Bye-bye F-35?

#301
#301
Orangeburst said:
It was never intended to be a fighter, yet replacing the F-16?
What does that mean?
Click to expand...
The 16 was originally intended to be a fighter but was co-opted into a workhorse. Think of it as an FA-16. If you look at one loaded out, it's ridiculous. In it's pure form it is a fighter and can out turn anything in the sky except a 22 but just like the 35, it was turned into something it wasn't intended to do. It was/is a middle east work horse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Orangeburst
#302
#302
82_VOL_83 said:
It was never intended to be a fighter. It was intended to replace the 16, 18 and the Harrier. The 16 was co-opted into an FA role and the 35 is better at the job than the 16. The FA-18 will be replaced by the 35 and the Harrier will be replaced by the Marine version of the 35.
Click to expand...
I had read that the Navy was replacing the F-18 with the new “F/A-XX” that is under development?
 
#303
#303
82_VOL_83 said:
The 16 was originally intended to be a fighter but was co-opted into a workhorse. Think of it as an FA-16. If you look at one loaded out, it's ridiculous. In it's pure form it is a fighter and can out turn anything in the sky except a 22 but just like the 35, it was turned into something it wasn't intended to do. It was/is a middle east work horse.
Click to expand...

I did a "Gilligan" again.

The dang thing is so theoretically transformational, from a historical perspective of what a fighter should be, but is still an air-to-air fighter...
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and 82_VOL_83
#307
#307
Orangeburst said:
Last I saw it had a 2:10 kill ratio
Click to expand...
Lol. I was more emphasizing the “1” in Vandy 1. The show bird in any Navy air group is usually the X00 numbered bird and is flown by the CAG. And it’s generally always sporting an embellished paint scheme.

I was out at NAS China Lake for a command change and retirement ceremony and they had the show birds of all the wings whom had flown out of there over the years do a fly over. Beautiful bunch of birds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Orangeburst
#310
#310
85SugarVol said:
It was the GE F110-400 that saved the Tomcat.

When the F-14A came out it was powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney TF30 engines. Disaster.

It was the F-14D, powered by the F110’s, that finally realized the potential of the Tomcat.

What a badass platform the F-14D was. Shame they retired it (too complex, too pricey).
Click to expand...

The TF30 wasn't a disaster overall, just to clarify. The F-111 had a very distinguished career with those engines.

They just weren't suited for the Tomcat.
 
#311
#311
82_VOL_83 said:
The 16 was originally intended to be a fighter but was co-opted into a workhorse. Think of it as an FA-16. If you look at one loaded out, it's ridiculous. In it's pure form it is a fighter and can out turn anything in the sky except a 22 but just like the 35, it was turned into something it wasn't intended to do. It was/is a middle east work horse.
Click to expand...

Same could be said about the F-15. The main difference was they had a LOT more room to add stuff to the -15 airframe and, with two engines, had a lot more capability than the -16 series.

Honestly, they could have bought that SEADE version of the -15E to replace the F-4G instead of the -16CJ's (Or CG, don't recall at the moment) and had a better overall platform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#313
#313
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#314
#314
Just out of curiosity, why do we need a fighter jet? It's not WWII anymore, where they have dog fights and shoot planes down with machine guns. Why can't a drone do the same thing by firing a missile a hundred miles away, just like we do today?
 
#315
#315
VolStrom said:
Just out of curiosity, why do we need a fighter jet? It's not WWII anymore, where they have dog fights and shoot planes down with machine guns. Why can't a drone do the same thing by firing a missile a hundred miles away, just like we do today?
Click to expand...

Good question.
 
#316
#316
Grand Vol said:
Same could be said about the F-15. The main difference was they had a LOT more room to add stuff to the -15 airframe and, with two engines, had a lot more capability than the -16 series.

Honestly, they could have bought that SEADE version of the -15E to replace the F-4G instead of the -16CJ's (Or CG, don't recall at the moment) and had a better overall platform.
Click to expand...
The biggest differentiator on both the 14 and 15 as compared to the 16 from people in the fighter business was the nose volume. For the air to air RADAR. The 16 always suffered here. In todays electronically scanned arrays this deficiency gap has been largely closed.

A couple of decades ago both the 14 and 15 could shoot down a 16 before he could even get a weapons lock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#317
#317
VolStrom said:
Just out of curiosity, why do we need a fighter jet? It's not WWII anymore, where they have dog fights and shoot planes down with machine guns. Why can't a drone do the same thing by firing a missile a hundred miles away, just like we do today?
Click to expand...
That’s the evolution we are going thru now. But remember the Air Force is tasked to defend the skies. And the Air Force is populated with … pilots. Not video game players. Well… not yet anyway.

Once you get the human out of the airplane now you can really crank the G loading on the airframe without physiological human limits
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, VolStrom and hog88
#319
#319
82_VOL_83 said:
Think steam ingestion from the cat shots.
Click to expand...

I get why they couldn't perform, however, it was one of those "do everything" engines the McNamara era tried to push through. Plus, since the F-14 evolved out of the failed F-111B program, it was probably natural to use an engine already slated for production.

Sometimes it works across multiple models like the F100 or J79, other times it's a niche engine that only works in one airframe.
 
#320
#320
NorthDallas40 said:
The biggest differentiator on both the 14 and 15 as compared to the 16 from people in the fighter business was the nose volume. For the air to air RADAR. The 16 always suffered here. In todays electronically scanned arrays this deficiency gap has been largely closed.

A couple of decades ago both the 14 and 15 could shoot down a 16 before he could even get a weapons lock.
Click to expand...

A shortcoming mentioned once or twice by Northrop when trying to market the F-20 lol

I still say that was one of the greatest fighters never produced. There really was a market for them and probably still would be today had things been different.
 
#321
#321
Grand Vol said:
The TF30 wasn't a disaster overall, just to clarify. The F-111 had a very distinguished career with those engines.

They just weren't suited for the Tomcat.
Click to expand...
For sure. That was just us trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Those engines were just fine for a high speed bomber.
 
#322
#322
Grand Vol said:
A shortcoming mentioned once or twice by Northrop when trying to market the F-20 lol

I still say that was one of the greatest fighters never produced. There really was a market for them and probably still would be today had things been different.
Click to expand...
Yep. The F-20 was a great machine that couldn’t find a US home and I think was too good to let anyone else have. Take a look at the export business for the F-5 as proof of that.
 
#324
#324
Always wanted to see the F-16XL. Apparently had twice the range and load out of the F-16A or C...Cant remember exactly. Of course beaten by the Strike Eagle.

300px-General_Dynamics_F-16XL_%28SN_75-0749%29_in_flight_060905-F-1234S-049.jpg
 
#325
#325
Grand Vol said:
I get why they couldn't perform, however, it was one of those "do everything" engines the McNamara era tried to push through. Plus, since the F-14 evolved out of the failed F-111B program, it was probably natural to use an engine already slated for production.

Sometimes it works across multiple models like the F100 or J79, other times it's a niche engine that only works in one airframe.
Click to expand...
Actually there is an entire story behind the TF33 that I can tell you if you email me. Do you still have the old gmail that I posted 100 years ago. I think you actually may have emailed me.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top