie