|
|
Post by boxcar on Oct 17, 2012 16:41:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Oct 17, 2012 17:09:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Oct 17, 2012 20:44:44 GMT -5
Awesome! I didn't know the F-35 could hover.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Oct 18, 2012 10:39:44 GMT -5
It seems we will no longer need those long aircraft carriers.
It seems that lid on the top behind the cockpit leads to an air duct for the hover mode.
buy yours today while the supply lasts. going for only 130 million a copy.
|
|
|
|
Post by griffin on Oct 22, 2012 18:09:20 GMT -5
Awesome! I didn't know the F-35 could hover. There are 3 variants. The 'A' is the package designed for traditional Air Force requirements. 'B' is the VTOL version and 'C' is the larger longer range version for the Navy. I was disappointed when Canada opted for the A instead of B version. For our needs and with the added capability of takikng off and landing almost limitless, it would, IMHO, have been the better selection if we went the route of the F-35 instead of buying 'off the shelf' Super Hornets. |
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Oct 22, 2012 18:24:24 GMT -5
Well, with the problems we're facing, I think any choice would have been questionable - especially in light of looming cutbacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 20, 2012 2:37:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by griffin on Dec 21, 2012 18:52:30 GMT -5
Well, with the problems we're facing, I think any choice would have been questionable - especially in light of looming cutbacks. We have to replace the F-18A Hornets. The have passed their 30-year mark and need to be replaced, if for no other reason then maintenance costs will continue to rise, while the planes get outpaced by new developments. Considering the overseas combat our Hornets have undertaken since 1980, this has been primarily in the realm of close air support of our and allied troops, with the exceptontion of the first Gulf War when they gave protection to our ships and that of our allies. It was unacceptabe that we didn't have combat aircraft in Afghanistan supporting our troops, with deadly consequences for our soldiers on too many occassions! At home, the Hornets have made interceptions of Russian aircraft in the Arctic and done some interceptions of civil aircraft. However, on too many occassions on the west coast, US and not Cdn. aircraft had to perform the role of intercepting and escorting airliners that triggered emergency signals, or other issues where we needed an interception. This is due to the extremely poor coverage we have to lack of base and fighter aircraft. This issue is not new and I covered it my book Canada Under Attack back in November 2005. Due to these numerically inferior numbers we have, I moved away from the F-35 that would have perpetuated the status quo and in time make it worse. We originally had about 125 Hornets, but due to age, etc. our operational F-18's are half of what they originally were. |
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Dec 21, 2012 20:16:00 GMT -5
I read something about how the Conservative government is not going to buy refueling tankers for the F-35's or the next-generation aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejay77 on Dec 23, 2012 4:48:31 GMT -5
The British Harrier was the granddaddy of the successful STOL/VTOL aircraft. (Many have been planned.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_HarrierOne Finnish active duty officer told me that the unusual engine construction severely diminishes the weapons load that the British Harrier can carry. So they (evidently) have solved the problem in the F-35 construction. No questions from my part, but bravo! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2012 5:24:32 GMT -5
Awesome! I didn't know the F-35 could hover. Swampy one version has improved Harrier UK jump jet technology, US Marines used Harrier. Oops, sorry Bluejay |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2012 5:28:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejay77 on Dec 23, 2012 7:26:52 GMT -5
Awesome! I didn't know the F-35 could hover. Swampy one version has improved Harrier UK jump jet technology, US Marines used Harrier. Oops, sorry Bluejay It is quite possible that the officer that I mentioned did not really know what he was talking about. Of course you may correct what I say. |
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 23, 2012 16:19:41 GMT -5
>One Finnish active duty officer told me that the unusual engine construction severely diminishes the weapons load that the British Harrier can carry.
So they (evidently) have solved the problem in the F-35 construction. No questions from my part, but bravo!<
F-35 specs:
Total thrust 60k lb.
Max Fuel 18k lb
Max Pay Load 15k lb
Empty weight 27k lb
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejay77 on Dec 23, 2012 21:37:14 GMT -5
>One Finnish active duty officer told me that the unusual engine construction severely diminishes the weapons load that the British Harrier can carry. So they (evidently) have solved the problem in the F-35 construction. No questions from my part, but bravo!< F-35 specs: Total thrust 60k lb. Max Fuel 18k lb Max Pay Load 15k lb Empty weight 27k lb Harrier: Empty weight 13,535 lb. Max. takeoff weight 25,200 lb. |
|
