dark light

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,576 through 1,590 (of 4,849 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2183623
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    If software does not do what was specified, it does not work.

    Congrats, you have just grounded every plane operated in the last 40 years as they all have had and still do have some bugs.

    Don’t believe me, go look at the most recent F-18 DOT&E report.

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2183799
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Perspective is needed.

    That jets are still being built using old technology does not make them new technology jets.
    F-35, baselined in the late 1990s, is 15-20 year old technology.

    The technology for the F-35 was from the 2000’s (EDD Phase) not 1990’s (Requirements Phase).

    They were still developing the tech, especially for items like the EODAS, engine, etc in the early 2000’s. In fact, the ICP just got an upgrade with all new processors (don’t know the type).

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2184199
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Won in Norway, didn’t it?.

    You’re right… Norway not Netherlands.. my bad, still won.

    Japan – 2nd choice only, after F-22

    Funny, I seen to remember the Superhornet and Eurofighter being part of it… Still won.

    Korea – lost to F-15.

    Nope.. The bean counters recommended the F-15 on a cost basis and the military (the guys actually making the final decision) said that the extra cost was worth the increased capabilities… still a win.

    So, 3 wins

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2184253
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The F-35 has not won a single competition, as of yet..

    Netherlands… Japan.. South Korea…

    in reply to: The 'JUST A NICE PIC…' thread #2185872
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    An American F-35B with AIM-132? Are they testing weapons for all partner nations (U.K. I presume in this case) with any available aircraft or rather designated test birds that are American?

    Any weapon tested on any F-35 will be certified for use in any nation’s F-35s (model specific).

    They all run an identical copy of the software that recognizes what model it’s loaded in (A/B/C) when it boots up.

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2187679
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Why does Canada need all the source codes? Are Canadian firms planning to develop new weapons and sensors to add? No.

    You don’t need the source codes for that thanks to UAI (yes, sensor pods are on the horizon for UAI).

    UAI actually makes adding Weapons to the F-35 easier than the Gripen.

    Also, the F-35’s internal SATCOM is coming in Block4 (early 2020’s), not 3F.

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2188306
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    It’s a baseline requirement. If it can’t fight within visual range it’s a scary proposition as any nations only fighter. There’s enough information out there to suggest that it’s a legitimate point of concern. Alongside an F 22 F 15 or Typhoon to protect it…sure.

    Too many people equate “dogfighting” with WVR. They are not the same.

    Besides, according to the recent article from the Norwegian F-35 pilot, the F-35 can more than hold its own in a dogfight.

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2188346
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Given that “dogfighting” is the least used aspect of modern air warfare, why would it be you top criterion for the F-35?

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2188909
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Not likely as everything from radar, avionics, engine, etc is different.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2189034
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Per some news that came out last year, much of the current EOTS can be used to make an AdvEOTS. This means that when an upgrade is made, the existing EOTS can be rebuilt to an AdvEOTS.

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2189213
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Newsflash: Current contracts do not extend into the FRP phase of production. While your current contracts will not get cancelled, you will not be getting any more.

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2189567
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Increased cost and pulls less Gs?

    in reply to: Norwegian Instructor Lies about F-35 BFM Performance #2189772
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I’ve seen the pylon ALE-50s before. For the life of me I could have sworn that I saw a tail mounted unit also.

    in reply to: Norwegian Instructor Lies about F-35 BFM Performance #2189877
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    IMHO the wing station is preferable since there are many of them and they can be easily bolted on the current airframe. It might be limited to the outer stations in order for the control surfaces not to be affected.

    The centerline station is a no go due to tangle issues in any serious maneuvering.

    The spine is possible but might be too close to the exhaust. Remember that the tail mounted F-16 towed decoy are a couple of feet above the engine plume.

    in reply to: Norwegian Instructor Lies about F-35 BFM Performance #2189925
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Think of a conformal VLO pod on the wing-station. It would not need a pylon, just the pod on the underside of the wing … think small, detachable version of the PAKFA’s WVR wing station. It would be what, 8 inches tall?

    That would be a lot easier to do than doing some kind of permanent installation on the spine.

    btw, the Super Hornet’s ALE-55s are also pylon mounted (ie not integral to the plane like teh F-16’s tail mounted units).

Viewing 15 posts - 1,576 through 1,590 (of 4,849 total)