FBWBecause US militaries are allowed to talk about which type of stuff should be bought?
Two USAF generals destroyed their careers advocating for more F-22’s after Gates forbade them from doing so. USN leaders fighting with Congress over Tico retirements and shipbuilding plans constantly. So the answer is yes.
FBWHmmm for the UK:
Domestic jet trainer aircraft.
Shared development of a Stealthy harrier replacement with the US.
Mixed fleet of US and domestic/European rotorcraft.
Shared development of a fighter/interceptor/ground attack aircraft with Europe.
Mixed fleet of domestic/European and US transport aircraft.
Domestic UCAV.
US MALE UAV.
European/domestic unmanned naval rotorcraft.Should be perfectly doable:angel::angel:
Wait a minute, if you try to do all that and replace the Vanguard class, add two Carriers, eight large and five small frigates, the UK defense budget might come up short! Hold on….. Calculating….. by some 20+ billion pounds!
Oh my good, I’m a seer:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-defence/uk-defence-spending-plans-may-fall-short-by-21-billion-pounds-watchdog-idUKKBN1FL4CH
Seriously though, anyone at MoD own a calculator?
FBWFunny that you don’t label his opinions as pathetic, first.. oh, because he has the “right” ones…
Not at all, several posters (including you) already responded to his post. Frankly, I would reserve judgement on several of his points as there isn’t enough to emphatically support or reject them. I also don’t see the point of hallow adding hyperbole to hyperbole. Especially considering his posting history lately (which i find lacking, not because his negative view of the F-35; but because of the substance of his arguments)
Got no issue with debate on such a controversial program, but come with substantive points or opinions. And T-VIP and Hallow have both been around long enough to defend their own posts without us arguing over who’s what, nor was I defending T-VIP’s post.
FBWThe ECM pod was usually carried on the aft station. Mk 84 could fit dimension wise but was never tested. Both afaik.
ALQ-87’s could be carried forward and aft, could definitely see a separation issue when carrying them. Apparently separation testing showed a nasty tendency for the bomb to “float” a few feet below the aircraft after being dropped, probably a bit unnerving when testing B61’s.
Anyway, seems to have been rare to use the weapons bay for bombs in the F-111 A/C/E/F/D
FBWAre you sure F-111 was fastest down on the deck? Over the years Tornado and Thunderchief crews all claimed to be speed champs on the deck. Real numbers will always be bar talk. They would never discuss combat conditions in the public realm, as that is strictly forbidden even years later.
The F-111E was “limited” to 660 KIAS at sea level, the F-111A to mach 1.1. Considering the anecdotes for speeds on the deck at over 900 knots, the limits were thermal related. There was a five minute limit for thermal heating above 153 C.
One of those odd things about those early 70’s fighters, before the days of FBW and computer control law limits. F-111’s might have had a placard limit of Mach 1.1 or 1.2, but so long as the thermal load wasn’t exceeded for longer than the five minutes, you have pilots recalling speeds of over 800 (even 900) knots regularly. Reminds me of the ACEVAL stories of the 7.33g limited F-14’s exceeding 11g in dogfights when they were new.
FBWNot sre it will reach the end of the airstrip without bingo fuel like taht. Anw you are right. Basically EF is an interceptor and F-35 a bomb truck.
So, you point out TVip’s post as bare opinions then state this.
Bravo, pathetic.
FBWI don’t think that the F111 carried 2000lb bombs internally, but happy to be corrected.
750lb mk117. I don’t think it was a weight issue though as the FB-111 carried the AGM-69 which weighed over 1,010 kg and the F-111B was to carry the AIM-54 which weighed 470 kg, and F-111F PAVE TACK at over 600kg.
The internal weapons bay just wasn’t used for “weapons” often. Usually it was blocked off by ECM pod, and carried fuel except in the case of the FB-111. Don’t think the gun pod was commonly carried after the 70’s (but could be wrong)
Edit- looking at a study of stores separation and the acoustic environment in the F-111 weapons bay, it would seem there were good reasons it was rarely used for bombs (they tested sawtooth faring similar to what was later applied to F-22 during weapon separation tests).
FBWVans
No, sadly I think that you are spot on. Despite Gripen’s better export success than Viggen it is if anything more vulnerable to US sanctions. It is also vulnerable to UK sanctions and political pressure. Specifically the avionics.
Still a great little airframe though.
The “sanction” piece is a bit overblown on here. While AECA and ITAR can prevent sales (and resales), one look U.S. equipment operated by sanctioned regimes makes the argument moot.
Iran is still operating F-14’s some 39 years after the revolution (there have been peaks and valleys in numbers operational aircraft, but given the USN experience with the F-14, Iran’s ability to keep them flying is nothing short of impressive). Venezuela still operates their F-16’s (despite threats to sell them), there are simply too many operators to prevent them from obtaining spares. Egypt doesn’t seem too worried about their fleet of F-16’s or M1A1 (though they are clearly diversifying due to poor relations and the shutting off of of the aid spigot).
Most of the time (as in the case of Israel), the U.S. and others will shut off resupply for the duration of the conflict. All this is to say that Saab wasn’t worried about installing US engines and U.S. fly by wire tech on their Gripen. In fact, even when BAE was sued over improper notification and payments for export licences for the Gripen to Czechs and Hungary, the US didn’t block the actual leases.
There is a simple work around, if your going to use weapons with US content be sure to stockpile spares and munitions. Sadly, even most NATO nations have a paltry war reserve (even during the Cold War few kept more than a 30-15 day supply of munitions, based on hopelessly optimistic expenditure predictions).
FBWAssumption. Clueless.
Yeah, right.. everyone should bow down to the F-35 and worship it like a brainless zombie.. :eagerness:
Please….. perspective. I don’t bring up your inane predictions on the F-35 from the past.
Every major defense program has hiccups, every aircraft has unforeseen issues. There is no perfect aircraft that met all design goals (especially upon IOC). Time for some to admit the doom and gloom, and claims of inferiority were inaccurate. Obviously, as a program, the F-35 has a way to go to justify it’s expense. But if past predictions and projections are compared to reality, the program is on solid footing moving forward.
FBWAssumption. Clueless.
Obviously an assumption. Likely accurate based on rise of interference drag as a % of total drag at supersonic speeds.
The only one of us that is clueless is you, posting articles you don’t read, making up costing you don’t understand. Irrational overreaction to a US defense program, because you somehow think it threatens your pet Rafale. Again, sad. Used to enjoy some of your posts, now I skip over them as equivalent to JSR, they emotionally based, not fact based.
There isn’t a poster on here that doesn’t make honest mistakes, I do. But there is a difference between error based on research, and posting crap because you can’t separate fact and opinion due to bias. Personally, I would be very happy to see you pull your head out of your rear and get back on track.
FBWEven paid by US taxpayer…
Didn’t read the article huh?….. it was talking about pushing back the 3rd squadron of F-35’s due to the existing Israeli fleet obsolescence and airframe hours issues and the safeguard of operating two types (F-15I having a longer combat radius with CFT and EFT). They are still buying three squadrons of F-35’s.
Sad to say Hallow, but you’ve really fallen from a well respected poster with a slight F-35 negative bias to a rather embarrassing troll. You were so gleeful to post that, you didn’t even read or interpret the article correctly. Won’t even go into the whole “aliases” thing.
FBWCheck Out This Photo Of An F-16C From Nellis Air Force Base’s Aggressor Squadron Wearing The Have Glass V Paint Scheme. To our knowledge it’s the very first AGRS Viper wearing this livery.
Interesting that they use the Block 32D as aggressor aircraft. The GE aircraft have always been stated to have better overall performance, but maybe the aggressors prefer the lighter block 32’s.
FBWI doubt a clean F-35 has less drag than a Typhoon with two bags.. But for the calculation I have disregarded the potential differences..
Nope.. Sorry..
Utterly silly, what drag are you referring to? Drag coefficient? The F-35 could easily have lower c/d than the Typhoon subsonic (maybe) Overall drag? Well it is larger isnt it.
Typhoon with two bags? Not in your wildest dreams.
The F-35 is “draggy” in transonic. No way to avoid that without making the aircraft substantially longer. Once supersonic, interference drag becomes a much larger percent of overall drag, so no those two wet bags add substantial drag. If you want to eyeball subsonic drag, be my guest (I’d say you’d be surprised). Overall drag at transonic speeds? F-35 hands down. Total drag at supersonic speeds? clean Typhoon < F-35 < Typhoon with bags in order of total drag.
FBWEasy:
Nic, the tread is for a 1970’s fighter, not a 1990’s target.
JK, but I don’t think the F.1 makes the short list.
FBWThat would make the estimate in the DSCA notice roughly 430 million higher than what Belgium budgeted for (assuming the accuracy of what’s been reported).
Sign In
