On the F-35 - and its many problems

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

With regards to the F-15's and F-16s, I'm quite certain they can all be configured to use a wide variety of munitions, if you know what I mean.

No doubt they can carry nukes, but whether they can deliver them in a heavily radar-saturated environment - that is something else. The Germans no longer trust the Tornado can do that (and its maintenance by now is beocming a financial and organisational nightmare), and the Tornado specialised in extreme low flying attack profiles, thats what it was originally made for. So low that the British lost two or three of them in low flight missions in Kuwait without enemy effect on them, AFAIR.
The F-35 however claims to be able to handle enemy radar, kind of.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

I generally agree but the Tornado or at last one of its types can carry the 20 US-made B61 nuclear bombs stockpiled in Germany as part of NATO nuclear sharing. Maybe there are newer bombs needing other racks and hardpoints and the Tornado cannot be used for them? The Eurofighter is not ready for this, yes.

Its about the bombs the US has stored in Germany, the B61 block 3 and 4. 15 to 20 are estimated to be still stored here. Two years ago I think I red the US planned to modernise them or replace them with newer stuff. I dont know what came of that.

Russia has a masisve advanatge at tactical nukes, and they are already stationed in forward attack positions, namely Kaliningrad. The West has comporably little numbers of equal-sized weapons ready to retaliate on the battlefield, and would need to fall back to strategic nukes earlier, therefore. Thus, Berlin can be ashered by the Russians with around 4 minutes prewarning time. If they use their hypersonic missiles with a nuclear warhead - even less. In plain German that means: no warning time of practical use at all.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Corrected this a bit

Danke

[Catfish]

You're welcome

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Have I remembered wrong all these year-'cause this fighter jet became one of US most reliable fighter jet. in the decades that followed-So I wonder if it wasn't the F-15 Eagle after all.

Sad is that I don't have this book anymore Got it as a present from my parents.

Markus

The F-14 was a great aircraft once it was re-engined with the General Electric Engines. unfortunately, with the engine nacelles spaced as far apart as they were and with the old Pratt and Whitney Engines, if airflow was disrupted to one engine and it stalled, It could throw the aircraft into a flat spin. The F-14 had a range no other fighter aircraft could match including the F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets. To use F-18's close to a contested area means having tanker support close which exposes the tankers to enemy fire.

The fire control suite was state of the art for it's time as well. Unfortunately, the AIM-54 Phoenix air to air missiles the F-14 carried had an inflated reputation, as I understand it. The F-14 was a robust aircraft but was said to need 6 hours maintenance for every hour flown.

The Swedish Saab Drakken, Viggen and now the JAS 39 Gripen were all said to be unique and capable aircraft, especially the Viggen with it's double Delta Wings. The Swedes were certainly thinking " out of the box " with these aircraft.
The Swedes really know how to engineer an aircraft.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

The F-14 was a great aircraft once it was re-engined with the General Electric Engines. unfortunately, with the engine nacelles spaced as far apart as they were, if airflow was disrupted to one engine and it stalled, It could throw the aircraft into a flat spin. The F-14 had a range no other fighter aircraft could match including the F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets. To use F-18's close to a contested means having tanker support close which exposes the tankers to enemy fire.

The fire control suite was state of the art for it's time as well. Unfortunately, the AIM-54 Phoenix air to air missiles the F-14 carried had an inflated reputation, as I understand it. The F-14 was a robust aircraft but was said to need 6 hours maintenance for every hour flown.

The Swedish Saab Drakken, Viggen and now the JAS 39 Gripen were all said to be unique and capable aircraft, especially the Viggen with it's double Delta Wings. The Swedes were certainly thinking " out of the box " with these aircraft.
The Swedes really know how to engineer an aircraft.

Oh remember when I was a young lad around 12-14 years old Then my biggest dream was to be a fighter pilot and fly the JA 37 Viggen. When I was around 20 My doctor said I did not have the body for it.
Since then my biggest dream was and still are-To become a doctor-Lung and heart doctor.

This is not some kind of military secret-The engine in the JAS 39 Gripen is so build it would take 4 soldiers around 30 minutes to take it out and replace it-Same with weapons around 20-30 minutes to rearm the jet.

Markus

[Skybird]

I laway shad a soft spot for the Gripen. When the design showed up, it was maybe the most modern plane of its kind in the world, imo. For some time its cockpit was at least en par, if not superior, to that of the F-16C from that time in the 80s. Gripen still holds its ground today, though now showing age.



Sweden has designed quite some outstandingly good platforms in service: IFVs, submarines, stealthed warships, and the fighters. Some very good stuff there.