and an A-10 with a multi course meal for the Taliban
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
Dustin.New Viper porn for those who didn't see last month.
Dustin.The only fighters the US should be using are F-18s, F-15s, and F-22s. F-15s have done as well, if not better than, F-16s on putting warheads to foreheads in OEF/OIF. Its faster, and has EW capabilities to boot.
Even A-10's have EW. I don't understand this post at all, how'd you come up with those 3 jets?
VinnieFthey crash themselves, not too worried
Dustin.New Viper porn for those who didn't see last month.
roddy116throwback timeflying fortress
and a spitfire
byuboundThe f4u corsair was a glorious machine.
daOysterFrom a technology standpoint, how can you not love the F-35? The helmet lets you see an unobstructed 360 degree view using integrated cameras in the planes hull. It's amazing and costs 400,000 alone. The Jet itself is highly maneuverable and the navy variant can hover and is more stable then the old Harriers. Financially, it might be a fail but it is still a spectacular jet.
whoa-derethe marine version does vertical takeoff, not navy
daOysterFrom a technology standpoint, how can you not love the F-35? The helmet lets you see an unobstructed 360 degree view using integrated cameras in the planes hull. It's amazing and costs 400,000 alone. The Jet itself is highly maneuverable and the navy variant can hover and is more stable then the old Harriers. Financially, it might be a fail but it is still a spectacular jet.
cobra_commanderWhat they say it does and what it does are two different things.
I also don't see a ton of value in a $400,000 helmet system when we are kicking out good soldiers and marines because we don't want to pay them.
Especially when we are going to phase out fighter pilots in 10 years or so. Making these pretty much a total waste of tax payer doll hairs.
The F-35/JSF program was a bad idea from the get go. The idea of a single platform that can be modified for GP/Carrier/VTOL roles is stupid. A half million dollar wizbang helmet and camera system isn't gonna make it fucking magical. Still an over priced piece of shit that has yet to be operational.
Dustin.Every time you speak, I'm amazed at confident you come off even though you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. 99% of what you just said was bullshit.
Go on, reply back with more bullshit. I can't wait to see what you fabricate this time.
cobra_commanderI've got a degree in Airplane design.
cobra_commanderWhich parts did I fabricate?
I've got a degree in Airplane design. I'm more than familiar with the current operational and strategic capabilities of our various abilities to flex power and how they relate to the current battlefield.
The F-35 is a mid range, relatively slow, moderately stealth multirole aircraft. The current stratigic focus for the DOD is on preventing and winning COIN and near peer wars.
The primary role of the Air Force in a COIN environment is logistics h(troop and equipment movement) and precision air to ground engagements against targets without early warning systems or capable Anti-Air assets. Precision and ability to avoid green on green (something the air force, especially fighter and bomber piglets is terrible at) are paramount. The F-35 offers little to no advantage over current multirole platforms in these cases and is actually a drop in operational capability from UAVs and A-10s.
The primary roll of the AF in near peer environments is prevention through overwhelming firepower projection, and second strike capabilities by projecting an image of impunity. The F-35 does not realistically offer a big enough advantage over current options to justify the cost (the F-22 does). The stratigic drawbacks of its low range, low endurance, and slow speed more than offset the tactical and operational advantages of its new tech and moderate stealth capabilities. A carrier group with F-35s (plus litorial craft with Marine variants) is not much more persuasive to China than a CG w/ F18s. A carrier group with long range, high endurance stealth UAVs (something more than possible in 5-10 years) does.
From an aeronautics and engineering perspective the whole JSF concept is and was silly and stupid. The idea that you could create a single 'modular' platform that would excell at both ground based, carrier launched, and VTOL is fucking stupid. They have different needs. By trying to do all in one you fuck over the capabilities of the ground based model with many of the limitations of VTOL aircraft. 'Modular' really doesn't work with aircraft design. Every part of a design ought to be focused around the singular purpose of the aircraft. JSF really is the product of a dated policy that was implemented to cut costs in defense spending with slight reduction in potential capability relaying on how advanced the aircraft was (for the late 90s) to stay ahead of near peer adversaries through mid 2020s. Well it is now 2015 the F-35 is not operational, extremely expensive and nearing the end of the period where it was assumed to provide significant tactical, operational, and stratigic advantage.
the tech really is there to replace fighter pilots. We could just have them wear that $400,000 helmet and put some cameras on the UAVs of the future. Not risk pilot lives. Have aircraft that could fly longer, faster and further, and not need to unfuck every pilots spine every time he does a 6+ G turn.
The F-35 has yet to do anything except burn taxpayer dollars in development.
I'm gonna go back to underfunded training for a bunch of guys who actually have been involved in implementing US foreign policy. But that's ok, we don't need money for weapons and munitions that actually get used. Spend it on the F-35.
TinyTigersOk now I'm 100% sure you are full of shit. You don't have a fucking clue what the 35 can do.
saskskierhttps://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/773779/Pilot-Recounts-Tales-of-SR-71-Blackbird