Quantcast
F-35 Lightning II Discussion - Page 29 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 29 of 43 FirstFirst ... 19 28 29 30 39 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 580 of 856

Thread: F-35 Lightning II Discussion

  1. #561
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pallet Town
    Posts
    809
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    What Canada really needs to invest in is a few airforce bases with good 100 ton piston fired launchers.

    The reason that aircraft seem to get so much airtime when on nuclear aircraft carriers is because 90% of their takeoff fuel is conserved because its literally hurled into the air with pistons that are charged with excess nuclear power (nuclear power which also propels the entire aircraft carrier through the water) They also expend little fuel on landing by wire.

    Technically, I believe that the exact specs of the pistons hidden under the deck is a US military secret - But I'll put it on record here, haha.

    If you have to burn fuel on takeoff, you've just eaten up a huge portion of available reserves. Especially a thin oxygen takeoff like in the altitude of Calgary.

    Mind you, all of that can be skipped if we simply go to 1/20th weight drones.
    Last edited by ZenOps; 11-16-2015 at 12:01 PM.
    0.5 gram microsd delivered by 12,000 pound combustion vehicle and driver.

  2. #562
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Red Deer, Alberta
    My Ride
    1995 WRX STi
    Posts
    1,560
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Go4Long
    If the process includes the F-35 and they choose something else
    If this process includes the F-35 and they REPICK the F-35, I'm probably going to have an aneurysm

  3. #563
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Elbonia
    My Ride
    Jeep of Theseus
    Posts
    6,827
    Rep Power
    48

    Default

    I fear it's pretty much going to be the Sea King replacement all over again.

  4. #564
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,420
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    So how much money are we on the hook for so far, just $150million?

  5. #565
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    407
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    Just today, a report on the USN (Naval) variant, the F35C, has shown that although the demonstrator aircraft have been limited to only THREE g, there are serious cracks in the wing spars already. Lockheed Martin is "investigating" a solution. Laugh. Out. Loud.

    Hearing a lot of stuff coming from the Liberals that pushing the CF18 into 2025 should only cost "400" million or so, and seems like a fine idea, the cost of a mere 3 F35s.

    I hope that isn't what happens - as stated the old "Sea King" solution of doing really nothing, all over again.

  6. #566
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Originally posted by Gman.45
    Just today, a report on the USN (Naval) variant, the F35C, has shown that although the demonstrator aircraft have been limited to only THREE g, there are serious cracks in the wing spars already. Lockheed Martin is "investigating" a solution. Laugh. Out. Loud.

    Hearing a lot of stuff coming from the Liberals that pushing the CF18 into 2025 should only cost "400" million or so, and seems like a fine idea, the cost of a mere 3 F35s.

    I hope that isn't what happens - as stated the old "Sea King" solution of doing really nothing, all over again.
    hmmm...$400 million dollars for 4 years give or take, after which the aircraft is still only worth whatever we can get for it in scrap value...seems like a GREAT investment.

    And since you brought up the stress fractures, here's a full article on it:

    http://www.janes.com/article/55987/w...n-f-35-variant

    the test aircraft has the equivelant of 20 YEARS of operational hours on it. The tests being performed were done SPECIFICALLY to find how much it takes to make them crack. And the necessary modifications will result in approximately half a pound of weight change to the airframe and won't affect any of the currently flying F-35's operations at all (all of which have around 250 flight hours accumulated)

    seriously...even the F-16 had cracking issues during it's life cycle, and no one suggested scrapping the F-16...
    Last edited by Go4Long; 11-16-2015 at 01:37 PM.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  7. #567
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Almost four years ago to the day this post was made when it was suggested that this program may not be the best use of our money.

    Originally posted by jutes


    Two words.

    Conservative. Majority.

    Thanks for your post, we sincerely give a crap. Yours truly, the Harper Government.

    Shame the Conservatives let the military down like that.

  8. #568
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    There's a reason that every procurement program except india (who selected the Dassault, which was Dassault's first export contract) has selected the F-35.

    The reason we are being offered the super hornets for so cheap is that they are finishing production on the last of their orders and it's either sell for cheap or shut down the line...
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  9. #569
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Lariat 2.7 & StreetTriple R
    Posts
    524
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Oh cool, lets just cancel something just because of its label and lets forget that theres nothing really equivalent for our needs. So what are we going to miraculously replace our aging f18s with? A MIG?
    Last edited by OTown; 11-16-2015 at 09:33 PM.

  10. #570
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Okotoks
    My Ride
    6.2
    Posts
    235
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by HiTempguy1


    If this process includes the F-35 and they REPICK the F-35, I'm probably going to have an aneurysm
    That's probably exactly what's going to happen. Or Boeing will give us a sweet heart deal to keep the Super Hornet production line going and they'll pick that due to price and commonality with the current CF-18

  11. #571
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Homeless
    My Ride
    Blue Dabadee
    Posts
    9,599
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    That's cool. We don't really need an air force anyways.

    No one wants to hurt Canadians, right, RIGHT???
    Originally posted by Thales of Miletus

    If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
    Originally posted by Toma
    fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yolobimmer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    guessing who I might be, psychologizing me with your non existent degree.

  12. #572
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SE Calgary
    My Ride
    Silverado, G37x
    Posts
    1,419
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Originally posted by OTown
    Oh cool, lets just cancel something just because of its label and lets forget that theres nothing really equivalent for our needs. So what are we going to miraculously replace our aging f18s with? A MIG?
    I fully expect us to now ignore the replacement until they literally start to fall out of the sky.

  13. #573
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pallet Town
    Posts
    809
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2...te-development

    F-35 nearing "completion"

    I believe they may have reduced the requirements to "be able to take off and land, and turn in an arc without altering elevation" as well as not having the requirement of a completely sealed cockpit, which means that the pilot will be required to always wear an oxygen tank to stay alive.

    The "being able to takeoff and land" is obviously referenced to a carrier launch - as its pretty silly to assume it cannot take off and land from an airstrip... Or I could be wrong, they didn't really specify - ROFL.

    Damn millennials building this stuff, we need the competent good old NASA engineers and craftsmen from the 1960's.
    0.5 gram microsd delivered by 12,000 pound combustion vehicle and driver.

  14. #574
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    The author, Dan Grazier, is a well known anti F-35 campaigner, writing for a site with a well known anti Lockheed bias.

    Everyone near the program now is generally happy with the results the plane is getting, it’s already entered combat with the Israelis, and it’s doing very well in simulated combat here in North America (17-1 at red flag last year). I’ve spoken with pilots and maintainers at various air shows around North America and Europe, all of them swear by it. The one negative I have heard on it was from a maintainer for the C models at Airshow London last year, he said the issue at th moment comes down to knowledge base. If a super hornet has issues on the line it is likely they understand how to fix it immediately and avoid any lost flight hours. With the F-35 that knowledge base just doesn’t exist yet, so technical issues in the pre-flight stage will result in more lost flight hours while they build up the knowledge base.

    The reality is that with the latest generation of software, which still isn’t the end of the development process, the f-35 is on another level from everything it goes up against. It’s kinetic management is ridiculous. It’s low speed command authority is just silly.

    The opponents of the program that are left behind will always be opponents for one reason or another, and no matter how many positive results the plane gets they’ll still find something to hate. But slowly people are moving over to the other side as more and more negative arguments are proven to be absolutely false, or at least misguided.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  15. #575
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pallet Town
    Posts
    809
    Rep Power
    0

    Default



    Maverick is gone... Cougar - land the damn plane already.
    0.5 gram microsd delivered by 12,000 pound combustion vehicle and driver.

  16. #576
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    calgary
    My Ride
    CLK 55 / 2g Eclipse / EP3
    Posts
    4,422
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    What I've come to learn over the last few years is the F35 has maybe 30% of its capability declassified and probably 70% classified.

    So imagine all the craziest technology out there, you can bet that some of it has made it onto this jet.

  17. #577
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Lariat 2.7 & StreetTriple R
    Posts
    524
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Yeah I bet the tech on this is unreal. I just dont know if it's what we need in Canada where we have such huge areas to patrol. A 2 engined plane with longer ranger would have made more sense IMO

  18. #578
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    calgary
    My Ride
    CLK 55 / 2g Eclipse / EP3
    Posts
    4,422
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Some of the more outlandish ideas:

    - optical/EM cloak

    (edit, not so outlandish https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us...hPostF352.html)

    - a variant of electrostatic propulsion to assist with regular engines


    - artificial intelligence with mind control

    (this has been demonstrated with a quadriplegic flying an f35 sim)

    But yea, the number of engines is a problem here. All it takes is one bird.
    Last edited by revelations; 09-05-2018 at 11:17 PM.

  19. #579
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Lariat 2.7 & StreetTriple R
    Posts
    524
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Wonder if they will use any Growler/Prowler type Jamming/ECM attack weapons. Seems to be the way of the future

  20. #580
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OTown View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Wonder if they will use any Growler/Prowler type Jamming/ECM attack weapons. Seems to be the way of the future
    Lol. All of that is built in to the F-35 already man. It’s not an additional add on like the super hornet - growler.

    As for the single engine debate, while I’m sure Billie Flynn is a little biased, being a Lockheed employee and all, this video covers the discussion pretty well.

    https://youtu.be/mIMt8NWdTgA

    Norway sees no issue using them, and they had no issues with F-16’s before that, usaf operates F-16’s out of Alaska, Sweden operates gripens, as do the Czechs.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

Page 29 of 43 FirstFirst ... 19 28 29 30 39 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. EGT discussion

    By Hollywood in forum Mechanical
    Replies: 18
    Latest Threads: 04-01-2003, 11:44 PM
  2. MX-3 Discussion

    By shay in forum General Car/Bike Talk
    Replies: 52
    Latest Threads: 02-15-2003, 12:24 AM
  3. VTEC discussion (from iVTEC sticker thread)

    By THREE40SEVEN in forum General Car/Bike Talk
    Replies: 25
    Latest Threads: 02-04-2003, 09:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •