Selfies Meh ..... But this one

[ronh]

Thought this was cool.

Growler Selfie


edit:
too bad as the original photo was much bigger.

 

[=rk=]

Meanwhile the Marine's are recommissioning old f-18's because of the F-35 delay. "The first Aussie to fire a HARM," has a kind of poignancy to it...

 

[pinkjr]

Meanwhile the F-35A has been declared operational

 

[=rk=]

Meanwhile the F-35A has been declared operational

...and the one the Marine Corps is intended to use, the one with all the fans and doohickeys?

 

[robystar]

Inside info: it is burning up fuel very fast. Too fast!!!
Operational, sure. Combat ready, definitely. But both within a 500 mile radius.
The farmer next to the airport will not hear it anymore deafened as he is by the first time it flew over.
And the farmer further away, he is lucky, because by the time it gets there (if it does?), it will have to turn around at low speed because it is out of fuel.
I guess it needs a P3Dv.4 instead of the v2.5 for the F-35A we have been testing over here.
Maybe I should take a look in the aircraft.cfg and the .air file to see if I can be of some help to Lockheed and the USAF.

 

[n4gix]

Inside info: it is burning up fuel very fast. Too fast!!!
Operational, sure. Combat ready, definitely. But both within a 500 mile radius.

That makes this statement very suspect:

The fighter probably won’t deploy to the Middle East to fight the Islamic State group any earlier than 2017, he said, but if a combatant commander asked for the capability, “I’d send them down in a heartbeat because they’re very, very good.”

How would they get them there? Ship them via Amazon's new 767-300?

 

[ronh]

Well ......... F-35A combat ready for the US air force

I guess it needs a P3Dv.4 instead of the v2.5 for the F-35A we have been testing over here.
Maybe I should take a look in the aircraft.cfg and the .air file to see if I can be of some help to Lockheed and the USAF.

I agree an update to 64 bits should fix everything .... like you hear on the Flight Sim forums

 

[Heretic]

No selfies like space selfies:

Honorary mention:

 

[pinkjr]

...and the one the Marine Corps is intended to use, the one with all the fans and doohickeys?

F-35B became operational last year. Marines are flying the living crap out of it!

 

[pinkjr]

Theres range and then there's combat range. You can get to altitude and cruise 1000miles+ on an A or C model, a B is slightly less because the lift fan lies where the F2 tank normally is.

Combat radius is low altitude, with the occasional AB run, and external loads. Yes, that one will eat your normal range pretty quickly......but still getting 500 miles is plenty.

 

[n4gix]

It's a bit further than even 1,000 nm to the Mideast theater of operations. That means a lot of inflight refueling...

 

[hairyspin]

One of the Bs flew the Pond to the UK recently, but the number of inflight refuellings on the way wasn't mentioned.

 

[=rk=]

Inside info: it is burning up fuel very fast. Too fast!!!

I remember reading about the VTOL Yak-38 Forger and aircrews joked about how it had sufficient reserves to adequately defend the forward mast.

It's a bit further that even 1,000 nm to the Mideast theater of operations. That means a lot of inflight refueling...

Isn't that what Ali Al Salam and Ahmed Al Jabar airbases are for? Check the drag strip style ready-up area and those concrete fortress/hangars, every one of them pierced by a PGM while Saddam temporarily occupied them.

 

[Heretic]

Combat radius is low altitude, with the occasional AB run, and external loads. Yes, that one will eat your normal range pretty quickly......but still getting 500 miles is plenty.

I think you can get around 250 to 300 miles out of a F-16 with a combat load (4 x A/A missiles, 2 x Wing Tank, the rest A/G stores), so anything more with a similar load is an improvement.

 

[robystar]

No weaponry, high altitude, leisure speed: ~465 Gallons/min = ~ 1080 nm.

 

[JohnC1]

Since we are talking about useful combat range I'm told by F16 pilots here that afterburner takeoffs almost every mid-morning are a "safety" issue.. are they blowing smoke (at me?).

 

[Paul Domingue]

Since we are talking about useful combat range I'm told by F16 pilots here that afterburner takeoffs almost every mid-morning are a "safety" issue.. are they blowing smoke (at me?).

I can't say much about F-16s but I've watched enough F-18s take off using after burners from conventional runways, obviously carrier launches would require it and it may be SOP.

 

[F747fly]

No weaponry, high altitude, leisure speed: ~465 Gallons/min = ~ 1080 nm.

F-35 doesn't really go beyond "leisure speed" 1200 mp/h (mach 1.61) seems like a rather slow speed for a jetfighter to me anyway, concidering it's supposed to replace F-16s which flies mach 2. Combat range seems slightly improved over the F-16, though competing aircraft, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault's Rafale beet it by a long shot. This is rather strange since it is supposed to be a strike fighter (hi-lo-hi missions should belong to it's sweetspot and I'm doubtful it does).
Let it be said btw I'm not a fan of the F-35 anyways, so I might be too negative here, but I think other, more suitable aircraft didn't get a fair chance in the aircrafy selection process of the RNLAF

 

[Heretic]

Better beyond visual range weaponry does not require high dash speeds anymore. High performance and aerodynamics also do not mix well, espeically if you try to keep things as cheap as possible to make the aircraft attractive to allied customers (quite ironic, eh?).

The F-16 was supposed to be a cheap fighter that could hold its own in air combat (post-Vietnam!), yet be a useful bomb truck.

 

[F747fly]

Better beyond visual range weaponry does not require high dash speeds anymore.

Do you remember the MiG-21 and Phantom II? Thought was no guns would be needed to engage the enemy and what did true combat teach? Guns were once again needed in Vietnam, initially as gun pods and later (atleast on the MiG-21) feautured canons as standard armament again... I doubt this will be any different to be honest, I don't think the F-35 can simply fly like a "flying fortress" using it's non-visual weapons only, it will have to use it's visual weapons, history teaches us!

quite ironic, eh?

Quite so, try to make a "cheap fighter" and make it one of the most expensive ones...
F-16 and F-5 were successful in being "cheap fighters" and this made them successful and well-sold. The F-35 is, shall I say, quite a bit less cost-effective....

The F-16 was supposed to be a cheap fighter that could hold its own in air combat (post-Vietnam!), yet be a useful bomb truck.

And exactly that makes it so usefull, again a point on which I'm skeptical the F-35 will be just as good...

Not convinced about the Lightning II I'm afraid.