Comments on: Failing Parts Slow F-35B Tests

By: Mike from Kanada

Mike from Kanada — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:52:54 +0000

We should purchase some Saab Gripen NG jets! They are considered the best jets for the buck!

By: anonimous

anonimous — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 02:13:30 +0000

yes,people like me

By: O. Leo Leahy

O. Leo Leahy — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:25:19 +0000

In other words, people just like yourself?

By: anonimous

anonimous — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 05:18:55 +0000

People that have not idea and doesn’t make sense are my problem

By: anonimous

anonimous — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 05:17:27 +0000

you have any idea what are you talking about???

By: Jay Citizen

Jay Citizen — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 02:38:09 +0000

An airship is a right smart idea! It makes a good observation platform — is cheap — you can hang UAVs all over it; and save a butt load of fuel to boot! They can stay on station for months with no resupply, and if they get destroyed by hurricane or attack. The UAVs can leave like a bunch of angry wasps, and the NAVY and the tax payers are not out of a lot of dollars!

Makes sense to me!!

By: SillyBosomhead

SillyBosomhead — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:52:54 +0000

anonimous? You appear to be an overbearing, unhumorous, self-important T-BONK! What is your problem anyways?

By: anonimous

anonimous — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 01:24:41 +0000

I think you forget your meds

By: SillyBosomhead

SillyBosomhead — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:55:07 +0000

Does anyone out there think it would be possible to “re-start” the F-8 Crusader production line? Um, I think Vought still is in the warplane making business?

By: CharlesHouston

CharlesHouston — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:55:40 +0000

part 2
The F-4 was originally a Navy aircraft but is still a very capable aircraft today, the Air Force bought a lot of them. That is a rare example of an aircraft that met a lot of the needs of both the AF and Navy. Egypt may still be flying some of them. Many days, I wish we were still flying the E/F models since they could handle many missions (Wild Weasel for instance) that otherwise are given to the F-16 — with only one crew member and less ability to carry HARMs.

Anyway this was a fun excursion into history mostly since no one has any idea what you meant by your reply.

By: CharlesHouston

CharlesHouston — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:55:27 +0000

Density — at least you type well.

The NA-73X was the initial version of the P-51 Mustang, the Mustang was ordered by England. It was referred to as a fighter bomber but they were designed as interceptors to counter the German fighters that England was seeing overhead. It was designed as a counterpart to the Supermarine Spitfire, which was very expensive to produce and maintain. Sure is beautiful, however.

There is nothing inherently wrong with interservice development except that it normally delivers aircraft that are barely usable for any service involved! The Navy needs heavy landing gear for use on carriers, and wants folding wings for storage. The Air Force has the advantage of big bases and does not care to trade off performance for durable landing gear. Now, the F-111 is still being used by Australia so it did something right.

The F-15 A/B evolved into the F-15E with the addition of a “bolt on pod or two” all right — one of the pods carries the WSO I guess. And lots of additional radars, etc. You can drop bombs from the C/D models but the E is the real bomber.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:27:57 +0000

Ha. According to some people in this debate, that’s exactly the case!

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:27:05 +0000

The original model of the P-51 was a ground-attack aircraft. And forty years later the F-15 went from fighter to bomber with only some bolt-on pods. And, of course, there’s the multi-service multi-mission F-4.

The F-111 was a casualty of McNamara’s idiot ideas about program management; there’s nothing inherently wrong with multi-service development.

Indeed, the F-35 program is an example of people suggesting that “learning from history” means “doing things exactly like we did before”. The F136 thing is the same way.

By: sferrin

sferrin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:45:39 +0000

You need to work on your math.

By: sferrin

sferrin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:45:04 +0000

WTH? You want to bring back that Gold Plated Crusader? That’s Gucci thinking. You need to reach back to the P-38 for REAL value (oh wait, that was expensive in it’s day too.)

By: sferrin

sferrin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:43:50 +0000

Thanks, I just about fell out of my damn chair to hear you say that. Maybe there’s hope afterall ;-)

By: sferrin

sferrin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:42:39 +0000

Failing parts? The hell you say. NO new aircraft has EVER had parts fail during initial development. /sarcasm

By: SillyBosomhead

SillyBosomhead — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:57:03 +0000

Well everyone? Tell me, what’s so wrong with bringing back the F-8 Crusader? That was an AWESOME platform; not a lot of that sissy “fly=by-wire” stuff in THAT airplane! Another thing too — you all seen the recent news about the navy having an “Airship” again, related to the ongoing gulf oil disaster? Whoaa YEAH! The navy made a HUGE mistake in terminating their “Zeppelin squadrons back in the early 60s. Damned fixed-wing weenie aviator admirals screwed that up for us.

By: @E_L_P

@E_L_P — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:55:18 +0000

I really don’t have too much of a problem with the main topic of the article. At least they are flying the aircraft and learning somethings, X, Y, and/or Z part wears at a certain rate. That is normal to learn in a flight test program as long as it isn’t something like a major design flaw that could have been knocked out early. My main problem has always been with the spin-doctors.

By: timmyaki

timmyaki — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:21:14 +0000

–CANT make them alone