Shipbucket

Blackbuck wrote: Do you have a date for that newspaper? Looks like the run up to this years general election so it's reasonably recent it would seem.

From what I understand, it was from this past Sunday (The Sunday Times).

Ouch. That is recent. I wonder if anything is actually going to come of this.

On the other hand, the datalinks means that one JSF can burn by the target at full speed, and then, when the target is verified, his buddy shoots it down, using targeting data from the first JSF. In essence, it allows a JSF to act as a short range mini AWACS.

Like we did with the Tornadoes in the 80s/90s vectoring Hawks onto targets with their radar so the Hawks could use AIM-9s.

TimothyC wrote:I have no doubt that the F-35 will be in the same over all performance bracket as the F-22 for air to air combat. You seem to not get just how big of a thing the datalinks and sensor fusion is.

I don't care how big a thing datalinks & sensor fusion is, doesn't mean jack if the plane gets shot down due to shitty half-assed stealth that's only effective towards X-Band. It has the biggest, most powerful engine ever put in a fighter, yet can only go Mach 1.6?

It's a compromised PoS designed by committee that should have been axed when it became clear that is was going to be a turkey. But now, like the banks, it's too big to be axed.

Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:

TimothyC wrote:I have no doubt that the F-35 will be in the same over all performance bracket as the F-22 for air to air combat. You seem to not get just how big of a thing the datalinks and sensor fusion is.

I don't care how big a thing datalinks & sensor fusion is, doesn't mean jack if the plane gets shot down due to shitty half-assed stealth that's only effective towards X-Band. It has the biggest, most powerful engine ever put in a fighter, yet can only go Mach 1.6?

It's a compromised PoS designed by committee that should have been axed when it became clear that is was going to be a turkey. But now, like the banks, it's too big to be axed.

I presume you have some facts to back up the stealth claims, or some data that shows that radar stealth is the end-all of fighters?

Don't get me wrong I would rather have the A/F-X (if it could have been made to work), or even some ASF-14s over the F-35, but the fact is the F-35 is what we are going to get and it isn't that bad of a plane.

TimothyC wrote:

Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:

TimothyC wrote:I have no doubt that the F-35 will be in the same over all performance bracket as the F-22 for air to air combat. You seem to not get just how big of a thing the datalinks and sensor fusion is.

I don't care how big a thing datalinks & sensor fusion is, doesn't mean jack if the plane gets shot down due to shitty half-assed stealth that's only effective towards X-Band. It has the biggest, most powerful engine ever put in a fighter, yet can only go Mach 1.6?

It's a compromised PoS designed by committee that should have been axed when it became clear that is was going to be a turkey. But now, like the banks, it's too big to be axed.

I presume you have some facts to back up the stealth claims, or some data that shows that radar stealth is the end-all of fighters?

Don't get me wrong I would rather have the A/F-X (if it could have been made to work), or even some ASF-14s over the F-35, but the fact is the F-35 is what we are going to get and it isn't that bad of a plane.

The Stealth problem I mention comes from a PDF that got released by accident by LockMart last year and taken off within 2-3 hours that went into details about the stealth being optimized for the X-Band only to cut down on development costs. Unfortunately I wasn't able to save the PDF due to me being on a school computer, but I'll ask around if anyone managed to get a copy of it before LockMart took it down.

As for the F-35 itself, my main problem is that they've asked so much from it, it's held back by it's own weight. Cause when a single engine "light" fighter weights more than a F-15, they've really fucked up. Seriously, why is it so bloody heavy?!

Interesting....

The navalized SAAB Gripen was a rumor spreading around when Brazil and India showed intreset in the project. I don't know how much fact there is behind the story.

Demon Lord Razgriz wrote: The Stealth problem I mention comes from a PDF that got released by accident by LockMart last year and taken off within 2-3 hours that went into details about the stealth being optimized for the X-Band only to cut down on development costs. Unfortunately I wasn't able to save the PDF due to me being on a school computer, but I'll ask around if anyone managed to get a copy of it before LockMart took it down.

If you could provide some link to someone else noting the leak that would be good

Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:As for the F-35 itself, my main problem is that they've asked so much from it, it's held back by it's own weight. Cause when a single engine "light" fighter weights more than a F-15, they've really fucked up. Seriously, why is it so bloody heavy?!

STOVL.

Uh heys guys. Have you seen the economies of the countries that are part of the F-35 program? They are like BROKE including our government. The F-35 is overbudget and behind schedule. I don't care if it can put a missle in a flea's ass 1000km's away its too expensive and too much has been attempted on one airframe. Another thing that most folks here seem to forget you're not just buying aircraft. You're also buying spare parts, support and training facilities. Those costs add up.

You know folks history does repeat itself. This is the F-111 clusterfook all over again.