F-35 Lightning II Discussion

[ZenOps]

If this does end up being $1.5 to 1.7 Trillys of military welfare for white males in the USA, is it possible to fire Generals for incompetency? In the old days, they would be-headed.

[ZenOps]

A wise man once said: A car will only have shiny paint for the first day.

Whatever made the USA think that a stealth fighter running at mach speeds through the air would never gather microscopic particles of dirt and moisture that would embed into the "soft" absorbing material that they used to achieve said stealth.

I mean, you are flying at mach speeds, and you have to takeoff from a sea level carrier. Even on a slightly smoky & moist day you are going to get a layer of orange ick on it before flys above the clouds.

Fooking idiots.

[e31]

An even wiser man figured out how to avoid dealership PDI charges and wash&wax his own fuckin car/fighter jet.

I would suggest that Zenops avoid any further taste sampling of the paint/coating chips that flake off military hardware.

[ZenOps]

I'd love to have a 1 inch flake off that aircraft. You could basically reverse engineer the entire idea of stealth aircraft with a square inch of it, negating several hundred billion dollars worth of research and supposedly two decades of development.

But I can imagine that China will simply move on to drone fighters that can do 60 to 200 G turns and mach 15 to 22. Who needs stealth when you can simply be there before a pull on phone to his head to call it in on the red line. Although if going that fast, you probably would never need to turn. Stealth is ok for pre-emptive invasion, but pure speed means you never get hit because its too fast to be hit.

China should be thanking the USA for proving that it was all just a waste of time, as soon as you fly through a cloud - the moisture and water along with impurities messed up the stealth. Just like the Predator, and just like you can always see a glassware as soon as it gets water spots on it...

Besides the fact, that a minute after a "stealth" jet flys by, it is impossible to mask the sonic boom. So you've basically only got a window of a minute where you can be assured some form of covertness. Regular good old fashioned audio listening posts pointed towards the sky will hear a sonic boom every time (the only other thing you would hear, would be a flock of seagulls)



I'm beginning to think it was all just wag the dog to keep military types in the USA employed - not making more nukes. Was it an intentional waste of money to regress nuclear proliferation? Seems like a worthy goal.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Acoustics/Sonic_Boom

"Sonic booms generate enormous amounts of sound energy, sounding much like an explosion; typically the shock front may approach 100 megawatts per square meter, and may exceed 200 decibels."

Jet engines being literally the loudest machines that exist. To keep the F-35 with a reasonable amount of sound, I would assume Mach 0.7 or slower. At which case: You might as well just start thinking about bringing back the blimp.

[littledan]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...anadian-arctic

I'm just going to leave this here as a reminder of the abject failure of our governments over the years to build and maintain an adequate military to defend our nation.

[AndyL]

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

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...anadian-arctic

I'm just going to leave this here as a reminder of the abject failure of our governments over the years to build and maintain an adequate military to defend our nation.

Oh but we have the CP-140 Oh yeah - it's a 1958 airframe design too... And it took 2 billion in wing upgrades to buy us the next 10 years of use.

I'm sure they'll sign onto the P8 or Raytheon Sentinel (totally odd since they love raytheon, and it's based on a bombardier global express?) in a timely order prior to 2030 when those wings need replacement again.

[jutes]

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

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...anadian-arctic

I'm just going to leave this here as a reminder of the abject failure of our governments over the years to build and maintain an adequate military to defend our nation.

Canadians don’t care about the military so why should government.

[ZenOps]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-mediterranean

F-35B crashed into mediterranean. Bought by Britain, "routine" flight.

[jutes]

Super Hornet out

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boe...jets-1.6262851

This leaves the F-35 as the obvious choice seeing how the Gripen doesn’t meet security requirements with US operations.

Trudeau will probably pick the Gripen to guarantee Quebec jobs for an assembly line.

[ZenOps]

Unofficial footage of F-35 crash is out already.



It literally looks like he stepped on the brake in panic. Could have been a failed nuclear analog piston launch. I've *heard* they have launch and landing pistons under the deck to convert energy from the nuclear or diesel power plant so that it saves a crazy amount of fuel trying to throw that brick of nickel into the air.

If it was an unassisted launch - yikes.

[Gman.45]

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

Unofficial footage of F-35 crash is out already.



It literally looks like he stepped on the brake in panic. Could have been a failed nuclear analog piston launch. I've *heard* they have launch and landing pistons under the deck to convert energy from the nuclear or diesel power plant so that it saves a crazy amount of fuel trying to throw that brick of nickel into the air.

If it was an unassisted launch - yikes.

Of course it was an "unassisted launch", the British carriers aren't CATOBAR carriers, they use the F35B in short take off mode, and their ski jump decks in order to get airborne (in a light load out the F35B CAN take off vertically, it just can't carry as much fuel/ord when doing so), just like their old Harrier equipped carriers. The F35B off the British new carriers typically only use short take off and vertical landing, there is no catapult in use on both Brit flat tops. There also is no nuclear reactors, the power plant/engine room is a combination of gas turbine engines, diesel engines, both capable of feeding power into an electric propulsion plant which turns both shafts to the props. Ship's power has no roll in launching aircraft, other than the obvious speed the ship needs to get wind over the deck to help increase lift to the jets taking off the ski jump.

Also, crew have said that one of the engine covers used to protect the F35B inlets from sea water, wasn't removed or had somehow fallen into the top induction fan assembly and missed by the deck crew, as the cover was chewed up and spit out by the motor and seen floating on the water right after the incident. If correct/true, this means it was a deck crew human error, not a failure of the F35B mechanically.

This was the 7662nd ejection seat save by Martin Baker seats.

[Gman.45]

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

Super Hornet out

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boe...jets-1.6262851

This leaves the F-35 as the obvious choice seeing how the Gripen doesn’t meet security requirements with US operations.

Trudeau will probably pick the Gripen to guarantee Quebec jobs for an assembly line.

Plus the Gripen doesn't even match our current Hornets in either 1 circle or 2 circle ACM fights, the current CF18 will outrate and outradius the Gripen E in both. Range isn't a huge increase, neither is the potential ordinance carrying capability. The Gripen is smaller, so it's a bit harder to spot, but other than that, despite all of it's more supposedly "modern" ECM capability, it isn't really a step forward for the RCAF, more like one to the side with the only big advantage being new airframes, and somewhat lower operating costs (yet to be actually proven). The cockpit in the Gripen is very small/tight as well, a friend of mine flew it at the Empire test pilot school, and said it's a very, very squashed and uncomfortable feeling compared to the Hornet.

I hope it's the F35, but I doubt Trudeau and the current DOD will do that, and as Jutes said, for French/Quebec political reasons, and just for general stupidity, will probably select the Gripen.

[Buster]

Personally, I am liking the idea of delaying a purchase for as long as possible. The idea of us flying an F-35 or a Gripen around Nunavut is hilarious. Canada wastes a lot of money on bullshit, but buying a bunch of manned single engine fighter planes is still pretty far up the list.

I did find this pretty interesting:

[jutes]

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

Personally, I am liking the idea of delaying a purchase for as long as possible. The idea of us flying an F-35 or a Gripen around Nunavut is hilarious. Canada wastes a lot of money on bullshit, but buying a bunch of manned single engine fighter planes is still pretty far up the list

USAF operates the deadly single engine F-35s out of Alaska, so will Norway and Finland in their own territories. Canada isn’t anything special.

[Buster]

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

USAF operates the deadly single engine F-35s out of Alaska, so will Norway and Finland in their own territories. Canada isn’t anything special.

I wasty referring to the climate. I was referring to the size and pointlessness.

[killramos]

Droneses. We need droneses.

[ExtraSlow]

Preadator drones, or whatever the newer version of that same idea is. Thing can fly for like 24h without landing for fuel.

[jutes]

To do what exactly, monitor the polar bear population?

[ExtraSlow]

Probably the Mojave is the right choice. Can land on rough airstrips, STOL, small and relatively inexpensive, and not like we shoot anything anyway. Operate them out of Goose Bay and Yellowknife and bam, arctic about as secure as it needs to be.

- - - Updated - - -

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

To do what exactly, monitor the polar bear population?

What do you think canada's air force does?

[Buster]

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

What do you think canada's air force does?

this