F-35 Landing Gear Collapses after landing

[Yaseen1]

russia develop weapons on their own unlike india which buys jets from foreign countries ,also russia has huge oil reserves so defense budget in u.s dollars not matters much for them

Do you have Source of that
India Actively involved Pakistan
There CAP hour are larger

USAF Air-force budget 291 Billion $

Russia 23 billion $ With Such large Force of Aircraft

IAF has 28 billion $

Russian Economy Is Not allowed them Such large flying hours

 

[Secularindian]

russia develop weapons on their own unlike india which buys jets from foreign countries ,also russia has huge oil reserves so defense budget in u.s dollars not matters much for them

This this the most Stupidest thing i heard You have Oil-serves So you don't need To bear Weapon Operating cost

USA biggest Producer of OIL It Spends Huge On Operational cost
And LCC of its budget On this

Russian Economy is in doldrums after Sanctions No one buys Russian oils

Russia has huge USSR Legacy Infrastructure With Low budget

They Cannot afford Spending Like US And china

That is Why they hardly ordered Su-57

There Economy dependent Exports

Most Of there Weapons are USSR Era The Spend huge cost Alone To manage there Large Nuclear Stocks

That is Why they are Spending Money on CBG or Nuclear SSN to power projection

 

[Yaseen1]

russia labor cost are much lower than u.s and when they use domestic labor and parts for building and maintenance of weapons like fighter jets they can use their own currency for that purpose without need of dollars,also they not require importing fuel for their fighter jets like india as they have their own oil otherwise russia would not be able to sustain air strikes in Syria for more than half decade

This this the most Stupidest thing i heard You have Oil-serves So you don't need To bear Weapon Operating cost

USA biggest Producer of OIL It Spends Huge On Operational cost
And LCC of its budget On this

Russian Economy is in doldrums after Sanctions No one buys Russian oils

Russia has huge USSR Legacy Infrastructure With Low budget

They Cannot afford Spending Like US And china

That is Why they hardly ordered Su-57

There Economy dependent Exports

Most Of there Weapons are USSR Era The Spend huge cost Alone To manage there Large Nuclear Stocks

That is Why they are Spending Money on CBG or Nuclear SSN to power projection

 

[LeGenD]

F-35 is fat, really fat. Can NOT do supersonic cruise. Maneuverability is very bad, much worse than F-16. Flight envelope is bad.

WE do not know for sure if these charts are really true.

Listen to the pilots instead who have experience with different combat aircraft including F-35 variants: https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/

Super-maneuverability is 4th generation philosophy. F-35 represent a new combat philosophy in comparison - a significant leap from 4th generation at that.

Artificial intelligence and vastly superior situational awareness is going to decide the outcome in futuristic battles. F-35 variants simply need sufficient maneuverability in the mix which they already have.

Lockheed Martin have developed all types of aircraft. They know what they are doing.

 

[Yaseen1]

they have capability for better quality of jets manufacturing but there is a risk that the manner they are mass producing f35 in haste for gaining greater share of market they might be compromising quality unlike f22 which were produced in less numbers to ensure proper quality control and have high cost

WE do not know for sure if these charts are really true.

Listen to the pilots instead who have experience with different combat aircraft including F-35 variants: https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/

Super-maneuverability is 4th generation philosophy. F-35 represent a new combat philosophy in comparison - a significant leap from 4th generation at that.

Artificial intelligence and vastly superior situational awareness is going to decide the outcome in futuristic battles. F-35 variants simply need sufficient maneuverability in the mix which they already have.

Lockheed Martin have developed all types of aircraft. They know what they are doing.

 

[Secularindian]

russia labor cost are much lower than u.s and when they use domestic labor and parts for building and maintenance of weapons like fighter jets they can use their own currency for that purpose without need of dollars,also they not require importing fuel for their fighter jets like india as they have their own oil otherwise russia would not be able to sustain air strikes in Syria for more than half decade

You claiming facts without Sources
"There are less pilots [in Russia] than there are aircraft, and they gave young pilots missions that are supposed to be given to experienced pilots," the source said.

These young pilots are lacking in basic skills such as midair refueling, the source said, noting "today, air refueling in Russia is, I dare to say, almost something exceptional."

Schwartz concurred that pilot training has been an issue for Russia since the end of the Soviet Union.

"They had pilots who flew so infrequently following the collapse that flight time for pilots was down to 20-30 hours a year, in some cases," he said.

Most of Russia's qualified pilots have retired or taken up better jobs flying for commercial airlines such as Aeroflot, Transaero and foreign companies, the source added.


Op Tempo, Sustainment Flaws Hit Russian Air Force
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2015/07/12/op-tempo-sustainment-flaws-hit-russian-air-force/

https://international-review.org/dwarfing-the-giant-the-reality-of-russias-military-part-ii/

 

[vi-va]

Check yourself
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/SU27

Thank you, very good source. Seems PLA only crashed 2 Flankers?

WE do not know for sure if these charts are really true.

Listen to the pilots instead who have experience with different combat aircraft including F-35 variants: https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/

Super-maneuverability is 4th generation philosophy. F-35 represent a new combat philosophy in comparison - a significant leap from 4th generation at that.

Artificial intelligence and vastly superior situational awareness is going to decide the outcome in futuristic battles. F-35 variants simply need sufficient maneuverability in the mix which they already have.

Lockheed Martin have developed all types of aircraft. They know what they are doing.

I think you are right to some extent. But Lockheed Martin was/is beaten badly by Pentagon because of F-35 issues. Too many issues.

 

[_NOBODY_]

Respected Sir,
I wanted to discuss the future of 4th gen fighters in USAF with you. Considering how expensive 5th generation fighters are to operate, can USAF replace all its 4th gen fighters? If not then will we see a new 5th gen fighter that will be much cheaper to operate or will USAF demand heavily upgraded 4th gen fighters(like F-15 silent eagle) that possess a lot of features that are only found in 5th gen fighters?
@gambit

 

[gambit]

Respected Sir,
I wanted to discuss the future of 4th gen fighters in USAF with you. Considering how expensive 5th generation fighters are to operate, can USAF replace all its 4th gen fighters? If not then will we see a new 5th gen fighter that will be much cheaper to operate or will USAF demand heavily upgraded 4th gen fighters(like F-15 silent eagle) that possess a lot of features that are only found in 5th gen fighters?
@gambit

What made the F-22 and F-35 expensive is not their bodies but their avionics. From the shaping perspective, the transition from the F-117 to the F-22/35 was revolutionary. But what made the F-22/35 expensive was what we wanted each platform to do. The F-22 do not need thrust vectoring to be 'stealthy', but we wanted TV just in case we got into a close-in fight and it is those 'just in case' scenarios that ended up adding to the final cost.

Same thing with the '4th-gen' platforms. We want to extend their service lives as much as possible so we gave them upgraded avionics that ended up with something somewhat silly like '4.5 gen'. Take AESA radar, for example. The first time I saw an AESA radar in action, albeit from the ground, I knew the US would skip PESA and I was correct. The capabilities leap from PESA to AESA was exponential and so was the cost. Data fusion have nothing to do with 'stealth' but it was technically easier to give the later platforms data fusion than it is to make incremental bloc changes to the current '4th gen' platforms. The end results are the shocking sticker prices for the F-22 and F-35, but it would have doubled to gut the F-15 and give it data fusion capabilities. Better off to pay the high prices now and mature the technologies on the latest platforms than to spend yrs experimenting with the current ones.

Imagine this...I have 100 F-15s. Now I have to figure out how many to remove from combat ready status to spend X months in upgrade. So why not develop a new platform with all those fancy capabilities to give the fleet a technological leap? We did have thrust vectoring (TV) on an experimental F-15: STOL/MTD. Can we have TV, AESA, and data fusion on an F-15? Absolutely. But how much would it cost -- time and money -- to retrofit the entire fleet? Not only that, how much of the fleet is possible due to time and fatigue? If an airframe is past the mid-way point, is it financially sound to modify that jet?

In the end, it is better to take all the things you want and put them into a 'wish list' for the next generation.

 

[_NOBODY_]

What made the F-22 and F-35 expensive is not their bodies but their avionics. From the shaping perspective, the transition from the F-117 to the F-22/35 was revolutionary. But what made the F-22/35 expensive was what we wanted each platform to do. The F-22 do not need thrust vectoring to be 'stealthy', but we wanted TV just in case we got into a close-in fight and it is those 'just in case' scenarios that ended up adding to the final cost.

Same thing with the '4th-gen' platforms. We want to extend their service lives as much as possible so we gave them upgraded avionics that ended up with something somewhat silly like '4.5 gen'. Take AESA radar, for example. The first time I saw an AESA radar in action, albeit from the ground, I knew the US would skip PESA and I was correct. The capabilities leap from PESA to AESA was exponential and so was the cost. Data fusion have nothing to do with 'stealth' but it was technically easier to give the later platforms data fusion than it is to make incremental bloc changes to the current '4th gen' platforms. The end results are the shocking sticker prices for the F-22 and F-35, but it would have doubled to gut the F-15 and give it data fusion capabilities. Better off to pay the high prices now and mature the technologies on the latest platforms than to spend yrs experimenting with the current ones.

Imagine this...I have 100 F-15s. Now I have to figure out how many to remove from combat ready status to spend X months in upgrade. So why not develop a new platform with all those fancy capabilities to give the fleet a technological leap? We did have thrust vectoring (TV) on an experimental F-15: STOL/MTD. Can we have TV, AESA, and data fusion on an F-15? Absolutely. But how much would it cost -- time and money -- to retrofit the entire fleet? Not only that, how much of the fleet is possible due to time and fatigue? If an airframe is past the mid-way point, is it financially sound to modify that jet?

In the end, it is better to take all the things you want and put them into a 'wish list' for the next generation.

So it is possible that US may build another 5th generation aircraft which would be cost effective as compared to F-35 and F-22 and this aircraft could become the backbone of USAF, or would US like F-35 to be the backbone of USAF?

 

[gambit]

So it is possible that US may build another 5th generation aircraft which would be cost effective as compared to F-35 and F-22 and this aircraft could become the backbone of USAF, or would US like F-35 to be the backbone of USAF?

Anything is possible. If this was a few months ago, I probably would have given you an opinion that have some degrees of confidence, but given what happened with the COVID19 crisis, countries with their national bailouts will have to reassess their national defense priorities, especially regarding technology investments. But for now, plans are on to have the F-22 F-35 combination be around for a longer time than originally planned.

 

[_NOBODY_]

Anything is possible. If this was a few months ago, I probably would have given you an opinion that have some degrees of confidence, but given what happened with the COVID19 crisis, countries with their national bailouts will have to reassess their national defense priorities, especially regarding technology investments. But for now, plans are on to have the F-22 F-35 combination be around for a longer time than originally planned.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/13/boeing-f15ex-contract/
This news about F-15EX seems to indicate that F-15 will continue to be the backbone of USAF. I assume that USAF will be replacing the old Eagles with EX since it would be cheaper to create new advance F-15 instead of upgrading the old fleet. I would love to hear your opinion on this.
Also in your opinion is this F-15EX now the most advance 4+ gen fighter in the world right now?

 

[gambit]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/13/boeing-f15ex-contract/
This news about F-15EX seems to indicate that F-15 will continue to be the backbone of USAF. I assume that USAF will be replacing the old Eagles with EX since it would be cheaper to create new advance F-15 instead of upgrading the old fleet. I would love to hear your opinion on this.
Also in your opinion is this F-15EX now the most advance 4+ gen fighter in the world right now?

The F-15 can carry the equivalent of the WW II B-17. Now add in guidance for each bomb. So yes, the F-15 will be around for at least a couple more decades. The F-15's main advantage is its size and when add in miniaturization in avionics, the EX variant does have plenty of internal volume for upgrades.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/f-15ex-vs-f-35a/

The F-15EX, USAF argues, is essentially an in-production aircraft. It has upward of 70 percent parts commonality with the F-15C and E already in USAF service and can use almost all the same ground equipment, hangars, simulators and other support gear as the Eagles now in service.
​

By the time 'advanced' variants are readied for production, the current airframes would be approaching the end of useful service life. So even though there is that %70 commonality with the current airframe, the usual wear-and-tear made the decision to buy new logical. So yes, the EX will likely be the best 'non-stealth' all-weather attack platform for the next 20 yrs.

 

[CIA Mole]

What made the F-22 and F-35 expensive is not their bodies but their avionics. From the shaping perspective, the transition from the F-117 to the F-22/35 was revolutionary. But what made the F-22/35 expensive was what we wanted each platform to do. The F-22 do not need thrust vectoring to be 'stealthy', but we wanted TV just in case we got into a close-in fight and it is those 'just in case' scenarios that ended up adding to the final

Why don’t everyone just shape their airplanes like F22 or F35

 

[gambit]

Why don’t everyone just shape their airplanes like F22 or F35

How an aircraft is finalized, meaning its planform, depends on many factors. But the two relevant ones are aerodynamics and propulsion. In other words, if you do not have propulsion, you cannot have an aircraft you wanted. Sure, you can shape your jet exactly like the F-22, but if you do not have matching propulsion like the real F-22, your copy will not perform as well or even cannot fly.