aka_STEVE_b


Now I gotta call my buddies to get me a loaner helmet for my new avatar pic....

I just want to see what the HUD looks like on the inside while I am wearing. I'm assuming it has one with how it works.

UriGellar


Drones lack a pilot's instinct, their judgement, that ability to see, feel and assess a situation based on all of it's factors.

Drones are fantastic for pinpoint hit and run on an already investigated and determined target, not so good on patrol and air superiority duty or even "blind attack" where you enter a hostile  zone/situation and have to deal with it "on the fly"

Agreed I see the nature of drones is changing I think you are however underestimating their future capabilities. To say they will be a cheap alternative in some cases might be true but UAV's can be controlled by humans that do have the ability to investigate and determine a target. Having a manned aircraft in the air would have its advantages particularly if UAV protection units are used to ensure the safety of the manned pilot.
You might be interested in this particular unit a highly advanced experimental support helicopter unit named the Fire-X

 
Given the physical limitations involved in manned flight g force loads it will be only a matter of time before manned aerial units are relegated to a monitor and control capacity the UAV units will be too fast and too maneuverable to match in air to air combat.   

Brad_Hawthorne
Previously "my" F-84F I crew chief was the newest. I just wish we had better contact with Lockheed Martin to get an F-16 for the museum. That would be on my wishlist of aircraft to procure.

Where are you at? I wouldn't mind lending a hand maintaining aircraft again. Spent a decade as a crewchief on F-16's in the USAF so I've been around the block and then some. 

UriGellar


Drones lack a pilot's instinct, their judgement, that ability to see, feel and assess a situation based on all of it's factors.

Drones are fantastic for pinpoint hit and run on an already investigated and determined target, not so good on patrol and air superiority duty or even "blind attack" where you enter a hostile  zone/situation and have to deal with it "on the fly"

lol, did you just quote Iron Man?

I'm not sure if he did, but to be fair it's the argument that's been made for well over a decade now. Maybe Iron Man was just repeating what's already been said?

I believe thats the Marines STOL variant, the navy variant is goin to be strictly take off and landing via launching press and landing cables.

Here ya go, all the F-35 propoganda you could ever want, including wallpapers and some downloadable videos. [sarcasm]yea[/sarcasm]
 
 
 

I believe that the navy is not buying the F-35B, but rather the F-35C. The marines are buying the F-35B to replace their Harriers, and the air force is buying the F-35A. 
 
Eventually the F-35 is supposed to replace all F-15's, F-16's, F/A-18's and A-10's. 

wmmills


why are we still building aircraft like this when we have all types of very effective drones? their cheaper and dont endanger human lives. we really cant afford to build these new toys at the whim of some head honcho everytime he has a desire for one, especially with the world economy the way it is.

Drones lack situational awareness with the mark-1 eyeball.

so after watching the video, nice btw, why doesnt it take off vertically?

Gratuitous


so after watching the video, nice btw, why doesnt it take off vertically?

The amount of fuel and power needed to take off vertically is significantly greater. Eating up fuel just to take off vertically kills available time over target area.

Brad_Hawthorne

Gratuitous


so after watching the video, nice btw, why doesnt it take off vertically?

The amount of fuel and power needed to take off vertically is significantly greater.

But it 'can' do it if it wanted to waste fuel?

garetjax

Brad_Hawthorne
Previously "my" F-84F I crew chief was the newest. I just wish we had better contact with Lockheed Martin to get an F-16 for the museum. That would be on my wishlist of aircraft to procure.

Where are you at? I wouldn't mind lending a hand maintaining aircraft again. Spent a decade as a crewchief on F-16's in the USAF so I've been around the block and then some. 

Kansas Aviation Museum. It's more of a birdproofing and painting hobby than being an actual crew chief though. I adopted the F-84F there. Totally repopulated the cockpit in it last year with gauges and panels. Pulling the ejection seat for refurbishing was a minor pain. 

Gratuitous

Brad_Hawthorne

Gratuitous


so after watching the video, nice btw, why doesnt it take off vertically?

The amount of fuel and power needed to take off vertically is significantly greater.

But it 'can' do it if it wanted to waste fuel?

Yes it can. You can watch how the planes were built and tested in NOVA"s Battle of the X-Planes. Still has many issues and IMO it was not tested enough before the contracts were awarded.

billyfromhill
Eventually the F-35 is supposed to replace all F-15's, F-16's, F/A-18's and A-10's.

No. The F-22 is replacing the F-15, while the F-35 is replacing the USAF's venerable F-16. And anyone that is a serious aircraft buff will tell you that nothing, I repeat, nothing can or will ever replace the A-10 Warthog. 

Gratuitous
But it 'can' do it if it wanted to waste fuel?

I suppose so? It's both STOL and VTOL so STOVL? 
 


loveha
Still has many issues and IMO it was not tested enough before the contracts were awarded.

The same could be said of the V-22 Osprey...
 

garetjax

billyfromhill
Eventually the F-35 is supposed to replace all F-15's, F-16's, F/A-18's and A-10's.

No. The F-22 is replacing the F-15, while the F-35 is replacing the USAF's venerable F-16. And anyone that is a serious aircraft buff will tell you that nothing, I repeat, nothing can or will ever replace the A-10 Warthog. 

Gratuitous
But it 'can' do it if it wanted to waste fuel?

I suppose so? It's both STOL and VTOL so STOVL? 



loveha
Still has many issues and IMO it was not tested enough before the contracts were awarded.

The same could be said of the V-22 Osprey...

Thank god someone else agrees there is not a chance in hell the F35 will ever replace the A10 Warthog the A10 would be great if it could be redesigned and rebuilt rather than be classified as aging aircraft due to be retired. The A10 seems to be the perfect aircraft for close air support for ground forces in Afganistan.
 
It is not easy to spot the enemy is such conditions there doesn't seem to be any shortage of rocks and holes to hide in.  The A10 as far as my limited knowlege knows they seem to be a very reliable aircraft given its redundant flight system design eg half the wing can get shot off and the aircraft can still make it back to base.
 
I have an idea give Australia all your no longer used A10's no problems if you no longer want them 

garetjax

 
No. The F-22 is replacing the F-15, while the F-35 is replacing the USAF's venerable F-16. And anyone that is a serious aircraft buff will tell you that nothing, I repeat, nothing can or will ever replace the A-10 Warthog.
 

 
The F-22 has been in service for a while now, I think since like late 05', it's been replaced the F-15, lol. 

The trailer to Battlefield 4 is out already?! 

Darron

garetjax

billyfromhill
Eventually the F-35 is supposed to replace all F-15's, F-16's, F/A-18's and A-10's.

No. The F-22 is replacing the F-15, while the F-35 is replacing the USAF's venerable F-16. And anyone that is a serious aircraft buff will tell you that nothing, I repeat, nothing can or will ever replace the A-10 Warthog. 

Gratuitous
But it 'can' do it if it wanted to waste fuel?

I suppose so? It's both STOL and VTOL so STOVL? 


loveha
Still has many issues and IMO it was not tested enough before the contracts were awarded.

The same could be said of the V-22 Osprey...

Thank go someone else agrees there is not a chance in hell the F35 will ever replace the A10 Warthog the A10 would be great if it could be redesigned and rebuilt rather than be classified as aging aircraft due to be retired. The A10 seems to be the perfect aircraft for close air support for ground forces in Afganistan.
It is not easy to spot the enemy is such conditions there doesn't seem to be any shortage of rocks and holes to hide in.  The A10 as far as my limited knowlege knows they seem to be a very reliable aircraft given its redundant flight system design eg half the wing can get shot off and the aircraft can still make it back to base.

I have an idea give Australia all your no longer used A10's no problems if you no longer want them 

But then again, you are not going to see an A-10 go into enemy airsapce and realistically be able to defend itself against any real air-air threat.  It is a great aircraft but it also requires air supremecy to be able to succesfully operate which is one of the factors that make it very limited in the scope of mission it can accomplish.  The F35 is being considered to replace the F-15E in that regard.

I just think to say the F35 can cover the role of the A10 is a stupid statement you might as well say it will replace a helicopter gunship and say it covers those roles as well... But that would be just as stupid a statement if you get what I mean.
 
I do get your point about the limitations of the A10 hence the reason why it IMO needs to be improved to increase its capabilities not scrapped entirely...
 
 

Let's look at it from an employment perspective for a second, tell me what the A-10 can do that the F-35 can't?

Your kidding right ?

Ah, the F-35. I will never forgive Obama for stopping the F-22 production line. The F-22 and F-35 would of OW3ND. :p

Darron


I do get your point about the limitations of the A10 hence the reason why it IMO needs to be improved to increase its capabilities not scrapped entirely...

Ok, how does one retrofit an A-10 for air superiority? It's a tank buster not a dog fighter.

Darron

Your kidding right ?

Is that your answer?, I'm totally serious.
I'm not trying to nit pick with you or anything, just wanted to explain the difference of the two aircrafts roles and employment from a doctrinal aspect.

wdflyer

Darron

Your kidding right ?

Is that your answer?, I'm totally serious.
I'm not trying to nit pick with you or anything, just wanted to explain the difference of the two aircrafts roles and employment from a doctrinal aspect.

Ok, this is gonna be good to read.

Brad_Hawthorne

wdflyer

Darron

Your kidding right ?

Is that your answer?, I'm totally serious.
I'm not trying to nit pick with you or anything, just wanted to explain the difference of the two aircrafts roles and employment from a doctrinal aspect.

Ok, this is gonna be good to read.

Not meant to be antagonistic, just trying to share a point of view.

wdflyer
Let's look at it from an employment perspective for a second, tell me what the A-10 can do that the F-35 can't?

I think that was actually touched on earlier in this thread. Balls to bone, the one thing the F-35 cannot do is survive. However unlikely the scenario, if the F-35 were to be engaged and damaged, the likelihood of it limping back to its FOB is pretty slim. The F-35 simply does not have the capability to sustain damage and continue to operate in its AOR like the A-10 does.

wdflyer
The F35 is being considered to replace the F-15E in that regard.

Not a chance. The F-35 will never replace the F-15. Simply stated, the F-35 is not meant to fulfill the role of the F-15 and it never will. Why people are still hung up on this I have no idea.

garetjax

wdflyer
Let's look at it from an employment perspective for a second, tell me what the A-10 can do that the F-35 can't?

 
I think that was actually touched on earlier in this thread. Balls to bone, the one thing the F-35 cannot do is survive. However unlikely the scenario, if the F-35 were to be engaged and damaged, the likelihood of it limping back to its FOB is pretty slim. The F-35 simply does not have the capability to sustain damage and continue to operate in its AOR like the A-10 does.

The A-10 is built to survive because it is literally always operating in a threat envelope. If you can do the same job from a safer distance it is not as big of an issue.
 

garetjax

wdflyer

The F35 is being considered to replace the F-15E in that regard.

Not a chance. The F-35 will never replace the F-15. Simply state, the F-35 is not meant to fulfill the role of the F-15 and it never will. Why people are still hung up on this I have no idea.

You do know what an F-15E Strike Eagle is, right?, different animal than an F-15C which is an air superiority fighter.  
I'm not hung up on it, I just understand the difference.

wdflyer
The A-10 is built to survive because it is literally always operating in a threat envelope. If you can do the same job from a safe distance it is not an issue.

Are you suggesting that the F-35 can provide the same amount of close air support that the A-10 can? Because the way I'm looking at it, "doing the same job from a safe distance" and "close air support" don't exactly gel together when the sh*t hits the fan.
 
I'll say it a different way, perhaps more bluntly and not couched in pretty words: The A-10 can survive combat engagements that result in damage to the aircraft far better than the F-35.
 

wdflyer
You do know what an F-15E Strike Eagle is, right?, different animal than an F-15C which is an air superiority fighter.  I'm not hung up on it, I just understand the difference.

Sadly, you don't. And what's more, it's painfully obvious. Nevertheless, I digress. I'm sure the ACC patch you have as your avatar is proof enough that you know what you're really talking about.