• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

  • The site has been updated!

    If you notice any issues, please let us know below!

    VIEW THREAD

Game Changer= F-35B

D

Duc

Sergeant
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Oct 16, 2007
1,331
3,660
NE. Illinios
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE
This video is fresh (for the public). It was made just six weeks ago in the Atlantic, just off Newport News (Hampton Roads), Virginia .
These are the latest sea trials of the F-35B on the USS Wasp. They were very successful, with 74 VL ' s and STO ' s in a three week period. The media and the program critics had predicted that we would burn holes in the deck and wash sailors overboard. Neither of which happened. You will notice a sailor standing on the bow of the ship as the jet rotates. That was an intentional part of the sea trials.
The USS Wasp is an amphibious assault ship designed to embark a Marine Expeditionary Unit. It is capable of simultaneously supporting rotary and fixed wing STOVL aircraft and amphibious landing craft operations. For this test deployment the USS Wasp was outfitted with special instrumentation to support and measure the unique operating environment as the F-35B conducted short takeoffs and vertical landings.
No catapult...... No hook .............
The shape and scope of warfare – worldwide – just changed
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

cracks me up, they came out with this in less time and with less secrecy than the new NF 'beast' scope...
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Duc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No catapult...... No hook .............
The shape and scope of warfare – worldwide – just changed</div></div>

Cause the Harrier made such an impact...?
grin.gif


Speaking of impact, those landings look like they are coming down hard! They do look pretty cool "hovering" without any visible moving parts though.
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

All Navy planes have extra beefed up landing gear to handle the impacts involved in being flown by Navy pilots...
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

The traps shall no longer be rated on which wire was caught. They shall now be rated on "how many bounces you get out of the suspension WITHOUT damages"

Fine line there,
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

Attended the commissioning of the <span style="font-style: italic">Wasp</span> Class LHD-7 <span style="font-style: italic">Iwo Jima</span>. We got the big tour. It was as impressive as all hell. Basically a 'Shake and Bake invasion Force'. F-35B has been long awaited and makes a handsome addition to the basic capability of this combined sea/air/ground force weapons array. The AV-8B is no slouch, neither...
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Duc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No catapult...... No hook .............
The shape and scope of warfare – worldwide – just changed </div></div>
Maybe I'm missing how this is different than 30+ years of Harriers?
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grimm</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Duc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No catapult...... No hook .............
The shape and scope of warfare – worldwide – just changed </div></div>
Maybe I'm missing how this is different than 30+ years of Harriers?</div></div> Very different. The harrier could only hover as long as the coolant lasted that kept the nozzles cool. It was only good for a couple of minutes. The F35 can hover as long as necessary, & is capable of supersonic flight, which the harrier isn't. The f35 is also stealth capable. It is a game changer.

The AV-8B Harrier is a fine aircraft, but comparing it to the F35 is like comparing the F15 to the F22.
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grimm</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Maybe I'm missing how this is different than 30+ years of Harriers? </div></div>
I guess you don't know much about the harrier?
Do some looking its pretty interesting they kept the POS for as long as they did.
The Brits did a good PR job in the Faulklands (they had to), but the plane is garbage.

30% of the first run AV-8A's were destroyed by crash damage...Yes...30%.
In the new and improved AV-8B dropped crash damage to an amazing 25%....How would you like to fly that plane?

Then there is the maintenance...An engine change out takes a bit over 500 hours. I believe an F-18 happens in less than 8.
The average harrier pilot was getting 4-5 flying hours per month!

Then there is the combat survivability.
Scratch that...The lack of survivability.
70% harriers that take enemy fire go down..Three times that of the A-10 Warty (that intentionally fly into harms way) and 7 times that of the old F-16!

The reason the new plane has the fancy landing gear is because they bring the plane down quickly to avoid a little problem called the pop stall. The Harrier does that too, only it kills the plane and sometimes the pilot.

I don't believe there is a worse jet in recent history.
Certainly none that have killed as many pilots.
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

When you say game changer - what exactly do you mean?

In terms of tactics what does this aircraft allow that is currently not available? Can the hover function allow it to be used like a helio in support of ground troops? Thereby eliminating the cost of attack helios? If not - what really has changed?

In terms of future iterations of carriers - what does this mean? Can we build smaller carriers because they no longer need the real estate to launch and recover? Thereby the total cost results in 2 carriers for equivalent cost of 1 conventional plane carrier?

While it is a cool plane and all - for those that aren't aviators and are merely taxpayers - where is the bang for the buck?

 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

I'm coming late to the party, but has anyone mentioned that this is the F-35B? - Marine (STOVL) version.

Navy will have F-35C - standard cat/trap model. The Bravo fills the role of the Harrier. Sure it has more going for it, but it's decades later, and it costs a heck of a lot more.

Carriers are getting bigger, not smaller. The only difference is they will have electromagentic (railgun) cats instead of steam cats and a larger power plant to support.

Big deck amphibs will remain big deck amphibs, and will probably hold fewer Bravos than what they are replacing.

I'm all for innovation, keeping the development and manufacturing of new technologies to maintain that capability, but after seeing the budget impact from this one, it's hard to clap very loudly. The Charlie, with best range and payload capability is basically a superhornet with modest stealth capability.
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

One more good reason to:

NOT FUCK WITH THE US NAVY.
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While very kool; it's not a "game changer"! </div></div>

Well, besides vertical takeoff and landing, it is kinda....ya know,...stealth. Doesn't really do much for fighting people in caves, but it still changes the game at least a little bit, no?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: X-fan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grimm</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Maybe I'm missing how this is different than 30+ years of Harriers? </div></div>
I guess you don't know much about the harrier?
Do some looking its pretty interesting they kept the POS for as long as they did.
The Brits did a good PR job in the Faulklands (they had to), but the plane is garbage.

30% of the first run AV-8A's were destroyed by crash damage...Yes...30%.
In the new and improved AV-8B dropped crash damage to an amazing 25%....How would you like to fly that plane?

Then there is the maintenance...An engine change out takes a bit over 500 hours. I believe an F-18 happens in less than 8.
The average harrier pilot was getting 4-5 flying hours per month!

Then there is the combat survivability.
Scratch that...The lack of survivability.
70% harriers that take enemy fire go down..Three times that of the A-10 Warty (that intentionally fly into harms way) and 7 times that of the old F-16!

The reason the new plane has the fancy landing gear is because they bring the plane down quickly to avoid a little problem called the pop stall. The Harrier does that too, only it kills the plane and sometimes the pilot.

I don't believe there is a worse jet in recent history.
Certainly none that have killed as many pilots.


</div></div>

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3kfness9ne4"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3kfness9ne4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jThMA3Qy-TQ"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jThMA3Qy-TQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

Yep, lol.
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

I can see how in a worst case war scenario being able to launch from a tiny concealed runway could be more beneficial than a 5000ft bullseye...
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

Ya know, in looking at that vid, makes sense to have more, smaller carriers instead of these floating cities we have.

China has already said they will just nuke a carrier group, rather expensive price tag if we back Taiwan....

That's a good solution, I like that plane - what is different than the JSF?
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

Sorry to disagree. The F-35 is not, nor will it ever be a game changer unless the game is going into more debt for an overpriced plane that we may or may not need. (Definately don't need it right now).

The Harrier is a giant POS. The fact that the Marines still have it is amazing. Harrier pilots get very little flight time, that part is correct, but the F-35 doesn't come with an increase in OPTAR money for the squadrons, so the pilots will still be inept, except in a newer plane.

There really isn't anything that the Harrier or F-35 can do that the Hornet can't do as good or better. While we pencil in the Harrier for CAS missions, we do use pencil due to the failure rate being so high. There is always a Hornet in place to do the job. Since the mission is CAS, super sonic and stealth really aren't that needed. Jack of all and master of none, sounds just like the Hornet doesn't it.
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

Super sonice and stealth ARE needed for CAS if you are the poor sap on the ground a little too close to that SA10 launcher pinned down by a superior force that will overrun your position in the next 10 minutes if help doesn't arrive RIGHT THE F*** NOW!
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maxpower220</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Jack of all and master of none, sounds just like the Hornet doesn't it. </div></div>
Kind of sounds a heck of a lot more like the F-18 than the Harrier, since the F-18 has taken the roles of the F-14, A-7, A-6, EA-6, and the F-4 (but let's add the caveat that had to happen anyway). It isn't as good of a fighter as the F-14...its not as good of a Fighter Bomber either. It goes without saying it's not as good of a bomber as the A-6. Although it may be nearly as good in the EW role as the EA-6 ( The F-35 will do this with it's basic EW components). At least the Harrier only fills one role: Jump Jet. Not particularly good at anything but S/VTOL.
Perhaps instead of quintupling the cost of the Harrier or doubling the cost of the F/A-18 the Navy could force congress to realize good enough: isn't; and shop a real interceptor, and a real medium naval bomber at a reasonable cost but hey what does anyone know but the Admirals that are running procurement in the Navy.
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mac the knife</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grimm</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Duc said:
No catapult...... No hook .............
The shape and scope of warfare &#150; worldwide &#150; just changed </div></div>
The AV-8B Harrier is a fine aircraft, but comparing it to the F35 is like comparing the F15 to the F22.</div></div>

You mean the F-15 with a perfect kill ratio, with more payload capacity by far than the F-22, you mean that one?

Just kidding. But ask any combat pilot right now if they would leave an F-15E to go to the F-22 while there is a war on...just sayin...

The F-22 IS an awesome aircraft, WHEN it works like it is supposed to.

I will be shocked if the F-35 has a mission capable rate any better than the F-22, which is abysmal right now.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

I am huge aircraft enthusiast, but the A-10, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 are capable of doing everything we need done in Fighter/Attack roles, and few planes can rival them, F-15E FTW! Stealth bombers are another story, and they can stay. R&D and experimental/test aircraft are great for progression, but we do not need to purchase $150M aircraft, when we have tons of aircraft such as the above which can do the same for no added cost. Who says planes will be valuable in the next war anyways...? or maybe it's the one after that!?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. <span style="font-style: italic">Albert Einstein</span></span></div></div>
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

You mean the F-15 with a perfect kill ratio, with more payload capacity by far than the F-22, you mean that one?

</div></div>

The F-22 has very similar payload numbers as the F-15 when you include the external hardpoints (there are 4 rated at 5000lbs each).

And while the F15 is undefeated in actual combat, it won't keep that record for long when it goes up against other Gen 4/4.5 fighters available today. It was absoltely ahead of its time in the 70s, 80's, and even 90's, but against evolving threats, we're gonna need a better fighter.
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

You mean the F-15 with a perfect kill ratio, with more payload capacity by far than the F-22, you mean that one?

Just kidding. But ask any combat pilot right now if they would leave an F-15E to go to the F-22 while there is a war on...just sayin...

The F-22 IS an awesome aircraft, WHEN it works like it is supposed to.

I will be shocked if the F-35 has a mission capable rate any better than the F-22, which is abysmal right now. </div></div>

I know that actual combat sorties are the true test of a platform, because the fancy-looks-good-on-paper-machine will tend to struggle when put under such a restrictive op-tempo...BUT...

F-22 vs F-15 (when both planes are working) = no contest. In fact, in simulated fights the F-22 has defeated multiple F-15s without ever being seen. When you're killing everything from 20-30NM and have a radar cross section the size of a large ball bearing, that's just the way it will be. Now the real question is, do we need that capability now? Probably not, but it's always better to keep staying ahead of the game.

The F-35 (JSF), in my opinion, is a step backwards, however. It's sacrificing 6th gen capability to try and do everything at once. We had already seen with Littoral Combat Ship that the do-everything platform suffers from not being really great at anything and tends to be much more expensive than a series of dedicated platforms.

Also, I have to re-iterate, the STOVL (hover capable) F-35 is the Bravo, which is for the Marines, not Navy. Navy will be using the Charlie version, which is conventional cat/trap carrier landing.
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mustafa</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

You mean the F-15 with a perfect kill ratio, with more payload capacity by far than the F-22, you mean that one?

</div></div>

The F-22 has very similar payload numbers as the F-15 when you include the external hardpoints (there are 4 rated at 5000lbs each).

And while the F15 is undefeated in actual combat, it won't keep that record for long when it goes up against other Gen 4/4.5 fighters available today. It was absoltely ahead of its time in the 70s, 80's, and even 90's, but against evolving threats, we're gonna need a better fighter.</div></div>

Nah, now don't get me wrong I'm not knocking the F-22 it is just optimized for something different. You are not gonna see F-22s loaded up with a normal combat load the 15e carries, which is as many as eight GBU-12s, a JDAM, two wing tanks, and 4x AA missiles all at the same time.

In a WWIII scenario there will be no undefeated aircraft of any type, even F-22s. Thats why I dont believe you can replace a fleet of 500 F-15s with less than 200 F-22s. Kill ratios don't work that way. It matters how many missiles you can get airborne, sortie generation rates, etc.

As for the F-35 I am all for better fighters, believe me, but there are few things in air combat that are "game changers" Radar was one, stealth is another, but stovl is not. Then again, in CAS whichever aircraft destroys the bad guys shooting at you is a game changer...assuming your ground commander will let him engage, which is another discussion altogether...
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

I think one key factor comparing earlier generations' loadouts to current ones involves the nature of the payloads. Smarter weaponry reduces the number of weapons necessary to defeat a given target, and/or multiplies the number of targets that can be addressed per sortie.

Airframes employong both stealth configurations, removable external stores pylons, and weapons bays are intended to take advantage of either situation.

A 'slick' exterior, sans external stores carriage, functions in the early threat environment, when anti-air defenses are active and need to be approached wuth respect.

The removable external stores pylons are intended to be mounted for a later environment where such threats have been reduced and the airframe can be considered for more of a 'bomb truck' role.

Greg
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The rest of the world is not standing still.

Greg</div></div>
Interesting. And they did it for 1/3 the unit cost as us... Granted, it has "less" stealth than the f-22, because they wanted it more maneuvurable.

But their program cost is ridiculously less than ours...who cares if it's because they stole the tech from us...still cheaper. Gotta love the russians way of doing things! haha
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TNT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
KYpatriot said:
...
F-22 vs F-15 (when both planes are working) = no contest. In fact, in simulated fights the F-22 has defeated multiple F-15s without ever being seen. When you're killing everything from 20-30NM and have a radar cross section the size of a large ball bearing, that's just the way it will be. </div></div>

Did you ever see the movie "Top Gun"? OTH missle kills to aircraft just aren't going to happen in real battle. Why you ask? Too much of a chance in friendly fire. Much like the Navy's Harpoon missle, no one will use it due to the fact there are too many friendly ships in the Persian/Arabian Gulf.

The carrier deck has been reduced to Hornets and H60s. It has reduced costs of operations and it has done the work needed in the post Cold War conflicts. Problem is that too many of our "leader" that are making decisions either are too old to know what is really viable on the carrier right now or have grown up in a a Hornet deck Navy.

Supersonic and Stealth are not needed for CAS for Marines. The Harrier or F-35 will be doing Amphib Assault CAS as a primary role. From the Amphib ship to the shore at a distance that LCACs and LCU will transit. Any other time that they are used, Air Superiority will already have been established. If you think that we will be landing Marines on a hot beach head (ala Normandy), you are sadly mistaken. Recall, if you will the Marines coming ashore in the Persian Gulf war, they were met by several news cameras and reporters.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

I seen a really kickass documentary on Netflix, it was NOVA: Battle of the X-planes.

While I don't know what the fuck Boeing was thinking, Lockheed sure got this one right. Too bad it's so damn expensive.

I don't remember seeing that giant scoop on the X-35B STOVL on the documentary so they must've been added.

It's a really good one and it's in HD. Just try not to laugh at Boeing's design:


DVD-46-1.jpg
 
Re: Game Changer= F-35B

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maxpower220</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TNT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
KYpatriot said:
...
F-22 vs F-15 (when both planes are working) = no contest. In fact, in simulated fights the F-22 has defeated multiple F-15s without ever being seen. When you're killing everything from 20-30NM and have a radar cross section the size of a large ball bearing, that's just the way it will be. </div></div>

Did you ever see the movie "Top Gun"? OTH missle kills to aircraft just aren't going to happen in real battle. Why you ask? Too much of a chance in friendly fire. Much like the Navy's Harpoon missle, no one will use it due to the fact there are too many friendly ships in the Persian/Arabian Gulf.

The carrier deck has been reduced to Hornets and H60s. It has reduced costs of operations and it has done the work needed in the post Cold War conflicts. Problem is that too many of our "leader" that are making decisions either are too old to know what is really viable on the carrier right now or have grown up in a a Hornet deck Navy.

Supersonic and Stealth are not needed for CAS for Marines. The Harrier or F-35 will be doing Amphib Assault CAS as a primary role. From the Amphib ship to the shore at a distance that LCACs and LCU will transit. Any other time that they are used, Air Superiority will already have been established. If you think that we will be landing Marines on a hot beach head (ala Normandy), you are sadly mistaken. Recall, if you will the Marines coming ashore in the Persian Gulf war, they were met by several news cameras and reporters. </div></div>

I disagree on the OTH won't happen argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engagements_of_the_Gulf_War

Plenty of "beyond visual range" engagements, and when AWACS is picking out targets, there isn't the need to eyeball the target before you shoot.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Maggot
Improvise Adapt Overcome Fuck'em up.
Replies
32
Views
2K
Greg Langelius *
Greg Langelius *
pineoak
Chinese military balloon explained
Replies
28
Views
2K
highbclowgr
highbclowgr
Blue Sky Country
Maggie’s You are listening to Black Cove 107.1 FM. WHERE OUTLAW COUNTRY LIVES. All day and every day
Replies
20
Views
2K
fpgt72
fpgt72
P
More bad News for the Best of the Best
Replies
1
Views
1K
George Az
G
Maggot
New technology for the Chinks
Replies
6
Views
1K
padronanniversary
padronanniversary
Top Bottom
Back