|
Every time I see that picture I can't help but wonder just what percentage of a flock of geese it could ingest with that loving thing before Bad Things started happening.
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
Thwomp posted:Imagine what the disaster would look like had we gotten the X-32 instead. It's Jabberjaw! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Almost all of it, IMO. The F-35A is not a disaster, nor is the C. The -C is the one that can't land on a carrier because the arresting hook is so close to the main gear that the cable doesn't have time to spring back up to be caught by the hook. That's a pretty big loving disaster; Lockheed's promised a fix but since's it's a LO airframe you can't just hack something together quick and cheap. And the helmet display doesn't work on any of them, none of them can dump fuel without risking an airframe fire, and they have have signature and performance problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
LP97S posted:From what I've read, I'm no expert, the AF was trying to replace A-10's with special F-16's (which couldn't handle a 30mm cannon) and later with just strike variants of the F-16 before trying to replace everything with the F-35. Also, the Air Force was so pervasive in their hatred of the A-10 they actually did almost get the Army to take them instead. I can't find the link now but there was a move in the 80's to revise the Key West Agreement and have the A-10 included as an Army air asset like the AH-64. Then Desert Storm happened and the plan was scrapped because the Air Force needed the A-10 for certain niches. LP97S posted:Please? If I'm wrong I like to learn, I don't want to end up as some of the other people here. The Air Force and Army have always had two very different ideas about how air forces should support ground forces. The Army thinks that the Air Force should be an independent service only so long as they do exactly what the Army says every single time. They want Air Force jets stacked in 1000 ft intervals above the battlefield, holding until the Army decides to call them in, staying until the Army is done with them, and then loving off back to base. The Air Force, on the other hand, thinks that CAS means annihilating the enemies' fielded forces from the sky before they get on the same map as friendly lines, leaving only shell-shocked survivors to surrender to the Army. (This is technically called Interdiction, a separate function from CAS  ) Despite this difference of opinion, no one who matters has ever seriously considered scrapping the Key West agreement. The Army imagines having a Marines-like independent air capacity when they touch themselves at night, and accuses the Air Force is insufficiently focused on CAS, since the Air Force keeps wasting money on things that aren't ISR, CAS platforms or troop transports, but literally no one outside of hardcore Army partisans thinks it's a good idea. Every few years someone floats a "give the Army CAS/fold the AF back into the Army" article, and during the middle of the decade some people were actually listening, which is why the Army was able to ponder buying its own tactical airlift before the idea was quashed and currently operates its own totally-not-a-predator-UAV fleet. Air Force doesn't "hate" CAS, it simply has to balance it among many other mission sets, and having a platform that can only do one really specific mission has become less and less reasonable as time goes on. During Vietnam, the Air Force used legacy skyraiders and fast jets for CAS, and later on acquired A-7s for the role. Post-Vietnam, the Air Force initiated the A-X requirement, theoretically looking for a purpose built CAS platform which would keep the Army happy. This resulted in the A-10, but looking at its systems and the tactics developed for it, it's clear it was built towards not just CAS but also interdicting Soviet armor in Europe. The thing is, the A-10 has always had some pretty severe limitations. It's slow, under-powered compared to other aircraft, has a low service ceiling, and its adverse weather capability prior to the -C upgrades was extremely limited. The Air Force has been looking for something "better" for a while, but the realities of money, technology and procurement mean that we've never got around to replacing them. This leads nicely to: The A-16 and subsequent comedy attempts to up-gun the F-16 were more like proof of concept trials (with a healthy dose of Congressional interference) than a serious attempt to replace the A-10. The Air Force abandoned the idea because the brass sobered up and realized that gun strafing wasn't going to be a big thing in future CAS missions. Sensor pods, rapidly improving PGMs and other maturing technologies meant that fast platforms were a viable alternative to low, slow platforms. Starting with the Block 40 upgrades, F-16s began incorporating systems like moving maps, NVG compatibility, EO/IR sensor & designation capability, and new stuff like ROVER and JDAM. On the other side of the coin, we just upgraded most of our A-10s to integrate JDAM, which should tell you what the military thinks of its future use in low level VFR bombing/strafing passes. The dirty secret is, the plane that will replace the A-10 is already in the inventory. When you want a long loiter time, low altitude platform capable of performing strikes in close proximity to ground forces, these days that road leads to UAVs, and the MQ-9. We're not trying to do CAS and interdiction/strike in the same way we did in the 70s. UAVs can operate in the long loiter, semi-permissive role, while pod equipped fighters and bombers can provide nearly the same capabilities in contested environments with a lot less vulnerability. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Aug 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
I liked the goofy grin of the X-32, and the design with the Pelikan tail looked pretty nifty. It got hosed by the VTOL requirement, man! I liked the look of the YF-23 more than the YF-22 so I have a history of backing the losing bid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
priznat posted:I liked the goofy grin of the X-32, and the design with the Pelikan tail looked pretty nifty. The X-32 looks like a top half of an F-35 with an open mouth/throat. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Yeah they remind me of F-8/A-7s, which I think are super cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Outside Dawg posted:Actually it was more of a reference to the fact that the Air Force absolutely sucks at CAS, they should stick to dogfights and carpet bombing.   
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Two aircraft that take an eternity to get anywhere and require an extremely permissive environment. Hooray! You should've posted a TACP and a Bone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
I recall reading that the AC-130 can only do sorties at night because it is too vulnerable to MANPADS otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The -C is the one that can't land on a carrier because the arresting hook is so close to the main gear that the cable doesn't have time to spring back up to be caught by the hook. Carrier landing is a system; spring rate and cable tension on carrier arrester gear today were tuned for aircraft that were retired decades ago. Between slight redesign of the hook (which they should have done in the first place, dunno why they didn't- the hook they grabbed off the shelf for those tests was visibly at the wrong angle) and retuning the arrester cable for contemporary aircraft, it really is a non issue that is relatively easy to fix.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
grover posted:Carrier landing is a system; spring rate and cable tension on carrier arrester gear today were tuned for aircraft that were retired decades ago. Between slight redesign of the hook (which they should have done in the first place, dunno why they didn't- the hook they grabbed off the shelf for those tests was visibly at the wrong angle) and retuning the arrester cable for contemporary aircraft, it really is a non issue that is relatively easy to fix. Ok, is it fixed yet? I actually don't know. The most I can find just googling for a minute is a promise that a fix was on the way four months ago. I ask because the issue was reported publicly over 18 months ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Is blowing up when lightning hits it relatively easy to fix too?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Is blowing up when lightning hits it relatively easy to fix too? Look, we can't expect it to be immune to midair collisions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Is blowing up when lightning hits it relatively easy to fix too? I guess the coating of gasoline jelly for extra speed was probably a bad idea...
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Ok, is it fixed yet? I actually don't know. The most I can find just googling for a minute is a promise that a fix was on the way four months ago. http://whythef35.blogspot.com/2012/06/does-f-35c-have-tailhook-problem.html?m=1
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
People do like to hate on the F-35. See all the erroneous stuff about "OMG IT JUST NOW SHOT A MISSILE??" On the other hand, when someone says "It's fixed" but the plane hasn't yet even landed on a ground based arresting system, I am dubious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
david_a posted:I don't know how "multi" multirole has to be or what exactly qualifies as a "huge" success, but how did the Viggen fare? The Viggen wasn't a multirole plane, really. There was a strike version (AJ 37) and a fighter version (JA 37) with ten years in between them; the former could carry Sidewinders and the latter could carry unguided 135mm rockets, and that was about as multi-role as it ever got. They shared a very similar (but not identical) airframe, but the avionics and radar were completely different (the AJ had analog avionics and an analog onboard computer until the 90's, while the JA entered service in 1979 with completely digital avionics and was thus much easier to upgrade). It's sorta like the F-15A -> F-15E development but in reverse. Now, the Gripen was intended to merge the capabilities of those two into a single aircraft that could do the AJ's job (firing anti-ship missiles and dropping the occasional bomb), the JA's job (shooting down enemy planes) and double as a recon plane as well, but whether it was successful or not I'll leave unsaid. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
grover posted:Yeah, was fixed a couple months later, but of course didn't get any press. People just love to hate on the F-35. It wasn't fixed a couple of months later. That article you link to there is June of '12, a year after the problem was publicized in the 2011 quick-look. In April of '13, Lockheed was still "promising" a fix: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/10/lockheed-promises-tailhook-fix-to-navys-f-35c/ quote:Dunaway said he believed Lockheed Martin had found the right tailhook fix before he beck pedaled and said: “I will be a trust but verify person.” Rear Adm. Randollph Mahr, the deputy Program Executive Officer for the F-35, said “I have high confidence that that tailhook will be catching wires at Lakehurst.” Let me know when it reliably catches a wire. Until then it's just press releases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Now, the Gripen was intended to merge the capabilities of those two into a single aircraft that could do the AJ's job (firing anti-ship missiles and dropping the occasional bomb), the JA's job (shooting down enemy planes) and double as a recon plane as well, but whether it was successful or not I'll leave unsaid. That video made a pretty convincing case. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:The Viggen wasn't a multirole plane, really. There was a strike version (AJ 37) and a fighter version (JA 37) with ten years in between them; the former could carry Sidewinders and the latter could carry unguided 135mm rockets, and that was about as multi-role as it ever got. They shared a very similar (but not identical) airframe, but the avionics and radar were completely different (the AJ had analog avionics and an analog onboard computer until the 90's, while the JA entered service in 1979 with completely digital avionics and was thus much easier to upgrade). It's sorta like the F-15A -> F-15E development but in reverse. quote:Now, the Gripen was intended to merge the capabilities of those two into a single aircraft that could do the AJ's job (firing anti-ship missiles and dropping the occasional bomb), the JA's job (shooting down enemy planes) and double as a recon plane as well, but whether it was successful or not I'll leave unsaid. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
Maybe someday the F-35C will be able to catch a wire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPx1A5Rsg10&t=143s
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Well then there's the issue of integrating the F-35 into carrier operations. Jesus, high school kids have to be more prepared for projects than the DoD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
To give the DoD a (very) little bit of slack it seems like the only way the F-35 could be more convoluted is if it was required that every part be made by a different company
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Well then there's the issue of integrating the F-35 into carrier operations. Jesus, high school kids have to be more prepared for projects than the DoD. The F-135 engine powering the F-35C is about 19' long, a little over 4' in diameter, and weighs about 2 tons; roughly the same size as the F-14's F110 engine. Not sure why it's creating such an issue for replenishment? Either way, they're not exactly obscenely massive, just larger than the ships are (apparently) designed to accommodate, and will require some upgrades for. Routine poo poo, really. Nothing compared to the massive mods Navy had to do with the F-4 was introduced!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:To give the DoD a (very) little bit of slack it seems like the only way the F-35 could be more convoluted is if it was required that every part be made by a different company Given the number of states that production for DoD contracts are spread out among to get a little bacon onto every Senator's plate it wouldn't surprise me at all if this isn't effectively the case already. How many states were involved in the production of the F-22 again? I read it years ago and it was pretty loving nuts. Something on the order of 30.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
I thought it was all of the lower 48. I was explaining the groverlaser to my brother today, the bit about the driveshaft and there being a lift fan and he was like, "wait the F-35 has three versions? Wait there's a VTOL version and a regular version? Why, how does that make any sense? Why not just make a separate VTOL plane?" I told him he was asking the right questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
grover posted:What's so wierd about what they're discussing? Aircraft carriers, despite the apparent size, are actually quite cramped and don't have a lot of space for maintenance facilities. But they have to fit an entire airport worth of maintenance facilities and an entire supply depot onboard. Everything they're discussing actually sounds a lot like what the Navy did when the super hornet was introduced. Those sorts of upgrades happen constantly- literally after every deployment. I'm just wondering why the navy is just now getting around to getting the carriers ready for a plane selected in 2001, first production flown in 2006, and ordered by the thousands in 2009. This is actually not against the F-35, it's against the Pentagon and general spending of Congress being so disorganized at this level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
Space on a ship is at a premium, there's no sense installing poo poo before you actually need it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
LP97S posted:I'm just wondering why the navy is just now getting around to getting the carriers ready for a plane selected in 2001, first production flown in 2006, and ordered by the thousands in 2009. This is actually not against the F-35, it's against the Pentagon and general spending of Congress being so disorganized at this level. It's a very long slow testing and qualification process to get a new aircraft rated for aircraft carrier operation. Navy doesn't want to risk a glitch in the carrier landing system sending an aircraft into the fantail. We'll see limited tests in ideal conditions long before then, but operation is a lot different and there are a lot of variables to test, a lot of procedures to develop, and a lot of people to train. grover fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Given the number of states that production for DoD contracts are spread out among to get a little bacon onto every Senator's plate it wouldn't surprise me at all if this isn't effectively the case already. IIRC each customer nation also has some small production role. Using a major defense project as a jobs bank may not be the reason for development issues but it sure doesn't do favors to the price
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Even the new Gripen has that going on with Switzerland, but that's mainly to convince them to buy the drat things in the first place. Even politicians realize that those birds aren't very likely to do much fighting anytime soon, so why not squeeze som
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
Because you don't really increase the number of total jobs, you just spread them out geographically. By definition you're giving work to people who weren't competitive in the first place, sometimes on quality but usually on cost. So your total airframe cost goes up. But there's a limit to how much the project expense cab accommodate that, so your number of airframes goes down. Which means less work for everyone, and a production run ended earlier, and thus less appealing to restart. It's one thing at the high-macro level if you think you -must- spread work between, say, your two remaining shipyards just to keep both afloat, or that you must flip between your two remaining combat air producers (i.e. Boeing and LockMart) or one will exit the business. But that's not the case with the manufacturers if smaller subcomponents with civilian shared use option. Someone like a Gripen-loving Swede could make the argument that they need to keep domestic industrial capability for national defense when there's no civilian base, but the idea that a small besieged Euro nation is going to pump out latest-gen fighters for long is a bit far-fetched.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
Nasiriya, 23 March 2003
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Name me the last time that anyone designed a multirole aircraft that went on to be a huge success. Go ahead, I'll wait here. The Tornado serves as a front line interceptor/fighter, strike craft and recon/EW plattform, and it was pretty much designed with all that in mind, by a comittee, in a multinational evironment. Of course, nowadays it would have to be stealth and probably carrier-capable at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 09:35
|
|
|
The Tornado was sort of an exercise in compromise after both TFX and AFVG? left the Brits hanging. Ironically both of those projects had carrier capability requirements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It wasn't fixed a couple of months later. That article you link to there is June of '12, a year after the problem was publicized in the 2011 quick-look. In April of '13, Lockheed was still "promising" a fix: Snowdens Secret posted:Because you don't really increase the number of total jobs, you just spread them out geographically. By definition you're giving work to people who weren't competitive in the first place, sometimes on quality but usually on cost. Snowdens Secret posted:Someone like a Gripen-loving Swede could make the argument that they need to keep domestic industrial capability for national defense evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 11:51
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:That's exactly what's happening in France, for example. Ironically, it's the opposite of what's happening in Sweden. See, we did this with the wharf industry 25y ago, and it was so catastrophic that government subsidy of a failing business is almost taboo now. We even had an interesting 'test' a couple years ago; Saab-supporters (the car one) who wanted government intervention where not taken seriously by anyone, and rightly so in my opinion. If someone says 'Jobs Program' now it's honest-to-god meant as a accusation. Actually, both Saab (the Gripen one) and the Swedish military is regularly accused of being unnecessary jobs programs, and morally UNJUST  Perhaps they have a point...
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Ironically, it's the opposite of what's happening in Sweden. See, we did this with the wharf industry 25y ago, and it was so catastrophic that government subsidy of a failing business is almost taboo now. God I wish that were true e: phoneposting typo Mortabis fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Ironically, it's the opposite of what's happening in Sweden. See, we did this with the wharf industry 25y ago, and it was so catastrophic that government subsidy of a failing business is almost taboo now. We even had an interesting 'test' a couple years ago; Saab-supporters (the car one) who wanted government intervention where not taken seriously by anyone, and rightly so in my opinion. If someone says 'Jobs Program' now it's honest-to-god meant as a accusation. Actually, both Saab (the Gripen one) and the Swedish military is regularly accused of being unnecessary jobs programs, and morally UNJUST Well, one of the stated intentions with sticking with indigenous fighter designs despite the cost was (and is) to maintain domestic engineering competence in the field, which in turn was originally motivated by post-WW2 paranoia about being isolated and unable to buy from the shelf. Then again the Gripen project only gained parliamentary approval back in the 80's on the condition that there would be no more indigenous fighter designs after it, since developing such things seemed to have become unreasonably expensive. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Aug 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 15:05
|
|