Me vehicles that we need

[dpstro]

What hasn't been made by any line yet? BBI, PTE, TH. I would like an LHD. Big enough for one Tomahawk would be cool.

Google Image Result for http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/imgs/uss-wasp-lhd1.jpg (http://www.google.com/imgres?start=242&hl=en&biw=1440&bih=805&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=9sFdMig3gvcAMM:&imgrefurl=http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp%3Fship_id%3DUSS-Missouri-BB63&docid=0vhjR3ACTlyO4M&imgurl=http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/imgs/uss-wasp-lhd1.jpg&w=800&h=550&ei=PkLeT-CYB4uK8QTRsez5Cg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=350&vpy=470&dur=4245&hovh=186&hovw=271&tx=171&ty=98&sig=113295327066729891882&page=9&tbnh=142&tbnw=180&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:20,s:242,i:263)

[Konigstiger]

More hasn't been made than has.

2 big ones on my list are an Mi-24 (no, that Joescale one doesn't count) and a Leopard 2A6.

[dpstro]

I don't really like October Guard that much but if someone did it right I would buy them just so they could go with that Mi-24. Or give it to Cobra.

[CobraOfficer999]

The FLAGG, The Cobra Rattler, The Cobra Stinger, The Steller Stelleto, The General, just to name a few.

[dpstro]

I could also see myself buying a howitzer set if they made one. I've seen some German WWII guns made by someone but I can't remember who.

[Zarana]

Bridge Layer and Swap masher!

[dpstro]

just got something similar to this from another tanker by PTE. Can't wait to get it.

Google Image Result for http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-EF002400.jpg%3Fsize%3D67%26uid%3Deb851a31-44f6-46cd-9e43-389500014cef (http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1440&bih=805&tbm=isch&tbnid=Cw-mmF_wn-JshM:&imgrefurl=http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/EF002400/navy-seals-on-a-gunboat&docid=YFiHsFC8tnYAIM&imgurl=http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-EF002400.jpg%253Fsize%253D67%2526uid%253Deb851a31-44f6-46cd-9e43-389500014cef&w=640&h=425&ei=kkfeT67JF4m68ASpi7nbCg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=369&vpy=206&dur=554&hovh=183&hovw=276&tx=134&ty=92&sig=113295327066729891882&page=2&tbnh=137&tbnw=183&start=25&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:25,i:157)

[spiderpumpkin]

Defaint Shuttle with Payload.

[Crimson Rage]

The Ferret! They used the chassis twice in the RoC line, so why there's been no release in 'classic colours' is beyond me.

[youdoitimbusy]

While its probably an unpopular opinion, id like to see new vehicles. I thought the doom cycle was one of the coolest vehicles I have seen in years. I would of loved to of had one as a kid.

[dpstro]

Sorry for the confusion but I kind of was thinking along the lines of real life vehicles that are in service now or not too far fetched and that haven't been made yet.

[dpstro]

But all are good ideas. and instead of a defiant I'd vote for a space station :-D

[geekacres]

I'd like to have a Renegades Coyote !

[Konigstiger]

I could also see myself buying a howitzer set if they made one. I've seen some German WWII guns made by someone but I can't remember who.

If it was German it is all but certain that it's a 21st Century Toys piece. They did both the PaK 40 and FlaK 36.

[dpstro]

If it was German it is all but certain that it's a 21st Century Toys piece. They did both the PaK 40 and FlaK 36.

Thanks. I'm pretty sure it was 21st Century. Just had a brain freeze.

[fredro]

I would like a MRAP like the kammin

[dpstro]

I'd buy an MRAP since they are becoming more common.

[Viper6]

yup, ferret, stun, asp, and up scale nightlanding. all too easy.

[Viper6]

I would like a MRAP like the kammin

ahhh, the m-crap truly the budget buster of the u.s. war effort, tsun tzu said something about not letting your enemy dictate your posture, and that defense was essentially shit. so... instead of heeding that doctrine (which is taught at west point ironicaly enough), and storming every urban center and village killn the shit out of more jihadis, we gave into this PC BS and quit all that to build bigger trucks? sure they can save lives; trackn and thats all good, but light and fast is the way to roll (someone got riuch off this whole monster trucks for average joe gimmick, same with the entirely ineffective "hey we're in the middle of two wars and the camo we have works fine, but lets double the deficit and revamp everything in this useless shit") m-craps...hate em.

[war009]

modern real vehicles- Stryker, mi-24, USMC amphibious Assault vehicle, Howitzer, Phalanax gun system, M-ATV, c-130 or chinock

classic ARAH- Stun, bridge layer, NIGHT RAVEN, asp, tomahawk, and whale

[Ruin]

Cobra needs a decent jet that's not limited to subsonic speeds (Rattler) or based on a 3G airframe (Night Raven).

Definitely a delta wing config too.

[Konigstiger]

PTE's J-10 will probably fill that role if it ever gets a wide Stateside release.

[Viper6]

i think a commanche would be a great chopper for the joes to redo the dragonfly with

[Headman]

What hasn't been made by any line yet? BBI, PTE, TH. I would like an LHD. Big enough for one Tomahawk would be cool.

Google Image Result for http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/imgs/uss-wasp-lhd1.jpg (http://www.google.com/imgres?start=242&hl=en&biw=1440&bih=805&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=9sFdMig3gvcAMM:&imgrefurl=http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp%3Fship_id%3DUSS-Missouri-BB63&docid=0vhjR3ACTlyO4M&imgurl=http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/imgs/uss-wasp-lhd1.jpg&w=800&h=550&ei=PkLeT-CYB4uK8QTRsez5Cg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=350&vpy=470&dur=4245&hovh=186&hovw=271&tx=171&ty=98&sig=113295327066729891882&page=9&tbnh=142&tbnw=180&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:20,s:242,i:263)


Don't forget the ABC, the EFG, and of course no one can live without an HIJKLMNOP.

[dpstro]

Don't forget the ABC, the EFG, and of course no one can live without an HIJKLMNOP.

you forgot XYZ

[bassistcarlos]

ahhh, the m-crap truly the budget buster of the u.s. war effort, tsun tzu said something about not letting your enemy dictate your posture, and that defense was essentially shit. so... instead of heeding that doctrine (which is taught at west point ironicaly enough), and storming every urban center and village killn the shit out of more jihadis, we gave into this PC BS and quit all that to build bigger trucks? sure they can save lives; trackn and thats all good, but light and fast is the way to roll (someone got riuch off this whole monster trucks for average joe gimmick, same with the entirely ineffective "hey we're in the middle of two wars and the camo we have works fine, but lets double the deficit and revamp everything in this useless shit") m-craps...hate em.


Don't hold back now. Tell us what you really think!!! ;) for a toy line, monster trucks don't seem like a bad idea. We've already had vehicles like the rhino, so a new APC designed after real life m-raps wouldn't be a bad idea. There are enough ME figures to justify a new troop transport.

[Ruin]

PTE's J-10 will probably fill that role if it ever gets a wide Stateside release.

Good call. It makes me want to try my hand at light modding

http://www.hisstank.com/forum/g-i-joe-toy-reviews-quick-feedback/129495-world-peacekeepers-pte-j-10-fighter-jet-review.html

[CobraCrimson]

Moray, Whale, Mamba, Tomahawk, Mauler, USS Flagg, Terror Drome, '83 Headquarters and Bugg to name a few that would be epic if released again.

[goosetuber]

While its probably an unpopular opinion, id like to see new vehicles. I thought the doom cycle was one of the coolest vehicles I have seen in years. I would of loved to of had one as a kid.

Dude my three year old zoomed in on this thing on a shelf and absolutely loves it. He never even removed the figure rubber bands.

[wormser]

they just need to make the BUGG. all others are pointless

[dpstro]

Point is I'd like to see realistic vehicles like we saw when ARAH first started. And no more crazy paint schemes.

[Crimson Rage]

More self-propelled artillery! Always a fan of the Slugger, despite it's unrealistic look. Someone more 'real world' would be nice.

[dpstro]

More self-propelled artillery! Always a fan of the Slugger, despite it's unrealistic look. Someone more 'real world' would be nice.

I actually wasn't that far fetched as it does resemble some of the self propelled artillery that was used in the 80s and early 90s. It even had the dragger at the end to help stop the recoil.

An updated version that held an actual gun crew and not just one would be a welcome addition though.

[punchitchewy80]

for me definatley a Renegades Coyote.

[dpstro]

I hate Renegades so let's just call it an MRAP :-D

[ickzer1]

F35 vtol fighter

[Ruin]

F35 vtol fighter

Threadwinner!

[gruppenfuhrer88]

I agree, the Lightning II......it gots VTOL, think of the playability like the Rattler but Joe style.

[Skylancer81]

The Wolverine and the Lynx.

Since they both use the same body/treads and just have a different turret and paint scheme. However I would like the cockpit redesigned so it provides some cover somehow.

The second picture shows my Desert Battle Custom Wolverine.

[Ruin]

I agree, the Lightning II......it gots VTOL, think of the playability like the Rattler but Joe style.

I want this really bad, and they'll likey do it eventually. However, I'm afraid they'll spend all thier production and dev budget on sound attack and spring action instead of missile bays and rotor doors.

Oh, and an F-35 would completely destroy the Rattler...

[Trooper618]

just got something similar to this from another tanker by PTE. Can't wait to get it.

Google Image Result for http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-EF002400.jpg%3Fsize%3D67%26uid%3Deb851a31-44f6-46cd-9e43-389500014cef (http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1440&bih=805&tbm=isch&tbnid=Cw-mmF_wn-JshM:&imgrefurl=http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/EF002400/navy-seals-on-a-gunboat&docid=YFiHsFC8tnYAIM&imgurl=http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-EF002400.jpg%253Fsize%253D67%2526uid%253Deb851a31-44f6-46cd-9e43-389500014cef&w=640&h=425&ei=kkfeT67JF4m68ASpi7nbCg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=369&vpy=206&dur=554&hovh=183&hovw=276&tx=134&ty=92&sig=113295327066729891882&page=2&tbnh=137&tbnw=183&start=25&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:25,i:157)

that is a swcc boat

[luigi]

I want this really bad, and they'll likey do it eventually. However, I'm afraid they'll spend all thier production and dev budget on sound attack and spring action instead of missile bays and rotor doors.

Oh, and an F-35 would completely destroy the Rattler...

dude i think the rattler could hold it's own for a bit it's based off the A-10 and The a-10 is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator, and half of one wing missing

so i would hope that the rattler could take similar damage and stay airbourne

[Vespapilot79]

I'm going to sound like a break broken record on here but I have to say I really really really want an osprey v 22,a re release of the Cobra attack chopper,how bout an ov 10,def the chinook,re release the mobat like the hisstank??

[saltymarine]

Yes please MRAPs, please no more pink n yellow Crap tiny under scale fits on my shelfe better junk you only buy at Ross !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zoomie2001]

F-35 is worthless in real life. It's a lawn dart. I think they should make a vehicle they never produced. There is a blue Cobra jet in one of the cartoon intros (that's not a Rattler) that goes up against the Skystriker. Can't remember which intro, but it never showed up in anything GI Joe. I don't even think it was in the actual cartoon. They should produce that thing, just so they do something fresh for the kiddies and something obscure for the fans!

[Ruin]

F-35 is worthless in real life. It's a lawn dart.

I heard that too. After doing some investigation and some thinking, I came to the conclusion that assessment is very, very wrong.

I think they should make a vehicle they never produced. There is a blue Cobra jet in one of the cartoon intros (that's not a Rattler) that goes up against the Skystriker. Can't remember which intro, but it never showed up in anything GI Joe. I don't even think it was in the actual cartoon. They should produce that thing, just so they do something fresh for the kiddies and something obscure for the fans!

That jet was the first Cobra vehicle in Sunbow, and the closest it came to a release is the YOJOE.COM | Hurricane VTOL | YoJoe.com: Dedicated to the G.I.Joe of the 80's, 90's and beyond! (http://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/90/hurricane/)

[ickzer1]

F-35 is worthless in real life. It's a lawn dart. I think they should make a vehicle they never produced. There is a blue Cobra jet in one of the cartoon intros (that's not a Rattler) that goes up against the Skystriker. Can't remember which intro, but it never showed up in anything GI Joe. I don't even think it was in the actual cartoon. They should produce that thing, just so they do something fresh for the kiddies and something obscure for the fans!
However the F35 would work for Joe and look fantastic on our shelves.

[luigi]

I heard that too. After doing some investigation and some thinking, I came to the conclusion that assessment is very, very wrong.


almost every plane has it's issues to start with they just need time to figure them out and then also find where the plane excels and there are 3 different f-35 designs if i understand correctly

F-35A, conventional take off and landing (CTOL) variant.
F-35B, short-take off and vertical-landing (STOVL) variant.
F-35C, carrier-based CATOBAR (CV) variant.

is this a perfect plane? no
is it effective? only time will tell
would it be cool to get this in joe scale? yes

[luigi]

F-35 is worthless in real life. It's a lawn dart. I think they should make a vehicle they never produced. There is a blue Cobra jet in one of the cartoon intros (that's not a Rattler) that goes up against the Skystriker. Can't remember which intro, but it never showed up in anything GI Joe. I don't even think it was in the actual cartoon. They should produce that thing, just so they do something fresh for the kiddies and something obscure for the fans!

that was a j-10 i believe and it wasn't in any into it was in the mass device episode 1 during the air raid in the beginning

[Psycho Joe Guy]

that was a j-10 i believe and it wasn't in any into it was in the mass device episode 1 during the air raid in the beginning

The J-10 had yet not been cobbled together from the Mirage III and F-16 by the Chinese when that episode was made. The Liquidator (http://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/92/liquidator/) based on the SAAB Draken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Draken) is the closest to that jet.

[Ruin]

dude i think the rattler could hold it's own for a bit it's based off the A-10 and The a-10 is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator, and half of one wing missing

so i would hope that the rattler could take similar damage and stay airbourne


Well, the A-10 is an airplane without afterburners or radar. You would pretty much have to lock both in a phone-booth to give the Rattler a chance, and even then you have to keep in mind that the F-35 can see and lock onto aircraft behind it.

The Rattler can turn tightly at speeds around 200-250mph, but it will bleed speed and altitude very quickly. It accellerates and climbs very poorly by comparison. You are essentially talking about a jet that as a fighter, has a similar performance envelope to stuff that was bleeding edge in the early 1950s.

[CrimsonGuard101]

I just want a Mauler remake at this point...its not too big and its not too small...I really liked that Black/red outlined Tron Grid tank kinda looking colored Cobra version they showed form the cancelled POC stuff...we need more armor for the joes and cobras :( we have enough planes now with all of the skytrikers and rattlers we got for customs lol..

[Shadow Ninja]

The Ferret! They used the chassis twice in the RoC line, so why there's been no release in 'classic colours' is beyond me.

Right I hear ya on that!

[Zoomie2001]

almost every plane has it's issues to start with they just need time to figure them out and then also find where the plane excels and there are 3 different f-35 designs if i understand correctly

F-35A, conventional take off and landing (CTOL) variant.
F-35B, short-take off and vertical-landing (STOVL) variant.
F-35C, carrier-based CATOBAR (CV) variant.

is this a perfect plane? no
is it effective? only time will tell
would it be cool to get this in joe scale? yes

My only point with the F-35 is that for a 20 year DOD acquisitions programs worth hundreds of billions of dollars and this is the product we get? Really? An F-22 Light?

But it would look like a cool toy, wouldn't it? The F-22 is a cool looking toy despite its many drawbacks in real life, too. So, I would like to see one of those on my shelf with a 5-points of articulation Joe pilot!

[Zoomie2001]

Well, the A-10 is an airplane without afterburners or radar. You would pretty much have to lock both in a phone-booth to give the Rattler a chance, and even then you have to keep in mind that the F-35 can see and lock onto aircraft behind it.

The Rattler can turn tightly at speeds around 200-250mph, but it will bleed speed and altitude very quickly. It accellerates and climbs very poorly by comparison. You are essentially talking about a jet that as a fighter, has a similar performance envelope to stuff that was bleeding edge in the early 1950s.

And the A-10 is a very specialized aircraft. It really only shoots tanks and was built to combat the massive Soviet superiority in Tank Divisions in Eastern Europe. It always bothered me how the Rattler would dogfight with the Skystriker. Of course, maybe Wild Weasel was just THAT GOOD. Of course, does that mean that Ace was THAT BAD? In contrast, I always thought that it highlighted the assymetrical nature of Cobra warfare. They don't take on the Joes head on in combat (well, they shouldn't even though they always showed that in the cartoon intros) and attack them laterally. Kinda plays into that, y'know?

[Medikeighted]

almost every plane has it's issues to start with they just need time to figure them out and then also find where the plane excels and there are 3 different f-35 designs if i understand correctly

F-35A, conventional take off and landing (CTOL) variant.
F-35B, short-take off and vertical-landing (STOVL) variant.
F-35C, carrier-based CATOBAR (CV) variant.

is this a perfect plane? no
is it effective? only time will tell
would it be cool to get this in joe scale? yes

the B is the version holding things up for the most part, but the whole program has been plagued by cost overruns, delays, and trying to make one airframe into a jack of all trades, master of none. i'd greatly prefer we'd bought more f-22's and continued on with Superhornets for the Navy and a mix of Strike Eagles, Raptors, A-10's, and F-35A's for the Air Force.

As for GI Joe vehicles, I'd still like to see the APC retooled for modern figures and made to look more like a Stryker.

[Ruin]

And the A-10 is a very specialized aircraft. It really only shoots tanks and was built to combat the massive Soviet superiority in Tank Divisions in Eastern Europe.

Right.

It always bothered me how the Rattler would dogfight with the Skystriker. Of course, maybe Wild Weasel was just THAT GOOD. Of course, does that mean that Ace was THAT BAD? In contrast, I always thought that it highlighted the assymetrical nature of Cobra warfare. They don't take on the Joes head on in combat (well, they shouldn't even though they always showed that in the cartoon intros) and attack them laterally. Kinda plays into that, y'know?

I think the easiest and simplest way out is to recognize that the Sunbow writers didn't know the first thing about air combat. The Night Raven too presents problems of it's own.

My only point with the F-35 is that for a 20 year DOD acquisitions programs worth hundreds of billions of dollars and this is the product we get? Really? An F-22 Light?

Not exactly. The Lightning will be cheaper to buy, maintain, and operate than the Raptor, but will be able to use more types of ordinance and seems to have overall avionics far superior to anything, including the F-22. There is no better fighter aircraft at providing information about the occupied airspace to the pilot. I also believe it exceeds the F-22 in electronic warfare and countermeasures.

That the B and C models will also be able to operate from clandestined airfields and carriers is an advantage that should not be overlooked.

But it would look like a cool toy, wouldn't it? The F-22 is a cool looking toy despite its many drawbacks in real life, too. So, I would like to see one of those on my shelf with a 5-points of articulation Joe pilot!

If it's Ace, sure as we got a very good 30th version, but i would prefer a fully articulated Slipstream or another new pilot.

[Ruin]

the B is the version holding things up for the most part, but the whole program has been plagued by cost overruns, delays, and trying to make one airframe into a jack of all trades, master of none.

As a jack of all trades, the F-35 should actually be very adept at most everything.

The B model was holding up the airframe for a while and nearly was cancelled (which would have made a lot of initial design parameters a lot of effort went into surpufluous), but now it's just software issues that need to be solved for the entire platform.

i'd greatly prefer we'd bought more f-22's and continued on with Superhornets for the Navy and a mix of Strike Eagles, Raptors, A-10's, and F-35A's for the Air Force.

The F-15, A-10 and F/A-18s are outdated and posess very little survivability or use against equipment expected to trickle down to our projected enemies in the next few years.

[Konigstiger]

As a jack of all trades, the F-35 should actually be very adept at most everything.



Is a master of none?

[Ruin]

Is a master of none?

No.

"jack of all trades, master of none", is a cliche' used to convey a description of versitile mediocrity. There is nothing mediocre about the F-35. It's an epthet that is more properly applied to the F/A-18.

[Mr Hebime]

An M270 MLRS (multiple launch rocket system). I've seen one in a 1/32 scale. If the Wolverine were redone, it should look something like this.

[Dealer Destro]

The Cobra Rattler, The Cobra Stinger

We got these already.

[Davestro]

MBT Mauler...hands down.

[Dealer Destro]

Wanna see some sort of TD update. A new MCC would be bad ass.

[Superjoe74]

If I could choose which vehicles to be re-released for the ME figures my list- of the off the top of my head would be:

Wolverine
Tomahawk
AVAC
Dragonfly
Slugger
Mauler
Defiant
Crusader
Triple T
Silver Mirage

[Medikeighted]

As a jack of all trades, the F-35 should actually be very adept at most everything.

The F-15, A-10 and F/A-18s are outdated and posess very little survivability or use against equipment expected to trickle down to our projected enemies in the next few years.


The Stealth Eagle project they were working on would have done a lot to upgrade the Eagle, I think you're shortchanging the Superbug, and the A-10 doesn't fly without Air Superiority having been established anyway, but we can agree to disagree. My biggest complaints on the F-35 is that it's close to costing as much as an F-22, with lesser capabilities, and it's single engine. There have been enough twin engine birds that were able to limp home on one, that the added survivability is worth the extra hassle, especially for a naval aircraft.

[Psycho Joe Guy]

"jack of all trades, master of none", is a cliche' used to convey a description of versitile mediocrity. There is nothing mediocre about the F-35. It's an epthet that is more properly applied to the F/A-18.

What? Do you mean to imply the loser of the 70's LWF fighter competition plagued by engine problems, landing gear stability, engine inlet design flaws, limited range and payload is somehow a less-than-capable aircraft? The hundreds of more mission-capable Prowlers, Tomcats, Intruders, Skyhawks, and Corsairs it "replaced" just weren't pretty enough for the overhead carrier recruitment shots which now showcase rows and rows of symmetrical mediocrity.

...and the F-35 is following in those footsteps. It's entire mission profile was that it was to supplant and support large numbers of F-22's, which now don't exist. It is supposed to be a more expendable bomb (AGM and antiradar) truck tasked with ground attack and secondary air superiority and intel gathering. It has a back-up camera... whoopie doo. The visual sensors have proven unreliable in high-G maneuvers and it has an extremely limited internal payload. Sure it's range and load-out can be extended by pylon... which completely negate its stealth. I agree; it's a lawn dart, though I sincerely hope I am wrong.


It is no doubt a revolutionary aircraft, but it will never be built in numbers that justify its development costs, especially with a public convinced that drones can do everything any other aircraft can.

The PAK T-50 and J-20 are generation 4.5 aircraft barely capable against a late model F-15 (or heaven forbid, a Super Tomcat!), and as the third-rate Serbian aircap radar demonstrated, stealth is not the be-all end all.

Datalinked mobile narrowband radars(and/or cell towers) all but negate stealth and while the Chinese and Russians may not as technologically savvy, they both have a history of employing cheap, robust solutions that easily best complex American systems. Just ask the pilots of F-105's and F-4's which were shot down by MiG17's nearly as old as they were.

[Ruin]

The Stealth Eagle project they were working on would have done a lot to upgrade the Eagle, I think you're shortchanging the Superbug, and the A-10 doesn't fly without Air Superiority having been established anyway, but we can agree to disagree. My biggest complaints on the F-35 is that it's close to costing as much as an F-22, with lesser capabilities, and it's single engine. There have been enough twin engine birds that were able to limp home on one, that the added survivability is worth the extra hassle, especially for a naval aircraft.

Well, the "Silent Eagle" project is in early design stages and more subject to cancellation. Since it offers a feature-set in between the superhornet and Lightning II, I am *guessing* it won't get done. Cost overruns could also happen as they have ben en-vogue in almost every fighter program in the world. It's just something that has become endemic of advanced 4th and 5th generation aircraft, for some reason.

Am I shortchanging the Superbug? I don't think so. It is what it is, an airframe with limited range, reasonable performance, limited usefull speed, but can land on a carrier with very good weaponry and avionics.

[Ruin]

...and the F-35 is following in those footsteps. It's entire mission profile was that it was to supplant and support large numbers of F-22's, which now don't exist.

I really would have liked there to be more F-22s, but from what I understand it was a question of funding choosing between the Raptor and Lighning. To finish or extend the run of Raptors would critically have threatened the prospects of fielding the F-35, given finances.

I actually think they made the proper choice since the F-35 is technically a more versatile attack platform.

Also, for numbers I think you have it backwards. AFAICT, the F-22's mission was always intended to be limited to expeditionary penetration of advanced Integrated Defense Systems and knocking them out, and providing air supremacy only long enough to reduce enemy air-to-air effectiveness to the point where other aircraft could take over the role. After that is done, the F-22 would then be withdrawn from the theater.


It is supposed to be a more expendable bomb (AGM and antiradar) truck tasked with ground attack and secondary air superiority and intel gathering. It has a back-up camera... whoopie doo. The visual sensors have proven unreliable in high-G maneuvers and it has an extremely limited internal payload. Sure it's range and load-out can be extended by pylon... which completely negate its stealth. I agree; it's a lawn dart, though I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Like I said, I don't put a whole lot of stock into teething issues of new fighter airplanes. They all have them.

It is no doubt a revolutionary aircraft, but it will never be built in numbers that justify its development costs, especially with a public convinced that drones can do everything any other aircraft can.

Well, the public doesn't really get a whole lot of input into designing the armed forces.

I disagree that it won't be built in numbers. I think a lot of the criticisms of the F-35 will dissapear in the next decade and Lockeed will field a lot of orders for it.

The PAK T-50 and J-20 are generation 4.5 aircraft barely capable against a late model F-15 (or heaven forbid, a Super Tomcat!),

I do not share your confidence in the Strike Eagle vs the upcomming Gen 4+/5 jets comming from China/Russia.

and as the third-rate Serbian aircap radar demonstrated, stealth is not the be-all end all.

That was one very different airplane with far less defenses in different circustances. And I'm not quite sure that some of the Serbian defenses were all that inept.

Datalinked mobile narrowband radars(and/or cell towers) all but negate stealth...

I really think this statement in popular circulation is rubbish. It doesn't make sense to me given how the principals of stealth and cross-section reduction work; through scattering and absorption. When radars become more effective
against stealth aircraft, it doesn't "negate" anything. It just means that advanced radars will be able to detect stealth aircraft at say, ten miles out instead of five miles...Low observability will still retain the advantage of detecting the enemy first and firing first.

and while the Chinese and Russians may not as technologically savvy, they both have a history of employing cheap, robust solutions that easily best complex American systems. Just ask the pilots of F-105's and F-4's which were shot down by MiG17's nearly as old as they were.

of course, you are talking about isolated instances at a time when BVR capabilities were in it's infancy.

[ickzer1]

Arent we talking about toys? You guys are going overboard with this real world stat shit. Its a toy going on a shelf.

[bassistcarlos]

Arent we talking about toys? You guys are going overboard with this real world stat shit. Its a toy going on a shelf.

Agreed, all your knowledge about real world jets is giving me the blahs!!! How dare you mix real world facts with my toy fantasies. If I wanted to know that much about real world fighter jets, I would have done something with my life, like put down the comics and join the military or go to college, or something. ;)

[bassistcarlos]

I want a severely under scaled apache look alike helicopter that can only sit one person. And make it so awesome, that it doesn't even need a windshield, and so safe that the pilot can leave his arms hanging out of the cockpit with no worries of getting them shot off or so smart that he doesn't need his arms in the cockpit to actually handle the controls.

[Konigstiger]

No.

"jack of all trades, master of none", is a cliche' used to convey a description of versitile mediocrity. There is nothing mediocre about the F-35. It's an epthet that is more properly applied to the F/A-18.

That remains to be seen.




Back to the real topic at hand, if we got 1:18 Flakpanzer Gepard all the Joe collectors could put stickers on it and call it an Equalizer. ;)

[Ruin]

That remains to be seen.




Back to the real topic at hand, if we got 1:18 Flakpanzer Gepard all the Joe collectors could put stickers on it and call it an Equalizer. ;)

I've actually thought about collecting 1:18 WWII stuff and getting some clever customizer to era-appropriate figures..

$$$$$!!!

[Zoomie2001]

But really, I want to someone to either build a Hind or at least a Ka-50. Need some more enemy aircraft in GI Joe.

[Zoomie2001]

And as a parting shot, I don't really think that the problem is with the F-35 or the F-22. I think the problem is Lockheed. They're obviously a shitty company with good political connections. They've lied so much about development costs and sub-contracts, they leave their products open to criticism. I know a few guys who work for Lockheed and they try to tow the company line, but even they admit there's a culture of "ends justifies the means" and a lot more smoke and mirrors in Lockheed than in the Air Force. Imagine that!

Okay, that was my last comment on real world aircraft gobbledygook. Back to Toy Talk...

[Konigstiger]

I've actually thought about collecting 1:18 WWII stuff and getting some clever customizer to era-appropriate figures..

$$$$$!!!

I know a guy that did a Wirbelwind turret kit for 21st's Panzer IV. I think my 1:18 WWII days are behind me, though I did more than one "alternate timeline" German using the Para Viper as my buck. Dragon's 1:18 stuff is a godsend there.


I want a Gepard as it's nice and modern.

[Ruin]

And as a parting shot, I don't really think that the problem is with the F-35 or the F-22. I think the problem is Lockheed. They're obviously a shitty company with good political connections....

I think this is uncalled for. Every company is littered with employees eager to air and trump up grievances. People love to bitch.

Lockeed won competitive fly-offs for both airplanes against competitors that were better established within the military at that time. Lockeed has a long history of unconventional thinking dating back before the Second World War extending to their work with the CIA in developing the U2 and SR-71. This is why they won the unconventional ATF and JSF projects.

Cost overruns, missed projections, and delays have been the norm for many Gen 4+/Gen 5 fighter projects. Look at the Eurofighter, for instance.

But really, I want to someone to either build a Hind or at least a Ka-50. Need some more enemy aircraft in GI Joe.

The Hind is a pure WIN! make it the new Mamba or something. The Ka-50 doesn't look as Cobra'ish. A Hind in Echo-class size wold make a nice Cobra assault-ship/troop carrier.11

Also, a V-22 in echo-size for the joes.

[Konigstiger]

Huh? Contra-rotating main rotors and an ejection seat is right up Cobra's alley.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2e164a9.jpg
Replace the Russian Federation roundel on the tail with a Cobra sigil, maybe a clichéd shark mouth up on the snout.




Neither one likely in 1:18 at this point, but I continue to hope.

[atomatron]

I need us vehicles too

[Psycho Joe Guy]

I really would have liked there to be more F-22s, but from what I understand it was a question of funding choosing between the Raptor and Lighning. To finish or extend the run of Raptors would critically have threatened the prospects of fielding the F-35, given finances.

I wonder just how much our international partners in development who will also deploy the Lightning are contributing to development costs, especially since most of its issues revolve around making it a one-size fits-all aircraft. Our shared allies aren't exactly flush with cash, but I don't understand why the US taxpayer is paying for the development of a plane that will be shared by several countries.

I actually think they made the proper choice since the F-35 is technically a more versatile attack platform.

It's not as stealthy or mission capable as the Raptor, which has no been reduced to a forward aircap/awacs because it is so scarce.

Also, for numbers I think you have it backwards. AFAICT, the F-22's mission was always intended to be limited to expeditionary penetration of advanced Integrated Defense Systems and knocking them out, and providing air supremacy only long enough to reduce enemy air-to-air effectiveness to the point where other aircraft could take over the role. After that is done, the F-22 would then be withdrawn from the theater.

That is the NEW mission profile based on its scarcity. Its original role was that of stealthy "Super MiG31:" large strike penetration missions for air superiorty while directing F35's with HARM's and other ground attack craft: Bones or Spirits with JDAMS and bunker busters.

Like I said, I don't put a whole lot of stock into teething issues of new fighter airplanes. They all have them.

The difference here is that the entire platform is completely new tech, and the original cost and trial projections were hopelessly optimistic from the start in order to get the project up and running. Like the Hornet, I expect many of its flaws to never be resolved and its mission profile adjusted to compensate.

Well, the public doesn't really get a whole lot of input into designing the armed forces.

...not so. All it takes it a few grandstanding Congressman to convince the public a weapons system is unnecessary, and political pressure takes care of the rest. Cases in point: F-22, XB-70, VT-22 (which should have fielded a decade earlier), C-17, FB-111, B-58, M-2... etc

I disagree that it won't be built in numbers. I think a lot of the criticisms of the F-35 will dissapear in the next decade and Lockeed will field a lot of orders for it.

Who'll be buying it? the UK stood down half the RAF for cost cutting. Japan and South Korea are developing their own gen 5 planes. France no doubt has Dassault working on their own design and Germany is cash poor from bailing out the rest of Europe, which is too busy trying to rebuild their own social infrastructures to think about buying such a high tech machine to fight against whom?

I do not share your confidence in the Strike Eagle vs the upcomming Gen 4+/5 jets comming from China/Russia.

The Strike Eagle is a ground attack craft. An upgraded Super Eagle (or the cancelled F-21) could easily mix it up and win against the current and future Mig and Sukhoi variants for air superiority. For that matter, why task the F35 for ground attack more than ably handled by the A-10 and F-16?

That was one very different airplane with far less defenses in different circustances. And I'm not quite sure that some of the Serbian defenses were all that inept.

Russia may not have provided much hardware, but they did provide the tech know-how on linking the radar systems, which were secondary targeting measures anyway. That F-117 was illuminated by cell phone signals.

I really think this statement in popular circulation is rubbish. It doesn't make sense to me given how the principals of stealth and cross-section reduction work; through scattering and absorption. When radars become more effective
against stealth aircraft, it doesn't "negate" anything. It just means that advanced radars will be able to detect stealth aircraft at say, ten miles out instead of five miles...Low observability will still retain the advantage of detecting the enemy first and firing first.

The Typhoon has already demonstrated that it can lock up a Raptor at distances far exceeding design specs in tests at Nellis. With current radar systems, what you say is true, but the radars themselves are being developed to have the same ability to target stealth aircraft that gen 4 planes deal with now.

of course, you are talking about isolated instances at a time when BVR capabilities were in it's infancy.

The first five years of the Vietnam War were far from being "isolated instances."

As far as new Joe toys, I want to see a Zulu-Cobra Dragonfly and a VT-22 Tomahawk. Cobra could do with Fulcrums and Flankers, both of which are cheaply available on the export market and could easily be modified by MARS. I'd also like to see an M-3 Bradly based Joe transport.

[Konigstiger]

As far as new Joe toys, I want to see a Zulu-Cobra Dragonfly and a VT-22 Tomahawk. Cobra could do with Fulcrums and Flankers, both of which are cheaply available on the export market and could easily be modified by MARS. I'd also like to see an M-3 Bradly based Joe transport.

M3A2 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle | The Fighting 1:18th! (http://www.fighting118th.com/2009/05/27/m3a2-bradley-infantry-fighting-vehicle/)

[Ruin]

I wonder just how much our international partners in development who will also deploy the Lightning are contributing to development costs, especially since most of its issues revolve around making it a one-size fits-all aircraft. Our shared allies aren't exactly flush with cash, but I don't understand why the US taxpayer is paying for the development of a plane that will be shared by several countries.

Well, it's a situation in which we undertook all the risk. I think long term it will play out just fine.

It's not as stealthy or mission capable as the Raptor, which has now been reduced to a forward aircap/awacs because it is so scarce.

It doesn't have the all-aspect stealth capability of the Raptor, but it's front quarter stealth capabilities are on par. I also think that Raptor production will eventually be restarted at some point.

I am an optimist.

That is the NEW mission profile based on its scarcity. Its original role was that of stealthy "Super MiG31:" large strike penetration missions for air superiorty while directing F35's with HARM's and other ground attack craft: Bones or Spirits with JDAMS and bunker busters.

Sounds right, given the initial order of 700+ Raptors planned.

The difference here is that the entire platform is completely new tech, and the original cost and trial projections were hopelessly optimistic from the start in order to get the project up and running. Like the Hornet, I expect many of its flaws to never be resolved and its mission profile adjusted to compensate.

One big difference is that the SH in particular was always viewed as a stopgap until the JSF project yielded operational airplanes. The US is thoroughly wedded to this airplane, and i think the problems will be ironed out. The most significant issues are currently software related.

Who'll be buying it? the UK stood down half the RAF for cost cutting. Japan and South Korea are developing their own gen 5 planes. France no doubt has Dassault working on their own design and Germany is cash poor from bailing out the rest of Europe, which is too busy trying to rebuild their own social infrastructures to think about buying such a high tech machine to fight against whom?

Canada, Australia, Japan and South Korea are going to buy it [I'm not confident in either of their abilities to develop their platform fully for financial (japan) and technological/production reasons (SK)], as will the UK. France has always built their own designs and wasn't ever viewed as a serious customer, and i don't think Germany ever was as well. Israel is a buyer, as is Turkey.

The Strike Eagle is a ground attack craft. An upgraded Super Eagle (or the cancelled F-21) could easily mix it up and win against the current and future Mig and Sukhoi variants for air superiority.

I'm not convinced that an imporoved Eagle could provide anything more than parity with current and future first-tier Migs and Suks from a BVR and WVR standpoint.

For that matter, why task the F35 for ground attack more than ably handled by the A-10 and F-16?

I like both these airplanes, and they're great for beating up these third-world nations with legacy second-hand cold-war stuff. However, they're not going to be very effective against any modern defense systems or airforces. Their maintenance hours probably should eventually be spent maintaining more capable craft.

Russia may not have provided much hardware, but they did provide the tech know-how on linking the radar systems, which were secondary targeting measures anyway. That F-117 was illuminated by cell phone signals.

Yes, but it was an isolated case against one F 117. If it was so easily repeatable, you would have seen a lot more nighthawks shot down over serbia..


The Typhoon has already demonstrated that it can lock up a Raptor at distances far exceeding design specs in tests at Nellis. With current radar systems, what you say is true, but the radars themselves are being developed to have the same ability to target stealth aircraft that gen 4 planes deal with now.

Do you have a link? I like tracking these claims. I've seen a lot that were bunk.


As far as new Joe toys, I want to see a Zulu-Cobra Dragonfly and a VT-22 Tomahawk. Cobra could do with Fulcrums and Flankers, both of which are cheaply available on the export market and could easily be modified by MARS. I'd also like to see an M-3 Bradly based Joe transport.

YES YES YES YES YES!!!!

and a new actually floating MANTA (why the hell not)

[Medikeighted]

Arent we talking about toys? You guys are going overboard with this real world stat shit. Its a toy going on a shelf.

sorry for adding to the hijack. as for toys, I still want an APC redesigned for the ME figures and resembling a Stryker IFV. It could also be repainted in AT colors or even re-purposed for Cobra as well.

An Osprey would be cool, but I'd be willing to settle for even a GI Joe sized Huey or a redesigned Tomahawk. The new Vamp was a good start, I'd like to see a few more vehicles that hold more than just two figures.

[Shin Densetsu]

I think this is uncalled for. Every company is littered with employees eager to air and trump up grievances. People love to bitch.

Lockeed won competitive fly-offs for both airplanes against competitors that were better established within the military at that time. Lockeed has a long history of unconventional thinking dating back before the Second World War extending to their work with the CIA in developing the U2 and SR-71. This is why they won the unconventional ATF and JSF projects.

Cost overruns, missed projections, and delays have been the norm for many Gen 4+/Gen 5 fighter projects. Look at the Eurofighter, for instance.


Actually, part of the reason Lockheed won the ATF competition was because the YF-22 was seen as more conventional as the YF-23. The X-35 was seen as more conventional then the Boeing X-32 as well. I don't really recall the other reasons why the X-35 won, but for the YF-22, it was during a time when Lockheed's F-117 program was sailing smooth compared to Northrop's B-2.

Interestingly enough, the F-22A differed more than the YF-22, than the F-23A EMD would have compared to the YF-23.

The F-35 has too much vested interest by many nations at this point to go back now. However, the F-35B may still get the axe as the UK's Royal Navy is considering an F-35C fleet instead. The F-35B has been the most problematic variant, being overweight/underpowered, et al. If there is an F-35 problem it is usually with the B variant.

The F-35C lately has a big problem; not being able to catch the arresting wire while landing on a carrier.

Japan is onboard for the F-35A but has reconsidered the Typhoon, they need a replacement for their Phantoms.

One big difference is that the SH in particular was always viewed as a stopgap until the JSF project yielded operational airplanes. The US is thoroughly wedded to this airplane, and i think the problems will be ironed out. The most significant issues are currently software related.

The Super Hornet was to bridge the gap between the A-6E and A/X(advanced stealth attacker that was proposed after the A-12 program died). Once the A/X became the A/F-X program once the NATF program was canceled, and after the A/F-X too, was subsequently canceled, the Navy was left with no alternative but the Super Hornet. At that point once the JSF was proposed(as an aircraft with commonality as a stealth replacement for lightweight strike fighters in multiple services like the F-16 and F/A-18), the JSF became the lo component of the lo/hi mix with the Super Hornet being the hi component.

What the F-35 has over the F-22 is non-proprietary avionics architecture, which is the achilles heel of the F-22. The F-35 is basically plug and play, open source, with the F-22, if you want to add compatibility for new weapons and systems, you need to hire engineers who know how to write the avionics code, which is expensive to begin with. From what I've heard, making the F-22 more open to other systems would require so an entirely new variant altogether.

Besides, the USAF is already focused on the NGAD, and I am sure Lockheed is enjoying the multinational support for the F-35 whereas the F-22 has been held back from export to foreign nations.

For GI Joe I would love to see a tandem canopy V-22 variant, like the proposed escort attack variant of the Osprey. Also the NGAD, and a Resolute YF-23 would be cool. AH-1Z upgrades for the Dragonfly would kick ass, the Dragonfly is a fun toy.

[Zoomie2001]

Oh, and I want a T-50 or a J-20.

[Shin Densetsu]

Oh, and I want a T-50 or a J-20.

I'm surprised PTE hasn't made a J-20 yet, or even the J-15. Their J-10 turned out well I would buy a J-20 from them.

[Grippen]

Jas-39 Gripen
Eurofighter Typhoon
Harrier
Dassault Rafale

[Ruin]

Actually, part of the reason Lockheed won the ATF competition was because the YF-22 was seen as more conventional as the YF-23. The X-35 was seen as more conventional then the Boeing X-32 as well. I don't really recall the other reasons why the X-35 won, but for the YF-22, it was during a time when Lockheed's F-117 program was sailing smooth compared to Northrop's B-2.

It didn't hurt that the Lockeed X-35 was more conventional looking than the X-32. However, The Northrup tried to fulfill the STOVL requirement by utilizing a vectoring system similar to the Harrier while Lockeed went with something new in it's lift fan system. The Lift fan has the advantage of eliminating hot-air injestion. This is where hot exaust gasses get sucked back into the engine intake on vertical takeoff/landing, causing loss of power. This has always been an issue for the Harrier and there was at least one event of this happening to the X-32 during the trials. The lift fan sucks cool uncombusted air from above the aircraft and isolates the engine thrust from reaching the intake.

That may have been the biggest reason it won.

There were other advantages for the Lockeed: It was considered more manuverable as a fighter, and was able to perform a short take-off, hit supersonic, and land vertically with no modifications in between. The Northrup was not able to do that by the finish of the trial.

The Northrup was thought to potentially have better stealth qualities. I also guess it's delta wing would have allowed more fuel to be carried and possibly made the airframe a little cheaper...



The F-35 has too much vested interest by many nations at this point to go back now. However, the F-35B may still get the axe as the UK's Royal Navy is considering an F-35C fleet instead. The F-35B has been the most problematic variant, being overweight/underpowered, et al. If there is an F-35 problem it is usually with the B variant.

As far as I know, the B is over that hump now.

Japan is onboard for the F-35A but has reconsidered the Typhoon, they need a replacement for their Phantoms.

Last I heard they were still very high on the stealth capabilities of the F-35 in order to perform clandestined monitoring of their neighbors. However, for their particular needs of point defense the Typhoon is a very good airplane.

For GI Joe I would love to see a tandem canopy V-22 variant, like the proposed escort attack variant of the Osprey. Also the NGAD, and a Resolute YF-23 would be cool. AH-1Z upgrades for the Dragonfly would kick ass, the Dragonfly is a fun toy.

Indeed

[Konigstiger]

An Osprey would be cool, but I'd be willing to settle for even a GI Joe sized Huey.

There's a Charlie/Mike out there. I'd support a November or Yankee, though.

[Zoomie2001]

That may have been the biggest reason it won.


Lockheed won because they do a better job of spreading out their sub-contracts to vast quantities congressional districts.

I want a T-50. I like the J-20 design, but I think the T-50 looks cooler.

[Medikeighted]

There's a Charlie/Mike out there. I'd support a November or Yankee, though.

I've seen the BBI one, I want one from Hasbro....and yeah, the N and Y versions are some pretty nice birds. I'd love to see that and a Z model Supercobra in Navy gray like the USMC versions.

[Dem_Yoe'z!]

I'd like to see a M1 Abrams-type tank for Cobra and maybe a Stryker-type vehicle for the Joes complete with a troop compartment in the rear.

[Shin Densetsu]

Lockheed won because they do a better job of spreading out their sub-contracts to vast quantities congressional districts.

I want a T-50. I like the J-20 design, but I think the T-50 looks cooler.

T-50 is a superior aircraft from what I've been reading.

[Ruin]

T-50 is a superior aircraft from what I've been reading.

From the little I know, the T-50 actually scares me a bit.

[Psycho Joe Guy]

One big difference is that the SH in particular was always viewed as a stopgap until the JSF project yielded operational airplanes. The US is thoroughly wedded to this airplane,

...and therein lies my problem with it. The Pentagon has had such a desire for this aircraft that it, and a few profiteering politicians with clear conflicts of interest (a former SecDef and VP among them) willingly sacrificed maintenance and upgrades of several proven and capable airframes to get it. The F-14D is still a superior fighter to the Super Hornet, and had it been given its planned avionics, AESA and AMRAAM upgrades, not to mention scheduled airframe reconditioning, it would still be providing aircap for carrier groups at greater ranges and effectiveness. The Phoenix had finally had all of its targeting issues resolved just as it was cancelled! The Harrier II may have short legs and be a terrible dogfighter, but it performs its mission perfectly for the USMC and carries a better weapons load than the F35B. I fail to see the need for stealth for an aircraft providing ground support for a beach invasion. Ship launched antiradar missiles and battleship cruise missile and artillery bombardments willl destroy any in-theater radar installations and an F-35 will be just as vulnerable to an SA-6 or Stinger as the Cobra helicopters it escorts.

Canada, Australia, Japan and South Korea are going to buy it [I'm not confident in either of their abilities to develop their platform fully for financial (japan) and technological/production reasons (SK)], as will the UK. France has always built their own designs and wasn't ever viewed as a serious customer, and i don't think Germany ever was as well. Israel is a buyer, as is Turkey.

I agree about Canada and Australia, but Japan and South Korea are both looking to establish themselves as more than US proxies. Japan has a long history of taking US designs and modifying them to meet its own needs and given their current economy, may try to use national defense spending as a secondary economic stimulus. It worked for the US in the 80's.

France's reputation speaks for itself, but I doubt that Germany will be buying ANY gen 5 planes. As for Israel, it goes without saying they will buy the plane, but for that reason alone, Turkey may pass. Turkey is feeling its oats as regional and international power and along with Brazil and India, is looking to establish itself as a first-world country. They've already made serious overtures towards China about other defense purchases. I'm sure many in Congress could see the F-35 sale to Turkey as another potential Iranian purchase of F-4's and F-14's.

I'm not convinced that an imporoved Eagle could provide anything more than parity with current and future first-tier Migs and Suks from a BVR and WVR standpoint.

Given their current upgrade and R&D schedule, no, but if they saw some serious investigation into airframe, avionics, and engine improvements, not to mention the development of a deployable long range AAM with improved passive detection systems, it would be a different story. I'm not opposed to the concept of a new aircraft. I AM opposed to purposefully making the US fighter fleet obsolescent to justify one.

I like both these airplanes, and they're great for beating up these third-world nations with legacy second-hand cold-war stuff. However, they're not going to be very effective against any modern defense systems or airforces.

If we ever go to war with Iran, the F-35 would be a viable weapons system. However, if we ever go to war with China, supposing it remains conventional (which it won't). We need only to look to the last time we fought them in Korea. What's an F-35 going to do when it runs out of missiles and 20mm rounds? The Chinese can field so many cruise missiles and aircraft that our Navy's only viable platform would be sub-launched cruise/nuclear missiles. Any carrier would be overwhelmed and sunk in the first hours of the engagement.

Yes, but it was an isolated case against one F 117. If it was so easily repeatable, you would have seen a lot more nighthawks shot down over serbia..

The entire fleet was grounded after that and the Wobblin Goblin has since been retired completely. No more were shot down because no more were bombing there.

Do you have a link? I like tracking these claims. I've seen a lot that were bunk.

The Eurofighter Typhoon beat the F22 in real tests! (http://eucitizens.eu/Forum/index.php?topic=166.0)

Direct links to the stories become scarcer since this happened, almost as though they're being removed or buried (or just cycling off active servers)... but this one is credible, and disconcerting for the USAF.

[CobraOfficer999]

We got these already.

Yes, we have a jeep that looks like a Stinger but has been renamed the Rattler. I am talking a new version of the Rattler jet and a new version of the Stinger Jeep, not a vehicle that looks like the Jeep but has been given the jet's name.

[Ruin]

...and therein lies my problem with it. The Pentagon has had such a desire for this aircraft that it, and a few profiteering politicians with clear conflicts of interest (a former SecDef and VP among them) willingly sacrificed maintenance and upgrades of several proven and capable airframes to get it. The F-14D is still a superior fighter to the Super Hornet, and had it been given its planned avionics, AESA and AMRAAM upgrades, not to mention scheduled airframe reconditioning, it would still be providing aircap for carrier groups at greater ranges and effectiveness.

A better fighter? as a Tomcat fanboy I would say quite probably it would have been, but also one that required a lot more maintenance and cost. More effective? The Cold War was over and it was judged that fleet defense was more economically and effectively handled by missile frigates anyway.

Also, I find the demonization of the decision-makers tiring, sophomoric, and irrational.

The Phoenix had finally had all of its targeting issues resolved just as it was cancelled!

Yet we had never needed to use one in anger before, which is probably why it was cancelled.

The Harrier II may have short legs and be a terrible dogfighter, but it performs its mission perfectly for the USMC and carries a better weapons load than the F35B.

It does not. It has the highest accident rate in the airfleet, is difficult to operate, and has less range and inferior weaponry and payload compared to the Lightning B.


I fail to see the need for stealth for an aircraft providing ground support for a beach invasion. Ship launched antiradar missiles and battleship cruise missile and artillery bombardments willl destroy any in-theater radar installations and an F-35 will be just as vulnerable to an SA-6 or Stinger as the Cobra helicopters it escorts.

Because close air support is only one of it's missions, and MANPAADS are far less effective against fixed wing aircraft.





If we ever go to war with Iran, the F-35 would be a viable weapons system. However, if we ever go to war with China, supposing it remains conventional (which it won't). We need only to look to the last time we fought them in Korea. What's an F-35 going to do when it runs out of missiles and 20mm rounds? The Chinese can field so many cruise missiles and aircraft that our Navy's only viable platform would be sub-launched cruise/nuclear missiles. Any carrier would be overwhelmed and sunk in the first hours of the engagement.

Having them is one thing, deploying them to the correct place and knowing where our fleet is is another..



The Eurofighter Typhoon beat the F22 in real tests! (http://eucitizens.eu/Forum/index.php?topic=166.0)

The Air Force reports Raptors were not in the air when this supposedly occured. Is it possible this was some sort of cover-up? sure, but there are tons of other engagements involving the F-22 including the Eurofighter in which the Raptor just cleans house because it's reportedly hard to get radar lock even WVR.

[Konigstiger]

I've seen the BBI one, I want one from Hasbro....QUOTE]

I'll never get that. It'll hold 4 figures maybe, have springloaded missile launchers and stumpy proportions.

There's a True Heroes helicopter at TrU (looks like an OH-58C or a slick D) that would be a close indicator of what Hasbro's would probably be.

To each their own, though.

[quote]Dem_Yoe'z!
I'd like to see a M1 Abrams-type tank for Cobra and maybe a Stryker-type vehicle for the Joes complete with a troop compartment in the rear.

Unimax M1A2 + Krylon Fusion of you choice = Cobra Abrams. They had a Stryker announced but they shelved it.

[Konigstiger]

Double Tap

[Psycho Joe Guy]

A better fighter? as a Tomcat fanboy I would say quite probably it would have been, but also one that required a lot more maintenance and cost.

The Tomcat only became a hanger queen because a planned and funded airframe upgrade for 1991 was cancelled, being called a "jobs program" rather than a necessity over the objections of the Navy, who knew the Super Hornet would never fill the role as well.

More effective? The Cold War was over and it was judged that fleet defense was more economically and effectively handled by missile frigates anyway.

Part of the Phoenix's design spec was cruise and anti-ship missile interception, not just AAM, and it had finally ironed out all the bugs in the system with surface clutter just in time to see Tomcats relegated to ground attack duty. Considering how cheap a Backfire bomber could be loaded with large cruise missiles and deployed against a carrier group, it makes more sense to extend the interception envelope via fighters equipped to do so.

Also, I find the demonization of the decision-makers tiring, sophomoric, and irrational.

Facts are facts, and several key policymakers made military deployment decisions that directly benefited them personally financially. I suggest not only looking into the Tomcat's cancellation, but also that of the SR-71, the entire logistical support structure of the US military abroad and the percentage of cost of private contractors versus formerly governmental institutions. The often-lauded "efficiency" of privatizing "big government" promises made in the 80's to save money did exactly the opposite, and most of those who made those decisions were major shareholders in the companies benefiting from military contracts. I care how you feel about it. The facts blatantly speak for themselves.

Yet we had never needed to use one in anger before, which is probably why it was cancelled.

The missile was so expensive and its range and independent radar so powerful, Tomcats were forbidden from using them without a visual bandit ID because we believed the Russian accidentally shot down that Korean Air 747 in a BVR situation, which of course, renders the whole Phoenix system moot.

It does not. It has the highest accident rate in the airfleet, is difficult to operate, and has less range and inferior weaponry and payload compared to the Lightning B.

...only when include the earlier AV8-A service record, which by all accounts, should never have been put to service. I specifically stated the Harrier II for that very reason. The F-35B is already overweight by a large percentage, and its high wing loading means that its real-world ordinance carry WILL be significantly less than promised.

Because close air support is only one of it's missions, and MANPAADS are far less effective against fixed wing aircraft.

Why risk such an expensive aircraft so needlessly at all? A $40 high-caliber shell or a $2000 missile or $200 RPG could literally destroy a hundreds of millions-dollar aircraft. Remember in Iraq when a lucky shot from an AK-47 brought down an Apache? That's inexcusable.

Having them is one thing, deploying them to the correct place and knowing where our fleet is is another..

...kinda hard to hide a carrier group from a country fielding a few hundred satellites Add to that known range capabilities and geography, and the possibility of a "sneak" attack by a carrier fleet of F-35's is slim to none..

The Air Force reports Raptors were not in the air when this supposedly occured.

That is only one of many 'explanations' offered by the USAF regarding that particular incident. It also speaks volumes that a Lockheed employee trolled that very discussion thread. Even if it was not at company direction, it speaks extremely ill for teh Raptor.

sure, but there are tons of other engagements involving the F-22 including the Eurofighter in which the Raptor just cleans house because it's reportedly hard to get radar lock even WVR.

Your turn: I wanna see it for myself.

[Shin Densetsu]

A better fighter? as a Tomcat fanboy I would say quite probably it would have been, but also one that required a lot more maintenance and cost. More effective? The Cold War was over and it was judged that fleet defense was more economically and effectively handled by missile frigates anyway.

The Air Force reports Raptors were not in the air when this supposedly occured. Is it possible this was some sort of cover-up? sure, but there are tons of other engagements involving the F-22 including the Eurofighter in which the Raptor just cleans house because it's reportedly hard to get radar lock even WVR.

Without turning this into a political discussion, early on the main person responsible for the Tomcat getting burned was Lee Aspin. This also has to do with the Advanced Tactical Engine(ATE) getting canceled. This was back in the 70's. Only the 1st few Tomcats were supposed to have the TF-30 engine, the definitive F-14 was to begin with the F-14B with the F401 ATE's. Because of the reluctance of the USAF to support the ATE(since they just needed the F100 for the F-15's), they pretty much left the ball in the Navy's court, and the Tomcat was already getting bad press as was the F401. Due to these events, the Tomcat would not get the engine truly meant for it until it was equipped with the F110 GE400. It should be said, the TF30 was always underpowered for the Tomcat to begin with and by the 20th aircraft or even before, they were already supposed to have started using the F401. Cheney may have put the nail in the coffin but he wasn't the sole reason the Tomcat program died. Had the F401 made it to fleet service in the 70's, the plan was to eventually have the F-14C as an all weather attack fighter variant of the Tomcat.

Looking at stats now, the Tomcat needed 40-50 hours of maintenance time for every hour of flight. Whereas the Super Bug is newer and has more room for growth potential with exponentially less down time needed for maintenance. The Super Bug wasn't the best of options, it was the only option left but this is explained in the next paragraph.

The Navy relies on long range SAMS from Battleships now for defense against long range bombers. That point aside, what they really desired was a replacement for the A-6. Once the NATF and ATA/A-12 programs were canceled, they started A-X as a program in place of the A-12, then added fighter requirement to it as A/F-X to kill 2 birds with one stone. Long range strike with air to air capability but emphasis on stealth strike. While it would be no slouch air to air, it wasn't meant to be a naval equivalent of the F-22 like the NATF was. The Super Bug was supposed to be a bridge to that.

Once the A/F-X was canceled, the Super Hornet was all that was left. It was either that or rely on the USAF for air coverage from F-22's(amongst other things), and the Navy isn't going to bow down to the USAF. Before NATF and ATA were canceled, the F-14D and A-6F programs were already dead. The Navy had nothing else but the Super Bug, and that program was only meant as a bridge to more advanced programs(which were canceled as stated above).

The best hope at this point is that the NGAD/F/A-XX is a better strike fighter than both the Super Bug and Super Tomcat. It probably will be.

I would like to see a toy of the NGAD and hopefully the vehicle designers at Hasbro are knowledgeable about military vehicles. Seems like they were moreso in the 80's. I mean look at the X-29 and then look at the Conquest X-30, that is a huge jump! Pretty impressive on Guy Cassaday's part. Also the Phantom X-19 compared to the F-19 concept art and models that were floating around, even Ertl made a Force One diecast toy of that. The Phantom X-19 looks way more powerful.

[PFunk]

The Tomcat was the Marilyn Monroe of jet fighters.

It was also way past its prime when it was finally retired. It couldn't operate unless it was in a heavy ECM environment. It was a maritime interceptor. We needed attack jets that could also be fighters if the need arose. Was the Hornet the best? No, it was the best of the available options.

[Shin Densetsu]

The Tomcat was the Marilyn Monroe of jet fighters.

It was also way past its prime when it was finally retired. It couldn't operate unless it was in a heavy ECM environment. It was a maritime interceptor. We needed attack jets that could also be fighters if the need arose. Was the Hornet the best? No, it was the best of the available options.

It was developed as a fighter with multirole capability, interception was not enough, if that was the case, the Navy would have stuck with the Missleer or the F-111B. Neither were adequate fighters and the Navy needed an air superiority fighter which could be developed into a strike fighter much like how the F-4 was used. Unfortunately the engine set backs and decision to cancel the F-14C all weather attack variant and the fleet not really building up strike capability until the 90's meant the Tomcat wasn't used to its full potential until later.

However in the mid 90's, the Tomcat was the 1st fighter tested with AMRAAM and was going to use it in the fleet but the decision was made to instead divert AMRAAM funds towards integrating a GPS and laser guidance system. This in turn led to the "Bombcat". Had that not been done, the Tomcat would have retired well ahead of 2006. The Tomcat, even the A model, could hold its own against modern fighters but unlike most other fighters, instead of improving in air combat, the Tomcat towards its later years was developed more as an attack aircraft. The catalyst for all this was the huge gap left by the retirement of the A-6 Intruder, a gap that has yet to be sufficiently filled.

[Ruin]

The Tomcat only became a hanger queen because a planned and funded airframe upgrade for 1991 was cancelled, being called a "jobs program" rather than a necessity over the objections of the Navy, who knew the Super Hornet would never fill the role as well.

The Navy people I've talked to indicated it was more from the unique hydraulics and the avionics that put it in the shop often
Part of the Phoenix's design spec was cruise and anti-ship missile interception, not just AAM, and it had finally ironed out all the bugs in the system with surface clutter just in time to see Tomcats relegated to ground attack duty. Considering how cheap a Backfire bomber could be loaded with large cruise missiles and deployed against a carrier group, it makes more sense to extend the interception envelope via fighters equipped to do so.

I could be convinced of this, but are we looking at what the Navy was looking at?


Facts are facts, and several key policymakers made military deployment decisions that directly benefited them personally financially. I suggest not only looking into the Tomcat's cancellation, but also that of the SR-71, the entire logistical support structure of the US military abroad and the percentage of cost of private contractors versus formerly governmental institutions. The often-lauded "efficiency" of privatizing "big government" promises made in the 80's to save money did exactly the opposite, and most of those who made those decisions were major shareholders in the companies benefiting from military contracts. I care how you feel about it. The facts blatantly speak for themselves.

It's never been a question about how i feel about it. it's about what's relevant

This is an unnecessary political argument which is entirely severable from the issue of good decision\bad decision framework of the F-14's retirement.


The missile was so expensive and its range and independent radar so powerful, Tomcats were forbidden from using them without a visual bandit ID because we believed the Russian accidentally shot down that Korean Air 747 in a BVR situation, which of course, renders the whole Phoenix system moot.

I forgot about the rules of engagement issues, so yeah, that too.


...only when include the earlier AV8-A service record, which by all accounts, should never have been put to service. I specifically stated the Harrier II for that very reason. The F-35B is already overweight by a large percentage, and its high wing loading means that its real-world ordinance carry WILL be significantly less than promised.

No, this is just the AV8-B Harrier II I'm talking about.

Why risk such an expensive aircraft so needlessly at all? A $40 high-caliber shell or a $2000 missile or $200 RPG could literally destroy a hundreds of millions-dollar aircraft. Remember in Iraq when a lucky shot from an AK-47 brought down an Apache? That's inexcusable.

Why risk a Forty million dollar aircraft then? Or a ten million dollar one? or a Humvee full of Soldiers that can be taken out by a $15 IED? I would think it's because there is an objective to being there that is worth the risk...

Plus, I think you might be over estimating the effectiveness/range of those type of weapons vs how the Lightning will be used. For a MANPAAD, you almost have to be set up low enough for a strafing run to be in range of those things. I don't think the F-35 will use machine guns and rockets much for it's interdiction/close support operations.



That is only one of many 'explanations' offered by the USAF regarding that particular incident. It also speaks volumes that a Lockheed employee trolled that very discussion thread. Even if it was not at company direction, it speaks extremely ill for teh Raptor.

It actually speaks nothing to me. The journal snippet mentioned has very few details and the lock is not confirmed by any other sources. To me, there is not enough credibility here.

Your turn: I wanna see it for myself.

I think I was mistaken when i mentioned matchups between the Typhoon and Raptor. I thought there was one, but the Raptor was pulled. Suspicious? I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking that it was. However, there have been tons of mock fights between Hornets, SuperHornets, Falcons, and Eagles at wargames like Red Flag that demonstrate the superiority of the platform against comparible or better radar systems.

[Viper6]

Quote:
Well, the public doesn't really get a whole lot of input into designing the armed forces.

nor should they unless they serve!