View Full Version : run b!#^@es, run
Pages :
1
2
[
3]
4
5
6
7
8
9
Andrew Longman
03-26-09, 09:05 AM
Sadly, the pilot didn't make it out.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/26/america/NA-F-22-Crash.php
Sad. Hard to imagine circumstances over an open desert where the pilot couldn't punch out in time. But I'm sure he would if he could.
I'm conflicted about the F22. I love the idea and it performs its mission so well, but at $165m a piece and only being able for field 183 it becomes a toy you never play with. The loss of only one is too much. Like the B2 which they wouldn't fly in the rain.
:(
Wonder if they were testing the flight characteristics of the airframe in extreme attitudes, stalling it out, flat spins, departures, etc?
I thought they did all that stuff before making the plane operational.
cameraman
03-26-09, 12:29 PM
It could have been problem with the pilot too. He could have blacked out or had some other medical problem. Who knows.
I thought they did all that stuff before making the plane operational.
they do.
if they added any systems that would affect physical performance, then they'd be running through those tests again
So long, Raptor.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/gates.budget.cuts/index.html
Three key priorities are reflected in the changes, Gates said.
The priorities include a stronger institutional commitment to the military's all-volunteer force, a decision to "rebalance" defense programs to better fight current and future conflicts, and "fundamental overhauls" of the military's procurement, acquisition and contracting process.
Among other things, Gates called for production of the Air Force's most expensive fighter, the F-22 Raptor, to be phased out by fiscal year 2011.
-Kevin
So much for Lockheed's "shovel ready" project.
Gates did request 30 Joint Strike Fighters for 2009, up from 14.
They also want one less carrier battle group. Interesting call with the increased stress on the Navy to patrol more and the Chinese claiming they can blow a carrier out of the water at will. Eventually, the carrier will fade in importance, but it seems a little early to start a draw down.
stock up 9% today despite that news :confused:
They also want one less carrier battle group. Interesting call with the increased stress on the Navy to patrol more and the Chinese claiming they can blow a carrier out of the water at will. Eventually, the carrier will fade in importance, but it seems a little early to start a draw down.
Draw down? They just launched CVN-77 (H.W. Bush).
-Kevin
Draw down? They just launched CVN-77 (H.W. Bush).
-Kevin
There used to be 12. There are now 11 (10 Nimitz class + Enterprise). If the new Ford Class carrier is delayed until after the Enterprise is decommissioned there will only be 10.
So much for Lockheed's "shovel ready" project.
Gates did request 30 Joint Strike Fighters for 2009, up from 14.
They also want one less carrier battle group. Interesting call with the increased stress on the Navy to patrol more and the Chinese claiming they can blow a carrier out of the water at will. Eventually, the carrier will fade in importance, but it seems a little early to start a draw down.
I think we're quite a ways off from the time when it won't be very desirable to have the ability to park a carrier off the coast and bring air power to bare on the other side of the world.
Gates also wants to buy 30 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, and buy 31 more Navy F/A-18 fighter jets but retire 250 of the Air Force’s oldest tactical fighter jets, all during the upcoming fiscal year.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/04/military_defense_budgetcuts_040609w/
Retire 250 aircraft in a year? I understand that a lot of those are probably old F16s with Guard and reserve units, but what does this mean for the total combat ready aircraft inventory?
It's all well and good to restructure to better meet the requirements of low intensity conflict and create a sustainable force, but on of the big military lessons of the last two decades has been the effectiveness of precision air power as a force multiplier. Assuring air dominance is essential to all of that.
I guess the thinking must be with the UN resolving all international disputes now we don't need all this fancy military hardware anymore. :\
I do hope they at least fund some R&D.
stroker
04-07-09, 10:13 AM
I would guess that some wonk has a sheaf of computer printouts "proving" that the next generation of combat UAVs will smoke the F22 at half the price. That's all a bureaucrat would need to justify cancellation of the Raptor.
cameraman
04-21-09, 01:21 AM
Ooops. If they are looking to retire some aircraft, the folks at Hill helped a little bit with the decision process today.
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii35/Cynops/Crunch.png
BZSetshot
04-21-09, 08:37 AM
Hope the data for the F-22 is better protected than the ones for the F-35!
Cyberspies hack into U.S. fighter project (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE53K0TG20090421)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Computer spies have repeatedly breached the Pentagon's costliest weapons program, the $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.
The newspaper quoted current and former government officials familiar with the matter as saying the intruders were able to copy and siphon data related to design and electronics systems, making it potentially easier to defend against the plane.
The spies could not access the most sensitive material, which is kept on computers that are not connected to the Internet, the paper added.
Citing people briefed on the matter, it said the intruders entered through vulnerabilities in the networks of two or three of the contractors involved in building the fighter jet.
Umm ... what?
EA-18G, Electronic jamming F-18 variant shoots down F-22. (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html)
T-38 trainer shoots down F-22. (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/04/video-youtube-clip-purports-f-.html)
Is there an F-22 silhouette decal available yet?
It could be the new sensation for the import tuner crowd. :p
EA-18G, Electronic jamming F-18 variant shoots down F-22. (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html)
T-38 trainer shoots down F-22. (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/04/video-youtube-clip-purports-f-.html)
http://tmideast.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/facepalm2ly3.jpg
Umm ... what?
I'd see that as a good thing, in a way. If Russia or China comes up witha F22 of their own, you would want to be able to shoot it down, wouldn't you.
Stop looking at my airplane!
F-22 can't make it to Paris air show.
http://www.dailytech.com/F22+Raptor+Pulled+from+Paris+Air+Show/article15449.htm
Napoleon
07-10-09, 12:19 PM
Sounds to me that the F-22 is a piece of junk (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?nav=hcmodule)
"It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure"
Any piece of military hardware can be made to look like an overpriced piece of junk that isn't as good as what it's replacing, but it beats stabbing a guy with a pointed stick. ;)
Sounds like politics to me. Congress, Lockheed, & the Air Force on one side; the White House, Sec.Def, Army & Navy on the other.
oddlycalm
07-10-09, 04:06 PM
Any piece of military hardware can be made to look like an overpriced piece of junk that isn't as good as what it's replacing
Exactly right. If we based our evaluation of the success ratio of F-14 vs T-38 & A-4 at Miramar back in the day you would have concluded the F-14 was a $30 million POS. History demonstrates the opposite was true.
Look close and you realize a T-38 weighs nothing, just engines and seats. It carries no weapons, no complex fire control radar system and barely enough fuel to fly from LA to San Fran on slow cruise. In the hands of a much better pilot we know from literally thousands of flights with hundreds of different pilots that it will win 100% of the time against a much larger and heavier aircraft in a close-in gun fight. Same thing with an EA-18G, though to a lesser degree. It's like racing the best modern GT car against a vintage F1 car from the turbo era with a great driver behind the wheel; not even close.
The glaring flaw in this logic in the real world is that a T-38 would never get within 25 miles of an F-14 or an F-22 unless the larger aircraft was out of ordinance and crippled so it couldn't run. In the case of the F-22 the T-38 would be never find it unless it stumbled across it in visual range by accident.
oc
Sounds like politics to me. Congress, Lockheed, & the Air Force on one side; the White House, Sec.Def, Army & Navy on the other.
And Congress writes the checks.
It's going to be tough to put much of a dent in the military procurement budget. Too many voters building the equipment.
Napoleon
07-10-09, 04:34 PM
OC, maybe true, but his post was in response to the article and the article basically makes the plane sound like the world's most expensive paperweight. Maybe a T-38 does not get within 25 miles of an F-22 in the air but if, to use a couple of things mentioned in the article, it is sitting on the ground overnight waiting for some part of the skin that was glued back on to dry, or without a part because as the planes are assembled the assemblers have to basically customize a bunch of the parts (I think they used the phrase "shim line") therefore making parts hard to interchange, then it is not going to be very effective against a T-38. As I said in my post the story qoutes someone who asserts (an noone in the story contridicts it) that on average the plane suffers a critical failure every 1.7 hours (and the story points out that the number of hours of service for hour of flight time is extremely high)
No wonder they didn't fly one to Paris for the airshow.
(and the article really doesn't even get into much detail that the F-22 really doesn't address threats we actually face).
Seems like every fiasco in weapons capability starts with the notion that we don't have to worry about a particular threat any more. But what the heck, a one to one kill ratio was good enough for our Vietnam era pilots, the undefeated team we've got right now are just a bunch of sissies for not wanting to even the playing field a little.
We were watching a documentary about the F-15 the other day and it was mentioned that the Eagle was designed to address the shortcomings of the F-4 and its poor air combat record. When they mentioned that the F-4 was built on the notion that air combat maneuvers would be irrelevant against all future threats, Missy asked "How could they be so stupid?" I had to chuckle given the current arguments that the F-22 is unnecessary because of the lack of threats.
The F-35 will not be able to replace the F-15 in the air superiority role, let alone the F-22. If we don't build an adequate number of F-22s to maintain decent force size throughout its intended service life then we'll end up either critically short of fighter capability. That, or we'll have to start funding a replacement within the next ten years.
As for the specific problems being fed to the press, every single stealth aircraft has had operational problems with anti-radar coatings. The F-35 will have the same kind of problems even if another generation of development makes them less prevalent. Every top-line aircraft has also had detractors who claim they were killed in training flights by a Cessna with a fly swatter. Those things happen because the rules of engagement are tilted to create a challenge for the pilots.
Air dominance is a more critical aspect of our force structure than ever. Replacing fighters with bomb trucks has failed in the past and it will fail again.
oddlycalm
07-10-09, 10:29 PM
his post was in response to the article and the article basically makes the plane sound like the world's most expensive paperweight.
It may well be, but it's probably too early to say for sure. I don't want to stake out a strong position because not only do I not have a dog in the fight but I don't have an opinion one way or they other. I have seen some programs that were considered real bowsers and were controversial as hell end up looking good (Bradley) and some that were early, on track and under budget that were unremarkable (B1) because the mission it was conceived for had largely changed or evaporated. Most continue to be fine tuned well into deployment. I'll get back to you in 15yrs on the F-22...
oc
And Congress writes the checks.
It's going to be tough to put much of a dent in the military procurement budget. Too many voters building the equipment.
Not true. Gates just successfully killed FCS.
Although, to get back to OC's last post, much of the vetronics & C4 tech will be integrated into Bradley & Stryker going forward.
OC, maybe true, but his post was in response to the article and the article basically makes the plane sound like the world's most expensive paperweight.
Thanks for linking the article. :thumbup:
The final two paragraphs included some interesting details about why that jet crashed in the desert last March.
IMO, the rest of the article is a hit piece full of dubious accusations (it's a piece of junk!) by lots of former somebodys (comptroller!) with the intent of turning public opinion against the program so it's easier to cut. (Who wants to buy a Pinto?)
Some arguments supporting the program have been equally stupid: "We need more planes cause only half of 'em work." :gomer:
But it's not about the plane anymore. Now it's about control and scoring political points, none of which will build a better fighter.
coolhand
07-12-09, 04:11 PM
I was not around in the early 70s but I have read that people said the same things about the F-15 and F-14 being too big and expensive. Anyone who worked carriers for the USN will tell you how much of a maintenance hog the F-14 was. That was part of the reason for the F-18 transition.
Also much of this criticism comes from the fighter mafia, lead by Sprey and Riccioni. These guys were right about the need for the F-16 in the post Vietnam era but have been wrong on everything since. I would actually credit John Boyd and his "Energy-Maneuverability Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-Maneuverability_theory)" more with building the right type of aircraft. His work is why we ended up with the F-16 and F-15, planes that go around Mach 2 yet have big wings (with the associated drag) that keep the wing loading down allowing them to turn and slow down.
There was a garbage article in Politico this week pushing this same stuff except saying crap like BVR missiles don't work, yet Russian SAMs are deadly. These articles also use the canard about Vietnam and Sparrow only working 10% of the time. They seem to omit the fact electronics have changed a lot since the early 60s. The ideas were right back then but the technology was not there yet. Even despite that the F-4 phantom had a positive kill ratio versus MIGs.
Keep in mind that we're not just talking about whether the Raptor is the right aircraft for the mission. We're talking about eliminating almost 200 fighters and strike aircraft without replacements. This in an environment where high sortie rates already have aircraft reaching their designed service life sooner than expected.
stroker
07-12-09, 11:33 PM
Also much of this criticism comes from the fighter mafia, lead by Sprey and Riccioni. These guys were right about the need for the F-16 in the post Vietnam era but have been wrong on everything since.
More detail, please. What does "everything" entail?
coolhand
07-13-09, 10:41 PM
More detail, please. What does "everything" entail?
Go read it all from the horse's mouth. They want thousands of aircraft like a F-20 Tigershark or F-16A flying around with 20mm and Sidewinders, you know like how the real men used to do it. Like Luke Skywalker turning off his computer while destroying the death star. Skills not TechMOLogy.
No fun being a fighter jock and having to think about Frequency, Wavelength, electromagnetic properties and signal processing.
stroker
07-14-09, 08:48 AM
Go read it all from the horse's mouth. They want thousands of aircraft like a F-20 Tigershark or F-16A flying around with 20mm and Sidewinders, you know like how the real men used to do it. Like Luke Skywalker turning off his computer while destroying the death star. Skills not TechMOLogy.
No fun being a fighter jock and having to think about Frequency, Wavelength, electromagnetic properties and signal processing.
Ah. The stuff UAV's are going to be doing within the next 10 years. Gotcha.
Napoleon
07-14-09, 12:18 PM
Ah. The stuff UAV's are going to be doing within the next 10 years. Gotcha.
I actually saw speculation in the last week that the F-35 would be our last manned fighter.
stroker
07-14-09, 03:12 PM
I actually saw speculation in the last week that the F-35 would be our last manned fighter.
People have been saying things like that for more than 50 years, but I think by now it's pretty likely. We're getting pretty close to that old Disney cartoon about Paul Bunyan and his Blue Ox being put out of work by some little dweeb with a chainsaw.
Napoleon
07-14-09, 04:47 PM
People have been saying things like that for more than 50 years, but I think by now it's pretty likely.
Where I saw the speculation the person said that the idea has been out there for a long time but that the performance and abilities of the drones were so inferior it didn't make sense, but we may have finally gotten to the point that even if inferior in some respects you can make it up in numbers.
coolhand
07-14-09, 06:48 PM
At this point in time C3 networks don't have the bandwidth for much more drones. Pinging full motion video for hours on end across the globe takes up space.
Who needs video feeds when the UAV is doing the driving? :p
At this point in time C3 networks don't have the bandwidth for much more drones.
uh huh
fighter pron (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/picture-this-f-18-buzzes-detroit-apartment/) :thumbup:
fighter pron (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/picture-this-f-18-buzzes-detroit-apartment/) :thumbup:
bug ftw!
Senate kills F-22. (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSTRE56K4KN20090721)
F-35 don't fail us now. :gomer:
cameraman
07-21-09, 04:37 PM
There will still be 180 of them hanging around, looking for a mission at an Air Force base near you.
There will still be 180 of them hanging around, looking for a mission at an Air Force base near you.
I hope you're right. That will mean that North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia have all behaved themselves and the Eagles haven't started falling out of the sky faster than we can replace them.
a) only russia's developing a 5th gen fighter (wth India, w00t!!!)
b) LO UCAVs have been in development for 10+ years, not the sexiest for PR, but at the front lines of DoD policy and strategy
coolhand
07-22-09, 03:57 PM
I bet the PAK-FA wont IOC until 2016 or something. Anything earlier than that would mean it is a turkey.
a) only russia's developing a 5th gen fighter (wth India, w00t!!!)
They're not going to leave the Raptor in the garage just because there are no 5th gen fighter threats. They would use the Raptor in any environment with active air defenses.
b) LO UCAVs have been in development for 10+ years, not the sexiest for PR, but at the front lines of DoD policy and strategy
LO UCAVs will be great if they don't turn out to be the world's most expensive target drones. We'll still need air dominance for them to operate with any kind of success rate.
They're not going to leave the Raptor in the garage just because there are no 5th gen fighter threats. They would use the Raptor in any environment with active air defenses.
It will be interesting to see where/how they are deployed. Will they treat them like rare specimens to be used only in case of emergency, or wear 'em out in an attempt to demonstrate the need for more?
coolhand
07-22-09, 05:46 PM
Anyone of you seen Predator C photos?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predator_C
It is real and is flying. GA developed it on their own dime.
Had not seen that. :thumbup:
I've heard Boeing's Hummingbird refered to as a 'stealth' aircraft but it might have more to do with being quiet than being invisible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_A160_Hummingbird
cameraman
07-22-09, 06:54 PM
Powered by modified Subaru four-bangers:laugh:
Napoleon
07-23-09, 06:40 AM
It will be interesting to see where/how they are deployed. Will they treat them like rare specimens to be used only in case of emergency, or wear 'em out in an attempt to demonstrate the need for more?
They have refused to deploy them to Afghanistan or Iraq, which kind of answers your question.
They have refused to deploy them to Afghanistan or Iraq, which kind of answers your question.
Deploy them against what? Magic carpets? :saywhat:
-Kevin
Deploy them against what? Magic carpets? :saywhat:
-Kevin
:laugh:
Yep. There is no reason to deploy them there.
Napoleon
07-23-09, 09:19 AM
Deploy them against what? Magic carpets? :saywhat:
-Kevin
The same thing the F15s and whatever other fighters they have deployed there are deployed against (which in the case of Iraq would include acting as Iraq's airforce against neighboring countries since they no longer have an airforce). The Air Force does have fighters deployed in both countries, just no F-22s.
The same thing the F15s and whatever other fighters they have deployed there are deployed against (which in the case of Iraq would include acting as Iraq's airforce against neighboring countries since they no longer have an airforce). The Air Force does have fighters deployed in both countries, just no F-22s.
They are in there in a ground support role. Not air to air.
They'll employ it where it's capabilities make sense. Some folks thought they'd keep the B2 under glass as well but it was flying combat missions in Kosovo before it was supposedly even operational.
^ bump
Russia's Sukhoi’s T-50 stealth fighter took its maiden flight today.
Aviation week article (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2010/01/29/awx_01_29_2010_p0-200740.xml&headline=Russian%20Fifth-Generation%20Fighter%20Airborne)
Although, they say it'll be 5 years before it's deployed.
Russia's Sukhoi’s T-50 stealth fighter took its maiden flight today.
Video here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8486812.stm
coolhand
01-29-10, 06:54 PM
Hi-Res video all over You Tube
http://i47.tinypic.com/2505amp.jpg
http://i49.tinypic.com/678ftd.jpg
stroker
01-29-10, 09:23 PM
Let's see what the PRC responds with...
Somebody is worried...
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/gates-sacks-stealth-jet-chief-blasts-troubling-record-of-crucial-plane/
If the Pentagon doesn’t get its Joint Strike Fighter just right, the U.S. military is screwed. Which is why its a such serious, serious problem this stealthy, all-purpose jet has had such a “troubling performance record,” according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Things have gone so wrong that Gates just announced he’s sacking the head of the star-crossed, nearly $350 billion program and is withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in performance fees to JSF-maker Lockheed Martin. “When things go wrong, people will be held accountable,” Gates told reporters.
da plane, da plane, I need da plane
And maybe not so stealthy afterall...
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/report-joint-st/
coolhand
02-02-10, 03:55 AM
And maybe not so stealthy afterall...
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/report-joint-st/
That is a bogus article.
First off Danger Room is a very low brow blog written by people who cant get real journalist jobs. Their long list of posts on DrangonSkin Body Armor and their denial if Iranian EFPs in Iraq holds them beneath contempt in my book. This article demonstrates that fact. I stopped reading when I saw the link in the first paragraph to Air Power Australia. A sketchy group of "experts" with a shady agenda.
Carlo Kopp is a tool put up by someone to do this work. Him and several former RAAF officers run that site and have business interests in upgrading their F-111 fleet. They seek out random journalists looking for stories and about twice a year these anti-F-35 articles pop up citing only APA and NOTHING ELSE.
His whole argument is that Super Hornets and F-35s cannot defend Oz from Russian made Sukhoi's of their powerful northern neighbor.....Indonesia who has TWO older model Sukhois. Only 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_Air_Force
His other complaint is that the range on the F-35 vs. the F-111 limits their future strike capability. He neglects the fact the F-111s require legacy F-18s to escort them and thus limited by their range. F-35s can operate unescorted.
Like with all other big ticket defense projects these phony research/lobbying groups show up run by people with dubious credentials. The press eats it up. There was a lot of crap out there in the press with the run up to the F-22 being killed.
The F-35 is the only plane out there started entirely in the 1990s fully in the computer era. It was designed to be as "low observable" as they wanted it to be.
the thing is, the critiquing group has 0 access to any performance data. "oh, they have a bulb covering the gun." uh, the B2 isn't exactly flat panels & sharp angles, Einstein.
the cable news version of "what makes stealth stealth," was amusing, as well.
cameraman
02-02-10, 10:20 PM
I kind of think Robert Gates has access to the performance data but that's just me.
the linked article has nothing to do with Gates' change of PM on JSF
One of the main arguments for the military’s $337 billion Joint Strike Fighter program is that the F-35 jet is stealthy — and so it can’t be seen by next-generation air defenses. But a new study, published by Air Power Australia, undermines that most basic rationale. According to the report, the F-35 is not as stealthy as the Pentagon and manufacturer Lockheed Martin claim, mostly due to recent changes in the aircraft’s shape.
Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/report-joint-st/#ixzz0eR4cW1UF
Remember, this is what we are up against.
http://pics.livejournal.com/igor113/pic/007eez56/s1024x768
http://pics.livejournal.com/igor113/pic/007t4kb1
http://pics.livejournal.com/igor113/pic/007g1yfh
TONS of pics here (http://igor113.livejournal.com/51213.html)
Boss, if you think that this should go into the thread on sea-vessels, please move it for me. :\
Yeah, it's supposed to fly. I think. :)
datachicane
03-09-10, 01:45 AM
Cool, Lun Ekranoplan.
Not really supposed to fly exactly, it was a GEV. BTW, those are big-ass missiles on top...
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/ground-effect/lun01.jpg
Here it is in action at appx. the 4:30 mark:
EtZfawHnsS4
Lockheed Martin Video clip has takeoff, hover and vertical landing.
LPy7FuA0Z6A
oddlycalm
03-22-10, 08:53 PM
Cool, Lun Ekranoplan.
Not really supposed to fly exactly, it was a GEV. BTW, those are big-ass missiles on top...
Glad they could only afford to build one of those bad boys. :eek:
That would be real hard to hit traveling at nearly 300 knots right on the deck. Having one arrive on your doorstep with 1000 tons of armored vehicles and Spetsnaz commandos would make for a seriously bad day, particularly if they took out several ships on the way in. Having a couple dozen of them arrive would be the stuff of nightmares.
Great museum piece. :thumbup:
oc
stroker
03-22-10, 10:18 PM
That would be real hard to hit traveling at nearly 300 knots right on the deck.
oc
Yeah, but if you DID blow off one engine "pod" can you imagine what it would look like cartwheeling into the ocean?
F-35B STOVL fighter goes supersonic (http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2010/06/dn_jsf_supersonic_061410/)
The short-takeoff and vertical-landing version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter flew past the sound barrier June 10, becoming the first U.S. operational STOVL aircraft to exceed that milestone.
Marine Corps pilot Lt. Col. Matt Kelly flew the F-35B test aircraft, known as BF-2, to a speed of Mach 1.07, or 727 miles per hour. The test run took place at an altitude of 30,000 feet over an off-shore supersonic test track near Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.
SurfaceUnits
06-29-10, 11:43 PM
http://i.techrepublic.com.com/gallery/439237-500-325.jpg
Building the world's most advanced aircraft carrier
http://content.techrepublic.com.com/2346-12847_11-439236.html?tag=nl.e106
some russian missile cruiser docked in SF last week, first time in 100 something years or some ****. had missile pods just as freakish and scary as that soviet GEV behemoth pictured above.
damn commies.
Andrew Longman
06-30-10, 11:14 AM
Building the world's most advanced aircraft carrier
Not to get political or anything but I find it a bit disappointing that forever these will be known as Ford class carriers. Just doesn't sound the same as Nimitz class. I don't expect a lot to be built though.
Not to get political or anything but I find it a bit disappointing that forever these will be known as Ford class carriers. Just doesn't sound the same as Nimitz class. I don't expect a lot to be built though.
I'm shocked we can still build ships. We didn't outsource this to China? :\ I'm guessing this may be one of a kind.
-Kevin
GD Bath Iron Works
NG Newport News
NG Gulf Coast
When I hear Newport News, I always wonder how a newspaper got into the ship building business. ;)
GD Bath Iron Works
NG Newport News
NG Gulf Coast
My comment was tongue and cheek, dude. But hey, that could be next considering our current NASA policy. :saywhat:
-Kevin
Andrew Longman
06-30-10, 06:41 PM
I'm shocked we can still build ships.
-Kevin
We built Seawolf subs largely so we wouldn't lose the the talent and knowledge to build subs.
I contracted to LM in Oak Ridge so all those folks who knew how to build a bomb would not be lost and kept busy doing something useful.
Tough dilemma.
exactly why after the QDR we didn't shut down Bath, and why we also awarded DD(X) to both NG and GD
grungex
07-13-10, 05:49 PM
Interesting... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704334604575339463022126910.html?m od=WSJ_hp_editorsPicks_1)
Good story. Should have flown to Can-a-da instead.
oddlycalm
07-13-10, 06:27 PM
Interesting... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704334604575339463022126910.html?m od=WSJ_hp_editorsPicks_1)
Lots of planes end up parked somewhere due to the endless lawyer dance. Damned inconvenient to have one this size sitting on your ramp ad nauseum leaking fuel. :thumdown:
oc
Good story. Should have flown to Can-a-da instead.
Dood, srsly. Anything bigger than a King Air is SOL up here....
;)
True. :D
Canada just like the US, only different.
grungex
07-13-10, 10:33 PM
Do planes normally leak fuel just sitting around? Sounds like a British car...
Do planes normally leak fuel just sitting around? Sounds like a British car...
The SR-71 was designed to leak fuel on the ground! Obviously, not a normal design.
To allow for thermal expansion at the high operational temperatures, the fuselage panels were manufactured to fit only loosely on the ground. Proper alignment was only achieved when the airframe heated due to air resistance at high speeds, causing the airframe to expand several inches. Because of this, and the lack of a fuel sealing system that could handle the thermal expansion of the airframe at extreme temperatures, the aircraft would leak JP-7 jet fuel onto the runway before it took off. The aircraft would quickly make a short sprint, meant to warm up the airframe, and was then refueled in the air before departing on its mission. Cooling was carried out by cycling fuel behind the titanium surfaces at the front of the wings (chines). On landing after a mission the canopy temperature was over 300 °C (572 °F), too hot to approach. Non-fibrous asbestos with high heat tolerance was used in high-temperature areas. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird)
Do planes normally leak fuel just sitting around? Sounds like a British car...
Made in Soviet Russia. At least it's not on fire.
I think it was someone on this forum that pointed out how well designed the Russian equipment actually was considering the maintenance schedule was never.
The last laugh will be on us when our Raptors are tanking up from Antonov tankers. :gomer:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/214094.asp
TrueBrit
07-14-10, 02:36 PM
Do planes normally leak fuel just sitting around? Sounds like a British car...
Wrong.
They leak oil.
And coolant.
And brake fluid.
But (almost) NEVER fuel.
Andrew Longman
07-14-10, 02:44 PM
Interesting... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704334604575339463022126910.html?m od=WSJ_hp_editorsPicks_1)
Saw that in the WSJ yesterday and chuckled. MQT is my old stomping ground. The thought of Yoopers chasing Ukrainians from Texas around (while they went shopping) and also trying to figure out what to do with this weird unairworthy Soviet plane gave me a chuckle. Has a "Fargo" quality only better
chop456
07-14-10, 10:57 PM
Wrong.
They leak oil.
And coolant.
And brake fluid.
But (almost) NEVER fuel.
Fuel from the carburetor gets into the engine occasionally, though. :D
grungex
07-14-10, 11:03 PM
Or drips onto the distributor... :flame:
Wrong.
They leak oil.
And coolant.
And brake fluid.
But (almost) NEVER fuel.
303
Don't forget the smoke.
U.S. Navy Successfully Uses Laser to Shoot Down Drones (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20011041-501465.html)
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/07/20/uav.jpg?tag=contentMain;contentBody
rTpP412fM8U
Laser vs Drones -
I read lots of hand wringing last night over what exactly was brought down. Some seem to think it was nothing more than a model airplane.
Any time I see this new technology stuff, I think back to the old new tech: F-117, SR71, Have Blue, etc. Consider what we do know, then think about what is still under wraps.
They finally develop laser cannons, but they're invisible to the naked eye.
What a jip. :thumdown::gomer:
think about what is still under wraps.
http://mimg.ugo.com/200903/21994/real-genius.jpg
:gomer:
-Kevin
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.