Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Deviant BlacktailMale/United States Recent Activity
Deviant for 7 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 663 Deviations 2,431 Comments 33,101 Pageviews

Newest Deviations

Favourites

Activity


Recently, the USAF finally broke-down and compared the F-35A to the F-16, in a direct fly-off that critics have been calling-for over at least 15 years now.

The F-35A lost. BRUTALLY. Against an F-16D, a bulkier, draggier, heavier 2-seat variant of the F-16, which was even carrying droptanks to boot --- the F-35A was in a clean configuration, with no external stores to hinder it's agility;
www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-m…

The USAF has been working overtime to discredit the findings of their own reports, but the fact is that with a thrust/weight ratio of 0.87 (the F-16C's is over 1.0), a wing loading of 103lb/ft2 at combat weight (the F-16C's is 87lb/ft2), and a stall speed of more than 250mph at combat weight (the F-16C's is 150mph), the F-35A is a battle-loser.

Now Congress is ordering the USAF to do a fly-off between the F-35A and another aircraft it's planned to replace --- the A-10 Thunderbolt II;
www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-m…

The (Br)asshats are hard at work trying to discredit this idea as well and weasel their way out of it, but given precedent set by the recent F-35 versus F-16 test, they'll have a very hard time getting out of it, no matter how "silly" General Mike Hostage claims it to be (that was the word he used; it won't be so silly if the nest-egg of his post-military employment goes up in smoke!).

That said, watch what happens in this fly-off like a hawk, because the USAF will pull every stop to nerf it. Expect some of the following...

1- Gunnery will not be compared, and the fact that the A-10 fires up to 4x as many bursts of fire (and can destroy much more hardened targets) will not be a conclusion of the test. In fact, the static ground testing of gunfire from an F-35 has only just begun a few months ago (after more than 20 years of development, and 15 years of test flights!), and the JSF Program Office says it won't fire it's gun in mid-air until 2017. Even if it does, the F-35 doesn't have a gunsight or a Heads Up Display to aim it's gun, and the software required to aim the weapon from the pilot's Helmet Mounted Display isn't expected to be available until 2019 at the earliest.

2- Full-up live fire testing on F-35 components and complete airframes will not be conducted; the A-10 already proved itself in these tests way back in the early 1970s.

3- Weapons carriage will not be compared. The A-10 has a 50% larger payload, carries larger numbers of munitions, and has hardpoints that can hold heavier individual pieces of ordnance (up to 5000lbs).

4- The A-10 will not be demonstrated use  the Small Diameter Bomb, Hydra 70 rockets, AGM-65 Maverick missiles, Mk.80-series general purpose bombs, and cluster bombs, because the F-35 isn't compatible with any of them.

5- The endurance will not be compared, because the A-10 has a 50%-longer range than the F-35 on internal fuel alone, and nearly 200% more range with droptanks. The F-35's compatibility with droptanks was permanently deleted by 2006, for weight-savings and safety purposes.

6- Loiter time over the target will not be compared, because the A-10 has several times as much.

7- Take-off and landing capability on rough and/or short runways will not be compared, because the F-35 lacks ruggedized landing gear, and has almost 3x as long a take-off run as the A-10.

8- The ability to operate from frontline airstrips will not be compared, because the A-10's APU and batteries allow it to start it's own engines at the push of a button. The F-35 requires a huffer cart and a generator cart.

9- Multi-engine survivability and redundancy will not be compared, because the F-35 has only one engine.

10- The ability of the A-10 to continue flying if it loses electric power and/or hydraulics will not factor in, because the F-35's controls aren't operable without power.

11- Maneuverability at low speeds and altitudes will not be compared, because the A-10 has already been proven to have a faster turn rate and nearly half the turning radius of an F-16A in this arena, and the F-16A maneuvers better than the F-16C, which maneuvers better than the F-16D, which has been proven to maneuver better than the most agile variant of the F-35 (the F-35A).

12- The utility of the A-10's radios to communicate with ground troops and it's laser spot tracker to find marked targets will not be factored-in, because the F-35 has no such capability.

13- The ability of the A-10's pilots to visually detect, identify, and engage targets --- as well as to discern friend from foe on the ground --- thanks to it's bubble canopy and low stall 120mph speed will be factored-in, because the F-35 has a clamshell canopy (with much worse visibility) and a stall speed in excess of 200mph.

14- The A-10's sortie rate in excess of 2-per-day will not be a factor, because the F-35 has never demonstrated the ability to fly even one sortie every two days.

15- The maintenance will not be compared, because the A-10 has the amount of maintenance man-hours per flight hour and average downtime per-day of any combat aircraft currently operational in the US inventory. The F-35 has the worst of these.

Mark my words, the USAF *will* omit as many of these factors as possible.
  • Listening to: Stuff
  • Reading: Stuff
  • Watching: Stuff
  • Playing: Stuff
  • Eating: Stuff
  • Drinking: Seriosuly, who the hell cares?
Warplane Disasters! Ep.11: The CAC Boomerang
Australia was never a nation widely-known for their aviation industry, but they decided to take-up the gauntlet at the start of World War 2 and develop an indigenous Fighter aircraft; the CAC (Commonwealth Aircraft Company) Boomerang. This aircraft was a simple premise; develop a Fighter out of a Basic Trainer that was already known for good performance and maneuverability. Done deal, right?

Well, no. The result was no small embarrassment, saw little combat, suffered several losses in air-to-air combat, and never scored even a single kill. The RAAF soon stopped using them as Fighters.

Though CAC sold the Boomerang on the basis of being an "Emergency Fighter", the it's pundits more wisely labeled it a *"Panic Fighter"*. The design phase was truncated into only 6 months, but the prototyping phase of it's development was skipped to save time --- which HUGELY backfired, because the Boomerang was stuck in development limbo for nearly a whole extra year (during which prototyping could have been used to fix it's many flaws, but wasn't).

The Boomerang in service wasn't so much a "Hangar Queen", a "Dog", or a "Deathtrap", as much as it was simply a wimp. Its climb rate, top speed, maneuverability, range, and high-altitude performance were far too low (and its weight was far too high) in its final configuration. Every attempt at fixing these problems either made them worse, or simply came too late to be of any use.

The bottom line is that a warplane doesn't need to go pear-shaped with a bang to be a disaster; a whimper will suffice.

As usual, meaninter03 edited the script for this presentation for spelling and grammar.

Finally, these are my sources for this presentation...

ww2db.com/aircraft_spec.php?ai…

www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/boo…

www.wwiivehicles.com/australia…

www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum…

www.aviastar.org/gallery/boome…

www.aviastar.org/air/australia…

www.ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/c…

www.aviationmuseum.com.au/airc…

www.warbirdregistry.org/boomer…

www.adf-serials.com.au/2a46.ht…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Boom…

www.aarg.com.au/cac-boomerang-…

www.militaryfactory.com/aircra…

www.fighterworld.com.au/az-of-…

www.aviationmuseum.com.au/airc…

www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft…

cacboomerang.com.au/

www.ozatwar.com/vic07.htm

dbdesignbureau.buckmasterfamil…
Loading...
Warplane Disasters! Episode 10 Special (Part 2/2)
As in Part 1 of this presentation, this episode of Warplane Disasters goes off the beaten path, and looks at dire problems that plagued otherwise very successful aircraft.

The successes of these aircraft are widely-known, but not these issues, which is the whole point of this presentation; success has a nasty tendency to smokescreen serious problems. The warplanes featured here aren't necessarily the most extreme examples in that regard, but they do illustrate the point.

The aircraft featured in Part 2 are...
#6: The B-29 Superfortress
#7: The F-14A Tomcat
#8: The F-16A/B Fighting Falcon
#9: The F-100 Super Sabre
#10: The F-15 Eagle

As in Part 1, the script for this presentation was edited for spelling and grammar by meaninter03.

Finally, as promised, here is an exhaustive list of my sources for this presentation...

militaryhistory.about.com/od/m…

usfighter.tripod.com/f8.htm

www.airvectors.net/avcrus_2.ht…

www.skeletoncrew.ca/forum/inde…

books.google.com/books?id=YLPr…

characterqualitystories.com/cq…

www.airvectors.net/avtu22.html…

www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-2b.htm

www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flygirls…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B…

www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flygirls…

www.airforcemag.com/magazinear…

www.ejection-history.org.uk/Ai…

www.apnewsarchive.com/1987/F-1…

www.flightglobal.com/news/arti…

books.google.com/books?id=u_Dr…

www.ejection-history.org.uk/Ai…

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01…

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=75…

www.thecid.com/f20a/f20hist8.h…

www.ejection-history.org.uk/Ai…

www.avsim.com/pages/1205/F8/F8…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F…

www.businessinsider.com/the-f-…

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew…

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic…

www.pogo.org/blog/2013/02/why-…
Loading...
Warplane Disasters! Episode 10 Special (Part 1/2)
The tenth episode of Warplane Disasters doesn't cover any specific aircraft, but rather 10 serious design flaws in 10 different airframes...

...but there's a twist; these aircraft weren't actually "Warplane Disasters" at all. All 10 of these aircraft were successful in operational service!

The disasters here are serious (and often lethal) defects that crept their way into otherwise relatively good designs. The root causes vary. Some were design flaws; some were construction defects; others still were the result of sloppy testing and evaluation.

The causes are largely the same as those of genuine Warplane Disasters --- development and production misconduct. The lesson is that even relatively successful aircraft can have dangerous defects, if part of the team working on an aircraft project becomes lazy or complacent.

This presentation ended up being a lot longer than I expected when I stated it, so I had to split it into 2 parts. The aircraft featured in Part 1 are...
#1: The F-8 Crusader
#2: The Bf 109
#3: The F-86 Sabre
#4: The Tu-22M Backfire
#5: The Mig-29 Fulcrum

As usual, this script was edited for spelling and grammar by meaninter03.
Loading...
Warship Disasters! Ep. 2: The Kynda class Cruisers
The Project 58 warships, known in the West as the Kynda class, were the Soviet Union's first attempt at a purpose-made major surface combatant armed primarily with guided missiles. Unfortunately, they were de-facto Destroyers that were overloaded --- both figuratively *and* literally --- with the equipment and operational expectations of a Cruiser. They were thus accidental homages to the HMS Swift (see the first episode of this series), that fell flat in operational service.

In this presentation, you'll see how Project 58 went wrong, starting in it's infancy, and continuing all the way up to when these four unfortunate vessels were stricken.

As usual, I got editing support from Screbellious on the script for this presentation, so few spelling or grammatical errors are likely to have survived.  ;-)

Here are my sources...

fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/r…

flot.sevastopol.info/eng/ship/…

books.google.com/books?id=tkGD…

books.google.com/books?id=Pryq…

www.steelnavy.com/Kombrig%20Dr…

fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/thea…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kynda-cl…

russianships.info/eng/warships…

books.google.com/books?id=Pryq…

fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/r…

navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_…

russia-history.narod.ru/sovshi…

defenseissues.wordpress.com/20…

defenseissues.wordpress.com/20…

books.google.com/books?id=zr6Y…

www.navweaps.com/index_tech/te…
Loading...

deviantID

BlacktailFA
Blacktail
United States
Current Residence: Somewhere...
Favourite genre of music: Video Game music!
Favourite style of art: Furry art!
Shell of choice: 106mm Recoilless
Skin of choice: My own...
Favourite cartoon character: ???
Interests
Recently, the USAF finally broke-down and compared the F-35A to the F-16, in a direct fly-off that critics have been calling-for over at least 15 years now.

The F-35A lost. BRUTALLY. Against an F-16D, a bulkier, draggier, heavier 2-seat variant of the F-16, which was even carrying droptanks to boot --- the F-35A was in a clean configuration, with no external stores to hinder it's agility;
www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-m…

The USAF has been working overtime to discredit the findings of their own reports, but the fact is that with a thrust/weight ratio of 0.87 (the F-16C's is over 1.0), a wing loading of 103lb/ft2 at combat weight (the F-16C's is 87lb/ft2), and a stall speed of more than 250mph at combat weight (the F-16C's is 150mph), the F-35A is a battle-loser.

Now Congress is ordering the USAF to do a fly-off between the F-35A and another aircraft it's planned to replace --- the A-10 Thunderbolt II;
www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-m…

The (Br)asshats are hard at work trying to discredit this idea as well and weasel their way out of it, but given precedent set by the recent F-35 versus F-16 test, they'll have a very hard time getting out of it, no matter how "silly" General Mike Hostage claims it to be (that was the word he used; it won't be so silly if the nest-egg of his post-military employment goes up in smoke!).

That said, watch what happens in this fly-off like a hawk, because the USAF will pull every stop to nerf it. Expect some of the following...

1- Gunnery will not be compared, and the fact that the A-10 fires up to 4x as many bursts of fire (and can destroy much more hardened targets) will not be a conclusion of the test. In fact, the static ground testing of gunfire from an F-35 has only just begun a few months ago (after more than 20 years of development, and 15 years of test flights!), and the JSF Program Office says it won't fire it's gun in mid-air until 2017. Even if it does, the F-35 doesn't have a gunsight or a Heads Up Display to aim it's gun, and the software required to aim the weapon from the pilot's Helmet Mounted Display isn't expected to be available until 2019 at the earliest.

2- Full-up live fire testing on F-35 components and complete airframes will not be conducted; the A-10 already proved itself in these tests way back in the early 1970s.

3- Weapons carriage will not be compared. The A-10 has a 50% larger payload, carries larger numbers of munitions, and has hardpoints that can hold heavier individual pieces of ordnance (up to 5000lbs).

4- The A-10 will not be demonstrated use  the Small Diameter Bomb, Hydra 70 rockets, AGM-65 Maverick missiles, Mk.80-series general purpose bombs, and cluster bombs, because the F-35 isn't compatible with any of them.

5- The endurance will not be compared, because the A-10 has a 50%-longer range than the F-35 on internal fuel alone, and nearly 200% more range with droptanks. The F-35's compatibility with droptanks was permanently deleted by 2006, for weight-savings and safety purposes.

6- Loiter time over the target will not be compared, because the A-10 has several times as much.

7- Take-off and landing capability on rough and/or short runways will not be compared, because the F-35 lacks ruggedized landing gear, and has almost 3x as long a take-off run as the A-10.

8- The ability to operate from frontline airstrips will not be compared, because the A-10's APU and batteries allow it to start it's own engines at the push of a button. The F-35 requires a huffer cart and a generator cart.

9- Multi-engine survivability and redundancy will not be compared, because the F-35 has only one engine.

10- The ability of the A-10 to continue flying if it loses electric power and/or hydraulics will not factor in, because the F-35's controls aren't operable without power.

11- Maneuverability at low speeds and altitudes will not be compared, because the A-10 has already been proven to have a faster turn rate and nearly half the turning radius of an F-16A in this arena, and the F-16A maneuvers better than the F-16C, which maneuvers better than the F-16D, which has been proven to maneuver better than the most agile variant of the F-35 (the F-35A).

12- The utility of the A-10's radios to communicate with ground troops and it's laser spot tracker to find marked targets will not be factored-in, because the F-35 has no such capability.

13- The ability of the A-10's pilots to visually detect, identify, and engage targets --- as well as to discern friend from foe on the ground --- thanks to it's bubble canopy and low stall 120mph speed will be factored-in, because the F-35 has a clamshell canopy (with much worse visibility) and a stall speed in excess of 200mph.

14- The A-10's sortie rate in excess of 2-per-day will not be a factor, because the F-35 has never demonstrated the ability to fly even one sortie every two days.

15- The maintenance will not be compared, because the A-10 has the amount of maintenance man-hours per flight hour and average downtime per-day of any combat aircraft currently operational in the US inventory. The F-35 has the worst of these.

Mark my words, the USAF *will* omit as many of these factors as possible.
  • Listening to: Stuff
  • Reading: Stuff
  • Watching: Stuff
  • Playing: Stuff
  • Eating: Stuff
  • Drinking: Seriosuly, who the hell cares?

AdCast - Ads from the Community

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:icondystatic-studio:
Dystatic-Studio Featured By Owner Aug 4, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Take a look of her anthro drawings, I am sure you will love it: derivedjam.deviantart.com/
Reply
:iconnohomers48:
Nohomers48 Featured By Owner Edited Jul 1, 2015
Here is more proof of how terrible the F-35 is if you ever intend to do a series on it. It's a report from a dogfighting exercise back in January involving an F-35 and F-16, the report itself is by the F-35 pilot: The F-35's Damning Dogfighting Report
Reply
:iconcrimsonfalke:
CrimsonFALKE Featured By Owner Feb 18, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Reply
:iconcrimsonfalke:
CrimsonFALKE Featured By Owner Oct 10, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I have got ask will you ever dissect fictional IFVs and Tanks?
Reply
:iconcrimsonfalke:
CrimsonFALKE Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
www.military-today.com/tanks/s… you wrote that yes? I have to say its an ugly patton
Reply
:iconplatovoltaire:
PlatoVoltaire Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014
Will there be any more worst tanks chapters?
Reply
:iconkashim27:
Kashim27 Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2013
Bit of a question for ya.  What do think we the US government can to correct all this misspending and mismanagement?  Also what do think is a good design for a tank and IFV?
Reply
:iconfalcon01:
falcon01 Featured By Owner Jun 24, 2013
Thank You for the Faves!
Reply
:iconrestos1981:
Restos1981 Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2013
I saw a question on your battleship clip in youtube and i also would like to know your opinion on the Su-35.
What should the USAF buy to counter it?
Reply
:iconarmamentdawg:
ArmamentDawg Featured By Owner Aug 6, 2014
The USAF should buy more F-22 Raptors- that's the only thing that can counter the Sukhoi T-50. The F-15SE Silent Eagle MAY be able to counter the Su-35, but significant investments must be made to improve its radar and electronic warfare system, and to uprate its engines, to keep the Silent Eagle competitive.
Reply
Add a Comment: