Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F-14D vs F-35C

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Jimmy
    Because the F-117 cant carry a whole lot either. An F-15 can carry a lot more, and for targets that require multiple hits in an area too well defended for a conventional aircraft we use the B-2. The Nighthawk isnt a very good aircraft nowadays. They're being replaced by a combination of several planes.
    The funny part is ANY nation on earth besides us would kill to have them. :)

    Comment


    • #62
      The Nightwawk is not at all obsolete, imo. Though it has a limited utility, it still does what it was designed to do, and does it well.

      As to "moderate" stealth, whatever. People can call it what they want. Those kind of distinctions mean exactly squat, and people that claim they know the RCS difference between the B-2, F-35, F-117, or F-22 are blowing large volumes of smoke.

      Are you listening urmomma? Not everything about these AC is available on the Internet.

      An group of Nighthawks landed on a heavily defended Saudi Airbase in PG1, and the Saudi controllers had no idea where they were until the lead AC told them over the radio that they were already on the ground.

      So much for stealth being detected by search radars....
      "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by highsea
        The Nightwawk is not at all obsolete, imo. Though it has a limited utility, it still does what it was designed to do, and does it well.

        As to "moderate" stealth, whatever. People can call it what they want. Those kind of distinctions mean exactly squat, and people that claim they know the RCS difference between the B-2, F-35, F-117, or F-22 are blowing large volumes of smoke.

        Are you listening urmomma? Not everything about these AC is available on the Internet.

        An group of Nighthawks landed on a heavily defended Saudi Airbase in PG1, and the Saudi controllers had no idea where they were until the lead AC told them over the radio that they were already on the ground.

        So much for stealth being detected by search radars....
        Calm down man. I was only saying what i posted on the internet. Yes a lot of info is classified but we can only work with what we have. Based on publicly released info (not including classified) that's all we have to work with.
        Last edited by Shadowsided; 11 May 06,, 18:25.

        Comment


        • #64
          ^^^ Unfortunate, but true. There's a lot of stupidity in the world, and in regards to weapons capabilities, a lot of it seems to seep from the internet (Captain Drunk, I'm staring directly into your soul).

          Originally posted by M21Sniper
          The funny part is ANY nation on earth besides us would kill to have them. :)
          Haha, good point. That does put it in perspective a bit, doesnt it?

          Originally posted by highsea
          The Nightwawk is not at all obsolete, imo. Though it has a limited utility, it still does what it was designed to do, and does it well.
          That doesnt mean its the best option. I'm not going to say its a POS, but I dont think we need the Nighthawk anymore. It proved to the public and politicians that stealth could be viable, its been a wicked good recruiting tool, oh yeah and it dropped some bombs on bad guys too. Having said that, I think we can get the job done with other aircraft that have better loiter times, more payload, and lower operating costs. I think the plan to phase them out over the next couple of years is probably a good one.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Jimmy
            ^^^ Unfortunate, but true. There's a lot of stupidity in the world, and in regards to weapons capabilities, a lot of it seems to seep from the internet (Captain Drunk, I'm staring directly into your soul).


            Haha, good point. That does put it in perspective a bit, doesnt it?



            That doesnt mean its the best option. I'm not going to say its a POS, but I dont think we need the Nighthawk anymore. It proved to the public and politicians that stealth could be viable, its been a wicked good recruiting tool, oh yeah and it dropped some bombs on bad guys too. Having said that, I think we can get the job done with other aircraft that have better loiter times, more payload, and lower operating costs. I think the plan to phase them out over the next couple of years is probably a good one.

            Are you referring to me too because i was only adressing to highsea we can only work with what we have and we can't assume classified info and assume the realeased info is false or inacccurate.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Jimmy
              Because the F-117 cant carry a whole lot either. An F-15 can carry a lot more, and for targets that require multiple hits in an area too well defended for a conventional aircraft we use the B-2. The Nighthawk isnt a very good aircraft nowadays. They're being replaced by a combination of several planes.
              The B-2!? How come everyone always loads all the air to ground work of the war on 21 2.2 billion USD bombers! Shhesh, with only 3 bases in the entire world, how do you expect subsonic B-2s to always be on tap and ready to bomb SAM sites, airfields, etc.? B-2s hit important, strategic targets like enemy HQs, C3I facilities, etc. What other targets are so well defended that F-15s, F-22s, F-35s, F/A-18s and can't destroy them? Just cause it's old, it doesn't mean the Nighthawk is useless. If it gets fitted with the capabilty to carry SDBs, it can actually work as a stealth regional bomber for some while longer.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by urmomma158
                Are you referring to me too because i was only adressing to highsea we can only work with what we have and we can't assume classified info and assume the realeased info is false or inacccurate.
                Yes, I was. A lot of the information available online IS wrong. Its a fact of life. And the people who know the real facts generally cant talk about it. So we end up with armchair generals talking smack based on numbers that are known to be inaccurate but are accepted as gospel (ie 400km AA-9 vs 20nm AIM-120? Hellloooooo).

                Originally posted by hello
                The B-2!? How come everyone always loads all the air to ground work of the war on 21 2.2 billion USD bombers! Shhesh, with only 3 bases in the entire world, how do you expect subsonic B-2s to always be on tap and ready to bomb SAM sites, airfields, etc.? B-2s hit important, strategic targets like enemy HQs, C3I facilities, etc. What other targets are so well defended that F-15s, F-22s, F-35s, F/A-18s and can't destroy them? Just cause it's old, it doesn't mean the Nighthawk is useless. If it gets fitted with the capabilty to carry SDBs, it can actually work as a stealth regional bomber for some while longer.
                Because in all honesty, we dont really NEED a fleet of regional stealth bombers nowadays. If a target needs to be hit, we can use Vipers, Strike Eagles, Hornets, etc. If it needs a stealth hit, we can use Raptors. The Nighthawk's payload isnt THAT much better than the Raptor's. They overlap, and the F-22's stealth signiture is much better than the F-117. The B-2 doesnt need to hit everything, just the big stuff. But if you have a big target, you're not sending Nighthawks ANYWAY. The plane's role is now redundant.

                Again, that does NOT mean its completely useless, or it sucks, or anything like that. It just means that we need to look at one question: Does the F-117 bring enough unique capabilities to the fight to justify the expense of keeping them in service? IMO no, now that the Raptor is coming on line.

                If the F-35 survives, the F-117s fate will be sealed no matter what.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Jimmy
                  Yes, I was. A lot of the information available online IS wrong. Its a fact of life. And the people who know the real facts generally cant talk about it. So we end up with armchair generals talking smack based on numbers that are known to be inaccurate but are accepted as gospel (ie 400km AA-9 vs 20nm AIM-120? Hellloooooo).



                  Because in all honesty, we dont really NEED a fleet of regional stealth bombers nowadays. If a target needs to be hit, we can use Vipers, Strike Eagles, Hornets, etc. If it needs a stealth hit, we can use Raptors. The Nighthawk's payload isnt THAT much better than the Raptor's. They overlap, and the F-22's stealth signiture is much better than the F-117. The B-2 doesnt need to hit everything, just the big stuff. But if you have a big target, you're not sending Nighthawks ANYWAY. The plane's role is now redundant.

                  Again, that does NOT mean its completely useless, or it sucks, or anything like that. It just means that we need to look at one question: Does the F-117 bring enough unique capabilities to the fight to justify the expense of keeping them in service? IMO no, now that the Raptor is coming on line.

                  If the F-35 survives, the F-117s fate will be sealed no matter what.
                  If F-35 survives? Why not? A nd C probalby will, but B has a very slim chance. If a regional bomber isn't needed now, how come the "FB-22" was considered and F-15Es are staying until 2025?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by hello
                    The B-2!? How come everyone always loads all the air to ground work of the war on 21 2.2 billion USD bombers! Shhesh, with only 3 bases in the entire world, how do you expect subsonic B-2s to always be on tap and ready to bomb SAM sites, airfields, etc.? B-2s hit important, strategic targets like enemy HQs, C3I facilities, etc. What other targets are so well defended that F-15s, F-22s, F-35s, F/A-18s and can't destroy them? Just cause it's old, it doesn't mean the Nighthawk is useless. If it gets fitted with the capabilty to carry SDBs, it can actually work as a stealth regional bomber for some while longer.
                    I kinda agree with all that. I'm not sure how fast a rush i'd be in to get rid of the 117s either. Not cause they're the greatest, but because despite them being 'costly to maintain', if you look at the SAVINGS the USAF is talking about by retiring it, the monies involved are really pretty insignificant. Of course it's a pretty small fleet........but still. I think they're a bargain for what we're paying to keep them around. I can't remember the exact number- but it's small.

                    For most targets a stealthy, low RCS standoff WEAPON is every bit as good as a stealth plane, but for those few that require overflights.....the F-117 IS still really good at that. And of all our stealth jets, it's the only one that has LGB capability.

                    JDAM's are nice and all, but the potential accuracy of SALH systems is still unmatched by any bomb in the US arsenal.
                    Last edited by Bill; 12 May 06,, 17:30.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by hello
                      If F-35 survives? Why not? A nd C probalby will, but B has a very slim chance. If a regional bomber isn't needed now, how come the "FB-22" was considered and F-15Es are staying until 2025?
                      If the B model is cancelled then all that R&D and labor cost for developing the B is going to get applied to the pricetags of the A & C, THEN, the R&D from actually productionalizing those two models will get added in too.

                      Even if not a single bird from the/A or C fleets is cut from the buy(but the B is cut), you are STILL looking at a new and VERY EASILY manipulated cost of AT LEAST 200 million per F-35.

                      And we're approaching a couple big election cycles AND F-35 is now the highest profile future weapons system that congress and the beancounters and the pacifists and the press can hate on.

                      F-35 will be very lucky to survive in any more than the A version, if at all.
                      Last edited by Bill; 12 May 06,, 17:36.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by hello
                        If F-35 survives? Why not? A nd C probalby will, but B has a very slim chance. If a regional bomber isn't needed now, how come the "FB-22" was considered and F-15Es are staying until 2025?
                        The weapons we have available now (Strike Eagle, Viper, etc) are the reason we dont need the F-117. If we need a stealth strike, the F-22 can handle smaller targets or TSTs (in conjunction with other in-theater non-stealth assets) or the B-2 for heavier targets, which the Nighthawk cant handle anyway.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          To be honest, the F-35 JSF will not be cut. There's too many people in the stake and too much money has been already spent. Hell almost all the R&D is almost finished. Once production begins, the price will likely fall. If the JSF was cut, that would be the largest political disaster and I doubt any country will ever join the US in a collaberation effort after this.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Yes, I was. A lot of the information available online IS wrong. Its a fact of life. And the people who know the real facts generally cant talk about it. So we end up with armchair generals talking smack based on numbers that are known to be inaccurate but are accepted as gospel (ie 400km AA-9 vs 20nm AIM-120? Hellloooooo).
                            Well so are you saying it's not as stealthy or capable as it is stated and the generals are a bunch of liars?!?!?! I know what if public about the Raptor's performance is understated though. The F/A 22 vs F 15 excercises are proof(never showed up on radar)
                            Last edited by Shadowsided; 13 May 06,, 02:58.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
                              To be honest, the F-35 JSF will not be cut. There's too many people in the stake and too much money has been already spent. Hell almost all the R&D is almost finished. Once production begins, the price will likely fall. If the JSF was cut, that would be the largest political disaster and I doubt any country will ever join the US in a collaberation effort after this.
                              I'd disagree, the development is just beginning. The initial buy of F-18 SuperHornets was called EMD for Engineering and Manufacturing Development, and rightfully so.

                              That's where you really start to find all the design flaws, and the producibility problems that come with developing a new jet. Reliability and Maintainability can eat you up here, because it's where the whole aircraft as a system gets first tested out. It could still get REAL ugly. That's the nature of any EMD, not just JSF.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by jgetti
                                I'd disagree, the development is just beginning. The initial buy of F-18 SuperHornets was called EMD for Engineering and Manufacturing Development, and rightfully so.

                                That's where you really start to find all the design flaws, and the producibility problems that come with developing a new jet. Reliability and Maintainability can eat you up here, because it's where the whole aircraft as a system gets first tested out. It could still get REAL ugly. That's the nature of any EMD, not just JSF.
                                Actually I was refering to the F-35B based on one of M21Sniper's posts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X