[timel]

I have to admit that they have done quite a good job on this one.

The only problem I see so far is that it must be completly hell on desert operations (sand blasting!) and fuel consumption on vertical take off must be quite huge.

[MB.]

The only problem with the F35 is that it's a gigantic waste of money and that it looks ugly.

The USAF should have produced super-Harrier IIs along the lines of the super-hornet program, rather than building an entirely new and utterly useless fighter for niches which are currently filled to satisfaction.



>

[timel]

hmm... It's discutable.

1- Harrier II is british haha. Waste or not, it makes US dependante on british developement.

2- I heard that beeing hit by a missile on a harrier can be quite fatal since exaust nozzels are near the center of the aircraft versus the end of it. (thermic missile)

3- Acknoledge that the design is one thing. Aerodynamicaly F-35 has probably much more performance compared to the harrier.

4-Also on avionics and hydraulics. I'm not sure that the harrier would be able to carry the new technologies without a huge change of design.

But I might agree that it is also a contract to make money flow on Mc-Donald Douglas side.
It's US pride too.
Now I'm curious to see where and for what they will use it.

I doubt it will be more efficient in Dog Fight. Compared to the F-22 which is amazing for that, and, by the way more expensive than F-35

[MistyTiger]

I think it looks too bulky and I thought, bottom-heavy.

[Suska]

How to spend 1.5 Billion dollars

Pinky: You see this airplane? It's a United States Air Force B2 stealth bomber. It's one of the main airplanes the United States uses to bomb stuff... and people. You wanna guess how much one of these things costs? Well, they are 1.5 billion dollars each. Each, okay? Billion, not million. That's an amount of money most people can't even comprehend.

I mean, let me put it this way: if you had a good job that paid you, $50,000 dollars a year, and you never had to spend any of it and you could just save all your money all the time, it would still take you 30,000 years to save up the $1.5 billion to buy your very own B2 bomber.

Now, whether or not you think that's crazy, I guess that depends on how important you think it is to be able to bomb people and things on the far side of the planet with impunity. To some people, you can't put a price on such things.

I'm out of work at the moment trying to put together a grand a month, I think we have a couple of B2s down the road, I know we have warthogs because they're used to cut the tops of trees. I wonder sometimes how much those training flights cost. Hey I'm just happy they're out there protecting me so I can die inside in peace. An example a little closer to home, how bout them new cruzers the local PD got? The war on drugs must be working out pretty well I guess. The problem isn't that we're not socialistic, its that we're only socialists where it comes to killing people and taking their shit.

god dammit see what you did now I sound like Micheal Moore! Bastards!

[MB.]

Oxy has no idea what he's talking about.

1- Harrier II is british haha. Waste or not, it makes US dependante on british developement.

Teh AV8 B Harrier II is an American built and designed variant of the classic British RAF Harrier. The Harrier II was designed basically for the Marine Corps to provide close air support to amphibious operations.

I heard that beeing hit by a missile on a harrier can be quite fatal since exaust nozzels are near the centre of the aircraft versus the end of it. (thermic missile)

Any fighter hit by a missile will likely not survive the encounter.

Acknoledge that the design is one thing. Aerodynamicaly F-35 has probably much more performance compared to the harrier

The F-35 might be more fuel efficient and might handle easier or something, but those are minor problems which could have been solved by a Harrier III program or something. The F-35 is replacing the F-16 / Harrier II anyway, so performance is obviously not that important. The F-16 & Harrier alike are multi-role export fighters, so I imagine the F-35 is basically just an export package for small countries with limited air forces.

Also on avionics and hydraulics. I'm not sure that the harrier would be able to carry the new technologies without a huge change of design.

Upgrading is almost limitless. The Super hornet and Super flankers are excellent examples of what can be done with old airframes.

But I might agree that it is also a contract to make money flow on Mc-Donald Douglas side.
It's US pride too.
Now I'm curious to see where and for what they will use it

As you mention the F-35 is clearly an export fighter. Presumably the Marine Corps will buy some to replace their Harrier IIs and imagine the F-35s might see some use there, but otherwise the plane will be of almost zero use for the American military. The JSF will almost certainly receive its largest orders from nations over-seas. I know the Canadians are planning on buying some once their super-hornet orders are filled.

Compared to the F-22 which is amazing for that, and, by the way more expensive than F-35

The F-22 is a compromise piece of shit. Not only is it beyond expensive, but the USAF should have bought these:



Sure the F-23 is was more expensive as a prototype, but I bet in the long run the 23 program would have come in below the budget of the outrageously wasteful F-22 program.

[Typhoon]

The F-35 has come in for an lot of critisism recently, being affectionately reffered to as a 'dog' and 'cubbed seal'. Time will tell as to what it turns into and if expectations on performance, timing and cost are met.

Good recent article on the subject is here:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The ... rsy-05089/

The JSF will almost certainly receive its largest orders from nations over-seas.

With over 2000 expected orders the USAF and Navy will be the largest buyers in the JSF program, the JSF being an attempt at the F-22 'lite' (which has pretty much sucked the US airforce dry) so theres a lot of hopes riding on the F-35 to make up numbers!

[MB.]

With over 2000 expected orders the USAF and Navy will be the largest buyers in the JSF program,

For a plane that isn't finished yet that makes sense. Do you have any figures on export orders, if any?

[Typhoon]

For a plane that isn't finished yet that makes sense. Do you have any figures on export orders, if any?

The UK plans to aquire 138 to replace the harrier, though there has been a look into a navalized Eurofighter, cutting the number or delaying purchase to cut costs.

The Aussies are after ~100 but its been heavily critisized by some parties and the order may drop to 75.

Isreal wants 25 with 50 options (thinking about the S-300?).

Italy wants 131, pulled out of the test phase.

Netherlands apparently want 85 with 15 options but have had funding trouble, may open up to Gripen, EU fighter again.

Turkey wants 116.

Norway, Denmark, Finland are also considering.

[timel]

I agree with Typhoon. It's too many factors that come into account. So time will tell. (prize for maintenance and how good has been engeenering.)


MB., my name is not Oxy.

Any fighter hit by a missile will likely not survive the encounter.

more chances still if your turbine is in the back.

Upgrading is almost limitless. The Super hornet and Super flankers are excellent examples of what can be done with old airframes

Bloody expensive too and the hell of a work for Engeeners and Mechanics.


And I still love F-22, though it sounds like Russian inspired.

[Piano Red]

Suska

I'm out of work at the moment trying to put together a grand a month, I think we have a couple of B2s down the road

You know the only reason the B2s cost so much is because the USAF didn't order the initial unit run that Northrup Grumman thought they would right? You can thank the end of the Cold War for that.

Its the same reason why the cost of the F-22 is so high.

MB.

The F-22 is a compromise piece of shit. Not only is it beyond expensive, but the USAF should have bought these:

Now you're the one who doesn't know what they're talking about.

The YF-23 prototype simply wasn't up to par.

It wasn't faster, as maneuverable, stealthy, and couldn't carry as high a payload as the Raptor prototypes could.

Sure the F-23 is was more expensive as a prototype, but I bet in the long run the 23 program would have come in below the budget of the outrageously wasteful F-22 program.

Considering Northrup's project overruns with other designs it was working on during the OpEval period when the F-22 was under development, I find that highly unlikely.

Typhoon

The F-35 has come in for an lot of critisism recently, being affectionately reffered to as a 'dog' and 'cubbed seal'. Time will tell as to what it turns into and if expectations on performance, timing and cost are met.

Mostly as a result of internal infighting and Pentagon political drubbery. Its to be expected.

From the reports that have been made by test pilots who've actually flown the thing, the first variant of the F-35 design is turning out to be pretty good.

If you can recall, there was an even larger shit storm that was raised when a YF-22 prototype crashed during a test flight because its fly-by-wire software had a glitch.

[timel]

it's the bloody avionics. They can't calculate blody wires the right way
Same problems on F-16 ... with test pilots

[Typhoon]

Mostly as a result of internal infighting and Pentagon political drubbery. Its to be expected.

This is true, to be honest the Harrier has had a similar problem in that people have always had reservations, yet it has proven its worth.

That said critisism for the F-35 has been international in scale, and there are genuine performance reservations in there as well rather than just bickering over the usual costs, numbers and delays.

My main reservation is the single engine design, as a result I expect the F-35 to have an above average attrition rate. I also imagine the majority of the performance issues will be focussed in the STOVL varient.