The USA has grounded its entire fleet of F-35 fighter jets

eclipsenow · Nov 9, 2015

RDKirk said:
The only thing that would matter to me is the ability of the platform to put a lot of .50 rounds and rockets where I want them when I want them.

I hear you!

Whether that turns out to be Army helicopters or Air Force A-10 depends on availability judgments made 'way above my pay grade. I do know of one case where I watched an Army Ground Liaison Officer (GLO) explode into absolute apoplexy when the A-10 strike he requested to protect an infantry battalion got got diverted to search for a downed pilot.

Wow, the politics of command and divided loyalty of the different forces! It seems one pilot's life is worth more than dozens of grunts. Wow.

That's why the Army has its own attack helicopters.

I hear you!

The disadvantage, though, is that helicopters don't have the speed and range to be called across an entire front where needed.

So they are more 'loyal' to the local travelling army, but it's a lot of expensive hardware locked up in the local area. I see. Hadn't thought of that.

But there are some very, very smart systems these days that can identify unfriendies from a much greater distance than the human eye can under the best circumstances, and much more accurately and quickly than even when well within visual range. It's not all just IFF, either, but all kinds of fancy long-range, high-tech sniffers, not to mention information being calculated by other platforms (such as AWACS, JTACCS, and even satellites) fed to the aircraft's onboard computer. So, yeah, in a way if the pilot finds himself in a dogfight, a whole lot of things have gone wrong.

OK, it sounds like less a fighter, more a travelling missile base, and dogfights are just such a quaint old idea.

However, I'm not at all sure it takes a billion dollar platform for that.

The interesting thing about the Scorpion is the fast design process. It sounds like the F35 has everything bespoke and over-priced as a result. I wonder if a smaller design team like the Scorpion's could have come up with a different missile platform cheaper and faster, with a more flexible design system to tinker moving forward with lessons learned?

But how exactly do you make something as complex and technologically challenging as a fighter plane cheaper? Textron looked to its existing suppliers and used components that were already in production, rather than designing everything from scratch (the F-35, for example, uses an engine which was developed especially for the aircraft). The development team was deliberately kept very small, so Anderson and Scorpion chief designer, Dale Tutt, could make decisions quickly.

"Once we'd developed the initial design concept we set high-level design requirements for the team, and we didn't overburden them with a lot of detailed requirements," Tutt says. “We didn't have to invest time in developing, for example, a new engine or ejection seat. We were able to focus on putting those components together for the airplane and get it flying."

Patrol role

Textron also had the advantage of not having to meet the requirements of a specific nation or an air force. This meant that the development team could make changes to the design if they felt it would help the overall project.

"A great example is [British ejection-seat specialists] Martin Baker," says Anderson. "They sent a group of engineers over and they looked at our cockpit cup design, and they said, 'Well, our seat's not gonna work. It'll be several million dollars and 18 months for us to redesign it. But if you can give us about five more inches of volume - three in length and two in width – it will work.' So guess what we did? We made the cockpit tub a little bigger."

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140903-low-cost-fighter-jets-take-off

Biblicist · Nov 28, 2015

RDKirk said:
The reviews aren't correct. And don't count Russian eggs before their hatched--their manufacturing has not improved in quality since the Soviet days.

I've had this in the back of my mind as well for quite awhile, but now that the Russian Air Force has taken over the primary air role in Syria, their aircraft and navy both seem to have done a superb job. It will be interesting to see if the Russians start targeting any Turkish aircraft after the Turks cowardly attacked the Russian bomber. If the Russians do start to target Turkish aircraft over Syria (where I would not blame them for doing so), if their ground-to-air missles prove to be as good as the equipment that is being used by their Air Force and Navy we will be less likely to see a first strike against Russia by NATO.

RDKirk · Nov 28, 2015

Biblicist said:
I've had this in the back of my mind as well for quite awhile, but now that the Russian Air Force has taken over the primary air role in Syria, their aircraft and navy both seem to have done a superb job.

As long as they can keep flying from home bases where the maintenance is good and steady, and as long as they can control the sortie tempo, they'll be all right. It's a no-pressure war that they can carry out at their leisure.

It will be interesting to see if the Russians start targeting any Turkish aircraft after the Turks cowardly attacked the Russian bomber. If the Russians do start to target Turkish aircraft over Syria (where I would not blame them for doing so), if their ground-to-air missles prove to be as good as the equipment that is being used by their Air Force and Navy we will be less likely to see a first strike against Russia by NATO.

Why are so many civilians so eager to see a Russia/NATO war erupt? I swear people online who've never worn a uniform a day in their lives are virtually salivating over the possibility.

Biblicist · Nov 28, 2015

RDKirk said:
As long as they can keep flying from home bases where the maintenance is good and steady, and as long as they can control the sortie tempo, they'll be all right. It's a no-pressure war that they can carry out at their leisure.

The only Russian Federation aircraft that are flying from Russian soil (Home base) are their long-range nuclear capable bombers being the supersonic Tu-160 (Blackjack) heavy strategic bomber and the subsonic turboprop Tupolev TU-95 bomber which Putin decided to employ after the cowardly and unprovoked Turkish attack on an aircraft that was supposed to be an ally of Turkey.

They do have their SU-24 light bombers and the fourth generation SU-27 (Flanker) fighters at a forward base in Latakia Syria. From what the media reports are saying, the SU-24’s and 27’s have been highly reliable which is interesting considering the thousands of sorties that these aircraft have undertaken in recent months and from a forward base at that!

The fifth generation T-50 PAK FA fighters will apparently not be in full production until 2017 so we won’t know where they will be based if the Syrian issue continues. The projected PAK DA strategic bomber which won’t be released until at least 2025 will have a combat range of 3,500 kilometres with a bomb load of around 100 metric tonnes but this won’t be a factor for a while yet.

The new Russian T-50 is a bit of a worry, where I have no concerns with it being used by the Russians but it is reported that our Muslim neighbour Indonesia will be purchasing a variant of the T-50; this means that as we are committed to buying the vastly inferior F-35 we will essentially be unable to ward off any air attack by the Indonesians. Once they come into full production, this means that neither NATO nor the US will be able to provide an effective fighter defence against the T-50 in Europe.

The Russians recently installed the Moskva Missile Cruiser which is a part of the Russian Mediterranean Task Force off the coast of Syria to protect itself against any further attacks by Turkish aircraft. The Russians since 1971 (which was then the old Soviet Union) have leased a naval port at Tartarus in Syria which had almost been de-commissioned prior to the Russians coming in to support the Syrians against ISIS and the coalition of international governments that have been supporting ISIS.

The first Russian naval units to employ cruise type missiles against ISIS in Syria were based in the Caspian Sea which is essentially a Russian lake, so they will always be close to a major support base.

The recently installed Russian S-400 mobile air defence system in Syria should prove to be interesting particularly if it starts picking off any Turkish F-16’s who might attempt to attack any Russian planes over Syria. If the Russians do get a chance to knock out any petulant Turkish fighters with these new weapons, then it will certainly put a fright into the Eastern European NATO countries as they will be in range of the SU-400’s.

Why are so many civilians so eager to see a Russia/NATO war erupt? I swear people online who've never worn a uniform a day in their lives are virtually salivating over the possibility.

Even though I am now a civilian, in my earlier years I served in the RAAF though I was in Supply which meant that the closest I ever got to frontline aircraft was with providing parts for our Maritime anti-submarine Squadron and with our VIP Squadron.

But I would say that the only ones who are salivating over a possible skirmish between NATO and the Russian Federation would be with the US and NATO generals along with their horrid corporate sponsers and benefactors.

Though I do make one claim to fame, where as I mentioned earlier in this thread, with the recent Australian Air Show at Avalon in April this year, I was able to upset the Lockheed-Martin representative (with name and photo) who simply refused to say that their F-35 would be able to outperform the Russian PAK T-50, though he did say that they would back us up with the F-22 if the situation arose.

Job8 · Nov 28, 2015

dakine said:
It would be even better news if they were grounded permanently, ripped apart, and the parts sold as scrap.

While Russia and China take control of the world? They would love it.

patrick jane · Nov 28, 2015

dakine said:
It would be even better news if they were grounded permanently, ripped apart, and the parts sold as scrap.

Sure and we should all destroy all weapons and just be peacemakers because nobody will hurt us.

AionPhanes · Dec 21, 2015

Biblicist said:
The only Russian Federation aircraft that are flying from Russian soil (Home base) are their long-range nuclear capable bombers being the supersonic Tu-160 (Blackjack) heavy strategic bomber and the subsonic turboprop Tupolev TU-95 bomber which Putin decided to employ after the cowardly and unprovoked Turkish attack on an aircraft that was supposed to be an ally of Turkey.

They do have their SU-24 light bombers and the fourth generation SU-27 (Flanker) fighters at a forward base in Latakia Syria. From what the media reports are saying, the SU-24’s and 27’s have been highly reliable which is interesting considering the thousands of sorties that these aircraft have undertaken in recent months and from a forward base at that!

The fifth generation T-50 PAK FA fighters will apparently not be in full production until 2017 so we won’t know where they will be based if the Syrian issue continues. The projected PAK DA strategic bomber which won’t be released until at least 2025 will have a combat range of 3,500 kilometres with a bomb load of around 100 metric tonnes but this won’t be a factor for a while yet.

The new Russian T-50 is a bit of a worry, where I have no concerns with it being used by the Russians but it is reported that our Muslim neighbour Indonesia will be purchasing a variant of the T-50; this means that as we are committed to buying the vastly inferior F-35 we will essentially be unable to ward off any air attack by the Indonesians. Once they come into full production, this means that neither NATO nor the US will be able to provide an effective fighter defence against the T-50 in Europe.

The Russians recently installed the Moskva Missile Cruiser which is a part of the Russian Mediterranean Task Force off the coast of Syria to protect itself against any further attacks by Turkish aircraft. The Russians since 1971 (which was then the old Soviet Union) have leased a naval port at Tartarus in Syria which had almost been de-commissioned prior to the Russians coming in to support the Syrians against ISIS and the coalition of international governments that have been supporting ISIS.

The first Russian naval units to employ cruise type missiles against ISIS in Syria were based in the Caspian Sea which is essentially a Russian lake, so they will always be close to a major support base.

The recently installed Russian S-400 mobile air defence system in Syria should prove to be interesting particularly if it starts picking off any Turkish F-16’s who might attempt to attack any Russian planes over Syria. If the Russians do get a chance to knock out any petulant Turkish fighters with these new weapons, then it will certainly put a fright into the Eastern European NATO countries as they will be in range of the SU-400’s.

Even though I am now a civilian, in my earlier years I served in the RAAF though I was in Supply which meant that the closest I ever got to frontline aircraft was with providing parts for our Maritime anti-submarine Squadron and with our VIP Squadron.

But I would say that the only ones who are salivating over a possible skirmish between NATO and the Russian Federation would be with the US and NATO generals along with their horrid corporate sponsers and benefactors.

Though I do make one claim to fame, where as I mentioned earlier in this thread, with the recent Australian Air Show at Avalon in April this year, I was able to upset the Lockheed-Martin representative (with name and photo) who simply refused to say that their F-35 would be able to outperform the Russian PAK T-50, though he did say that they would back us up with the F-22 if the situation arose.

It's interesting how well the Russians can defend themselves with such a small budget. It takes us spending more than Russia pluss the 9 other top spenders (China, etc..) combined to defend ourselves apparently. Maybe we could learn something about more bang for your buck from them.

Biblicist · Dec 21, 2015

AionPhanes said:
It's interesting how well the Russians can't defend themselves with such a small budget. It takes us spending more than Russia pluss the 9 other top spenders (China, etc..) combined to defend ourselves apparently. Maybe we could learn something about more bang for your buck from them.

I presume that you meant to say "can defend" instead of "can't". I have no doubt that even those who were reasonably conversant with the incredible amount of new technology that the Russian Federation had developed over the past decade, that they were wondering exactly how the mix would go in Syria as this is the first opportunity that they have been able to prove themselves.

Now that they have demonstrated that their surface ships in the Caspian Sea can strike wherever they want and that they have reportedly destroyed more ISIS and other rebel sites using air power in their first month than the did the entire US led 'intervention' did in 15 months, then it seems that the world has now stood up and taken notice. Of course having a submarine off the Syrian coast which is launching cruise style missiles into Syria, along with the Moskva missile cruiser protecting their air force should serve to keep the Islamo-terrorists deep in the ground. I noticed Putins remark that some of their air-to-ground missiles needed some adjustment but he said that this was a simple task.

It seems that the Turks have decided that it would not be a wise move to fly over Syria now that the Russians have installed their new S400 missile shield and that the Russian bombers are being escorted by missile carrying defensive fighters . . . from what I've read it seems that even the ducks and geese in Turkey have now decided to travel south by road instead of flying!

eclipsenow · Dec 23, 2015

Biblicist said:
Now that they have demonstrated that their surface ships in the Caspian Sea can strike wherever they want

Bombers have been able to do that for decades.

and that they have reportedly destroyed more ISIS and other rebel sites using air power in their first month than the did the entire US led 'intervention' did in 15 months

Source needed.

then it seems that the world has now stood up and taken notice.

I'm sympathetic to doing more on a cheaper budget: it's my thread after all. I'm just wondering if there's any evidence behind the top few claims?

Of course having a submarine off the Syrian coast which is launching cruise style missiles into Syria, along with the Moskva missile cruiser protecting their air force should serve to keep the Islamo-terrorists deep in the ground. I noticed Putins remark that some of their air-to-ground missiles needed some adjustment but he said that this was a simple task.

Cruise missiles cost $1.5million to fire, as opposed to battleship railguns that can fire dumb bits of metal with pinpoint accuracy 177km inland to utterly disintegrate any target it hits without expensive explosives: that dumb bit of metal is travelling at Mach 7 when it hits. And all this at 60 times cheaper: that's 60 times more targets that can be destroyed for the same dollar value.
60!

It seems that the Turks have decided that it would not be a wise move to fly over Syria now that the Russians have installed their new S400 missile shield and that the Russian bombers are being escorted by missile carrying defensive fighters

Now this is what I'm asking about! How much cheaper would a combination taskforce be than an overly expensive all-purpose one like the F35?

. . . from what I've read it seems that even the ducks and geese in Turkey have now decided to travel south by road instead of flying!

Love the image.

AionPhanes · Dec 23, 2015

Biblicist said:
I presume that you meant to say "can defend" instead of "can't". I have no doubt that even those who were reasonably conversant with the incredible amount of new technology that the Russian Federation had developed over the past decade, that they were wondering exactly how the mix would go in Syria as this is the first opportunity that they have been able to prove themselves.

Now that they have demonstrated that their surface ships in the Caspian Sea can strike wherever they want and that they have reportedly destroyed more ISIS and other rebel sites using air power in their first month than the did the entire US led 'intervention' did in 15 months, then it seems that the world has now stood up and taken notice. Of course having a submarine off the Syrian coast which is launching cruise style missiles into Syria, along with the Moskva missile cruiser protecting their air force should serve to keep the Islamo-terrorists deep in the ground. I noticed Putins remark that some of their air-to-ground missiles needed some adjustment but he said that this was a simple task.

It seems that the Turks have decided that it would not be a wise move to fly over Syria now that the Russians have installed their new S400 missile shield and that the Russian bombers are being escorted by missile carrying defensive fighters . . . from what I've read it seems that even the ducks and geese in Turkey have now decided to travel south by road instead of flying!

Yeah typo. Meant "can".

Biblicist · Dec 23, 2015

eclipsenow said:
Bombers have been able to do that for decades.

If you view the missile weaponry of a Kirov Class battlecruiser, it appears that this self contained and highly mobile weapons platform could be equal to about 30 to 40 light to medium bombers and to maybe 20 large bombers. This means that a country who owns this class of ship can easily move it into place with only a days notice, whereas a comparable air-wing could take many weeks to deploy.

When it comes to the Russian Federation using its forces in the Middle East, it has the advantage of not only being able to easily use the Meditteranean along with the Black Sea, but it can also move its naval units around the Caspian Sea which is essentially a giant Russian Lake that is square in the middle of Western Asian and the Middle East. Unlike an air-wing that has little capability with moving from base to base, these larger battle-cruisers have the ability to move at will which is equivelant to moving an entire air-wing from site to site on a daily basis - very cost effective indeed.

Biblicist: and that they have reportedly destroyed more ISIS and other rebel sites using air power in their first month than the did the entire US led 'intervention' did in 15 months

Click to expand...

Source needed.

I would say that all you would do is to probably come across the very first article that discusses this issue. Over the past couple of months I've come across US State Department and Congressional videos that have said much the same where CNN and the other American propoganda outlets have been caught out using Russian air-strike pictures to back up their 'claims' that US forces are hitting ISIL sites as the US military were either unwilling or maybe unable to provide any of their own. In fact I would say that the Russian successes have been a major source of embarrassment for the US and its military who many have wondered for the past 15 months if they were in fact doing anything at all.

The recent debacle with NATO Turkey has revealed that the US were undoubtedly complicit with Turkey importing and reselling ISIL oil from Syria. It seems that now that Russia has finally intervened into Syria that this is now forcing the US to behave where their skullduggery is now being checked and questioned.

I'm sympathetic to doing more on a cheaper budget: it's my thread after all. I'm just wondering if there's any evidence behind the top few claims?

You might want to jump onto RT.com where you can easily verify their information through Google.

Cruise missiles cost $1.5million to fire, as opposed to battleship railguns that can fire dumb bits of metal with pinpoint accuracy 177km inland to utterly disintegrate any target it hits without expensive explosives: that dumb bit of metal is travelling at Mach 7 when it hits. And all this at 60 times cheaper: that's 60 times more targets that can be destroyed for the same dollar value.

As rail-guns are only a line of site weapon and where their range is still very limited, they probably only have an application with sea to air or sea to sea targets. It would be possible to use drones flying over an intended land target for tracking purposes but as these weapons can probably only penetrate through tank armour then they may be completely ineffective against a fortified position.

A couple of weeks back I was able to watch a video where four Russian cruisers were firing their 'cruise' missiles from the Caspian Sea against ISIL targets; leaving aside the impact of the explosions, just watching this firepower being launched was enough to put chills down my spine.

Now this is what I'm asking about! How much cheaper would a combination taskforce be than an overly expensive all-purpose one like the F35?

Costings . . . unfortunately this is really outside of my paygrade but if the US does have the misfortune of replacing their fighter aircraft with F-35's then this will undoubtedly leave the US unable to ward off the new Russian T-50 Fifth generation fighter, which it appears other countries will be buying as well, including our Muslim neighbour Indonesia.

I wonder if one of the military-industrial conglomerates will then see the opportunity to go to the US government saying, "Hey, we can offer you an alternative to the 100's of uselss F-35s and it will only cost you a couple of hundred Billion dollars . . . and the rest!

Love the image.

I must confess that it was not original as I found it on the RT news website.

Biblicist · Dec 29, 2015

I've been reading a number of articles about a Russian T-24 anti-warfare fighter that repeatedly engaged with the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea earlier this year. According to the articles it seemed that the T-24 was able to completely jam the Donald Cook's new AEGIS missile system. As the USS Donald Cook sort of became the USS Donald Duck, where its electronics were reportedly fried to a crisp, has anyone seen any US based articles that have debunked what I have been reading?

RDKirk · Dec 29, 2015

Biblicist said:
I've been reading a number of articles about a Russian T-24 anti-warfare fighter that repeatedly engaged with the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea earlier this year. According to the articles it seemed that the T-24 was able to completely jam the Donald Cook's new AEGIS missile system. As the USS Donald Cook sort of became the USS Donald Duck, where its electronics were reportedly fried to a crisp, has anyone seen any US based articles that have debunked what I have been reading?

What makes you think the "number of articles" you read would have any reliable information about an incident that--if true--would be highly classified?

What were the sources those articles used? People with first-hand information (i.e., American sailors of the Cook's crew or contractors)?

Biblicist · Dec 29, 2015

RDKirk said:
What makes you think the "number of articles" you read would have any reliable information about an incident that--if true--would be highly classified?

What were the sources those articles used? People with first-hand information (i.e., American sailors of the Cook's crew or contractors)?

I originally came across the material from a one or two line statement on RT.com where I then did a Google search which brought up quite a few articles which went into some detail. As the incident in question with the USS Donald "Duck" Cook occurred back in April 2014 (not 2015) then this means that even if the event occurred as has been suggested, then I would expect that the US would have at least tried to rectify the problem. But as with many of these types of "events", there can often be some truth to them but quite often they can easily take on a life of their own where truth gets mixed up with fiction.

eclipsenow · Feb 5, 2016

I might have been wrong about the F-35. It might be an OK plane. Here's a video defending it from the usual attacks (EG: It's not a fighter or bomber, what is it? Why is it so expensive? Isn't it better to have 2 task-dedicated planes like a fighter and a bomber than squish it all into the one plane, etc). Avoid the first 34 minute history of the F-35 as it is quite technical and dull, but it really kicks off at 34 minutes with the summary, and then it gets into the debate.

supersoldier71 · Feb 14, 2016

I am a Professional Soldier in the US Army and I have NO insider knowledge of the F-35 or its capabilities. I am, however, familiar with some of the "drama" that has circulated around the the program in that it very much reminds me of what went on before the Bradley IFV was procured. That was a positive outcome, in the the "Brad" does what it's supposed to better than anybody else's version of the same concept.

The F35 was always a bit of a risk though, because it tries to do a LOT of different, sometimes opposing missions, with one airframe. It also represents a departure in tactical doctrine, in that it cedes maneuverability in Air Combat Maneuvers in favor of stand-off lethality. What concerns me are the political implications: the F-14 also had a significant advantage in terms of stand-off capability due to its AWG-9 (I think) radar and AIM-54 Phoenix long-range Air-to-Air missile, but that cape was mostly ignored because to ensure Positive Identification (PID) of a target, one had to close to visual range, which meant AIM-9 Sidewinders or AIM-7 Sparrows.

Has the hardware progressed such that naturally risk-averse leaders are now willing to allow pilots to engage Beyond Visual Range (BVR)? Maybe, maybe not, but I'll tell you, the rate of change for people and their thought processes is much slower than that of military hardware.

PS

Rotary-wing CAS is usually easier to get for us guys on the ground, and if the mission warrants it, will be dedicated for the duration of a mission, unlike fixed wing, USAF assets, who may be supporting a half-dozen missions at one time.

RDKirk · Feb 16, 2016

supersoldier71 said:
What concerns me are the political implications: the F-14 also had a significant advantage in terms of stand-off capability due to its AWG-9 (I think) radar and AIM-54 Phoenix long-range Air-to-Air missile, but that cape was mostly ignored because to ensure Positive Identification (PID) of a target, one had to close to visual range, which meant AIM-9 Sidewinders or AIM-7 Sparrows.

Has the hardware progressed such that naturally risk-averse leaders are now willing to allow pilots to engage Beyond Visual Range (BVR)? Maybe, maybe not, but I'll tell you, the rate of change for people and their thought processes is much slower than that of military hardware.

That was primarily a matter of mission, not doctrine. Certain joint and combined mission profiles made BVR risky. But when they could be sure they were the only good guys in the air, BVR was good to go. That was especially true in the 80s, when the services really got serious about joint operations (prior to DESERT ONE--the debacle in Iran--they were only paying lip service to "jointness"). Going into the 90s, joint operations became solid enough to make BVR more viable...but the Gulf War was still too many friendlies in too little airspace to risk it much.

supersoldier71 · Feb 17, 2016

RDKirk said:
That was primarily a matter of mission, not doctrine. Certain joint and combined mission profiles made BVR risky. But when they could be sure they were the only good guys in the air, BVR was good to go. That was especially true in the 80s, when the services really got serious about joint operations (prior to DESERT ONE--the debacle in Iran--they were only paying lip service to "jointness"). Going into the 90s, joint operations became solid enough to make BVR more viable...but the Gulf War was still too many friendlies in too little airspace to risk it much.

That makes sense and I'll be the first to admit that although I am an amateur military historian, especially regarding tactics and techniques, I didn't know that.

Of course, all of that depends on the F-35 being able to do what it's supposed to. If it can detect, ID, target and engage as it's supposed to, it'll be a win.

If not, it'll be an extraordinarily expensive...something....they'll find a mission for it, they just won't procure many, and we'll either have to re-start F22 (which I don't think is even possible!), extend the service lives of the existing platforms (keep the A-10!!!) longer than expected...

...and then spend another trillion dollars developing the F-whatever.

I am familiar with the Goldwater-Nichols Reform Act, and have done a small amount of study on Operation Eagle Claw and the changes that came across the DoD because of it. In fact, how my day-to-day work breaks down is a direct result of how certain elements within the DoD are task-organized currently as compared to prior to Goldwater-Nichols.

However, back to the original premise, procurement is still as jacked up as it's ever been.

Unless the F-35 does what they say it can do.

eclipsenow · Feb 17, 2016

Check the Youtube I shared above. I was a sceptic, but they've won me over.

eclipsenow · Feb 19, 2016

Next Big Future has an interesting article about networking F-35's with good old fashioned bombers. So if people ask "Why not build a special purpose fighter *and* have a special purpose bomber?" you can now reply that they're *already* working on networking F-35's as target identification fighters for B52's or B1's to drop serious payload. In other words, the fighter can fight and target enemy planes, and acts as a fighter should, but also with the added advantage of the super-bombers travelling along behind acting as a *cheap* backup missile magazine to take out any targets the fighters identify.

The USA has grounded its entire fleet of F-35 fighter jets

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Full Gospel believer

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Full Gospel believer

Senior Member

MAD Bible Believer

Well-Known Member

Full Gospel believer

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Well-Known Member

Full Gospel believer

Full Gospel believer

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Full Gospel believer

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Sinner, saved by Grace

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Sinner, saved by Grace

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Similar threads