|
etalian posted:The F-14 had a fundamentally solid airframe design unlike the F35 The airframe was solid, it was everything else that was on the plane that stunk. Especially the engines.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:whatever happened to McDonnell-Douglass and Fairchild-Republic, anyway? Cutting-edge aerospace technology development is very expensive. Hell, developing the 747 nearly bankrupted Boeing, and that was 'merely' a big subsonic airliner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:The airframe was solid, it was everything else that was on the plane that stunk. Especially the engines. I thought they had initial early issues with the swinging wing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Authorman posted:Except that it is so expensive and filled with 'exclusive' technology that it would never be risked in non-permissive airspace and definitely not in roles currently reserved for the A-10, not unless they want a repeat of the F117 shootdown in Serbia. So unless we are talking about a hypothetical Tom Clancy's World War 3 where massively expensive manned aircraft would disappear faster than cavalry charges did in World War 1 anyway, the F-35 would only be a show pony brought out to bomb people who would have no means to fight back. etalian posted:The F-14 had a fundamentally solid airframe design unlike the F35 F-14A first flight - Dec. 21, 1970 F-14A first total hydraulic failure - Dec. 30, 1970 F-14A first hull loss mishap - Dec. 30, 1970
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Lote posted:I thought they had initial early issues with the swinging wing. The swing wing was fine, just a maintenance dog; between that and the outdated avionics you reached that 50 hours repair for every flight hour ratio that got it retired. Taking 20 years to finally get engines that wouldn't fail and kill pilots didn't help either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
I'm sorry I watched Top Gun and you guys are all wrong about the F-14. It's only fault was turning pilots gay and killing Goose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:whatever happened to McDonnell-Douglass and Fairchild-Republic, anyway? The earlier answer to this question (Boeing, Elbit etc) but you can infer their fate from those names really, McDonnell, Douglass, Fairchild and Republic all used to make their own planes - but each generation is more expensive to develop for than the last, so these mergers happen until there's only 2 big developers left (and even then there's not enough money/projects to go around). Sure the end of the cold war accelerated that process, but it was still going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 10:51
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:The swing wing was fine, just a maintenance dog; between that and the outdated avionics you reached that 50 hours repair for every flight hour ratio that got it retired. Taking 20 years to finally get engines that wouldn't fail and kill pilots didn't help either. Variable geometry is also heavy.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 11:01
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:I'm sorry I watched Top Gun and you guys are all wrong about the F-14. it's a feature, not a bug quote:and killing Goose. much like judas' betrayal was necessary for the story of christ, goose had to die. feature 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Fire Its Gun Until 2019 America’s $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is slated to join fighter squadrons next year—but missing software will render its 25mm cannon useless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Fire Its Gun Until 2019 In the meantime, the designers will probably add some multi-billion dollar feature of dubious utility to take advantage of the weight savings made by not loading the ammunition. Come 2019, technicians will try loading the ammo and be scratching their heads as to why the plane won't take off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Sounds like a good trade off to me. When that happens they can even go back and remove the gun itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Niedar posted:Sounds like a good trade off to me. When that happens they can even go back and remove the gun itself. Are you a RAF officer? quote:In 2001, it was announced that the Royal Air Force (RAF) would not use the aircraft's internal 27 mm Mauser cannon. This was due to a desire to save money by removing gun support costs, ammunition stocks, training costs, etc. The gun was also deemed unnecessary since the missile armament was believed to be adequate in the Typhoon's fighter role. However, because removal of the cannon would affect the aircraft's flight characteristics, requiring modification of the aircraft's flight software the RAF decided that all of its Typhoons would be fitted with the cannon but that it would not be used or supported. The service argued that this would save money by reducing the requirement for ground equipment, removing training costs and avoiding the fatigue effects of firing the cannon. The RAF maintained the option to activate the cannons at very short notice were operational requirements to change.[14] However in a third change of policy, the Daily Telegraph reported on 3 October 2006 that the RAF will fully utilise the cannon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Niedar posted:Sounds like a good trade off to me. When that happens they can even go back and remove the gun itself. Only the USAF F-35A has the internal gun, the Marine F-35B and Navy F-35C all would mount a gun pod.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Fire Its Gun Until 2019 Note that 2019 is the estimated release year for said software.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Note that 2019 is the estimated release year for said software. Maybe Blizzard should sue Lockmart for stealing their release schedule strategy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
The best bit is that the F-35 only carries 180 rounds for a gun that fires 3300 rounds a minute. The design is so terrible that literally not being to fire its gun makes it only slightly more useless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
I'm sorry but can someone explain to why the US, the country with the largest and most expensive fleet of floating airports ever seen to mankind, needs a new generation of airplanes with vertical launch capabilities? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:I'm sorry but can someone explain to why the US, the country with the largest and most expensive fleet of floating airports ever seen to mankind, needs a new generation of airplanes with vertical launch capabilities? The marines still think they're relevant
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if some F-35's get shitkicked by some 3rd generation Mirages or MiGs from some third-world shithole one day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Morrow posted:The best bit is that the F-35 only carries 180 rounds for a gun that fires 3300 rounds a minute. The design is so terrible that literally not being to fire its gun makes it only slightly more useless. Here's the thing, that's really not any different than any other plane out there today. The F15 is an outlier with nearly a thousand rounds, everything made recently has half that or less. The F-22 having as much as it does is probably the result of the development program stemming way back into the 80s. Hell, the last guns kill for the U.S. was all the way back in 1972. I don't think anybody outside Eritreans have had one since, and that war was 15 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:I wouldn't be surprised if some F-35's get shitkicked by some 3rd generation Mirages or MiGs from some third-world shithole one day. It's a bad plane yes but that doesn't mean really old bad planes suddenly become good against it. It's bad in a special way where by if anyone else spent money making a good plane then America would be hosed. Instead it has Russia making the PAK-FA: a plane that runs entirely on hype and they likely can't afford to actually use them. And China with it's array of likely stolen and modified designs which offer nothing new and seem to be nothing more than appeals to national pride: we made our own 5th generation fighter... sort of? No one knows anything about them or their performance. I would be very surprised if they are actually better than the F-35. Bottom line is the F-35 sucks but only America is still the only superpower with the resulting superpower military budget. No one else in the world is going to be running anything better so why should they care?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:I'm sorry but can someone explain to why the US, the country with the largest and most expensive fleet of floating airports ever seen to mankind, needs a new generation of airplanes with vertical launch capabilities? El Scotch posted:I wouldn't be surprised if some F-35's get shitkicked by some 3rd generation Mirages or MiGs from some third-world shithole one day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The Marines really like the idea of operating off amphibs. Yeah the Marines are obsessed with their own knockoff navy which includes baby aircraft carriers. The F-35 got the SVTOL requirement since the marines wanted a replacement for the very bad Harrier jet. It's the SVTOL requirment more than anything else which poisoned the resulting airframe since it meant small wings, single engine and also bad pilot visibility especially at 6 o clock location.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Here's the thing, that's really not any different than any other plane out there today. The F15 is an outlier with nearly a thousand rounds, everything made recently has half that or less. The F-22 having as much as it does is probably the result of the development program stemming way back into the 80s. And when was the last gun run in support of ground forces? Its probably been within the last week. Bombs are great and all but guns are far more precise and won't kill your own troops in close contact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And when was the last gun run in support of ground forces? Its probably been within the last week. Bombs are great and all but guns are far more precise and won't kill your own troops in close contact. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Jan 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Where are you getting that from? Bombs and missiles are pretty goddamn accurate these days. Way more accurate and effective than some yahoo swinging in at mach with a half second of 20mm fire and get wasted by a DShK on a Toyota. Precision != accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Precision != accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Where are you getting that from? Bombs and missiles are pretty goddamn accurate these days. Way more accurate and effective than some yahoo swinging in at mach with a two seconds of 20mm fire and then getting wasted by a DShK on a Toyota. Nope sometimes there's a danger close condition in which bombs or missiles have too big of a blast radius.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:What's your point? "Danger close" range for a bomb is much larger than that for a gun. This is an article about it intended for infantry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:"Danger close" range for a bomb is much larger than that for a gun. This is an article about it intended for infantry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Considering the Air Force's ability to shoot Canadians/Brits I think the danger close range for their guns is probably more of a theater level issue. They also have JTACs giving their own location instead of the enemy's for GPS guided weapons because they don't know how to work their GPS receivers so its probably a wash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yeah the Marines are obsessed with their own knockoff navy which includes baby aircraft carriers. I think it's an identity thing - those carriers are what keeps them from just being our most narcissistic mechanized infantry force. They've really got a complex about being the Navy's army.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Fire Its Gun Until 2019 Oh my god this article is so good. I love how badly the author tries to put some balanced spin but simply cannot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Instead it has Russia making the PAK-FA: a plane that runs entirely on hype
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:I'm sorry but can someone explain to why the US, the country with the largest and most expensive fleet of floating airports ever seen to mankind, needs a new generation of airplanes with vertical launch capabilities? Loving Africa Chaps posted:The marines still think they're relevant etalian posted:Yeah the Marines are obsessed with their own knockoff navy which includes baby aircraft carriers. Actual answer to your question: We don't, at all. The US is not going to be getting into a shooting match with anything that we would need an F35 for, because the US is not going to start a hot war with any European nations or Russia or China or Iran. We also don't need the F35 for any current conflicts, because our current crop of air vehicles (A10s, F15s, F16s, F22s, etc as well as various drones) are all more than adequate for the shooting matches we are involved in, namely airstrikes on ISIL positions in the Middle East.  Like, we're so good that airstrikes that the number ISIL fighters we've killed with airstrikes is more than 1100 in Syria alone at current count, and ISIL fighters don't want to go to fight in Kobani anymore due to all the US airstrikes there. I'm not even getting into all the problems with the F35, I'm just showing why it's pointless period. fade5 fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And when was the last gun run in support of ground forces? Its probably been within the last week. Bombs are great and all but guns are far more precise and won't kill your own troops in close contact. Bombs don't kill US troops though. (they kill Canadians  )
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:words No, gun-runs against ground forces are actually extremely common.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
How many rounds does the A-10 have? I can't find it online, just tells me how much that gun shoots per minute.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
1150. Prefix DCS to A-10 related questions and you'll get answers from sim spergs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:16
|
|