Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: x35

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    under the sea
    Posts
    586

    Default x35

    http://aviationintel.com/yak-141-fre...orn-in-moscow/http://aviationintel.com/yak-141-fre...orn-in-moscow/




    I dropped this here due to the standard talk about military equipment and who got this and that from where.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,868

    Default

    Man! It may be Russian, but THAT is one awesome looking airplane!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Morgan County, Alabama
    Posts
    3,084

    Default

    Oh come on ... British designers came out with the Kestrel which evolved into the Harrier and the U. S. Marines' AV-8 back in the 1960s. Ideas for vtol jets have been around for a long time.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    3,465

    Default

    It's crap...and so too is the F 35. If it was worth a hoot .....they would be producing it and it would be taking it's place with other current Russian planes.

    One of the problems with this kind of V Stol airraft is that they do not tend to have long legs...range. The equipment used to take off vertically takes up too much room in the air frame and limits fuel capacity.


    One of the problems noted about certain Russian designs ...since the Mig 21 is poor visibility. Experienced fighter pilots picked up on this very rapidly. We did this same kind of ignorance in a multi roll airplane called the F 111. Poor visibility in a fighter role.

    The F 35 became a over belled and whistled mess as evidenced by the price tag.


    Most ships/aircraft carriers today tend to be jump ramp...because a steam catapult is a very difficult and expensive piece of equipment to build, design and maintain. So too with arresting gear. The ski jump ramp solves some of the problems in design, operational, and manufacturing costs.

    I've worked on the catapult and jet blast doors on a Nimitz class carrier...and this equipment is hugely expensive/complex to design and build and even to maintain...so too the arresting gear for recovering aircraft.

    This is why vertical launch and recovery aircraft are attractive to many nations. So too the ski Jump ramp for take off.

    This makes vertical take off and landing type aircraft very desirable...but it has inherent problems of its own..outside of the ship itself. It is a trade off.

    Our Marines tend to like the Harrier as they tend to operate close to the front lines...but the Harrier does not have long ranges...long legs. They are also aging rapidly now.

    Our F 35 is on it's way to shooting itself in the foot...financially ....so politics is working overtime to cover this aspect up and gain sales. It is astonishingly expensive for what it is.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI


    Pierre Sprey was part of the Pentagon "Fighter Mafia" which was greatly disliked by Pentagon Leaders. The Mafia surrounded John Boyd and put a huge wrench into the spokes of Pentagon spending as junk and huge money pits. Not just in Aircraft but other projects like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

    But this Fighter Mafia was well aware of the Pentagons tendency to promote hugely expensive/complex aircraft which did not work as advertised. Beginning with the overly expensive F 15 Fighter which the Pentagon also tried to make do everything. Out of this was born the F 16 as an aircraft which would perform well, and be easily produced, less complex and sold to many allied nations...as well as far less expensive than the F 15.

    Also Pierre Sprey worked on the A 10 Thunderbolt project which the US Air Force hates and wants to phase out. The A10 Thunderbolt has been very successful in the role for which it was designed...ground support....and not expensive as well....heavy duty and reliable.

    The "Fighter Mafia" knew that if you make a plane which will try to do everything it will do none of these jobs well....and be hugely expensive.

    And since the "Fighter Mafia " people have retired....the Pentagon has, true to form, come up with the F 35 as predicted by the acolytes of John Boyd.


    The Russians have a reason they did not produce this aircraft..and I suspect that it does not return well on their investment as do other designs..

    And so too will the F 35. It will put the American taxpayer into economic Bondage like as does an Ishmaelite. And so too will it do to any other nation buying it.


    My non Ishmaelite .02,

    Orangetom
    Last edited by orangetom1999; 09-13-2018 at 09:34 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Morgan County, Alabama
    Posts
    3,084

    Default

    It would be nice if they could make the F-35 work .... maybe if they had warp drive, phasers and photon torpedoes ....
    Or only needed one version.


    An old joke I read about the F35 claimed that, in mock dogfights, it had been shot down by a F-15, an F-4 Phantom, an F-104 Starfighter, an F-86, a P-51 Mustang, a P-40, and lastly a Fokker Dr. 1 and a beagle in a flying doghouse.

    I seem to recall an old TFX fighter that was overly complicated, and thus died an early death maybe 50 years ago .... but I'm not sure I'm recalling the designation correctly .....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    3,465

    Default

    by TommyGun,


    I seem to recall an old TFX fighter that was overly complicated, and thus died an early death maybe 50 years ago .... but I'm not sure I'm recalling the designation correctly .....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...F-111_Aardvark


    The F111 fighter bomber is what became of the TFX program.

    John Boyd, Pierre Sprey and his acolytes were tasked to examine the F111 program as well as the swing wing B1 bomber program and determined that the variable geometry wing was the wrong design for a figher aircraft and overly expensive and weighty....complicated for the results. Limited maneuverability as well and especially in a fighter.


    You can find this information on what they researched in....


    Boyd by Robert Coram


    https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-.../dp/0316796883


    Pierre Sprey's name comes up often in this book.


    The swing winged F 14 Tomcats when mixing it up with the F 15s usually came out on the short end in practicing dog fights...something seldom told to the American Public.

    One of the systems in which the Air Force trained us was the, back then, classified Terrain Following / Terrain Avoidance radar used on the F111 as well as certain F 4 Phantoms..usually the reconnaissance models...the RF 4s.

    I am certain that this Terrain Avoidance/Terrain Following radar has been significantly updated from what it was in the Vietnam days...and at great expense..and I mean ...great expense!!

    This is a system for getting down in the weeds at high speed if necessary. Danger danger ...danger!!


    Overly complicated....Overly Complicated. That was the status in the early days of the C5 Galaxy jet transport..breaking new ground and overly complicated.
    Do you think for one minute that she cannot get down in the weeds if necessary???

    How about a C17 Jet transport ??? Think it through...carefully.

    You gotta have some serious big ones hanging to take such an huge bird down in the weeds...at "any" speed.




    So too with the olde Supersonic B58 Hustler bomber.

    With both of these aircraft they were breaking new ground and spent millions and millions getting them to work properly.

    The B 58 Hustler...they were pushing them so hard the airframes were failing...cracking...leading to their early retirement. They did not have the exotic high strength metals as do they today to reinforce the airframes at high stress points. They had to learn this as they went.

    One of these B 58 Hustlers cracked the air frame and sagged while taxiing down the ramp to take off....they had been pushing them so hard before they understood fully their design stress problems.


    In those early days the C5 Galaxy had on it an electronic system called MADAR which stood for...

    Malfunction Detection and Analysis Recorder.


    It was one of the early systems most noted for being broken down. LOL LOL LOL.!!! How ironic!! They usually flew without it working...or just disregarded it.



    Now I am certain that these systems have been upgraded with newer and more reliable systems today. Some variations of them are finding their way into our homes and cars.


    The F 35 is not the first aircraft to go through such teething problems...but it is a hugely expensive project for what the military is getting...and has proven the "Fighter Mafia" to be correct in what they tried to promote in purchasing weapons projects.

    It is a bit of an irony to me that two of the more successful aircraft projects were the less costly aircraft..the F 16 and the A10.

    You know TommyGun..I believe the F 16 has and is undergoing extensive modifications and upgrades today..to keep her up to date and in fighting condition...so expensive have new aircraft designs become. And the F 16 for it's costs has more than proven itself.


    Think about how long the SR 71 reconnaissance project flew versus the U2 project....costs??? The SR 71 could fly faster than anything except a budget cut. But Satellite technology also cut into her arena as well. The U2 is still flying.


    Even the submarine and surface fleet has gone through such teething problems...continually learning along the way. This expense too is seldom made public.


    My non Ishmaelite .02,

    Orangetom
    Last edited by orangetom1999; 09-14-2018 at 12:46 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    under the sea
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TommyGunn View Post
    It would be nice if they could make the F-35 work .... maybe if they had warp drive, phasers and photon torpedoes ....
    Or only needed one version.


    An old joke I read about the F35 claimed that, in mock dogfights, it had been shot down by a F-15, an F-4 Phantom, an F-104 Starfighter, an F-86, a P-51 Mustang, a P-40, and lastly a Fokker Dr. 1 and a beagle in a flying doghouse.

    I seem to recall an old TFX fighter that was overly complicated, and thus died an early death maybe 50 years ago .... but I'm not sure I'm recalling the designation correctly .....
    I don't think your wrong on that one. I mean they even forgot to give it a cannon....How do you dog fight without a gun??? I don't know either... Yes the Russians put this into a production and had 2 years of testing the airframe. Just like some of the rifles the Russians have come out with, one can shoot 1800 rounds per minute theoretically..... Why are they not mass producing it...Well it has to be maintained to such a high degree that it can't pass any of the Army Tests.... I'm gonna assume that is why things have gone the way with the other Russian fighters who I think are much more incredible than just about anything the U.S. is trying to go to today..... x35 isn't anything but a supper expensive stealth bomber that is hard to see on radar but easy to shoot down on a moon light night with basic sighting..... I do seem to recall one of the airplane designers who have been around for a long time, saying if you brought the X35 design back to them in the 60's they would have asked did we experience a nuclear war??? Because nothing in the design is "new"......

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    3,465

    Default

    By finris,


    I don't think your wrong on that one. I mean they even forgot to give it a cannon....How do you dog fight without a gun??? I don't know either...

    This was an incredibly stupid thing for our designers to do this. Not only on the TFX/F111 aircraft but also on the F4 Phantom fighters.

    These designers were so stupid they believed the day of the air to air missile would make the gun obsolete. Ishmaeltes designing our fighter aircraft. What were they thinking??


    In those days our missile technology was pretty bad. The most successful air to air missile we fielded was the Sidewinder. The Sparrow missile was even worse.
    Some pilots were known to dump their Sparrow missiles just to get rid of them as their record of successfully working was so horrible.

    And the Israeli Air Force leaders knew this about our missile technology....and weakness. Our planes were ok..but our missiles were junk.

    This too is covered in the Book on John Boyd.


    The Israelis, however, always believed in the gun kill and heavily trained their pilots on the art of the gun to this very day. They did not lose sight of the bigger picture.

    It is ok...to achieve a missile kill in the Israeli Air Force..but to do a gun kill.....you are something extra.... They pride themselves on the gun kill....and rightly so. Gunslingers!!

    Also unknown to many Americans with a television and movie education....the Israeli Air Force has some of the largest group of both active and retired fighter pilots with hard earned combat skills of any air force in the world. And they especially pride themselves on the gun kill.
    A number of Israeli fighter pilots are featured and interviewed in the History Channel series...."Dogfights."


    Today our military along with designers have finally pulled their heads out of their backsides and put the gun back in our fighters. Long overdue to reinstall the gun. What were they thinking???


    Thanks,

    Orangetom

    Not an Ishmaelite
    Last edited by orangetom1999; 09-14-2018 at 07:50 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Morgan County, Alabama
    Posts
    3,084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by finris View Post
    I don't think your wrong on that one. I mean they even forgot to give it a cannon....How do you dog fight without a gun??? I don't know either... Yes the Russians put this into a production and had 2 years of testing the airframe. Just like some of the rifles the Russians have come out with, one can shoot 1800 rounds per minute theoretically..... Why are they not mass producing it...Well it has to be maintained to such a high degree that it can't pass any of the Army Tests.... I'm gonna assume that is why things have gone the way with the other Russian fighters who I think are much more incredible than just about anything the U.S. is trying to go to today..... x35 isn't anything but a supper expensive stealth bomber that is hard to see on radar but easy to shoot down on a moon light night with basic sighting..... I do seem to recall one of the airplane designers who have been around for a long time, saying if you brought the X35 design back to them in the 60's they would have asked did we experience a nuclear war??? Because nothing in the design is "new"......
    The Russians themselves have produced some less than "stellar" aircraft. Historically, they were very secretive and we often did not really understand what their craft really did. In the late sixties, early seventies we were astonished to see a new Russian interceptor, the MiG-25 , which NATO codenamed "FOXBAT" in action. It was clocked going Mach 3 once when it landed in Egypt, where it needed to have its Tumanski engines replaced. While we had the SR-71 that equalled or surpassed the Foxbat's speed, we had no fighter/interceptor that could go that fast.
    Then about 1975 a Russian named Viktor Belenko flew his Foxbat out of Soviet airspace, defected, and landed in Japan, turning his Foxbat over to Americans to autopsy.
    The radar and avionics were vacuum-tube based. In 1975. The radar was crude, but very powerful. The jet was made of a lot of aluminum, which begged the question of how it could go Mach 3 without melting.
    Belenko explained that it COULD go that fast --- at high altitude, where air is less dense, thus less friction is encountered .... plus, doing that burned out the engines. Ooooops....the Egyptian event was not a fluke; it was a limitation in the aircraft.
    The MiG-25 was designed to respond to the old American B-70 Valkyrie, a bomber America had designed, and built a couple models of, but it was canceled. So the Foxbat's purpose was extinguished before it could even be fielded ....but beaurocratic inertia kept the program going.
    However ....the Foxbat was found to be unable to defeat the Valkyrie bomber had America actually have made them.
    The supposedly awesome, deadly MiG-25 Foxbat could not out dogfight a American F-4 Phantom.
    The Russians currently have some very good fighters, like the Sukhoi Su-27, and some of these can perform some impressive aerodynamic maneuvers such as the "Cobra."
    But are such maneuvers really effective wartime actions? The Cobra maneuver would present the plane's whole profile to a pursuing fighter ....making a great target for 20 mm. cannon shells.

    The British Harrier was touted for its ability to "VIFF" : Vector In Forward Flight. It allowed the smallish jet to maneuver in eratic ways, supposedly out maneuvering a pursuing attack jet.
    But then came the Falkland War. The British fought a war against Argentinia, retaking islands they had invaded. The Harrier was forced into a air to air role, which it wasn't designed for, but handled reasonably well.
    Because .... V.I.F.F.?

    No. A few years later I read an article in which the British carrier's CAG (Air Group Commander) was interviewed. Questioned about viffing, he said they did not do it; it took too long for the Harrier to regain lost airspeed.
    Great maneuver for impressing crowds at airshows, maybe for some ground attack situations ....but air to air combat?
    Not. So. Much.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Morgan County, Alabama
    Posts
    3,084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orangetom1999 View Post
    by TommyGun,





    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...F-111_Aardvark


    The F111 fighter bomber is what became of the TFX program.

    John Boyd, Pierre Sprey and his acolytes were tasked to examine the F111 program as well as the swing wing B1 bomber program and determined that the variable geometry wing was the wrong design for a figher aircraft and overly expensive and weighty....complicated for the results. Limited maneuverability as well and especially in a fighter.


    You can find this information on what they researched in....


    Boyd by Robert Coram


    https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-.../dp/0316796883


    Pierre Sprey's name comes up often in this book.


    The swing winged F 14 Tomcats when mixing it up with the F 15s usually came out on the short end in practicing dog fights...something seldom told to the American Public.

    One of the systems in which the Air Force trained us was the, back then, classified Terrain Following / Terrain Avoidance radar used on the F111 as well as certain F 4 Phantoms..usually the reconnaissance models...the RF 4s.

    I am certain that this Terrain Avoidance/Terrain Following radar has been significantly updated from what it was in the Vietnam days...and at great expense..and I mean ...great expense!!

    This is a system for getting down in the weeds at high speed if necessary.
    ....................


    My non Ishmaelite .02,

    Orangetom
    Oooops, forgot about the old F-111 and how it emerged from the poorly remembered TFX program.

    Some F-14s were equipped with a TVSU, a "Television Sighting Unit"; these Tomcats supposedly did pretty well against F-15s. But the swing-wings gearbox added weight and the Tomcat was never truly as agile as a air superiority fighter needed to be.

    In Nam, the Phantom was less agile than the Soviet MiG 15s and 17s. But it was faster flying and accelerating, and pilots used those qualities
    against the less speedy Soviet jets.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •