F35 Shitbird, F22 Badass and similar

[MadBurgerMaker 404]

15 hours ago, Parliament said:

I stand corrected.  Thanks for the update.

Might have been the F-14 you were thinking of.  IIRC they shredded a bunch of them (not all, some went to museums and shit) after they were retired so the Iranians would have a harder time finding parts.  Which they're just fabricating themselves, as far as I know.  They've still got some flying.

[RPM 26315]

As badass as the Tomcat was in it's day, it wouldn't know killed it today.

[Homercles 10205]

I can’t imagine the costs in restarting F22 production. It’s not just the tooling, it’s the whole supply chain that hasn’t just stopped it’s also moved on...the computers in that thing are from the late 80’s right?

There’s no way that happens

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

8 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

Why dont we just make a shitload of drones?  I mean 1000s of them for the same cost.  Sure you'd get a lot more shot down but who cares?  There would be so many it would overwhelm any air defense system. Like a locust swarm.  

We have that as part of missiles/bomb systems already. 

[Parliament 14224]

2 hours ago, Homercles said:

I can’t imagine the costs in restarting F22 production. It’s not just the tooling, it’s the whole supply chain that hasn’t just stopped it’s also moved on...the computers in that thing are from the late 80’s right?

There’s no way that happens

Early/mid-90's.  And yeah.  Among other things, it would require all new, start-from-the-beginning, avionics.

[MadBurgerMaker 404]

2 hours ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

We have that as part of missiles/bomb systems already. 

Yeah. 

And if you start talking about truly autonomous drones, that gets really expensive really fast (and ignoring the...moral issues, I guess you'd call it, with making killbots).  

Edited October 19, 2018 by MadBurgerMaker

[Homercles 10205]

I’m not worried, I use Old Glory

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

4 hours ago, Homercles said:

I can’t imagine the costs in restarting F22 production. It’s not just the tooling, it’s the whole supply chain that hasn’t just stopped it’s also moved on...the computers in that thing are from the late 80’s right?

There’s no way that happens

$10B is the number tossed around, with the idea being that Japan wants them bad enough to pay a goodly portion of it, and that you use the 35’s sensor suite. 

As for actual flight computers, I’m not sure that’s really a challenge.  

The question is whether it’s more cost effective to give a 22 a facelift or start all over again with a clean sheet 6th gen fighter. 

The question might be answered to a degree when we see what the B-21 looks like. 

[Superhero 8824]

Isn’t the 6th generation F-X competition already under way?

 

Drones might be a solution for bombers and risky wild weasel roles. But I would think you’d want a human in a cockpit when it comes to fighter engagement because of possible communication delay between the remote pilot and fighter itself. 

[Parliament 14224]

6 hours ago, Superhero said:

Isn’t the 6th generation F-X competition already under way?

 

Drones might be a solution for bombers and risky wild weasel roles. But I would think you’d want a human in a cockpit when it comes to fighter engagement because of possible communication delay between the remote pilot and fighter itself. 

Bro do you even 5G?

[MadBurgerMaker 404]

15 hours ago, RPM said:

As badass as the Tomcat was in it's day, it wouldn't know killed it today.

Sure, but the fact that they've managed to keep them flying is fairly impressive regardless of how badly an F-22 would throat fuck their inventory.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

11 hours ago, tjhooker said:

Why dont we just make a shitload of drones?  I mean 1000s of them for the same cost.  Sure you'd get a lot more shot down but who cares?  There would be so many it would overwhelm any air defense system. Like a locust swarm.  

Yer juuuuust itching' for Skynet... aren't you !!?

[RDCanecutter 26376]

On 10/14/2018 at 2:24 PM, RPM said:

Losing roughly half of your top of the line fighters would make a huge dent if an air war broke out. Fortunately, that's not a threat at the moment.

So you are still assuming the hurricane was a natural event.

[TexasEd 8066]

A drone fleet is too vulnerable to a battlefield without satellites.  We have adversaries with the capability to take out the satellites.

[KeysPhoneWallet 807]

Why dont we just make a shitload of drones?  I mean 1000s of them for the same cost.  Sure you'd get a lot more shot down but who cares?  There would be so many it would overwhelm any air defense system. Like a locust swarm.  

Swarms of small fighters is the future.

Right now it’s like we are wasting billions outfitting our Calvary horses with new head gear while Germany is rolling in with panzers....

Cyber, swarms, grid, space. That’s where it’s at.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21864]

A drone fleet is too vulnerable to a battlefield without satellites.  We have adversaries with the capability to take out the satellites.

That why we were touting our new space force. Of course, we don’t currently have the capability of actually putting our space force into space.

[Pato del Muerto 52484]

4 hours ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

That why we were touting our new space force. Of course, we don’t currently have the capability of actually putting our space force into space.

You work for DARPA?  If not, you don’t know what we can do. 

[Rimbo 25908]

On 6/15/2018 at 8:37 PM, Smax said:

jack of all trades master of none

That's what bugged me about this project from the get-go.

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

On 10/21/2018 at 1:31 AM, Rimbo said:

That's what bugged me about this project from the get-go.

Well, that's kinda every fighter we've built since the 70's save the 15 and 22.  Allegedly, I don't know if it's true, the 35 was designed to turn and fight like a 16.

[SquishMitten 10403]

That's what bugged me about this project from the get-go.

That’s an interesting take I haven’t heard before.

Caveat* I have a google filter to prevent me from seeing anything that includes “overwhelmingly biggest complaint”

[MadBurgerMaker 404]

On 10/22/2018 at 12:26 PM, Bobby_Batronic said:

Well, that's kinda every fighter we've built since the 70's save the 15 and 22.  Allegedly, I don't know if it's true, the 35 was designed to turn and fight like a 16.

It's supposed to be more along the lines of the F-18 when it comes to turning/dogfighting/etc, IIRC.  The (original) F-16 and things like the Su-27 and all that, are on a different level.

 

E:  The F-35A, that is.  The over versions have some limitations in that area, I believe.  The C (Navy model) is less maneuverable for sure, with the B (VTOL) version at least being sorter ranged and probably heavier, although I haven't really bothered to look.  The requirements for that one seem like they fucked up the whole thing, but then again, the Harrier is becoming a deathtrap, so...

Edited October 24, 2018 by MadBurgerMaker

[Parliament 14224]

My understanding is the B is a big cause of the Shitbird's problems.  VTOL is a hard thing to do, with significant ancillary detriments; with weight and general complexity being the major ones.  Many of those detriments have "backed into" the A and C.

And should we be concerned our adversaries will soon be able to "detect us through our cloak." Measures have countermeasures and it seems the party that has to FLY will always have the disadvantage.  Put another way, will China soon develop a radar or similar that sees an F22 as well as an F15?

[MadBurgerMaker 404]

There are already radars that can "see" them, although iirc they tend to have to be lower frequency types, which is problematic for targeting (depends on the angle and such though). Even those can be used to, say, steer an IRST equipped fighter in that direction though. 

Against a nation with things like that, it's more of a way for them to get closer to be able to do their thing, rather than be totally invisible.

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

12 hours ago, MadBurgerMaker said:

It's supposed to be more along the lines of the F-18 when it comes to turning/dogfighting/etc, IIRC.  The (original) F-16 and things like the Su-27 and all that, are on a different level.

 

E:  The F-35A, that is.  The over versions have some limitations in that area, I believe.  The C (Navy model) is less maneuverable for sure, with the B (VTOL) version at least being sorter ranged and probably heavier, although I haven't really bothered to look.  The requirements for that one seem like they fucked up the whole thing, but then again, the Harrier is becoming a deathtrap, so...

It’s my understanding that the 16  or Suhkoi can out maneuver the 35 clean, but are quite similar given an actual weapons combat load. Instantaneous AOA is better for the 35 than the 16. The same high AOA advantage is true of the 18 versus the 16.

Also, the A model’s 9G limit means it’s turn radius is comparable to a clean F16, but also that it does not have the sustained turn radius of the 16 due to energy loss even with that hellishly big motor (thanks VTOL). 

The B/C are comparable to an F/A-18 with their 7G limit with the B having shorter legs due to the lift fan taking up fuel space as well as having heavier weight. Btw, the 7G limit for the 18 is a wing spar thing, and Swiss 18’s have a 9G limit because they opted for titanium spars. 

So. Allegedly, the 35 replaces the combat abilities of the 18 and 16. It cannot maneuver with an airshow equipped  version of either or the modern Russian fighter, but is in the same conversation when combat equipped. The latter is obviously more important. It probably doesnt need to get in extended turning fights with its most likely adversaries, but that’s true of most of our tactical fighters dating back to WWII. 

I asked some former fighter pilots for those answers. One was a 15 pilot who finished his career the the  B2, and the other starter in Phantoms and ended doing liaison work while getting time in 18’s. 

Interesting side note 35 related, I saw one of the new Queen Elizabeth class British carriers sitting off Manhattan yesterday. To quote the esteemed cinematic work of Deuce Bigalew, Male Gigolo all I can say is that’s a big bitch. 

Edited October 24, 2018 by Bobby_Batronic

[MadBurgerMaker 404]

That's good info, thanks. That pilot went from an F-15 to a B-2? B-2s are super cool, but damn that's a big change.

Re the British carriers, yeah they're big.  Interesting layout too.  I did see something about how they started talking about changing them back to CATOBAR, which was supposed to be sort of a thing that was available in the design, but surprise! it turned out that the builder (BAe?) hadn't bothered to keep the ability to change configurations relatively easily and cheaply, and the UKs mod hadn't held them to it, etc, so they were sol. 

They're also going to be having USMC 35Bs flying off of the first one on its first deployment, so that's interesting too.

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

11 minutes ago, MadBurgerMaker said:

That's good info, thanks. That pilot went from an F-15 to a B-2? B-2s are super cool, but damn that's a big change.

Re the British carriers, yeah they're big.  Interesting layout too.  I did see something about how they started talking about changing them back to CATOBAR, which was supposed to be sort of a thing that was available in the design, but surprise! it turned out that the builder (BAe?) hadn't bothered to keep the ability to change configurations relatively easily and cheaply, and the UKs mod hadn't held them to it, etc, so they were sol. 

They're also going to be having USMC 35Bs flying off of the first one on its first deployment, so that's interesting too.

They’re testing rolling landings to increase max landing weight vs VTOL.  Something perhaps easier to do with helmets that can look through the plane to see where you’re going. 

We thought the QE class sitting in the harbor was a Nimitz at first, but then spied the ski jump and no angled deck. We couldn’t see the two distinct towers until we were very close. 

Yeah, interesting career path for that guy. Most important piece of gear when flying the B2?  Air freshener. The lav arrangement means you’re pooping with friends. He’s now at SWA. 

Edited October 24, 2018 by Bobby_Batronic

[Chad Fuck 17658]

On 10/19/2018 at 6:24 AM, tjhooker said:

Why dont we just make a shitload of drones?  I mean 1000s of them for the same cost.  Sure you'd get a lot more shot down but who cares?  There would be so many it would overwhelm any air defense system. Like a locust swarm.  

You have seen the future just a scant 30 years after Chevy Chase.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13506]

Potentially the first time that there was a formation of a F-35, F-18, F-16, F-15 and F-22 together from last week:

 

[Parliament 14224]

Not  a knock on the F35, but an admission that you don't need expensive stealth capabilities for every mission, and there's a place for modern, conventional fighters.

https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-air-force-plans-to-buy-newest-f-15-x-fighter-aircraft.html

The F-15X is also set to be affordable, coming in at “well below” the $95 million cost of the F-35A. The newest Eagle would cost about $27,000 per hour to fly—again, well below the $45,000 an hour to fly the F-35A. Finally, Boeing claims that the F-15X will have a whopping 20,000-hour service life, enabling it to serve for decades. By comparison, the original F-15 was built to serve only 5,000 hours.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/boeings-new-f-15x-strike-eagle-steroids-here-what-we-know-27767

The purpose, according to Rogoways’ sources, was to provide a better high-low capability combination. That is, a recognition that not all missions will require stealthy fifth-generation aircraft like the F-22 and F-35. Cheaper fourth-generation aircraft like a new designed F-15 would be better for carrying out a host of different missions, such as dealing with terrorist and militant groups.

As far as the F-15X’s specifications, Rogoway’s “sources describe the aircraft as a single seat variant of the latest F-15 advanced Strike Eagle derivative—the F-15QA destined for Qatar—but it will also integrate many of the features and upgrades that the USAF intends (or intended as it may be) to include on its nearly four-decade-old F-15C/D fleet.”

[ztejas 43411]

On 6/15/2018 at 11:15 AM, Parliament said:

Search on here blows.  If there's already a thread, I'll delete.

https://taskandpurpose.com/navys-f-35-strike-radars-already-date-new-report-says/

The Navy’s newest fighter jet, the stealthy F-35C, may not have the range it needs to strike enemy targets, the House Armed Services Committee said in a new report, raising troubling questions about whether the multibillion-dollar program is already outpaced by threats.

And critics say the Navy fighter — part of the Joint Strike Fighter initiative, the most expensive weapons program in history — may actually have been out of date years ago.

Well that's bad.  How do we fix it?  Spend more money.  If money fixes the problem, it's not a problem.

https://taskandpurpose.com/navys-f-35-strike-radars-already-date-new-report-says/

The committee does not want to stop buying F-35Cs, but instead wants to start also buying new sorts of warplanes.

“After billions of dollars have been spent on the F-35C, but before the first aircraft are ready to deploy, lawmakers are already looking at the next carrier-based aircraft,” said Bryan Clark, a former Navy strategist now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

It gets much, much worse.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/top-gun-2-super-hornet

They F35 is not safe enough even for Maverick himself.

But a solution may be in sight.  Let's just go back to what we shoulda done in the first place:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3687/now-the-head-of-the-usaf-is-jumping-on-the-f-22-production-re-start-bandwagon

Now, Congress is calling to look into restarting the F-22 production line, and even the USAF’s outgoing head honcho is jumping on the F-22 production re-start bandwagon.

General Mark Welsh stated the following at an Air Force Association event today:

“I don’t think it’s a wild idea, I mean the success of the F-22 and the capability of the airplane and the crews that fly it are pretty exceptional. I think it’s proven that the airplane is exactly what everybody hoped it would be… We’re using it in new and different ways and it’s been spectacularly successful and its potential is really, really remarkable. And so going back and looking and certainly raising the idea: Well, could you build more? It’s not a crazy idea.”

The F22 was cut back because it was so expensive.  Tooling (and maybe blueprints?) were destroyed.  It makes sense I guess; destroy that stuff so the Chinese can't steal it.  So restarting would be a huge undertaking.  But sadly, it may be our best option.

Our defense budget is such an overinflated shit show (regardless of your politics).

This is especially hilarious because iirc when they started phasing in the F22, F15 pilots were saying "yeah, no, we actually like the F15 better".

So now we've done the exact same shit. 

[Homercles 10205]

The world needs bomb trucks too, Danny.

[Parliament 14224]

As an air-superior fighter the F22 outmatches the F15 (including the X) by every measure. But it can't do all the other roles modern fighter jets can do. It wasn't intended to.

With the exception of its ungodly cost and those oxygen problems at the start, I think the F22 has been pretty good?

[MadBurgerMaker 404]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

As an air-superior fighter the F22 outmatches the F15 (including the X) by every measure. But it can't do all the other roles modern fighter jets can do. It wasn't intended to.

With the exception of its ungodly cost and those oxygen problems at the start, I think the F22 has been pretty good?

I think about the only thing it doesn't do quite as well is external load capabilities.   They can hang bombs on the wings if they aren't worried about being stealthy, but not quite as much (and also why when you have F-15Es, F-16s, F-35s, etc to do that for you anyway). 

Did they ever say how may F-22s were trashed by that hurricane?  I'm assuming that one would basically have to be broken down to atoms before they completely write it off given the small number of them, but there are/were also probably several that we not flyable for a while.

[Assman 1830]

1 hour ago, MadBurgerMaker said:

 

Did they ever say how may F-22s were trashed by that hurricane?  I'm assuming that one would basically have to be broken down to atoms before they completely write it off given the small number of them, but there are/were also probably several that we not flyable for a while.

Only 2 needed anything more than minor repairs.

[MadBurgerMaker 404]

15 minutes ago, Assman said:

Only 2 needed anything more than minor repairs.

Oh that's not so bad then.

[Parliament 14224]

12 hours ago, MadBurgerMaker said:

I think about the only thing it doesn't do quite as well is external load capabilities.   They can hang bombs on the wings if they aren't worried about being stealthy, but not quite as much (and also why when you have F-15Es, F-16s, F-35s, etc to do that for you anyway). 

I know the F35 has external hardpoints, but didn't know the F22 did. 

[MadBurgerMaker 404]

3 hours ago, Parliament said:

I know the F35 has external hardpoints, but didn't know the F22 did. 

There are 4x of them, although I've only seen them with fuel tanks and/or missiles on them.  TBH, I should have said "theoretically" up above, because I'm not 100% sure they've ever actually bothered to implement or test the capability to drop bombs from the externals.  I do know they've dropped live bombs from the internal bays though.  

E: Now with markings!  https://theaviationist.com/2016/05/16/f-22-raptor-stealth-fighter-sports-low-visibility-bomb-markings/ 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2019 by MadBurgerMaker

[elfenix 34221]

On 10/24/2018 at 10:22 AM, Bobby_Batronic said:

It’s my understanding that the 16  or Suhkoi can out maneuver the 35 clean, but are quite similar given an actual weapons combat load. Instantaneous AOA is better for the 35 than the 16. The same high AOA advantage is true of the 18 versus the 16.

Also, the A model’s 9G limit means it’s turn radius is comparable to a clean F16, but also that it does not have the sustained turn radius of the 16 due to energy loss even with that hellishly big motor (thanks VTOL). 

The B/C are comparable to an F/A-18 with their 7G limit with the B having shorter legs due to the lift fan taking up fuel space as well as having heavier weight. Btw, the 7G limit for the 18 is a wing spar thing, and Swiss 18’s have a 9G limit because they opted for titanium spars. 

So. Allegedly, the 35 replaces the combat abilities of the 18 and 16. It cannot maneuver with an airshow equipped  version of either or the modern Russian fighter, but is in the same conversation when combat equipped. The latter is obviously more important. It probably doesnt need to get in extended turning fights with its most likely adversaries, but that’s true of most of our tactical fighters dating back to WWII. 

I asked some former fighter pilots for those answers. One was a 15 pilot who finished his career the the  B2, and the other starter in Phantoms and ended doing liaison work while getting time in 18’s. 

Interesting side note 35 related, I saw one of the new Queen Elizabeth class British carriers sitting off Manhattan yesterday. To quote the esteemed cinematic work of Deuce Bigalew, Male Gigolo all I can say is that’s a big bitch. 

TIL the british carriers are powered by two 777 engines

[Dr Fear 1268]

This is pretty cool, I had read about this a while back but I didn't know it was far enough along to have a test flight.

[Parliament 14224]

"Loyal Wingman?"

[Rusty Shackelford 414]

F-35 related, but a serious WTF Turkey? Should they be kicked out of NATO? Is that their goal to align with Russia?

https://ahvalnews.com/nato/turkey-nato-stand-coming-head-times

[kevwun 15757]

Erdogan is a dictator now and dictator's stick together.  Turkey has not been a reliable ally for sometime and we shouldn't rely on them for anything.

Edited March 8, 2019 by kevwun

[gyroprotagonist 2592]

7 hours ago, Parliament said:

"Loyal Wingman?"

(dis)Loyal Drone: Hollywood, you look good. I'm going after Viper. 

 Hollywood:  God dammit, (dis)Loyal Drone.

[Parliament 14224]

9 hours ago, Rusty Shackelford said:

F-35 related, but a serious WTF Turkey? Should they be kicked out of NATO? Is that their goal to align with Russia?

https://ahvalnews.com/nato/turkey-nato-stand-coming-head-times
 

Turkey signed a contract with Moscow worth a reported $2.5 billion in December 2017 for the purchase of the S-400s despite objections from its NATO allies, who are concerned that the system could collect data on NATO jets and undermine their defences.

The U.S. State Department on Tuesday warned Ankara that purchasing S-400s might result in a reassessment of Turkey’s participation in the F-35 programme and risk other potential future arms transfers, as well as leading to potential sanctions.

“We can’t have the F-35 and S-400 in the same place,” the Times quoted Hodges as saying. “I would want to know more about what Turkey is asking for with the Patriot that industry is not willing to give them.”

The US is the only nation who can do stealth today, and letting someone like Turkey have it, where they'll immediately let the Russians reverse-engineer everything; no way.  Turkey gets a pass for a lot of things because of their geographic location, but come on.

[Dr Fear 1268]

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

I wonder what the timeline is on the Raider. I knew the program existed, and is roughly based on the B2 planform, but little else. 

[Parliament 14224]

Wiki says the Air Force will deploy it in 2025.  Lol.  More like 2032.

[Born a Longhorn 13]

Plan is for IOC (initial operational capability - a small number of them able to do basic missions) by 2025 as said, and I’m also doubtful that happens. I’m a B-1 guy with very little insight into what the thing is supposed to do... program is definitely under wraps. 

[Bateshorn 9927]

Well, it looks like the Air Force is admitting the obvious: It needs functioning bomb trucks and the F-35 ain't that plane.  It's ordering a bunch of F-15EX.  Not surprisingly, the members of congress who have F-35 production are starting to freak out about the pretty obvious writing on the wall.

 

[ztejas 43411]

4 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Well, it looks like the Air Force is admitting the obvious: It needs functioning bomb trucks and the F-35 ain't that plane.  It's ordering a bunch of F-15EX.  Not surprisingly, the members of congress who have F-35 production are starting to freak out about the pretty obvious writing on the wall.

 

Phrases not in the defense contractor handbook:
 

If it ain't broke don't fix it.