- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: F35 has a failed vertical landing at Fort Worth base. Pilot ejects.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 6:06 pm to NPComb
Posted on 12/15/22 at 6:06 pm to NPComb
quote:not true one also crashed in utah in october.
Prior to this the only crash was from a female pilot. Pilot error. I hope this dude doesn't ruin the narrative.
0
Posted on 12/15/22 at 6:27 pm to LSUGent
Minor setback, nothing another $500B won't solve.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 6:30 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Remember back in the 50s when the air geniuses decided with missiles, we didn't need guns on fighters?
Posted on 12/15/22 at 6:48 pm to Napoleon
quote:
I wonder what the Harrier cost to operate. I know there is ONE certified for private pilot VFR flight.
Saw a show about it.
They should have given that baw the jet.
This post was edited on 12/15/22 at 6:48 pm
Posted on 12/15/22 at 7:29 pm to LSUGent
What a way to celebrate the 16th anniversary of the first ever F35 flight.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 7:54 pm to LSUGent
Plane. Choice was political. They should've gone with the Boeing model instead of the stupid Lockheed-Martin model. Idiots.
Pilot comparisons
Boeing F-32 on left, LM F-35 on right.
Pilot comparisons
Boeing F-32 on left, LM F-35 on right.
This post was edited on 12/15/22 at 8:27 pm
Posted on 12/15/22 at 8:17 pm to LSU Tigerhead
The Boeing one sucked too.
Our real mistake was thinking we needed to spend all this money on ‘multi-role’ platforms that are average at everything, good at nothing.
Our real mistake was thinking we needed to spend all this money on ‘multi-role’ platforms that are average at everything, good at nothing.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 8:37 pm to LSU Tigerhead
Yet there’s nothing in that article to suggest that the Boeing model would have certainly been better
Posted on 12/15/22 at 8:39 pm to CFDoc
quote:
Our real mistake was thinking we needed to spend all this money on ‘multi-role’ platforms that are average at everything, good at nothing.
Except blowing other acft out of the sky
Posted on 12/15/22 at 8:41 pm to LSUGent
All I know is Pepsi still owes that guy a Harrier jet
Posted on 12/15/22 at 8:43 pm to CFDoc
quote:outside of the unrivaled sensor fusion and force multiplers that it provides but whatever
good at nothing
Posted on 12/15/22 at 9:23 pm to CFDoc
quote:
Our real mistake was thinking we needed to spend all this money on ‘multi-role’ platforms
From the Navy's perspective, it made perfect sense to combine multi role platforms into one or two aircraft.
It was not unusual in the 60-70's to observe A-4's, A-3D's, RA-5's, A-6's, A-7's, F-4's, F-8's, E-2's, C-1's and SH-3's on one carrier flight deck and all with generally one primary mission. That's a lot of space, spare parts, crew and support people just in the airwing on one boat. When the F14s and F18s began deploying, the aircraft which were not already being phased out, accelerated the need for the others to be retired as the Tomcats and Hornets could do the work of all of those being retired reducing the requirements for single mission aircraft. Support measures to keep aircraft mission ready was cut dramatically.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 9:31 pm to Traveler
quote:
From the Navy's perspective, it made perfect sense to combine multi role platforms into one or two aircraft.
Sure, when we dreamed up the F-35 in the early 90’s, the KPP’s all made sense.
But when you take almost two decades to go from initial KPPs to fielded program of record, you get our current situation. Which is a weapon system that has very limited use in the current battlefield.
INDOPACOM being a perfect example.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 9:49 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
outside of the unrivaled sensor fusion and force multiplers that it provides but whatever
If it’s so good, then why isn’t the Air Force using them? Why isn’t a single air launched weapon system we are currently developing being targeted for use by the 35? Why is the Air Force currently proposing a new F-16 replacement instead of just using the 35? Why is there already very real talk of canceling the 35 altogether? Why has every service decreased or cut all future orders to zero?
The only time they even show up is when we need those fancy sensors to go deep into enemy territory for reconnaissance. You think we couldn’t do that for less than $2 trillion?
Posted on 12/15/22 at 9:54 pm to CFDoc
What is the ejecting mechanism?
Some super-loaded spring of some kind?
Some super-loaded spring of some kind?
Posted on 12/15/22 at 10:12 pm to GFunkEra
A controlled explosion directed mostly downward.
Posted on 12/16/22 at 12:15 am to CFDoc
quote:
then why isn’t the Air Force using them?
We are
quote:
Why isn’t a single air launched weapon system we are currently developing being targeted for use by the 35?
Not sure. Maybe what we have is good enough when combined with the 35’s capes, at least for now
quote:
Why is the Air Force currently proposing a new F-16 replacement instead of just using the 35?
Gen6 development
quote:
Why is there already very real talk of canceling the 35 altogether?
There isn’t
quote:
Why has every service decreased or cut all future orders to zero?
False, at least for the Air Force
This post was edited on 12/16/22 at 12:16 am
Posted on 12/16/22 at 2:04 am to LSUGent
Pilot may have been better off not ejecting.
Posted on 12/16/22 at 2:06 am to Tortious
Yea id imagine the pilot was messed up after that. Wasnt much time for parachute to deploy and slow his fall.
Posted on 12/16/22 at 4:52 am to Napoleon
quote:
Why did he eject?
In today's woke military, you should NEVER assume that it was a male (biological) pilot. And, when you think about it, isn't it much more likely that it's a woman driver.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News