C-130CrewChief Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) Okay, The F-35 won't fly with pilons if there is a situation requiring stealth. Nuf said. I think compairing a C-130 hit on climb out with no explosive retardant foam in the fuel tanks to an F-35 leading the first wave of a future high tech war is kinda far fetched. The Herk was brought down by politics and the urge to save a buck, or pound in this case. The fuel vapors in the wing tank lit off and brought the plane down. This situation isn't any thing near what the first days of a major conflict with a Super power (or near super power) would be like. That shot was simply a case of the wrong plane being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I have seen pictures of Herks hit by SA-7's in Nam. A SAM hit is survivable. I am not a fan of the F-35, but the stagnation of technology must stop. We need to move on. In the big picture weather you think the F-35 is great or a pig is a moot point. You are getting them, and when we team up again to kick some butt together, your pilots will be way better off in alot more ways than stealth. Curt Edited August 22, 2009 by C-130CrewChief Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) :D, Hi C130CrewChief, Are we really getting them? I would have thought that if contracts had been exchanged there would have been a big press hullballu about it and coverage of the signing ceremony but I haven't seen anything like that, so I think that 'solid statement' is very premature. Although an announcement was made earlier in the year no contracts have yet been signed by Australia and since then the Defence Minister who made that announcenment has fallen on his sword and his replacement is from the other faction of the party (sorry for the little bit of politics here) and has said that everything involving such large sums of money is under review so I wouldn't be too cocky about saying what we are or aren't getting, I live here and I'm not even going to stick my neck out that far to say such a thing. He's unhappy with the way the Wedgetail project is now how many years behind and how much over budget? and still not performing. 2 Sqn was supposed to operational at Williamtown months ago. Funny, I live 30 km from Willytown and haven't seen anything that looks like a wedgetail flying around here or when I go to Port Stephens past the base, unless we talk about the feathered variety. He's also unhappy with the way the JSF program is so far behind time and so far over budget and he's unhappy with some of the naval projects for the same reason and he's a man who doesn't like excuses and doesn't suffer fools, graciously or otherwise so I'll count nothing as a definite. My point about the Hercules being shot down had nothing to do with lack of spending. My point was that the brass claimed it couldn't happen becasue there were supposedly no SLMs capable of getting any where near 15,000 feet or so. The face of modern warfare is changing so rapidly that I wouldn't like to say what that face will look like in 20, 15, 10 or even 5 years time. This much I do know, we can't keep relying on warfare to have a WW2 face anymore, which is what most nations are doing, especially the big powers. In the article about Russia retiring 200.000 officers early the Russian army even admits this. They had trouble fighting the tiny Georgian army recently. The US and her coalition allies, including Australia are haveing trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan, basically because they are still fighting an outmoded style of warfare. And my final question without notice Mr. Speaker is what major power is Australia likely to come up against in conflict in the next 20 years. We do things a different way from the Americans and others becasue we have such a small poopulation and small military. , Ross. ps. There was another Lockheed product that appeared in the early 1960s with an Australian flag amongst those of other nations that had "ordered" it proudly emblazoned on the intakes. That was supposedly a "done deal" too. What happened there? And that was at a time when many Australians and Americans thought Australia would never buy anything other than American again. Edited August 22, 2009 by ross blackford Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Michael Bay Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 We do things a different way...becasue we have such a small poopulation. I knew you guys like to brag about being from down under and all that, but calling your countrymen turds??? In more important news: God I look good in this untucked striped shirt. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 :lol:, Yes, Ok Michael, good point, you've got me there I can't deny it. As in any country some of them are and as a hospital emergency department security officer I see more than my fair share of that type at work. At the moment I'm laid up with a broken ankle that one of them caused me and I was rather tired when I typed that. It seems that it takes about 4 times as much effort to get around on crutches as it normally does on foot. Could you, as a pyrotechnic expert possibly come up with any ideas to help us get rid of such people permanently? :D , Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 The vehemence here never ceases to amaze me. As soon as an F-35 post pops up, the airpower Australia crowd goes on and on about every reason from the battle of Cannae to superflankers as to why it will result in the end of Australia. Can't we just look at the pretty airplane pictures? Can't we have that Pamela Anderson millisecond of "she's hot" instead of churning over the hepatitis C, or she slept with Tommy Lee AND Kid Rock!? The difference here being those things about Pam are true, while the criticisms are based upon speculations. Please, enjoy the millisecond and forget all the churn from those who have no real knowledge, only speculation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Impatient Pete Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Where's Curt Plummer when you need him? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 , Sorry Mark, I see very little vehemence on these forums and I've found none in this thread. Just to clarify the situation, this is a forum and I thought the purpose of forums was so people could express their opinions, whether others like what they hear or read or not and I don't like some of what I read here but those who say it have every right to have their say as long as what they say doesn't get into the realm of personal attack. I haven't attacked anyone and I will continue to express my opinion as I see fit, just as others whose opinions I disagree with continue to express theirs, with no objections from me. There are some F-35 threads that I have ignored in the past and there will be some again in the future. To clarify another point, I don't read Australian Airpower but I do know that Dr Kopp has something to do with it. I have read small snippets of it but have to say I don't agree with all he has to say ether so that's a moot point. It's my firm belief that the F-35 isn't the aircraft for Australia, regardless of how good it may or may not be and I have every right to say so, regardless of what other people think. Finally, on the subject of the pic at the head of this thread, I don't think it's a particularly good or flattering one for any aircraft. You obviously don't know me, you haven't seen my vehement side, not pretty believe me. Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Ross, don't know why you thought I was talking about you. I was referring to the Airpower Australia devotees and their uninformed speculation. You have made it clear you are not part of that crowd. If it makes you feel any better, if you guys buy JSF and end up in a slave labor camp working foe Chinese overlokads because of it, I will be the first to say I was wrong. Until then, can we just leave it to opinions of that which we have knowledge of, such as the looks of the plane, and leave the pure speculation out of it? I appreciate you don't like the looks--it is a bit thick. But the rest of the discussion can't really go anywhere. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) If it makes you feel any better, if you guys buy JSF and end up in a slave labor camp working foe Chinese overlokads because of it, I will be the first to say I was wrong. LMAO.... Don't worry about any possible shortcomings in the JSF, just keep buying them. Our Great Leader is just about out of stimulus money and the billions that go to Loc-Mart for this program will be a huge boost to our economy. Thanks again for your support! On a more topical note, I wonder what the range is of the JSF with all that external ordinance hanging off it? Edited August 23, 2009 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 , g'day MarkW, Actually, I like the look of the aircraft, I just have grave doubts about its stated abilities that's all and I'm concerned about the price. As far as the picture is concerned I'm a budding photographer and although I wasn't very interested in photography in my younger years I'm now very interested. Perhaps I didn't spell out why I don't think the pic is a good one. It's not the aeroplane itself, it's all the garbage, GSE, cables and general hangar type mess around the aeroplane that makes it a not very high quality pic IMHO. I realize that someone was probably told "Go out in the hangar and get a pic of that , we want to put it up on some website or other now." I think it would have looked much better either out on the tarmac without all the clutter or in its element, ie flying. Although I like the look of the aeroplane it will never have that rakish mean "don't mess with me" look that the Sukhois do, especially the two seaters. , Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SinisterVampire319 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 A GBU-10 would only cost..what....$750K±. Yes, and then be dropped on a $50 truck... I am not a fan of the F-35 Me neither. I say modernize and update the A-10 and build new ones. This time some two seaters with full all weather capability. Cheers, Alan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
David Hingtgen Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 No one's commented/asked/explained about the different attitude (in the aviation sense) of each pylon? The outboard ones are angled down (independently of being angled 45 degrees to the side), the middle is angled up, the inner one is level. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
C-130CrewChief Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 No one's commented/asked/explained about the different attitude (in the aviation sense) of each pylon? The outboard ones are angled down (independently of being angled 45 degrees to the side), the middle is angled up, the inner one is level. Good attention to detail on that. Wing flex maybe???? Curt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Djack Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Blah, blah, blah...shut the 'F' up if you don't like this plane, and go to the next thread. We don't need to see negativity on all of the damn threads on here. I thought we came to this site for the love of aircraft, not to try to find flaws/short-comings in every plane you personally don't care for. Thanks for sharing that picture, cool to see something new every now and again...see that was called a 'compliment' because I appreciated the fact that someone on here thought enough of us to share their love of avaition with us. David Quote Link to post Share on other sites
richter111 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Airflow for dropping ordinance issues? Look on youtube for the f-18 and its drop tests, including the one that struck the skyhawk chase aircraft. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
C-130CrewChief Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Okay, lets all open a window and step away from the glue bottle here! (Myself included.) Brother Djack calm down...lol We all do love planes and modeling them! I appologize to every one if I helped inflame the debate here. I come here to blow off stress not cause more. Curt I saved the pic by the way. I thought it was cool and unique. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
siege bison Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Is it just me or in a weird way does it look better with stuff hanging off it?! Take it the pylns and positioning will be same for all versions? Airshows will never be the same again, great if you love jsf....... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
richter111 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 needs a false canopy and flaps.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) needs a false canopy and flaps.... Agreed not enough Tweet influence as well. The advanced materials would be better spent on the Ultra Mega Tomcat too. People whine and complain about how the F-22 is an expensive one trick pony and they actually build the F-35 to have an amazing array of options that can be adjusted for the mission...and people whine more. Everything in aviation is a compromise. If you want one of Curt's herkybirds you need to realize it won't turn like a fighter. If you want an F-18 it won't be able to haul trucks like a C-130. Every aircraft has compromises designed into it in one way or another, beyond the more extreme example I gave above. Is it possible (however unlikely) that the people in uniform actually know their jobs better than we do and know what they are doing? No...forget i said that. I got shivers when I saw that pic, first time I have seen an F-35 with any kind of weaponry...and on the USMC variant too... Gorgeous. Edited August 25, 2009 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
wh1skea Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I believe the F-35 is designed to operate in conjunction with the F-22, an airframe not available to us. We are putting all our eggs in one basket here, a policy which for an isolated country like Australia (isolated by oceans all around us) I believe is total folly and as I've said before in discussion with you in particular and others in general with our huge coast line and small military it will be leaving us wide open, but what would I know, I only live here and there are many in this country who believ that 100 of your wunderwaffen aren't going to be anywhere near enough and we can't afford any more. In fact, we can't even really afford the 30 billion it will eventually cost us (20 bill in hardware and support and the 10 bill we'll have already put into the R&D side of the program). It would have been much cheaper to have paid out the 400 mill in exit fees and gone and looked for something that we could buy several hundred of that would do the job we want it to do. The US has a land area not that much bigger than Australia and how many of these things are you guys buying, plus you have the luxury of the protection of the F-22s. We aren't allowed that luxury., Ross. The F/A-22 isn't part of the USN/USMC inventory either. Not often are Navy and Airforce strikes made in conjunction. So what you are saying is that the Navy is putting itself in the same hole as Australia? Because they will both have Super Bugs instead of Raptors to compliment their Lightnings. If it were me, I would've reengineered and modernize some of the more successful airframes of the past than waste the money that was wasted on the F/A-22 project. The Tomcat fleet could've been refurbished, maybe assigned to some Marine squadrons so they older airframes wouldn't have to deal with the stresses of carrier ops. simply put in my opinion: F/A-22 Raptor F/A-35 Lightning II (so far) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) The F/A-22 isn't part of the USN/USMC inventory either. Not often are Navy and Airforce strikes made in conjunction. So what you are saying is that the Navy is putting itself in the same hole as Australia? Because they will both have Super Bugs instead of Raptors to compliment their Lightnings. If it were me, I would've reengineered and modernize some of the more successful airframes of the past than waste the money that was wasted on the F/A-22 project. The Tomcat fleet could've been refurbished, maybe assigned to some Marine squadrons so they older airframes wouldn't have to deal with the stresses of carrier ops.simply put in my opinion: F/A-22 Raptor F/A-35 Lightning II (so far) Perhaps another way to look at is by mission. The USMC air assets are primarily airborne artillery, with air defense built in. The USAF, on the other hand, needs to be able to project air dominance into enemy territory. The USN needs to balance resources protecting that big fat carrier with resources that can pop a bad guy in the nose. When the carrier spends more effort protecting itself than it does projecting power, they have a problem. So, the USMC works under a paradigm where they can control the airspace they are in, but focus on ground support. The USAF needs F-22 to project air dominance for all services (beyond the carrier defensive ring or the reach of Army ADA support), that is the primary mission. The Navy can rely on the battle group to run the defensive air fight so the carrier can focus on strike. If you are the USN, USMC, or any of the other 8 JSF partners, you can't always rely on F-22s or Aegis cruisers to sweep the sky for your strike package. F-35 was designed with this in mind. It is made to deliver the weapons and serve as self escort. F-22s will always be welcome, but not needed. The Navy is unbelievably paranoid about their carriers, does anyone really think they are tripping over themselves to buy a jet that is less capable than any other option? The external stores configurations are similar between variants. Edited August 26, 2009 by MarkW Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dmanton300 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) removed so as not to offend the faint of heart . . . Edited August 25, 2009 by Dmanton300 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reddog Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Can we at least spell ORDNANCE correctly. We are not talking about rules and regulations, we are talking about things that go boom. Ordinance is a legal rule/regulation/retiction. Ordnance is those little thing that either fall or are fired off aircraft which usually cause great damage upon functioning. Now, back to your regularly schedule arguement, already in progress. Reddog Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 ^ Thats why I used "weaponry" in my post. LOL Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) , dmanton300, I agree with what you just deleted, (I managed to get in before you deleted it and I'm glad I did because I couldn't have put it better myself). In a sense though I'm glad you did delete it because obviously Djack doesn't seem to have read the Rules of the Road at the head of these forums. Perhaps he doesn't realize there are little children who read these forums with their mummy or daddy and those parents don't need to have to explain his poor attempts at veiling his foul language. I'd suggest to Djack he reads the Rules of the Road and have a bit of consideration for all our readers, including the little ones. As I said earlier in the thread, I thought a forum was where people come to read what's been written by others and to express their ideas and opinions. Obviously some of those opinions are going to be negative. , Ross. Edited for typos. Edited August 25, 2009 by ross blackford Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.