|
This is a pretty good read for the milspergs out there. Guy talks about F-15s, F-16s and Mig-29s. With a few bits on the F-22 and F-35. Link
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:This is a pretty good read for the milspergs out there. Guy talks about F-15s, F-16s and Mig-29s. With a few bits on the F-22 and F-35. Clearly the answer is to cancel the f--35 and build f-23s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Torpor posted:Clearly the answer is to cancel the f--35 and build f-23s. It would be interesting, though unlikely to happen, to see Boeing try and revive the YF-23 as an alternative to the F-35. At this point it would likely be cheaper than the F-35 too. Wasn't the YF-23 actually superior to the YF-22 in several important areas but got screwed by a last minute thrust vectoring requirement?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
MH Knights posted:It would be interesting, though unlikely to happen, to see Boeing try and revive the YF-23 as an alternative to the F-35. At this point it would likely be cheaper than the F-35 too. Wasn't the YF-23 actually superior to the YF-22 in several important areas but got screwed by a last minute thrust vectoring requirement? That's what I thought, the article mentions that thrust vectoring is not all that super. The f-23 also looks badass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
A high/low mix of fighters doesn't make sense when the low component costs as much or more than the high component... We should have bought eight or nine hundred Raptors, and spent the savings on developing a Mud Hen replacement/NGB. And Anna Kendrick needs to rub peanut butter on my balls every night.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Wonder what your take on this is: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-6th-generation-fighter-jets-will-be-slow-unstealthy-12193 Lessons learned?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
MH Knights posted:It would be interesting, though unlikely to happen, to see Boeing try and revive the YF-23 as an alternative to the F-35. At this point it would likely be cheaper than the F-35 too. Wasn't the YF-23 actually superior to the YF-22 in several important areas but got screwed by a last minute thrust vectoring requirement? YF23 got screwed more because Northrup had a habit of delays and cost overruns at the time, and their last fighter being designed during Vietnam. Lockheed had a better reputation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Wonder what your take on this is: My take on it is that this link led me to more than an hour of military history navelgazing. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Wonder what your take on this is: Party Plane Jones posted:YF23 got screwed more because Northrup had a habit of delays and cost overruns at the time, and their last fighter being designed during Vietnam. Lockheed had a better reputation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:YF23 got screwed more because Northrup had a habit of delays and cost overruns at the time, and their last fighter being designed during Vietnam. Lockheed had a better reputation. Jokes on the DOD then. A more advance f16 would be kind of interesting. Probably cheaper. Well, maybe cheaper. Torpor fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
I've seen it mentioned in passing in the thread, but why is (was?) the F-111 considered a failure?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Torpor posted:Jokes on the DOD then. Take an F-20 and push it to the limit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
The alternative to the F-35 wasn't the YF-23, it was this thing.  I think I see what the real problem was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
It was too drat cute and happy for its own good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Uh this is the YF-23 I have no idea what the hell that thing is
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I've seen it mentioned in passing in the thread, but why is (was?) the F-111 considered a failure? There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
My Rhythmic Crotch posted:I have no idea what the hell that thing is I think we know what the YF-23 is. The losing competitor to the F-22. That fat happy fucker above is the X-32. The losing competitor to the F-35. What someone was saying is that we should scrap the F-35 and revive the YF-23. Even though they were never competing designs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Wonder what your take on this is: Let's start with speed. Fighters don't go fast to outrun missiles. One of the main roles of Naval Aviation is to defend the fleet, and to do that, fleet fighters need to be able to intercept adversary aircraft. That requires speed: if the interceptor is slower than the bandit, the intercept geometry is severely constrained; there isn't much room for error or delays in commit. (It works the other way around, too; a fast interceptor can make better intercepts.) It could be possible to make up some of the difference with bigger, faster missiles, but that rapidly becomes impractical. Being able to go high and fast also gives an interceptor a kinematic advantage: its weapons have more energy, and fly farther than those launched from lower altitude. There are a whole lot of other benefits as well, like being able to engage and disengage more easily, more powerful engines permit heavier payloads, etc. As to stealth, yes, every aircraft has a thermal signature, but if your opponent is forced to rely on passive detection of skin friction heating of all things, I'd call that a win. The signal from that is incredibly low compared to a radar return. That's why aircraft like the F-22 are called "low observable," not invisible. They can still be seen or heard or acquired with various other sensors, but their design severely reduces the range at which they can be detected. Being able to deny the bands used in most target tracking and fighter radars is a pretty big deal, even if the game-changing early warning radar the Russians have been promising every year turns out to be more than hype. KomradeX posted:I've seen it mentioned in passing in the thread, but why is (was?) the F-111 considered a failure?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:YF23 got screwed more because Northrup had a habit of delays and cost overruns at the time, and their last fighter being designed during Vietnam. Lockheed had a better reputation. Dead Reckoning posted:I believe there was also an issue with Northrop failing to properly audit its suppliers, leading to substandard and improperly sourced parts. While it's true that the B-2 gets an unfair rap from the "lol billion dollar airplane" perspective because no poo poo if you cut a program's buy by 90% the per unit cost is going to skyrocket, and you of course have the whole "bleeding edge technology" thing, but even outside of all that the program was a gigantic disaster for those two reasons and more. That was what was fresh in DoD's mind when Northrop was bidding on ATF, so it's no wonder that they gave it to Lockheed. Dead Reckoning posted:As a strike bomber, it did fairly well, though not without its early hiccups. (Stabilizer malfunctions killed several crews in Vietnam during an early deployment.) It could fly very low and very fast, had a good radar for the time, was able to penetrate contemporary defenses. I don't know how well it was received as an ECM platform, but the inability to carry HARM hamstrung it. As a carrier based heavy interceptor and multirole fighter? Yeah, it was a failure. Add it to the list of planes that was extremely hamstrung by the TF30's complete shittiness, but yeah, for the most part the 'Vark was fine as a strike bomber. It's where it was supposed to be a whole bunch of other things that is a problem. Similarly to how for all the buffoonery the F-35 (-A and -C) are going to turn out to be pretty darn good strike fighters and probably do better than alright in the SEAD/DEAD role as well. It's just lumping all the other poo poo onto them that makes them worthy of criticism (strictly from a design and performance standpoint...obviously programmatically there were all sorts of issues both in planning and execution.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Similarly to how for all the buffoonery the F-35 (-A and -C) are going to turn out to be pretty darn good strike fighters and probably do better than alright in the SEAD/DEAD role as well. It's just lumping all the other poo poo onto them that makes them worthy of criticism (strictly from a design and performance standpoint...obviously programmatically there were all sorts of issues both in planning and execution.) How will the F-35 be good at any role when the airframe is fundamentally flawed, plus having limited range and max payload.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
etalian posted:How will the F-35 be good at any role when the airframe is fundamentally flawed, quote:plus having limited range and max payload.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Mazz posted:The first people. Especially those that have experience in military/commercial aviation and contracts, like you or iyaayas. quote:I understand all that, I should clarify that I'm pretty up to date on the faults of the F-35, I'm more curious about it in direct comparison to previous programs, like TFX, LWF, or ATF. Is it further behind schedule? Has is it delivered less then those in a similar time frame? Does the program have much light of getting better or expanding roles later on like the F-16 did?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
That's more or less what I figured. I think the short answer is just gently caress the -B.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There really haven't been any "It slices, it dices, it juliennes! A multi-role aircraft for all three services and several foreign partners!" projects to compare it to. There was one in Europe. It exploded because of disagreement between partners (France insisted on carrier capability, Germany thought it'd compromise the design too much and also wanted a big plane) so the end result was the Eurofighter on one side and the Rafale on the other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
Also the Tornado. Tornado, Eurofighter and Rafale are all good planes (Rafale and Eurofighter are fairly similar in some ways because Eurofighter research was re-tasked for it). But all of the stories the most incompatible partners got railroaded or dropped out. The F-35 is the story where the incompatible partner (USMC) stayed in.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
In the late 90s/early 00s there were a few flight sims with a Joint Strike Fighter, usually as a sequel to or in conjunction with an F-22. How close were any of these to what we eventually got? For that matter, are there any recent attempts at simming the F-35?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:07
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:In the late 90s/early 00s there were a few flight sims with a Joint Strike Fighter, usually as a sequel to or in conjunction with an F-22. How close were any of these to what we eventually got? Broken rollercoasters, I guess.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
It's pretty hard to sim something that is largely top secret compartmentalized information without going to federal prison. So you'll only see those planes in arcade style games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:In the late 90s/early 00s there were a few flight sims with a Joint Strike Fighter, usually as a sequel to or in conjunction with an F-22. How close were any of these to what we eventually got? BF3/4? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:For that matter, are there any recent attempts at simming the F-35? Kinda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Thanks for the input about the F-111, was very informative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
An F-35 flight simulator is gonna be a pain in the rear end to develop, and play, probably. Has anyone made an F-35 development simulator yet? Like Military Development Tycoon or AerospaceBiz or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Let's start with speed. Fighters don't go fast to outrun missiles. But they do? Outrunning the fuel tank/energy on the missile is a very common defensive tactic at long range.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:There was one in Europe. It exploded because of disagreement between partners (France insisted on carrier capability, Germany thought it'd compromise the design too much and also wanted a big plane) so the end result was the Eurofighter on one side and the Rafale on the other. Disinterested posted:Also the Tornado. Tornado, Eurofighter and Rafale are all good planes (Rafale and Eurofighter are fairly similar in some ways because Eurofighter research was re-tasked for it). But all of the stories the most incompatible partners got railroaded or dropped out. The F-35 is the story where the incompatible partner (USMC) stayed in. I suppose I should have caveated that with, "and were pushed this far into production in their original form." Rockopolis posted:Like Military Development Tycoon or AerospaceBiz or something. Jarmak posted:But they do? Outrunning the fuel tank/energy on the missile is a very common defensive tactic at long range. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Broadly speaking, I'd say the argument that there's diminishing returns for demanding ever faster aircraft is a pretty fair one. At a certain point, the costs and compromises needed to be on the bleeding edge seem rather misguided.Jarmak posted:But they do? Outrunning the fuel tank/energy on the missile is a very common defensive tactic at long range. That's a use for the speed, but outrunning missiles isn't the primary or even secondary justification for supercruise capability. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:16
|
|
Kaal posted:That's a use for the speed, but outrunning missiles isn't the primary or even secondary justification for supercruise capability. I'd say the argument that there's diminishing returns for demanding ever faster aircraft is a pretty fair one. On the other hand, the returns don't diminish as fast as the argument for ever slower aircraft.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Of course, but you would never say you didn't need your racecar to be fast because there's more to racing than just "going faster". Kaal posted:Broadly speaking, I'd say the argument that there's diminishing returns for demanding ever faster aircraft is a pretty fair one. At a certain point, the costs and compromises needed to be on the bleeding edge seem rather misguided. Fair enough
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Is there a single video anywhere in the world that shows the F35 taking off, flying, shooting its gun, and landing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Since gun integration isn't until 2016, I'm gonna go with "no."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Didn't they source parts from RadioShack to meet deadlines for the MX missiles? (Also whoops, having missiles without working guidance units)
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 23:56
|
|