And with just an itsy-bitsy bit of reinforcement of it's runway overrun tailhook:
She could even land on her, completing the STOBAR cycle.
(Just be careful with the seaspray, she might not like the salt air.)
Posted on 01/26/2010 8:31:24 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
They have single tails though. They aren’t Phantoms, but not F-18s either
Not if Sukhoi has anything to say about it...
And with just an itsy-bitsy bit of reinforcement of it's runway overrun tailhook:
She could even land on her, completing the STOBAR cycle.
(Just be careful with the seaspray, she might not like the salt air.)
Look again, all the aircraft lined up along the port forward cat have twin canted tails. It might help to zoom the image in your browser if you are able. Here is my attempt at a zoom:
Aye Karumba Yo-Yo - I only scrolled up to the bottom picture of Post 12. So I was answering a question about planes in the front of the Reagan by looking at the stern of the Invincible!! Sorry man.
With a mind like yours you should consider applying for a job in the Obama administration.
Ah. Then those aircraft on the Invincible would be Sea Harriers.
What bothers me about that statement is this...What CAS weapons is the thing going to use? It carries less than 200 bullets for example.
it is behind schedule over cost and is to fat .. those are facts...... i guess you dont like facts... you resort to a personal attack.. nice..
behind schedule over cost and over weight cant get out of its own way.. has to hit a tanker after take off .. either gas or weapons but not both..... just not LM business .. they make air force jets not navy jets...
Carrier landings need a lot more than a strong tailhook. There's also an undercarriage to cope with an 50% higher sink rate, different nose profile to give visibility for no-flare landing at higher angle of attack.
Hey, I didn't say it could complete two sorties. (My tagline says it all...)
Cheers!
Yup, about two years so far, with an additional year expected.
over cost
Yup, about $2 billion so far, and counting as the test schedule gets dragged out.
and over weight
That's been mostly taken care of with an agressive weight reduction program and engine thrust increases. Enough so that the first prototype AA-1 is no longer production representative and will be destroyed in live fire testing.
cant get out of its own way..
It's no SR-71, but it ain't that slow.
has to hit a tanker after take off .. either gas or weapons but not both...
Oh really? All variants? Just the F-35B? Source?
just not LM business .. they make air force jets not navy jets...
Perhaps you didn't notice Northrop Grumman's role in manufacturing the F-35?
Obviously they are not helping much .. being over weight, and behind schedule over costs and not real hard delivery date for the real thing..... just promises...
I would cancel it and move on..
I would cancel it and move on..
I imagine that, if we were to cancel every military contract that has a hard time getting going, we'd have a very poor military. On the other hand, if we could cancel some other government programs for failure to perform, we might be onto something...
I have not followed the F-35 very closely, but my general knowledge of it (and the F-22) is that Lockheed and friends produced a working, flying aircraft that had to meet all of the military specifications (which were surpassed by both Lockheed's X-35 and Boeing's X-32.) The plane worked; it took-off and landed more than 100 times (among the three variants): http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/research/x35/ and did everything it was supposed to do BEFORE the government signed a contract to produce the planes. What has happened since then to make it so hard to get the F-35 off the ground? I'll hazard a guess and say that too many chefs have their fingers in the pie.
JSF development began in 1996 and the contract to mass-produce was signed in 2001, so we have 14 years of development invested in this project: this is not the time to trash everything and start over.
yes it is .. whats the threat .. perpetually behind schedule, over cost and fat.. time to cancel it....
The aircraft that flew over 100 times was the X-35. It was a prototype airframe to demonstrate the Lockheed Martin design, but was not a representative production model. It was like the Auto Show concept car vs. the showroom floor model.
The F-35 program is over two years behind, and another one year delay will soon be announced when their overly ambitious flight test schedule cannot be carried out with the reduced number of low rate initial procution aircraft that Congress have decided to purchase.
The Eurofighter Typhoon was late. The F-22 was late. The Rafale was late. The A400M is over three years late. In the civilian world, the Boeing 787 is over two years late, and the A380 was over two years late.
How long it takes to get an aircraft ready for production is not an easy thing to estimate accuratly.
The fact is that you are ignorant, incompetent and inept and stating such is not a personal attack; despite your whining to the contrary, it is only stating the obvious. Perhaps in the future you should get an education about a topic before you publicly display your lack of knowledge on same.
personal attacks means you lost your argument...
Yup. . .last of the manly jets, last of the cowboy fliers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.