F-35 Lightning II Discussion

[littledan]

Lol how do you read the posted article and arrive at that conclusion?

Will be interesting to see what the mishap was. I doubt a kamakazi would hit the carrier deck if trying to do damage. Would more likely aim for the lower hull.

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Lol how do you read the posted article and arrive at that conclusion?

Will be interesting to see what the mishap was. I doubt a kamakazi would hit the carrier deck if trying to do damage. Would more likely aim for the lower hull.

considers zennie's rambling enough to reply.....hahaha

[Gman.45]

Zenops, you're such a bonehead in this thread, I'm almost getting tired of responding.

Naval aviation is a very dangerous activity. Almost EVERY deployment for a US carrier or Assault ship (F35Bs and helos,some Harriers left too), they lost an aircraft, if not more. Also, the arresting wires snap and break with great regularity, and this can cause jets to swerve or go out of control on the deck. In fact, it's very likely it was pieces of broken arresting gear/wire that injured the 7 sailors (this is the most common reason for so many to get hurt simultaneously on deck). It could be a great many other things too, many of which aren't the F35Cs fault, much like the F35B that crashed of the Brit carrier due to ground crew mistakes.

[ZenOps]

C'mon. The F-35 is shit, just admit it. I can admit the F-22 is the best too. But call a lemon a lemon.

The F-35 is primarily a for export only plane used for military welfare. Canada got duped, Britain got duped. It happens.

Now that its actually on aircraft carriers, if it end up failing on deck - it means that the more capable aircraft are at danger not being usable. If a F-35 gets to the launch area and blocks it for 15 minutes, it can literally mean loss of the aircraft carrier and everything onboard. In a real world scenario, its better to just throw the plane in the ocean to let the other planes launch.

On a failed landing, even worse.

A 30 minute launch window during the battle of midway almost made the USA capitulate defeat to Japan.

If you still want to believe the delusion, then no surprises when the aircraft carrier sinks.

[littledan]

No, the lemons were the miled out f18 airframes we bought from the aussies instead of using that money to buy f35

[Gman.45]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

C'mon. The F-35 is shit, just admit it. I can admit the F-22 is the best too. But call a lemon a lemon.

The F-35 is primarily a for export only plane used for military welfare. Canada got duped, Britain got duped. It happens.

Now that its actually on aircraft carriers, if it end up failing on deck - it means that the more capable aircraft are at danger not being usable. If a F-35 gets to the launch area and blocks it for 15 minutes, it can literally mean loss of the aircraft carrier and everything onboard. In a real world scenario, its better to just throw the plane in the ocean to let the other planes launch.

On a failed landing, even worse.

A 30 minute launch window during the battle of midway almost made the USA capitulate defeat to Japan.

If you still want to believe the delusion, then no surprises when the aircraft carrier sinks.

Again, other aircraft than the F35C have fallen victim to crashes and all kinds of incidents aboard US Carriers. If your criteria for the above nonsense is carrier aviation aircraft incidents, the F35 is near the bottom of the list. Regardless of the F35's capabilities, or lack thereof, trying to justify an argument for or against based on accidents every other USN type has had aboard ship, is as usual from you, ridiculous. Hornets, Tomcats, Superhornets, HH/MH60s, A7s, A6s (you don't even likely know what these types are), S3s, CODs of all kinds, A5 Vigilantes, F8 Crusaders, A4 Skyhawks, F4 Phantoms..this is just going back a generation, and every single one of these types have had umpteen accidents both on launch and recovery, as well as every other possible type of accident.

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Again, other aircraft than the F35C have fallen victim to crashes and all kinds of incidents aboard US Carriers. If your criteria for the above nonsense is carrier aviation aircraft incidents, the F35 is near the bottom of the list.

I have not follow the news but the F35 that bounced off a carrier is in South China sea. So they are hurrying the recovery in case Chinese get their hands on one to study/copy/build countermeasures.

[ZenOps]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitic...a-beijing-does

It seems that its a race to recover the downed F-35. If China gets it, it will be reverse engineered in a matter of months at mere fraction of development cost. When it comes to military, finders keepers.



Would laugh my ass off, if China recovered with a mining trawler (which could easily pull up 15 ton aircraft) simply for being there before a US recovery ship could get there. Does make me wonder why there was not a salvage ship alongside the carrier to start with? Arrogance?

[ZenOps]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Again, other aircraft than the F35C have fallen victim to crashes and all kinds of incidents aboard US Carriers. If your criteria for the above nonsense is carrier aviation aircraft incidents, the F35 is near the bottom of the list. Regardless of the F35's capabilities, or lack thereof, trying to justify an argument for or against based on accidents every other USN type has had aboard ship, is as usual from you, ridiculous. Hornets, Tomcats, Superhornets, HH/MH60s, A7s, A6s (you don't even likely know what these types are), S3s, CODs of all kinds, A5 Vigilantes, F8 Crusaders, A4 Skyhawks, F4 Phantoms..this is just going back a generation, and every single one of these types have had umpteen accidents both on launch and recovery, as well as every other possible type of accident.

There actually is no track record for the F-35. I have no idea what you are talking about, they just put it on the carriers recently (militarily speaking) This last deck crash can be considered akin to a suicide attack in terms of damage to the aircraft carrier.

If the carrier deck is severely comprimised, and the 90 aircraft have no place to land - then all the planes go in the ocean. It only takes one weak link F-35 to potentially destroy all the aircraft, all carrier aircraft *must* be triple redundant and triple reliable in takeoff and landing, its infinitely more important than "stealth". It is not like having 1 tank out of 100 fail, because a tank has no dependancies.

The F-35 is fatally flawed in basic operation. What they really need to do is make the football stadium sized aircraft carrier "stealthy" and let the aircraft be mach 12 hypersonic ear shatteringly loud.

Personally, I'd scrap all $1.7 trillion of them before carriers (much more valuable than the aircraft) start sinking.

F-35, fine for land bases - but why? F-35 definitely does not pass for carrier duty.

[Gman.45]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There actually is no track record for the F-35. I have no idea what you are talking about, they just put it on the carriers recently (militarily speaking) This last deck crash can be considered akin to a suicide attack in terms of damage to the aircraft carrier.

If the carrier deck is severely comprimised, and the 90 aircraft have no place to land - then all the planes go in the ocean. It only takes one weak link F-35 to potentially destroy all the aircraft, all carrier aircraft *must* be triple redundant and triple reliable in takeoff and landing, its infinitely more important than "stealth". It is not like having 1 tank out of 100 fail, because a tank has no dependancies.

The F-35 is fatally flawed in basic operation. What they really need to do is make the football stadium sized aircraft carrier "stealthy" and let the aircraft be mach 12 hypersonic ear shatteringly loud.

Personally, I'd scrap all $1.7 trillion of them before carriers (much more valuable than the aircraft) start sinking.

F-35, fine for land bases - but why? F-35 definitely does not pass for carrier duty.

How do you know what damage the deck took from the accident? Again, these types of accidents are extremely common, and I've yet to hear of a USN CVN being put out of service because of one. Sure, it may take some time to clear the deck of debris/damage, but you have NO idea how good and fast the damage control and fire fighting capabilities are aboard a US warship, let alone a carrier. Sure, if someone was to truly suicide/kamikazee a plane into a CVN deck, and a high velocity and degree relative to the deck, it'd cause massive damage. That isn't what happened here, nor has it happened since World War 2 in the Pacific vs the Empire of Japan in 1945.

If it only takes one "weak" F35 to do what you're envisioning, why hasn't it happened with the dozens of Hornet, Superhornet, Phantom, Intruder, Tomcat, Corsair, COD, etc, and helo crashes aboard US carriers in our lifetime? Is the F35 somehow some special anti carrier crashing fighter with a capability none of these other aircraft have when having accidents while landing (landing on a carrier has been statistically more dangerous than many combat operations, particularly at night).

Zenops, care to take a guess at how many carrier launches and traps the F35C has made in both qualification and certification prior to being allowed out into the fleet? You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. None. You declaring that the F35 isn't qualified for CVN operations flies in the face of nearly 100 years of US carrier naval aviation standards and evaluations. I'm sure they got it wrong, and you have it right.

[ExtraSlow]

Does beyond have some secret feature where it hides member names? And if so why do you guys have it turned on? I'm interested in learning about this alternative lifestyle.

[ZenOps]

Probably related:

Russia sent out four bombers close to UK airspace. Knowing where all the US carriers are, and the functional range of US aircraft, Russia has a solid understanding of how close they can get to the UK without fearing carrier or land based retaliation, solely based on fuel carrying capacity.

Again, stealth - not really all that important if you know maximum range and speed of the aircraft on an aircraft carrier. Since you can't hide the aircraft carrier, its really not as big an advantage as it was sold.

[lilmira]

some bounce

[Gman.45]

Rumor has it that the F35 has won the "new" fighter competition, and that the Dept of Defense is going to make the announcement today sometime.

Good thing we gave up our place in the production line over a bunch of BS, just to end up @ the F35, AGAIN.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Rumor has it that the F35 has won the "new" fighter competition, and that the Dept of Defense is going to make the announcement today sometime.

Good thing we gave up our place in the production line over a bunch of BS, just to end up @ the F35, AGAIN.

The delay was the purpose, not the result.

[littledan]

Lol fail. At least we are buying the right planes in the end.

[jutes]

Thank Russia for invading Ukraine, otherwise this wouldn't happen under this gov.

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thank Russia for invading Ukraine, otherwise this wouldn't happen under this gov.

I’m sure we are getting a screaming deal buying weaponry during a war

[ExtraSlow]

I'd be impressed if we couldmanage to purchase things like handguns for our troops. You know, off-the-shelf standardized items that require no complex procurement process or training. Yeah, we still manage to fuck those up.

[jutes]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’m sure we are getting a screaming deal buying weaponry during a war

What's a few hundred million in a deal worth Billions. Monetary policy is irrelevant.