Register to Comment
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
Like Tree4Likes
  1. #21
    Elvis jaffacake Elvis jaffacake is offline
    Elvis jaffacake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,925

    Quote Originally Posted by Houyhnhnm View Post
    As a leftie who happens to be right handed (and left-brained?). I'd like to point out that putting external weapons on a stealth fighter does away with the stealth part because external weapons give off a massive radar signature.

    It's akin to making it so your submarine that can't go underwater, or your convertible can no longer put the roof down.

    In other words it's a really stupid thing to do.
    As is the whole F-35 progremme..."STEALTH!!!" oh and try and fit you know bombs and all that stuff in where you can.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #22
    Conor the Bold Conor the Bold is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,336

    Quote Originally Posted by Houyhnhnm View Post
    As a leftie who happens to be right handed (and left-brained?). I'd like to point out that putting external weapons on a stealth fighter does away with the stealth part because external weapons give off a massive radar signature.

    It's akin to making it so your submarine that can't go underwater, or your convertible can no longer put the roof down.

    In other words it's a really stupid thing to do.
    No.

    In other words it's exactly like a convertible. When required it can put its roof up and when the weather is more clement - the roof can go down to take advantage of the sun.

    i.e. Where less observability is required - ordinance would only be stored in the internal bays (such as the first night of Desert Sword). When the air environment is more permissive (say for example Afghanistan) - then the F-35 can increase it's operational payload by a factor of two or three. Which increases it's usefulness by quite a bit.

    In other words, what you said was really ignorant.
    Last edited by Conor the Bold; 23rd February 2012 at 02:56 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #23
    Conor the Bold Conor the Bold is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,336

    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis jaffacake View Post
    As is the whole F-35 progremme..."STEALTH!!!" oh and try and fit you know bombs and all that stuff in where you can.
    There's nothing particularly stupid about it at all. The aircraft it meant to replace the F-16 and F/A-18. making it more survivable by reducing the planes observability where practically possible, for the situations which require it, whilst giving it the ability to increase it's operational payload in permissive air environs makes a single F-35 overall much more useful than a F-117, F22, whilst being much more survivable than all previous and most contemporary designs. An F-117 cost $42.m each in the 1970's and could carry two PGM's. An F/A-18 cost approx $29m, had 9 hard points and could carry 14,000 lbs of external ordinance. Which would be more useful over Afghanistan today?

    Ditto for the F-22. Unsurpassed for first day of operations and then, they get exponentially get less important and less capable relatively compared to other systems as an opponents capability is continually degraded.

    Sniff at multi-role all you like, but I don't think anybody really has the resources to have 2 tier (hi & lo mix) forces any more. All it means is that your hi capability forces are much too small to cope with any losses and offer much reduced overall capability and your low capability mix can only be used in the most permissive of environments, limiting forces effectiveness further when taken out of those environments.
    Last edited by Conor the Bold; 23rd February 2012 at 02:55 PM. Reason: spelling and clarification
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #24
    Conor the Bold Conor the Bold is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,336

    Quote Originally Posted by seanmacc View Post
    They'll do well to keep this under lock and key. Photos and video footage will keep the reverse engineers in Beijing and Moscow busy and you can be guaranteed that they won't have the problems the USAF had in development
    You Wot?

    Alas engineering isn't quite as easy at looking at a picture or video and then making a plane.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #25
    Dohville Dohville is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,842

    Quote Originally Posted by drummed View Post
    Serious looking machine.
    Why can't we build something like that?
    $300m each, that's why.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment