Hey everyone,
Just wanting to know which fighter/bomber you like

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2007 at 7:12pm:


The F-16, F-15, and F-14 are more than decent 

And bar the final (broad choice) they are all American. Ho Hum...

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2007 at 9:09am:


Last time I checked on wikip*dia, apparently so. The over this large piece of water called "the pond". Apparently France exists too.

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2007 at 10:10am:


No, that's Belgium 

Matt

Chris_F wrote on Jan 25^th, 2007 at 2:15pm:

Odd... Can't remember the last war Britain lost.

Chris_F wrote on Jan 25^th, 2007 at 2:15pm:


America always starts it, so...

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2007 at 6:51pm:


<Ugly American>

That's 'cause ya always had your buddys the Americans to bail your a$$e$ out every time...

</Ugly American>

(note obvious sarcasm).

Not to mention the F-20 Tigershark

fighter25 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2007 at 5:20pm:



Good old American STOVL eh? Quite a lot of foreign design and development in there...

Yes it is. Its designation is F-35B.

The "A" model is for the Air Force and the "C" model is for the Navy

Also, arn't it's claims to be short take off a little dubious considering the RN needs new aircraft carriers with catapults for it to have any chance getting off the deck with operational payloads?

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2007 at 8:24am:


I've heard with a full payload the RN will either need a floating runway or to bolt the two new carriers together...

...and still use a catapult...

Nope, I'm sure once they've sorted the weight problems out (why on earth did they not follow the Harriers 45 year old principle and use one engine, rather than one with a huge great big nozzle and another just for vertical thrust?)...

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2007 at 9:42am:


P.1154?

Quote:


What do they want, a supersonic Apache replacement?

I'm not sure how many VTOL F-35s are scheduled to be built.  I'd expect most will be traditional runway or carrier variants.  The US doesn't have a ton of need for VTOL and it's the biggest buyer of the plane.  Besides, that VTOL fan takes up a lot of space and looks awfully heavy.  My guess is it's intended to "check the box" and produce a design that, in theory, could do VTOL but in practice it just makes more sense to leave it off.

What advantage does an F-35 have over a Harrier?  The same advantage it has over the F-16 and F-18 it's slated to replace (or at least supplant).

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2007 at 6:45pm:


It's newer and...

...nope, stuck on any practical advantages (well, mentionable ones anyway...)

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2007 at 6:45pm:

I guess we'll have to wait and see the first time it's used in armed conflict.  I'd say it's the same magnitude advantage the F-22 enjoys over the F-15.

dcunning30 wrote on Jan 31^st, 2007 at 11:32am:

One could say the same about people jumping at any oppertunity to spit on the A380 because it dares to be bigger than the 747.

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 31^st, 2007 at 12:44pm:

Does this mean you are criticizing the F35 because others criticize the A380?

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 31^st, 2007 at 2:02pm:


Not all.. But the last statement is hillarious!   

"naaa, I'm not criticizing the F35 because it might supplant the Harrier.  In fact, the brand new F35 STILL can't do everything the 20 year old Harrier can do!"  LOL!!!!!!!!!

Charlie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2007 at 4:14pm:


I have no problem with that.  In fact, it only makes sense.

Quote:



Me thinks Lockheed-Martin should hire you as a consultant!  

Charlie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2007 at 5:05pm:

You never know. We might end up with a Swordfish/Albacore situation.

dcunning30 wrote on Jan 31^st, 2007 at 5:42pm:


Which is a shame that the Harrier wasn't allowed to be developed into a supersonic aircraft. Had the P.1154 seen the light of day then maybe Harrier II would have been a little different. Being supersonic isn't everything either. In peacetime its a nuisance, and really, for the roles it is taking in British service, not really important. That's not the US' problem though!

Quote:


Fair point. Really depends on the eventual operation. Whichever way, in the critical (mission wise$) phase of flight, it is a fairly dead weight.

I'd rather have a VTOL F-35 compromised in order to produce a more capable non-VTOL F-35 than have a non-VTOL F-35 compromised in order to make a more capable VTOL F-35.    Although the VTOL variant of the F-35 gets so much press (because it is unique) it still will be a fairly rare beast.

Charlie wrote on Feb 1^st, 2007 at 12:53pm:

IMO no, but them Brits (and others) seem to find 'em useful for carrier ops.  A proper carrier (with catapults and arrestor cables) would resolve that little problem... 

Chris_F wrote on Feb 1^st, 2007 at 1:47pm:


Mmm, we've been tetering on the edge of which size to build (small, or decent size with cats and wires). I wonder if the USMC has had the biggest influence on it for their current carriers (and I suppose possible orders abroad such as Spain and Italy, who I doubt will build bigger carriers).

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2007 at 2:03pm:

Carrier variants (USN variety at least) don't have a lift fan (and obviously aren't VTOL).  They have an extended wingspan with fold up wings, kinda like an F-18.  If Brit carriers will be built with catapults and cables then I'd assume they'd opt for this variant of the plane.

I don't know if STOL flight will be accomplished with the lift fan.  The only JSF to take to the skies to date wasn't a VTOL version.  

Papa9571 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2007 at 9:35pm:

Thats the prototype. The plane as it will be produced hasn't flown yet in it's VTOL form. And it'll be very different from the one in your pictures.

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2007 at 5:27pm:

Why can't the JSF use a ski jump?

CAS: Su-25... might be less effective than the A-10 but that doesnt run on truck diesel...
Fighter / Bomber: Su-34
Fighter: Su-37

Bomber: B-1 or Tu-160

JA 37 Viggen wrote on Apr 28^th, 2007 at 3:20pm:


Withdrawal of funding and creationg of a joint RAF/RN "Joint Harrier Force" using GR7/9.

Quote:


I expect it can, but I'm unsure as to whether it could perform the rolling VTO as performed by the Harrier on small carriers. That's why the UK is having to build new carriers.

Charlie wrote on Apr 28^th, 2007 at 3:31pm:


I've always hated "Joint Harrier Force 2000!"

First of all;

Forget 'dating quickly', it was NEVER contemporary!

second, does this poll include fighter-bombers of previous eras - such as WW2 or cold-war?

If not, the Eurofighter. If so, the Spitfire