|
Post by Tired in CV on Aug 13, 2009 23:35:03 GMT -5
"God I love this stuff it gives me wood!" Thank you for sharing, but I could have lived without that information. Good point about thrust to weight...Are you saying the Air Force is accepting less than optimum performance by sharing the F-35 with the Navy? Depends on the mission need more than other factors but I suspect it is more the Navy concession than AF - Don't know that for sure though so don't go running around quoting me without permission. Ask Hatch he is closer to the issue I just get excited with the sheer power of it all Most usually when a shared plane platform is used the Navy uses a different, more powerful, engine along with a hotter JP-5 fuel than what the land based forces use. This gives the Navy both advantages and disadvantages once the plane is in the air. Usually their flight time is slightly less, yet their climbing ability is better. In addition, the airframes for use aboard ship must have a stronger frame (often shared by both though) and landing gear for the "harder" landings experienced when the plane is landing and the ship surges upward at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 13, 2009 23:58:15 GMT -5
So the Air Force is getting a heavier plane than it needs? And it has to have one with the extra complexity of STO/VL? Is this plane going to have as good of performance as an F-16?
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Aug 14, 2009 0:11:41 GMT -5
So the Air Force is getting a heavier plane than it needs? And it has to have one with the extra complexity of STO/VL? Is this plane going to have as good of performance as an F-16? The airframe would be slightly heavier but give it more longevity. In the past they have utilized a different landing gear which were probably a little lighter (and less expensive). As far as competing perfomance with the F-16, I would have to venture that it out performs it.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 14, 2009 1:26:39 GMT -5
I am waiting for proof the F-35 can out-turn the F-16. I would be surprised.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 14, 2009 13:59:44 GMT -5
I am waiting for proof the F-35 can out-turn the F-16. I would be surprised. The vectoring capability gives the F-22 and F-35 much better manuvering capacity especially in the verticle to horizonal attitude adjustment and timing. It is apparent from the videos these newer planes can perform high speed verticle attack and drop directly behind and upon an enemy with precision. It would be fun to see two seasoned pilots dog fight the F-16/18 with the F-22/35 indeed.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 14, 2009 15:27:03 GMT -5
Thanks, jg, you answered my question. I was not actually aware the F-35 had thrust vectoring, which would make a difference. And you bring up an important point: Often it is the pilot that makes the difference.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Aug 14, 2009 15:41:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 14, 2009 18:37:31 GMT -5
Thanks, jg, you answered my question. I was not actually aware the F-35 had thrust vectoring, which would make a difference. And you bring up an important point: Often it is the pilot that makes the difference. Watch the videos of the 22/35 on the general thread they are great.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 14, 2009 18:40:09 GMT -5
Thanks, jg, you answered my question. I was not actually aware the F-35 had thrust vectoring, which would make a difference. And you bring up an important point: Often it is the pilot that makes the difference. Our pilots and training since the start of Vietnam have been the best there is, bar none. I live in Scripps Ranch and I love watching the prop jocks do their thing, especially when the Blue Angels come to town. Wifey's Cats hate them cause they do the routines right over the house but my "Back Porch" has a birdseye view of Miramar Air Station and the whole show.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 14, 2009 18:40:50 GMT -5
I might add that Obama's ego is only fit for fighter pilots!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 15, 2009 21:14:30 GMT -5
Something else to think about: I read a few years back it took $10,000 an hour to fly an F-18. Recently I read the F-22 costs $44,000 an hour. Not a good trend.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 17, 2009 18:25:01 GMT -5
Something else to think about: I read a few years back it took $10,000 an hour to fly an F-18. Recently I read the F-22 costs $44,000 an hour. Not a good trend. Fuel price inflation JD - but if you get 5X the Ass Kicking benefit why not?
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Aug 28, 2009 23:09:45 GMT -5
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,544240,00.htmlUAE Seizes North Korean Cargo Ship Bound for Iran, Filled With Explosives Friday, August 28, 2009 UNITED NATIONS — The United Arab Emirates has seized a cargo ship bound for Iran with a cache of banned rocket-propelled grenades and other arms from North Korea, the first such seizure since sanctions against North Korea were ramped up, diplomats and officials told The Associated Press on Friday. The seizure earlier this month was carried out in accordance with tough new U.N. Security Council sanctions meant to derail North Korea's nuclear weapons program, but which also ban the North's sale of any conventional arms. Diplomats identified the vessel as a Bahamas-flagged cargo vessel, the ANL Australia. The diplomats and officials spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. "We can confirm that the UAE detained a North Korean vessel containing illicit cargo," a Western diplomat told the AP. Turkey's deputy U.N. ambassador, Fazli Corman, who chairs the Security Council's sanctions panel, also confirmed the incident without providing details and said council members are examining the seriousness of it. The UAE, a hub for Iranian goods, seized the ship earlier in August. The ship is registered in the Bahamas, a common country of registry for vessels, but it wasn't immediately clear who owns it nor where the owner is based. The Security Council's latest resolution came in the wake of North Korea's second nuclear test in May and firing of six short-range rockets. The ship's seizure and reported violation of a U.N. arms embargo was reported by the UAE in a confidential letter two weeks ago to the council's sanctions committee for North Korea, which is comprised of diplomats from all 15 nations on the Security Council, according to diplomats and officials. The Financial Times first reported the weapons' seizure Friday. The Security Council imposed tough new sanctions on North Korea on June 12, strengthening an arms embargo and authorizing ship searches on the high seas to try to rein in its nuclear program after Pyongyang's second nuclear test on May 25, violating a council resolution adopted after its first nuclear blast in 2006. The council also has ordered an asset freeze and travel ban on companies and individuals involved in the country's nuclear and weapons programs — and put five North Korean officials, four companies and a state agency on the sanctions list. Three other companies were put on the list after Pyongyang launched a rocket on April 5, a move that many saw as a cover for testing long-range missile technology. The new sanctions resolution also calls on all nations to prevent financial institutions or individuals from providing financing for any activities related to North Korean programs to build nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. Three sets of U.N. sanctions apply to Iran, seeking to halt its uranium enrichment. Iran denies accusations by the U.S. and Western allies that its nuclear program is for more than peaceful purposes. The ship seizure comes at a delicate time, just as the North has been adopting a more conciliatory stance toward South Korea and the U.S., following months of defiant provocations. Earlier this month, the North freed two American journalists and a South Korean worker after more than four months of detention and pledged to restart some joint projects. The North also sent a delegation to Seoul to mourn the death of former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 29, 2009 15:07:07 GMT -5
The "tyrants" of the world continue to gain confidence in agressively challenging the UN and America under Obama's -Apologetic Leadership- so how soon will they strike us here again?
Khadafi is not allowed to sleep in his NJ tent farm so his hotel in Manhattan is a safe place to hang for the time being...
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Aug 29, 2009 15:10:12 GMT -5
The "tyrants" of the world continue to gain confidence in agressively challenging the UN and America under Obama's -Apologetic Leadership- so how soon will they strike us here again? Khadafi is not allowed to sleep in his NJ tent farm so his hotel in Manhattan is a safe place to hang for the time being... Unfortunately, I am afraid it might be sooner than many think. ^5 on the safety in the Manhatten hotel.
|
|