The Aviation Thread [Contains Lots of Awesome Pictures]

next, equally sensible step: replace the C-130s with A400Ms.

What's wrong with the A400M?

I've heard many sides to the F35 arguments, I'm inclined to say it's crap, but who knows.
 
next, equally sensible step: replace the C-130s with A400Ms.

The F-35 purchase will more or less eat up all funds for new equipment for all branches of our armed forces for the next 10 years so new transporters are a headache we can't afford for better or for worse...

But getting new transporters, tankers or AWACS instead of fighters would make more sense as an eagerly contributing member of NATO / US allied since there is plenty of fighters to go around. But that means we would be without our own air defences having to rely on our neighboors instead which could get problematic if shit actually hits the fan.
 
Where to start... the propeller gearboxes tear themselves to bits and the engine control software needs some serious work because it has caused a fatal crash. Much more on Wikipedia.

While that can be true, it's just kinks almost all new aircraft go through. It is also more powerful, faster, and takes more cargo than the Hercules, and if you check that one's wikipedia entry, the section about Accidents could very well deserve a wiki entry of its own...

- - - Updated - - -

The F-35 purchase will more or less eat up all funds for new equipment for all branches of our armed forces for the next 10 years so new transporters are a headache we can't afford for better or for worse...

But getting new transporters, tankers or AWACS instead of fighters would make more sense as an eagerly contributing member of NATO / US allied since there is plenty of fighters to go around. But that means we would be without our own air defences having to rely on our neighboors instead which could get problematic if shit actually hits the fan.

Why not purchase a bunch of Eurofighters? I could bet large sums of money it would be overall more capable and a lot cheaper than the F-35

Also gives jobs to more Europeans etc etc.

- - - Updated - - -

More on-topic:

lax%20takeoff%20photo.jpg
 
Why not purchase a bunch of Eurofighters? I could bet large sums of money it would be overall more capable and a lot cheaper than the F-35

Also gives jobs to more Europeans etc etc.

I would personally have preferred the Eurofighter as well but there are economical arguments for the F-35 - in theory:

First of all F-35's made for european customers will be made and maintained in Italy by Finmeccanica so some of the money stays in the EU.

The RDAF has had a special office work with the fighter purchase for the best part of a decade and they actually concluded that the F-35 would be the cheapest of the 3 for Denmark.

Price per aircraft:

F-35: USD 95 mio -10/+25 %.
Super Hornet: USD 136,3 mio -5/+5 %.
Eurofighter: USD 138 mio -5/+5 %.

How on earth did they land on those numbers you say? Without being specific they state that the "Fly away cost" (aircraft + engine) is lower for the Super Hornet and Eurofighter, as expected, but if you count in the estimated support equipment, mission specific equipment, spare parts, simulators, training etc. you get the prices above pr. aircraft.

The total cost of the purchase is also lower for the F-35 because theoretically it's airframe is more durable than the others, meaning less aircraft can cover the needed flight hours over the programs lifespan. They calculated that the number of aircraft needed to cover the fligth hours would be:

F-35: 28 aircraft.
Super Hornet: 38 aircraft.
Eurofighter: 34 aircraft.

The thing is that all the costs from the Super Hornet and Eurofighter can be drawn from real world use and experience where the costs for the F-35 come from assumptions, projections, estimates and so on.

In the end it's always easier to ask for forgivenes rather than permission (on a realistic foundation).

Edit: Found the estimated uncertainty in the prices for each candidate and added them above.
 
Last edited:
The thing is that all the costs from the Super Hornet and Eurofighter can be drawn from real world use and experience where the costs for the F-35 come from assumptions, projections, estimates and so on.

So basically a good script for Penn & Teller's Bullshit...
 
I would personally have preferred the Eurofighter as well but there are economical arguments for the F-35 - in theory:

First of all F-35's made for european customers will be made and maintained in Italy by Finmeccanica so some of the money stays in the EU.

The RDAF has had a special office work with the fighter purchase for the best part of a decade and they actually concluded that the F-35 would be the cheapest of the 3 for Denmark.

Price per aircraft:



How on earth did they land on those numbers you say? Without being specific they state that the "Fly away cost" (aircraft + engine) is lower for the Super Hornet and Eurofighter, as expected, but if you count in the estimated support equipment, mission specific equipment, spare parts, simulators, training etc. you get the prices above pr. aircraft.

The total cost of the purchase is also lower for the F-35 because theoretically it's airframe is more durable than the others, meaning less aircraft can cover the needed flight hours over the programs lifespan. They calculated that the number of aircraft needed to cover the fligth hours would be:



The thing is that all the costs from the Super Hornet and Eurofighter can be drawn from real world use and experience where the costs for the F-35 come from assumptions, projections, estimates and so on.

In the end it's always easier to ask for forgivenes rather than permission (on a realistic foundation).

Edit: Found the estimated uncertainty in the prices for each candidate and added them above.

And that's the same bullshit reasoning that has been force fed to the American people to garner continued support for the program. I've read there are conservative estimates that the F-35 fly-away cost will land anywhere between $160-180m per airframe. Its unproven technology that won't even be remotely mission capable for another 4-5 years. Not to mention, why does Denmark need stealth capability in its defense force? The F-35 is designed to work in an integrated strike package, working with F-22s and other aircraft with Link-16 capabilities in a true hi-low fashion. To be honest, the F/A-18 Super Hornet meets and exceeds their current force, adding range, weapon stations, avionics capabilities (including link-16) and low observable features. Further its the only aircraft listed in the running which is a true Fighter/Attack aircraft, and has a fantastic combat record to back it up. Couple that with the increased SA that comes along with an additional crew member (-F model) and its a chess piece that fits directly into their current needs.

I fucking hate the F-35... not sure if that came across in my post or not
 
There is some talk of refreshing the old bird because of the current Syrian war.

Can I suggest a new version? I'd call it "A-10 FoG" (Full of Guns) and it would only have gatling guns, but some would also be strapped to its wings. Because rockets are lame.


Also, the F-35 seems like such a step backwards compared to the F-22, at least when it comes to menacing looks.
 
Last edited:
Can I suggest a new version? I'd call it "A-10 FoG" (Full of Guns) and it would only have gatling guns, but some would also be strapped to its wings. Because rockets are lame.

A10-appropriate guns would blow the wings right off :lol: just make a dual-fuselage A10 with two GAU-8s.
 
The whole F-35 concept is really retarded. Its like if a car manufacturer wanted to create a chassis that would then be used for a supercar, a mid size saloon and a van. It's obviously the result of a lot of lobbying and bad decisions borderline money laundering. 400 billion dollars cost up till now?

Whats most surprising of it all is that countries like the Netherlands, Italy and the UK gobbled up this bullcrap.
 
Last edited:
Yes, much like that. If you mirror one fuselage you would even end up with the first symmetric A-10... not sure if the wheel should be on the inside or outside though :dunno:
...but then I guess cost cutting measures would mean you'd take two identical ones and screw symmetry. Would three engines be enough?
 
Last edited:
We could introduce super-symmetry by stating that there is always an invisible and mirrored A-10 next to each visible one. However, due to complicated physics the invisible one is incredibly hard to detect and also it can't do damage to the enemy (otherwise it would be OP as fuck). That's at least what physicist do when we can't come up with a more plausible theory: "yeah let's introduce a new particle that has all the properties we want and also it can't be detected by anything we can think of right now". However, it's a last resort and generally frowned upon.

Also, I couldn't be bothered to flip the second A-10 fuselage in photoshop. Too busy adding Chuck Norris to the cockpit. And now I'm thinking about a quad-A-10, but it would need a really complicated runway for takeoff and landing...
 
Last edited:
First of all F-35's made for european customers will be made and maintained in Italy by Finmeccanica so some of the money stays in the EU.

I hope they do a better job than with their trains, cars and motorcycles. :lol:
 
Italy has a long and strong tradition of making aeroplanes , so don't worry and if Belgium bought the F35 , they ,too, will be maintained there.
 
EgyptAir Flight 804 from Paris to Cairo missing

EgyptAir Flight 804 heading from Paris to Cairo disappeared from radar with 69 people on board, the airline said.
The plane was flying at 37,000 feet when it disappeared shortly after entering Egyptian airspace, the airline tweeted. It said the Airbus A320 had 59 passengers and 10 crew members.
 
Update from that link:

On May 20th 2016 The Aviation Herald received information from three independent channels, that ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) messages with following content were received from the aircraft:

00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE
00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
00:29Z 2700 F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT
no further ACARS messages were received.

Early May 21st 2016 the French BEA confirmed there were ACARS messages just prior to break down of communications warning however that they are insufficient to understand the causes of the accident until flight data or cockpit voice recorders have been found. Priority as of current is to find the wreckage and the recorders.
 
Top