So what's the solution? Paint all the fuel trucks bright, reflective white to reduce the temperature of the fuel...
QuoteThat presents a whole new problem for the safety of the trucks, which will be necessary to support the Joint Strike Fighter on forward deployments where large white tankers full of highly flammable fuel could make easy targets.
Ya think?
So what's their long-term solution? Tents for shade.
source: http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/08/the-usaf-has-to-re-paint-its-trucks-because-the-f-35-cant-fly-on-warm-fuel/
This came up in another thread. You're just going to set Star off ...again :P
Rightfully so!
It's supposed to be a goddam multi-role fighter, not a delicate flower that can only grow in the shade.
it was discussed a while ago and its a common issue with most frontline aircraft.
So how do the Israelis deal with it. They get lots of hot sun.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-UjYEC4xWilc%2FUS8ymsQS6uI%2FAAAAAAAAWY0%2FaGQE0jS3ZlY%2Fs1600%2Fmissisrael%2B2.jpg&hash=4607697437dce52fff222fd0bd77d98cd8508b8a)
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on May 20, 2015, 01:14:40 PM
it was discussed a while ago and its a common issue with most frontline aircraft.
Well, not exactly ::)
Here's the official thread for beating Star down about the F-35s many flaws.
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=8198.0
Quote from: Centurion40 on May 20, 2015, 12:51:08 PM
It's supposed to be a goddam multi-role fighter, not a delicate flower that can only grow in the shade.
That's the problem. It's trying to be too many things to too many services.
Quote from: Centurion40 on May 20, 2015, 01:17:43 PM
So how do the Israelis deal with it. They get lots of hot sun.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-UjYEC4xWilc%2FUS8ymsQS6uI%2FAAAAAAAAWY0%2FaGQE0jS3ZlY%2Fs1600%2Fmissisrael%2B2.jpg&hash=4607697437dce52fff222fd0bd77d98cd8508b8a)
so who got airbrushed out of the middle, Gus? Toonces? Star?
Quote from: undercovergeek on May 20, 2015, 04:20:10 PM
so who got airbrushed out of the middle, Gus? Toonces? Star?
Raptor Jesus.Maybe it was his last supper on the beach..
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi59.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg313%2FRetroSphinx%2FRaptorJesus-lastSupper2.jpg&hash=acc0b917786c202cf628b87a2a9949be8cf93c75)
what in the fkng fk?!?!?
thats hilarious but i dont know why
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fnewsfeed%2F000%2F267%2F669%2F4ff.gif&hash=5d5b88cc1525b6aa265910d8646415964870386c)
Quote from: LongBlade on May 20, 2015, 12:41:47 PM
So what's the solution? Paint all the fuel trucks bright, reflective white to reduce the temperature of the fuel...
QuoteThat presents a whole new problem for the safety of the trucks, which will be necessary to support the Joint Strike Fighter on forward deployments where large white tankers full of highly flammable fuel could make easy targets.
Ya think?
So what's their long-term solution? Tents for shade.
source: http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/08/the-usaf-has-to-re-paint-its-trucks-because-the-f-35-cant-fly-on-warm-fuel/
Thats dumb. You wrap the truck in an insulation blanket then put a reefer truck cooling system in it.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on May 20, 2015, 06:29:38 PM
Thats dumb. You wrap the truck in an insulation blanket then put a reefer truck cooling system in it.
My thought, too.
because the Air Force is looking for a cheap solution for its most expensive project.... ::)
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on May 20, 2015, 08:20:18 PM
because the Air Force is looking for a cheap solution for its most expensive project.... ::)
They need to save somewhere. Rumor is that AF pilots may have to start wearing smaller watches :o
Quote from: mirth on May 21, 2015, 11:46:59 AM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on May 20, 2015, 08:20:18 PM
because the Air Force is looking for a cheap solution for its most expensive project.... ::)
They need to save somewhere. Rumor is that AF pilots may have to start wearing smaller watches :o
Dear God, the sky IS falling!
Don't worry, Toonces is safe. He made the right horological call all those years back.
More bad news on the F-35.
QuoteA test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can't turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy's own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January.
"The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage," the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled "for official use only."
The test pilot's report is the latest evidence of fundamental problems with the design of the F-35 — which, at a total program cost of more than a trillion dollars, is history's most expensive weapon.
source: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875?mc_cid=029df67bff&mc_eid=70eb148183
Cue Star to tell us it's supposed to be a purely BVR fighter ::)
It's the same thing that a10 designer said, the wings are too damn small.
Similar article:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248 (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248)
QuoteAlso, the aircraft flown in the test, an F-35A, is the most maneuverable F-35 variant of the lot, being capable of pulling 9g, while the carrier capable F-35C is capable of pulling 7.5g and the short takeoff and vertical landing variant, the F-35B, is only capable of pulling 7g.
QuoteThe fact that the F-35 is maybe not really a good fighter at all is reminiscent of the question that we've been asking for years — if you don't really need competitive maneuverability, than why do we need a fighter at all?
Quote from: mirth on June 30, 2015, 11:20:06 AM
Cue Star to tell us it's supposed to be a purely BVR fighter ::)
He's too busy skipping in pastures and picking flowers
Go round all your unfinished argument threads and finish them off whilst he still thinks been in love is a good thing
Quote from: undercovergeek on June 30, 2015, 11:44:30 AM
Quote from: mirth on June 30, 2015, 11:20:06 AM
Cue Star to tell us it's supposed to be a purely BVR fighter ::)
He's too busy skipping in pastures and picking flowers
Go round all your unfinished argument threads and finish them off whilst he still thinks been in love is a good thing
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/eiEfvGbHtJLDa/200.gif)
Quote from: undercovergeek on June 30, 2015, 11:44:30 AM
Quote from: mirth on June 30, 2015, 11:20:06 AM
Cue Star to tell us it's supposed to be a purely BVR fighter ::)
He's too busy skipping in pastures and picking flowers
Go round all your unfinished argument threads and finish them off whilst he still thinks been in love is a good thing
:)) :)) :)) You're killin' it today, Undercover :2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
Quote from: LongBlade on June 30, 2015, 11:54:55 AM
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/eiEfvGbHtJLDa/200.gif)
Star and Caitlyn Jenner, how sweet.
Quote from: mirth on June 30, 2015, 11:20:06 AM
Cue Star to tell us it's supposed to be a purely BVR fighter ::)
you certainly has a gross misconception of my opinion of the F-35. perhaps you should go back and reread the original thread.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on June 30, 2015, 06:07:15 PM
Quote from: mirth on June 30, 2015, 11:20:06 AM
Cue Star to tell us it's supposed to be a purely BVR fighter ::)
you certainly has a gross misconception of my opinion of the F-35. perhaps you should go back and reread the original thread.
Easy, lover.
fuck off. I've complained about the problems with the program and corrected some of the more common errors in reporting.
I said BVR, not BVD. So don't get your panties wadded.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on June 30, 2015, 06:19:04 PM
fuck off. I've complained about the problems with the program and corrected some of the more common errors in reporting.
Easy big guy, don't throw the paint bombs!
Quote from: mirth on June 30, 2015, 11:20:06 AM
Cue Star to tell us it's supposed to be a purely BVR fighter ::)
There have historically been problems with engaging BVR. ROE, positive visual ID requirements, etc, causing BVR & low-RCS advantages to be nullified to varying extent and resulting in close-range engagement.
If we were gonna just gonna have some multi-role bomb truck like this, we could've saved a huge amount of money, time, and effort by producing more (updated) F-16s. The same 'ole reliable kind that ate the F-35's breakfast & lunch, prompting these reports. Should've continue creating F-22s for the air superiority role.
The biggest problem with the F-35 program is that it's attempting to be everything to everyone. Carrier do-it-all, VTOL for Marines.. many countries wanting their own details. It was a damn buggy cost overrun mess before they started coming off the lines.
Don't talk all sensible ;)
Im still somewhat surprised they put a gun on it.
After God knows how many hours of Falcon 3 plus lesser of 4, I still love the F16. Why couldn't they have morphed that design into some squarehead looking stealth plane at low cost?
Stop making sense.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on July 02, 2015, 09:43:54 PM
After God knows how many hours of Falcon 3 plus lesser of 4, I still love the F16. Why couldn't they have morphed that design into some squarehead looking stealth plane at low cost?
Since the F-35 will primarily be for ground attack (for the USAF at least), the low RCS stealth won't be worth much of a damn when it's toting a bombload anyway. That's why I've been ::)
Why, oh why can't we have nice things?
Could have built and maintained a bunch of A-10's for the cost of a single squadron on F-35's.
Quote from: Nefaro on July 02, 2015, 09:47:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on July 02, 2015, 09:43:54 PM
After God knows how many hours of Falcon 3 plus lesser of 4, I still love the F16. Why couldn't they have morphed that design into some squarehead looking stealth plane at low cost?
Since the F-35 will primarily be for ground attack (for the USAF at least), the low RCS stealth won't be worth much of a damn when it's toting a bombload anyway. That's why I've been ::)
That part is ok. In my simulated missions I always got jumped returning home, when i was low on fuel. Low rcs is good there.
If you need low rcs going in, you need a real bomber, or cruise missiles.
For regular bit of everything in low threat (cleaned) areas, why do you need such an expensive plane?
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on July 02, 2015, 10:44:53 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on July 02, 2015, 09:47:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on July 02, 2015, 09:43:54 PM
After God knows how many hours of Falcon 3 plus lesser of 4, I still love the F16. Why couldn't they have morphed that design into some squarehead looking stealth plane at low cost?
Since the F-35 will primarily be for ground attack (for the USAF at least), the low RCS stealth won't be worth much of a damn when it's toting a bombload anyway. That's why I've been ::)
That part is ok. In my simulated missions I always got jumped returning home, when i was low on fuel. Low rcs is good there.
If you need low rcs going in, you need a real bomber, or cruise missiles.
For regular bit of everything in low threat (cleaned) areas, why do you need such an expensive plane?
For mostly moving mud, they probably should've just invested in proper stealth bombers with sizable internal bays, to retain stealth en route, and built more F-22s for air superiority.
I wonder if a newer derivative of a smaller B-1, or a larger F-117, would've been cheaper and more reliable as a whole. Then let the Navy look for their own custom tailored next gen multi-role aircraft that doesn't have to be everything for everyone.
I wonder if the F-35 will be the US version of the Avro arrow or TSR-2 - a great idea that went sideways from a technical and financial perspective.
Regardless - I think Canada should be looking at the Super Hornet or cheaper alternative - we're not going to be able to afford to purchase and operate the 3 the budget will allow for ;-)
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on July 02, 2015, 09:43:54 PM
After God knows how many hours of Falcon 3 plus lesser of 4, I still love the F16. Why couldn't they have morphed that design into some squarehead looking stealth plane at low cost?
you mean like this:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finstapinch.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F01%2FF-16XL-5.jpg&hash=e7e48ae1e7cd46f7ddcab53a4bf60bd088bb6725)
Which variant is that? The fuselage looks round from that angle.
F-16 XL
Correct-a-mundo.
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/07/05/one_analyst_predicted_the_f-35s_dogfight_failure_108169.html
QuoteDuring mock dogfights over the Pacific Ocean in January, a U.S. Air Force F-35 stealth fighter struggled to get a clean gun or missile shot at a 1980s-vintage F-16D, according to an official pilot's report that War Is Boring obtained.
Turning the tables, the F-16 easily maneuvered behind the bulky F-35, even sneaking up on the radar-evading jet when its test pilot found his rearward view blocked by the plane's poorly-designed canopy.
The obvious conclusion — America's brand-new stealth fighter, which is on track to replace almost all of the Pentagon's current fighters, is dead meat in a close air battle.
Much more at the link.
Also the War Is Boring link: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb
Against an F-16D, even?
Think that's a 2-seater model, IIRC. :))
Bring back the F-14 and A-6! 8)
Hel, bring back Heinemann's Hot Rod. With modern avionics that thing would be a Tasmanian Devil.