|
Dead Reckoning posted:Much like your posting. 'tis true, i am afraid, my posts are indeed comparable in shittiness to the F35 - JSF
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
this only further underlines just how lazy and redundant the JSF's design is, though, so thanks for underlining my point
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
I see you are practicing concurrent development of multiple posts; a pity we will have to pay you millions of dollars to edit them later.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Sorry to necro this thread Apology not accepted.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Yes, although they struggled mightily for a long time to get it right. The NK-86A (an improved version of the engine that powered the Ilyushin IL-86 airliner) of the late 1980s was the first Soviet/Russian engine to use monocrystalline turbine blades. The AL-31 was designed to use them, but early versions were built with directionally-solidifed blades instead, and it wasn't until the AL-31FP version much later on (late 90s/early 2000s) that monocrystalline blades were used. poo poo, I thought that was a technobabble joke until you replied to it. Guess we really do live in the future. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
I think the F-35A and C will one day be a pretty useful aircraft that we paid way too much for The F-35B will always be a giant piece of poo poo and the Marine Corps should be disbanded
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
nrook posted:I see you are practicing concurrent development of multiple posts; a pity we will have to pay you millions of dollars to edit them later. His posts will be passable one day, but it doesn't really matter as all they'll be used for is forcing small nations with much shittier posts into submission.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:Apology not accepted. That's okay, I didn't mean it. Canadian law requires I say sorry when making requests of the United States eh? Also, gently caress you for making our PM take your lovely  "aircraft" over the French's. < >
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
i like the typhoon because it looks like a small bird heroplane 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:As for expansionist Russia, Status Quo Ante Bellum in Ukraine was Ukraine being basically neutral. This status got changed, and not by Russia. This is undeserving of rational debate. Shut the hell up you insane weird little shill. At least get paid for your bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:This is undeserving of rational debate. Shut the hell up you insane weird little shill. At least get paid for your bullshit. I can't  hard enough at that statement.Mightypeon's post is simply how it was. The only thing to emphasise is how Yanukovich put the screws on the Russians as much as he could to lower gas prices using the naval base in Sevastopol as leverage. He was no stooge of Putin; they didn't like each other.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
The Marines are supposed to complete IOC this summer before the Air Force and Navy. How in the gently caress are they going to do that?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:The Marines are supposed to complete IOC this summer before the Air Force and Navy. How in the gently caress are they going to do that? Space magic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
The main weapon system of their f-35 will be ramming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Thought it was catching fire so they can wheel them at elephants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Bolow posted:I think the F-35A and C will one day be a pretty useful aircraft that we paid way too much for Soon as the fix that wing drop problem.... that requires a near complete redesign to balance out new, bigger wings with everything else.... Don't see it happening. this plane will be a hangar queen at best where it'll need constant maintenance to not fall apart pulling it's whole 1G sitting still. Once every now and again they'll tow them out, warm up the engines (with fire trucks on standby next to the planes) and taxi them around the runway before shutting them down, towing them back into the hangar and spending another 40k per plane repairing the stress of it all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Soon as the fix that wing drop problem.... I wonder what the British are going to do then considering them built two carriers around the F-35B and the entire project is eating deeply into their already pretty limited budget.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I wonder what the British are going to do then considering them built two carriers around the F-35B and the entire project is eating deeply into their already pretty limited budget. Let's ask the expert
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I wonder what the British are going to do then considering them built two carriers around the F-35B and the entire project is eating deeply into their already pretty limited budget. It'll preform even worse since these piles of poo poo don't play well with water at all. (in fairness I think they fixed the special paint melting issue, but still have the other water related problems) not like British states haven't hosed up before. australia bought a bunch of Abrams tanks from the US only to realize they had no way to transport them, so then had to contract a us firm to build special barges just for that task. Canada wised up and bailed on the f-35 shitstorm, but i doubt england will since they've built expensive poo poo just for this plane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Our huge ridiculously expensive carriers don't even have arrest wires or cats  tbh that doesn't matter so much that we'll never have enough planes on them for it to impact the ability to launch and recover them allthough the f-35b is such a fat piece of poo poo arrest wires would be handy to avoid dumping missiles and fuel every time it has to attempt a landing Loving Africa Chaps fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:Our huge ridiculously expensive carriers don't even have arrest wires or cats It is still rather uncertain what those carriers are designed for beyond prestige. I mean the North Sea is probably better defended from on land NATO bases, and if these carriers are going over to bomb somewhere in the Middle East, you could do far better than the F-35B especially considering its limited payload (especially with stealth). Also, I am rather uncertain how many planes they are really going to be able to put in the air in the end as well. I guess the idea is they establish local air superiority, and someone else comes in and finishes the job? Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is still rather uncertain what those carriers are designed for beyond prestige. I mean the North Sea is probably better defended from on land NATO bases, and if these carriers are going over to bomb somewhere in the Middle East, you could do far better than the F-35B especially considering its limited payload (especially with stealth). Also, I am rather uncertain how many planes they are really going to be able to put in the air in the end as well. Well they are aiming for 12 and they were designed to operate 36. Good job MOD 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
On the one hand JSF was and is a lovely acquisition program and it's fun to make fun of it. On the other, it's tiresome seeing posters just make poo poo up like saying the F-35 cannot even fly or pull more than one G.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:Well they are aiming for 12 and they were designed to operate 36. Good job MOD Got any more information about this? The information I have found is still rather nebulous, but I still thought the original 48 order was going to be split in half by each carrier. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
^^^ you can't have all your aircraft on the ships all the time, you have train pilots, some will be down for overhaul, etc. Ardennes posted:It is still rather uncertain what those carriers are designed for beyond prestige. I mean the North Sea is probably better defended from on land NATO bases, and if these carriers are going over to bomb somewhere in the Middle East, you could do far better than the F-35B especially considering its limited payload (especially with stealth). Also, I am rather uncertain how many planes they are really going to be able to put in the air in the end as well. Clearly its to defend British Overseas Territories such as Bermuda, Cayman and Falkland Islands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:^^^ you can't have all your aircraft on the ships all the time, you have train pilots, some will be down for overhaul, etc That makes sense, but I was wondering if there was a change or if 50% is simply the rule of thumb. Of course, a carrier is going to be at dock half the time as well. However, I guess it begs further questions of the usefulness of one of these things in actual combat rather than patrolling home waters. Between the carriers are designed and the large looming budget cuts on the horizon, I can see the ability of the British military to project force might be pretty limited even with American assistance. That said, looking at the state of the Argentinean military, I guess they could handle it. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
The UK has four Typhoons at the Falklands. So far that's done the job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:On the one hand JSF was and is a lovely acquisition program and it's fun to make fun of it. This. It also ignores some of the issues with its competitors. Also I imagine many here (including myself) held the idea at the time the f22 was a giant piece of poo poo (lol, international dateline rite?) and Bob Gates was right to curtail procurement. Turns out that the f22 is in fact hot poo poo though expensive if the usaf posters with experience are to be believed. Woops. I hope that the f35 turns out "OK" once enough dollars have been burned at the lock-out sacrificial altar because our entire pointy nose airforce is going to consist of 37 of the things. AlexanderCA fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
I think one of the two carriers is going to be mothballed as soon as it is finished? Anyway its clearly a massive waste of money at this point but we can't get rid of the carriers because of the f35 and we can't ditch the f35 because of the carriers, but we can't really afford to run them either
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:This. The problem is that for anything but carrier use and wwiii (and maybe even then?) the rafale is cheaper, better, and already works. Its not made in the USA though so no ones gonna switch any time soon
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
The F-22 is hot poo poo because it always was designed to do one thing really well, i.e. to shoot down other planes with a side order of dropping a couple of bombs if necessary. Its problems could be ironed out because the whole plane is a fundamentally solid design for its job. The F-35, by contrast tries to do like three things at once, which means that it'll inevitably end up not doing anything exceptionally well. And with a price tag of like 400 billion you don't really want the end result to be 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Got any more information about this? The information I have found is still rather nebulous, but I still thought the original 48 order was going to be split in half by each carrier. Keep in mind that, like the Harrier before, these aircraft will be shared by the RAF and the RN Fleet Air Arm. So the FAA won't get to have all 48 aircraft just for itself, a number of them will remain on land bases for use by the RAF. Also basic training isn't done on carrier (carrier ops are a lot more complicated and dangerous than land-based ops) and heavy maintenance won't be done in carrier either. So 12 F-35B by carrier seems a generous estimate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:The problem is that for anything but carrier use and wwiii (and maybe even then?) the rafale is cheaper, better, and already works. The F35 isn't "made" in America either; it's just assembled there like some half-assed Lego project. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:On the one hand JSF was and is a lovely acquisition program and it's fun to make fun of it. oh no jokes about a lovely expensive jet fighter might not be accurate
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Re: The new British carriers - last year Admiral Zambellas the First Sea Lord gave what I thought was quite a robust defence of their concept and what we expect out of them not just for national defence but in terms of our wider contribution to NATO. Have a listen - one of the questioners invokes Jacky Fisher and his 'scrap the lot' philosophy of fewer & better is what's being pursued here - being able to boast you have a hundred ships isn't so impressive when half of them are obsolete especially in this high-technology age, and while you might be able to afford a number of small corvettes with the same money for one carrier but while they might be able to turn over Somali fishing boats they'll be useless for warfighting, whereas the big ship can do both and better. As for the lack of catapults: while it does limit the onboard air-wing's payload Ski Jumps are a proven concept that are cheap to use with minimal maintenance and more to the point they can be replaced - unlike the Russian carrier the Admiral Kunetsov which would have to be broken in two to remove its ski ramp the Queen Elizabeths have a modular design which has 5,000 tons of spare displacement built-in for upgrades over its service life. If the need arises - and yeah, if the money becomes available which is the tricky thing - the Ski Jumps can be removed and catapults installed. It seems to be the best balance of capability and economy that's feasible. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:As for the lack of catapults: while it does limit the onboard air-wing's payload Ski Jumps are a proven concept that are cheap to use with minimal maintenance and more to the point they can be replaced - unlike the Russian carrier the Admiral Kunetsov which would have to be broken in two to remove its ski ramp the Queen Elizabeths have a modular design which has 5,000 tons of spare displacement built-in for upgrades over its service life. If the need arises - and yeah, if the money becomes available which is the tricky thing - the Ski Jumps can be removed and catapults installed. It seems to be the best balance of capability and economy that's feasible. Yeah, about that... this article was cited as Annex C in Admiral Sir John Woodward's report to the House of Commons and its gist is that the modularity of the CVF class is far from being as cheap as it was claimed to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:It'll preform even worse since these piles of poo poo don't play well with water at all. (in fairness I think they fixed the special paint melting issue, but still have the other water related problems) Agressive disintegration at the molecular level Oh wait, that was the
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Look, when you spread project management out between so many companies little things like corrosion control can fall between the rapidly expanding cracks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:The problem is that for anything but carrier use and wwiii (and maybe even then?) the rafale is cheaper, better, and already works. define "cheaper" and "better" (Rafale is basically a less lovely version of the EF, except it's made in France which means outside of very basic MIL-STD-1760/Link 16 capability it doesn't play nicely with anything else.) Mister Macys posted:Agressive disintegration at the molecular level Hey it's all good, the SECNAV just wants to get rid of DOT&E (which is hilarious if you know anything about what DOT&E has said about the LCS) e: Also looks like the F-35 program has had its first write-off (pictures of the BBQ'd F-35 down at Eglin last year). No way that'll be repaired, that tail # is either destined for use as a GITA or being parted out. Before anyone loses their poo poo about the F-35's engines catching on fire and lol LM etc etc, here's the back-story: iyaayas01 posted:From the FY14 DOT&E report: So it's already been fixed...but goddamn, that airframe is hosed. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jun 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is still rather uncertain what those carriers are designed for beyond prestige. I mean the North Sea is probably better defended from on land NATO bases, and if these carriers are going over to bomb somewhere in the Middle East, you could do far better than the F-35B especially considering its limited payload (especially with stealth). Also, I am rather uncertain how many planes they are really going to be able to put in the air in the end as well. Well think about it. The range of these things is so incredibly small they need carriers just to have these fuckers extend the range to the edge of their economic zones around the UK. Seriously I think it's just to try and make a play at the old days when Britain ruled the waves...it's a dickwave thing mlmp08 posted:On the one hand JSF was and is a lovely acquisition program and it's fun to make fun of it. Oh, it can pull more than one G, but then the engine starts to rub because important info was kept secret from the people designing it. But the one G thing is this thing called "satire". I know, how dare anyone try such on a satire site. God, grow a sense of humor or something You can pull more Gs on a 10 speed bike than you can in the f-35 before it starts damaging itself. AlexanderCA posted:This. When is that money limit acceptable though? the 400 billion it's at now? 500 billion? 700 billion? 1 trillion? The F-22 and the F-35 programs are so incredibly different in issues comparing the two is the same as holding a pen and calling it a fork. the F-22 had all the basics to be a decent plane despite some computer problems and a few design features that needed redesigning. the F-35 suffers computer issues that make it useless with no real plans to fix or even finish out the poo poo because there's so much goddamned code it takes forever. Top this off with an airframe that can't preform with a major redesign which kinda sets us back at step 1 because we want it to take off vertically and be manuverable, which doesn't work. We want it to go super fast, but we want it to go really damned slow because we want it for two completely opposite jobs. We want it to carry enough ordnance to do the job required but want it to be able to be tucked away for stealth purposes. this plane has no chance, ever, of being anything more than a photo op for the brass to flaunt their dicks at everyone else till someone steps up and offers them a dare, which will never happen and they know it. SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jun 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 19:26
|
|