Lightning II
BV -
those in the know are not about to start crowing
"Those in the know" have been crowing for decades.
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2008...raight-on-F-35
"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again," said Burbage.
By the way, it was also being claimed, at the time, that the jet would cost less to maintain than an F-16. How's that working out?
It's not very surprising that there are a few credibility issues, or that "wow this thing is a superwarwinninggamechanger but if I told you I'd have to use a worn-out cliche from a 1980s movie about beach volleyball" doesn't work on everybody.
And, for the record, here is the schedule that was in effect at the time:
those in the know are not about to start crowing
"Those in the know" have been crowing for decades.
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2008...raight-on-F-35
"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again," said Burbage.
By the way, it was also being claimed, at the time, that the jet would cost less to maintain than an F-16. How's that working out?
It's not very surprising that there are a few credibility issues, or that "wow this thing is a superwarwinninggamechanger but if I told you I'd have to use a worn-out cliche from a 1980s movie about beach volleyball" doesn't work on everybody.
And, for the record, here is the schedule that was in effect at the time:
Last edited by LowObservable; 4th Aug 2018 at 23:06.
One thing I’m not clear on is the planned
role for the F35 in RAF service, if it’s to be used primarily as a strike aircraft with the Typhoon taking care of the air to air mission that seems like a fairly potent combination
Another question, as far as the F35 is concerned what’s the point of stealth when you can hear it over the horizon ? you don’t need a radar return with this incredibly loud machine, just a pair of ears
role for the F35 in RAF service, if it’s to be used primarily as a strike aircraft with the Typhoon taking care of the air to air mission that seems like a fairly potent combination
Another question, as far as the F35 is concerned what’s the point of stealth when you can hear it over the horizon ? you don’t need a radar return with this incredibly loud machine, just a pair of ears
Stilton
I also understand it is an incredibly noisy aircraft. In the hover.
Unless the Navy start to write the tactics I don’t believe it will hover to war and back.
BV
PS. I feel it only fair to point out, as always, that this is meant as banter.
Unless the Navy start to write the tactics I don’t believe it will hover to war and back.
BV
PS. I feel it only fair to point out, as always, that this is meant as banter.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It is, of course, for the RAF, the Lightning III, after the P-38 and EE Lightning.
The RAF ordered 143 P-38s, almost exactly the same as the n7mbrr if F-35Bs originally expected to be ordered. We didn’t receive all of those either.......
Lightning I for RAF
The RAF ordered 143 P-38s, almost exactly the same as the n7mbrr if F-35Bs originally expected to be ordered. We didn’t receive all of those either.......
Lightning I for RAF
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Now a Chinook is something else again you FEEL it before you hear it (if like me you are deaf).
Time will tell. I remember my early days on Jaguar and the many NAVWASS dumps we had. But we had so many we had no room to put them all on the line. Those were the days. The days when our strike force was Jaguar, Tornado, Buccaneer, Harrier, Vulcan. And those were just the bombers. Just hope that reliability is so good that pilot hours are not compromised below the NATO min. We will see. It all depends on what the highly paid help are willing to pay for.
"our strike force was Jaguar, Tornado, Buccaneer, Harrier, Vulcan.:"
Harrier was never "strike" in those days. But now, with the dumbing down of definitions (e.g. "Drone"," Aerostat" etc.) ....................
Harrier was never "strike" in those days. But now, with the dumbing down of definitions (e.g. "Drone"," Aerostat" etc.) ....................
I think the NATO minimum is probably out the window now. Fighter aircraft have moved a long way in the last 30 years and modern flight systems takes a lot of the sting out of flying highly manoeuvrable aircraft. I'm not suggesting for a second that there should be no minimum flying hours, but I suspect it should now sit significantly lower than it did in the 80/90's. Synthetic training aids have also come on in leaps and bounds and from my experience they can even now surpass flying the actual aircraft in certain circumstances.
Bit of Trivia I guess.....
"It says that Britain ordered 250 aircraft in May 1940 and took over the French contract but only three were delivered. It also says that the Americans took over the contracts of which the first 143 were completed. The P-332 was a reduced standard aircraft and used as fighter trainers."
No Turbo/Supercharger on them due to export restrictions by the US Government.
(Nicked from another Forum) not prune origin.
"It says that Britain ordered 250 aircraft in May 1940 and took over the French contract but only three were delivered. It also says that the Americans took over the contracts of which the first 143 were completed. The P-332 was a reduced standard aircraft and used as fighter trainers."
No Turbo/Supercharger on them due to export restrictions by the US Government.
(Nicked from another Forum) not prune origin.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of Trivia I guess.....
"It says that Britain ordered 250 aircraft in May 1940 and took over the French contract but only three were delivered. It also says that the Americans took over the contracts of which the first 143 were completed. The P-332 was a reduced standard aircraft and used as fighter trainers."
No Turbo/Supercharger on them due to export restrictions by the US Government.
(Nicked from another Forum) not prune origin.
"It says that Britain ordered 250 aircraft in May 1940 and took over the French contract but only three were delivered. It also says that the Americans took over the contracts of which the first 143 were completed. The P-332 was a reduced standard aircraft and used as fighter trainers."
No Turbo/Supercharger on them due to export restrictions by the US Government.
(Nicked from another Forum) not prune origin.
The original order had no turbo superchargers as the French wanted commonality between the engines in their P40s and Lightnings (there was no restriction - at the same time Boeing was delivering B17s to the RAF with turbos. The RAF changed the later part of the French order to aircraft with the supercharger.
*The reason for the rejection is unclear, beyond the fact that performance wasn't that great at altitude - but the RAF knew this and knew the P-38E/F withsupercharger was coming soon. The thought is that the real reaosn was that the RAF diddn't need the aircraft, and the Uk was rapidly running out of cash to pay for them.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the jury is still out on the Lightning II. I also struggle with the precise role it will fill, in current 'B' form anyway. It's obviously not optmised for AD, but neither does it appear to be a deep strike platform, so what exactly is it? Closest I can think of is kind of much more technologcally advanced Harrier or Jaguar, i.e. a stealthy, super sensor fused but relatively short legged CAS / light strike jet?
I dont doubt it will give us a generational shift in the sensor space and network enabled warfare and all that good stuff, but share others concerns about range, complexity/serviceability and versatility.
I've lost track of how many 'B' we have actually firmly ordered, but I assume we are playing a bit of a waiting game to see how much per unit costs stabilise at, prior to making any decision of whether we continue all 'B' or order some 'A' models as well?
If I was a betting man I'd say the second carrier will get dumped pretty quickly and we'll end up with a mixed fleet of 75-100 A/B in the longer term.
I dont doubt it will give us a generational shift in the sensor space and network enabled warfare and all that good stuff, but share others concerns about range, complexity/serviceability and versatility.
I've lost track of how many 'B' we have actually firmly ordered, but I assume we are playing a bit of a waiting game to see how much per unit costs stabilise at, prior to making any decision of whether we continue all 'B' or order some 'A' models as well?
If I was a betting man I'd say the second carrier will get dumped pretty quickly and we'll end up with a mixed fleet of 75-100 A/B in the longer term.
Tremblers;
Time for folks to get used to the fact that the days of "The Fighter Pilot" are numbered ., as we head towards the era of the (Terminator) "Machines" . I scratch my head when I read all the talk about "manoeuvrability" ; Dogfighting is (was) fun , but not sure the powers that be will encourage risking $100 million worth of assets . in a " turning, burning" encounter , swivel nozzles , (sorry -lift fans ) or not . Who / what exactly are we planning to engage in close air combat ?
Stilton--
Similar argument against low level strike ; History has proven many times in many theatres that a few well aimed ( or not even aimed at all ) primitive rounds from the ground can do a lot of damage to infinitely more expensive airborne assets . A book came out some years ago--" The Limits of Air Power " re Vietnam ; makes sobering reading . Sadly , the Tornado force learnt that lesson in Iraq 1.
Now you may argue that modern technology rules this out , that you can launch/strike BVR . Fair enough , but as we all know , what manufacturers claim can often be a far cry from what the average chap sees on the front line . Someone earlier talked about the NAVWASS dumps on the Jaguar . From my time on the jet , ( lovely aircraft , so long as you did not have to load stuff on it and try to go to war...) the preferred option when things got a bit hectic was to use good old CCIP and the mark one eyeball .
Yes, I know , that was from the dark ages compared to the reliabiilty / accuracy stage of today's machines . Still a pretty high price though going into Lockheed-Martin coffers .
Sharpend--
Indeed ..
To prove your point m0nkfish, A recent Typhoon Display Pilot went through the entire OCU course solely in the sim.
Stilton--
One thing I’m not clear on is the planned
role for the F35 in RAF service, if it’s to be used primarily as a strike aircraft with the Typhoon taking care of the air to air mission that seems like a fairly potent combination
role for the F35 in RAF service, if it’s to be used primarily as a strike aircraft with the Typhoon taking care of the air to air mission that seems like a fairly potent combination
Now you may argue that modern technology rules this out , that you can launch/strike BVR . Fair enough , but as we all know , what manufacturers claim can often be a far cry from what the average chap sees on the front line . Someone earlier talked about the NAVWASS dumps on the Jaguar . From my time on the jet , ( lovely aircraft , so long as you did not have to load stuff on it and try to go to war...) the preferred option when things got a bit hectic was to use good old CCIP and the mark one eyeball .
Yes, I know , that was from the dark ages compared to the reliabiilty / accuracy stage of today's machines . Still a pretty high price though going into Lockheed-Martin coffers .
Sharpend--
But Frostchamber, I am readily prepared to accept that I know nothing more than I have read, so Lightning II may be a good aeroplane. But it should be for the price. I only hope that this government provides enough spares, manpower and facilities for it. Remember, 1 F35 = 1000 Mosquitos 
Indeed ..
Strike Range
I suspect that the need for decent legs on a strike aircraft went out the window when the F111 went out of service. That thing could fly a very long way, if memory serves.
Stealth serves a number of useful purposes, one of which is strategic. It makes the other side, whomsoever they may turn out to be, slightly wary of what they're up against. So as long as they have a sufficiently able intel / threat assessment organisation they might chicken out before committing themselves in too public a way to a hot war. Gulf War 1 showed how much trouble you can get into if you have low chances of shooting the other guy's aircraft / cruise missiles down.
The worry these days is that they might just not give a damn about the info they're being fed by their intel chaps and do it anyway.
Stealth serves a number of useful purposes, one of which is strategic. It makes the other side, whomsoever they may turn out to be, slightly wary of what they're up against. So as long as they have a sufficiently able intel / threat assessment organisation they might chicken out before committing themselves in too public a way to a hot war. Gulf War 1 showed how much trouble you can get into if you have low chances of shooting the other guy's aircraft / cruise missiles down.
The worry these days is that they might just not give a damn about the info they're being fed by their intel chaps and do it anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In year 2000, a CSIRO scientist in Oz told me that, in his (well-regarded) opinion, stealth was a decaying asset. I wonder if this has been borne out to any degree? Has technology, radar or whatever, been developed whereby his comments were valid?
FB
Thread Starter
I think the NATO minimum is probably out the window now. Fighter aircraft have moved a long way in the last 30 years and modern flight systems takes a lot of the sting out of flying highly manoeuvrable aircraft. I'm not suggesting for a second that there should be no minimum flying hours, but I suspect it should now sit significantly lower than it did in the 80/90's. Synthetic training aids have also come on in leaps and bounds and from my experience they can even now surpass flying the actual aircraft in certain circumstances.