F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Daryl Hunt]

Who has been losing F-16s......and how many.......A-10 ever been shot down? Your argument is invalid. Show post where we were harping on F-22 or B-2....oooops

The A-10 operates in uncontested space. The F-16 is operating in contested space. As to who is losing the F-16s? Try Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia just to name a few. ISIS(L) has some pretty nasty weapons provided by Iran for surface to air. The A-10 would last about 10 minutes in that environment. It's almost as bad as being a Tank Driver where everyone is out to kill you.

It operates where?

Thank you for showing damaged A-10s. It could have been worse, much worse. This is all damage from ground troops. Not heavy AA or SAMs or even MANPADS. The F-16 and F-18 are operating in areas that are much better defended. The F-16 is being damaged and sometimes brought down by weapons provided by Iran or Russia. It's one thing to operate where you are going to get light ground fire but another to operate where everything is out to kill you and has the power to do it in one shot.

It's gotten too dangerous for an unsteathy CAS.

It's real hard to be stealthy when the eyball can see you. Blowpipe is an optically guided MANPAD. Good luck hiding from one of those. The A-10 can take a hit. The F-35 probably can't. Note I didn't say couldn't, I said probably. Lockheed usually makes good aircraft so we will have to wait and see what happens in combat. Here's the one that barbecued itself last year....

One caught fire. Just one. Do you know how many F-4s, F-15s, F-18s, A-7s, A-6s, and many others caught fire as well? How many KC-135s and Buffs caught fire on the ground? You are being a very creative troll.

WE lost a F-15 landing coming home from an Air Show. We were the only forward operating F-15 base in the world at the time. Brand new birds recently flown from Nellis. It went home on a couple of flatbed trucks and the Navy shipped it back to the States. Journalists went on about how fragile the F-15 was, how it cost too much, and more over this accident.Cause? They never officially said.

 

[westwall]

Who has been losing F-16s......and how many.......A-10 ever been shot down? Your argument is invalid. Show post where we were harping on F-22 or B-2....oooops

The A-10 operates in uncontested space. The F-16 is operating in contested space. As to who is losing the F-16s? Try Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia just to name a few. ISIS(L) has some pretty nasty weapons provided by Iran for surface to air. The A-10 would last about 10 minutes in that environment. It's almost as bad as being a Tank Driver where everyone is out to kill you.

It operates where?

Thank you for showing damaged A-10s. It could have been worse, much worse. This is all damage from ground troops. Not heavy AA or SAMs or even MANPADS. The F-16 and F-18 are operating in areas that are much better defended. The F-16 is being damaged and sometimes brought down by weapons provided by Iran or Russia. It's one thing to operate where you are going to get light ground fire but another to operate where everything is out to kill you and has the power to do it in one shot.

It's gotten too dangerous for an unsteathy CAS.

It's real hard to be stealthy when the eyball can see you. Blowpipe is an optically guided MANPAD. Good luck hiding from one of those. The A-10 can take a hit. The F-35 probably can't. Note I didn't say couldn't, I said probably. Lockheed usually makes good aircraft so we will have to wait and see what happens in combat. Here's the one that barbecued itself last year....

One caught fire. Just one. Do you know how many F-4s, F-15s, F-18s, A-7s, A-6s, and many others caught fire as well? How many KC-135s and Buffs caught fire on the ground? You are being a very creative troll.

WE lost a F-15 landing coming home from an Air Show. We were the only forward operating F-15 base in the world at the time. Brand new birds recently flown from Nellis. It went home on a couple of flatbed trucks and the Navy shipped it back to the States. Journalists went on about how fragile the F-15 was, how it cost too much, and more over this accident.Cause? They never officially said.

Out of an entire population of what, 12 at the time? Catastrophic failure of engines with high time on them is not uncommon that is true, but catastrophic failures of new engines? Or of the fuel systems to feed them?

Here's the deal Daryl, I am a pilot. I don't fly fast movers but I am multi engine rated and regularly fly aircraft that are 50 plus years old. When they crash it is almost always operator error. Very occasionally they will suffer a catastrophic failure that brings them down as was Fords case a few months ago. The problems with the 35 are so numerous it would take a book to list them all.....and those are the ones we actually know about. There are far more problems with the aircraft that are not being stated.

I was at Tailhook (yes I am a member, honorary) last year and had a chance to speak with some of the aviators there, including one of the 35 test cadre and officially they are all rah rah, but privately, at the bar, they are expressing reservations about the aircraft.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The A-10 operates in uncontested space. The F-16 is operating in contested space. As to who is losing the F-16s? Try Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia just to name a few. ISIS(L) has some pretty nasty weapons provided by Iran for surface to air. The A-10 would last about 10 minutes in that environment. It's almost as bad as being a Tank Driver where everyone is out to kill you.

It operates where?

Thank you for showing damaged A-10s. It could have been worse, much worse. This is all damage from ground troops. Not heavy AA or SAMs or even MANPADS. The F-16 and F-18 are operating in areas that are much better defended. The F-16 is being damaged and sometimes brought down by weapons provided by Iran or Russia. It's one thing to operate where you are going to get light ground fire but another to operate where everything is out to kill you and has the power to do it in one shot.

It's gotten too dangerous for an unsteathy CAS.

It's real hard to be stealthy when the eyball can see you. Blowpipe is an optically guided MANPAD. Good luck hiding from one of those. The A-10 can take a hit. The F-35 probably can't. Note I didn't say couldn't, I said probably. Lockheed usually makes good aircraft so we will have to wait and see what happens in combat. Here's the one that barbecued itself last year....

One caught fire. Just one. Do you know how many F-4s, F-15s, F-18s, A-7s, A-6s, and many others caught fire as well? How many KC-135s and Buffs caught fire on the ground? You are being a very creative troll.

WE lost a F-15 landing coming home from an Air Show. We were the only forward operating F-15 base in the world at the time. Brand new birds recently flown from Nellis. It went home on a couple of flatbed trucks and the Navy shipped it back to the States. Journalists went on about how fragile the F-15 was, how it cost too much, and more over this accident.Cause? They never officially said.

Out of an entire population of what, 12 at the time? Catastrophic failure of engines with high time on them is not uncommon that is true, but catastrophic failures of new engines? Or of the fuel systems to feed them?

Here's the deal Daryl, I am a pilot. I don't fly fast movers but I am multi engine rated and regularly fly aircraft that are 50 plus years old. When they crash it is almost always operator error. Very occasionally they will suffer a catastrophic failure that brings them down as was Fords case a few months ago. The problems with the 35 are so numerous it would take a book to list them all.....and those are the ones we actually know about. There are far more problems with the aircraft that are not being stated.

I was at Tailhook (yes I am a member, honorary) last year and had a chance to speak with some of the aviators there, including one of the 35 test cadre and officially they are all rah rah, but privately, at the bar, they are expressing reservations about the aircraft.

The more complex the problem the more failures and misgivings you will have. The engine is new, nothing like it has ever been made. The Avionics are new and nothing like it has ever been made. The F-35s failures are not carried on as they shouldn't be. But it's successes are also being incorporated in other US Birds. Everything worthwhile is worth the misgivings and failures. You don't get the best by giving up.

As I stated, last year for the F-35 or even the F-22 is a lifetime ago. The ones they are using now are the preproduction models and not the experimental versions earlier. And the Production Models will be even different under the skin.

Now, your assessment, is it the A, B or E that had so many misgivings. The B has been the most troublesome of them all and has slowed the development of the other two. It's also the most complex. The AF was not supposed to have the A model until 2017 but it appears it's going to service in 2016. Someone got smart enough to actually spend time getting the A model ready. The B model is still progged to go service in 2017. It also shares more parts with the B than the A does. The A uses more conventional small weapons while the B and C has to have them made. This is why the A is pretty ready to go while the other two have a ways to go.

But it's coming since we have no alternative. Just bad mouthing it to bad mouth it does nothing but delay the release of a working weapon system.

 

[westwall]

It operates where?

Thank you for showing damaged A-10s. It could have been worse, much worse. This is all damage from ground troops. Not heavy AA or SAMs or even MANPADS. The F-16 and F-18 are operating in areas that are much better defended. The F-16 is being damaged and sometimes brought down by weapons provided by Iran or Russia. It's one thing to operate where you are going to get light ground fire but another to operate where everything is out to kill you and has the power to do it in one shot.

It's gotten too dangerous for an unsteathy CAS.

It's real hard to be stealthy when the eyball can see you. Blowpipe is an optically guided MANPAD. Good luck hiding from one of those. The A-10 can take a hit. The F-35 probably can't. Note I didn't say couldn't, I said probably. Lockheed usually makes good aircraft so we will have to wait and see what happens in combat. Here's the one that barbecued itself last year....

One caught fire. Just one. Do you know how many F-4s, F-15s, F-18s, A-7s, A-6s, and many others caught fire as well? How many KC-135s and Buffs caught fire on the ground? You are being a very creative troll.

WE lost a F-15 landing coming home from an Air Show. We were the only forward operating F-15 base in the world at the time. Brand new birds recently flown from Nellis. It went home on a couple of flatbed trucks and the Navy shipped it back to the States. Journalists went on about how fragile the F-15 was, how it cost too much, and more over this accident.Cause? They never officially said.

Out of an entire population of what, 12 at the time? Catastrophic failure of engines with high time on them is not uncommon that is true, but catastrophic failures of new engines? Or of the fuel systems to feed them?

Here's the deal Daryl, I am a pilot. I don't fly fast movers but I am multi engine rated and regularly fly aircraft that are 50 plus years old. When they crash it is almost always operator error. Very occasionally they will suffer a catastrophic failure that brings them down as was Fords case a few months ago. The problems with the 35 are so numerous it would take a book to list them all.....and those are the ones we actually know about. There are far more problems with the aircraft that are not being stated.

I was at Tailhook (yes I am a member, honorary) last year and had a chance to speak with some of the aviators there, including one of the 35 test cadre and officially they are all rah rah, but privately, at the bar, they are expressing reservations about the aircraft.

The more complex the problem the more failures and misgivings you will have. The engine is new, nothing like it has ever been made. The Avionics are new and nothing like it has ever been made. The F-35s failures are not carried on as they shouldn't be. But it's successes are also being incorporated in other US Birds. Everything worthwhile is worth the misgivings and failures. You don't get the best by giving up.

As I stated, last year for the F-35 or even the F-22 is a lifetime ago. The ones they are using now are the preproduction models and not the experimental versions earlier. And the Production Models will be even different under the skin.

Now, your assessment, is it the A, B or E that had so many misgivings. The B has been the most troublesome of them all and has slowed the development of the other two. It's also the most complex. The AF was not supposed to have the A model until 2017 but it appears it's going to service in 2016. Someone got smart enough to actually spend time getting the A model ready. The B model is still progged to go service in 2017. It also shares more parts with the B than the A does. The A uses more conventional small weapons while the B and C has to have them made. This is why the A is pretty ready to go while the other two have a ways to go.

But it's coming since we have no alternative. Just bad mouthing it to bad mouth it does nothing but delay the release of a working weapon system.

Badmouthing something that's bad will hopefully make the people producing it, make it better. There are no C models out in the general world, so the A is the only model the aviators were talking about.
That is what they have been flying in preparation for the C model. They like the idea of the aircraft, they are just wondering how long it will take before the reality matches the hype.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Thank you for showing damaged A-10s. It could have been worse, much worse. This is all damage from ground troops. Not heavy AA or SAMs or even MANPADS. The F-16 and F-18 are operating in areas that are much better defended. The F-16 is being damaged and sometimes brought down by weapons provided by Iran or Russia. It's one thing to operate where you are going to get light ground fire but another to operate where everything is out to kill you and has the power to do it in one shot.

It's gotten too dangerous for an unsteathy CAS.

It's real hard to be stealthy when the eyball can see you. Blowpipe is an optically guided MANPAD. Good luck hiding from one of those. The A-10 can take a hit. The F-35 probably can't. Note I didn't say couldn't, I said probably. Lockheed usually makes good aircraft so we will have to wait and see what happens in combat. Here's the one that barbecued itself last year....

One caught fire. Just one. Do you know how many F-4s, F-15s, F-18s, A-7s, A-6s, and many others caught fire as well? How many KC-135s and Buffs caught fire on the ground? You are being a very creative troll.

WE lost a F-15 landing coming home from an Air Show. We were the only forward operating F-15 base in the world at the time. Brand new birds recently flown from Nellis. It went home on a couple of flatbed trucks and the Navy shipped it back to the States. Journalists went on about how fragile the F-15 was, how it cost too much, and more over this accident.Cause? They never officially said.

Out of an entire population of what, 12 at the time? Catastrophic failure of engines with high time on them is not uncommon that is true, but catastrophic failures of new engines? Or of the fuel systems to feed them?

Here's the deal Daryl, I am a pilot. I don't fly fast movers but I am multi engine rated and regularly fly aircraft that are 50 plus years old. When they crash it is almost always operator error. Very occasionally they will suffer a catastrophic failure that brings them down as was Fords case a few months ago. The problems with the 35 are so numerous it would take a book to list them all.....and those are the ones we actually know about. There are far more problems with the aircraft that are not being stated.

I was at Tailhook (yes I am a member, honorary) last year and had a chance to speak with some of the aviators there, including one of the 35 test cadre and officially they are all rah rah, but privately, at the bar, they are expressing reservations about the aircraft.

The more complex the problem the more failures and misgivings you will have. The engine is new, nothing like it has ever been made. The Avionics are new and nothing like it has ever been made. The F-35s failures are not carried on as they shouldn't be. But it's successes are also being incorporated in other US Birds. Everything worthwhile is worth the misgivings and failures. You don't get the best by giving up.

As I stated, last year for the F-35 or even the F-22 is a lifetime ago. The ones they are using now are the preproduction models and not the experimental versions earlier. And the Production Models will be even different under the skin.

Now, your assessment, is it the A, B or E that had so many misgivings. The B has been the most troublesome of them all and has slowed the development of the other two. It's also the most complex. The AF was not supposed to have the A model until 2017 but it appears it's going to service in 2016. Someone got smart enough to actually spend time getting the A model ready. The B model is still progged to go service in 2017. It also shares more parts with the B than the A does. The A uses more conventional small weapons while the B and C has to have them made. This is why the A is pretty ready to go while the other two have a ways to go.

But it's coming since we have no alternative. Just bad mouthing it to bad mouth it does nothing but delay the release of a working weapon system.

Badmouthing something that's bad will hopefully make the people producing it, make it better. There are no C models out in the general world, so the A is the only model the aviators were talking about.
That is what they have been flying in preparation for the C model. They like the idea of the aircraft, they are just wondering how long it will take before the reality matches the hype.

I slept at a Motel 6 one night and became an expert in Sain Burgery. Or was it a Scocket Riencist.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Australia just ditched whole lot of theirs... too expensive...too crappy, and their ships cant handle it.......oooops. Cost for everybody else just went up. Australia Not To Operate F-35B Fighters For LHDs

 

[shadow355]

Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’

Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?

Lame duck.

They should have taken the money they invested, and refined and improved upon the F/A-18.

I see the F-35 as a dream aircraft, a Osprey......except for jet engines.

The newest F/A-18 is a near perfect aircraft. It is combat proven, and maneuvers like a dream.

Long live the F/A-18 !



Shadow 355

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The main problem with the F-18 is that it's underpowered. If you look at it closely, it's a refined F-5. While not a bad thing, the same problem of underpowering exists much like the complaint of the F-5 which it grew out of. There are now better AC for carriers out there just not from the US. I have often wondered what the advantage for performance the F-35C has over the F-18E. The answer is, none.

But when you factor in the avionics, radar signature and range, the F-35 wins. The question is, at what cost. The F-35C many not be needed that bad.

But there is no reason why the importance of the A and B models are so important.

The A is needed to team up with the F-22 to clear corridors so that legacy AC can operate in. Ground Attack has gotten so good that unless you clear it out, Aircraft are in serious jeopardy. Without clearing of this corridor, the F-18/16/15 and many other 3rd and 4th gen birds will be cut to pieces. Yes, the F-22 can do this mission by itself but the cost is out of even the deep pockets of the US. Russia is finding this out right now with their Pak-50. The world class Multirole AC for the 5th gen is just too expensive. You can make it look like a 5th gen but unless it really IS a 5th gen, you are still a 4th gen that looks cool.

The B is a huge leap from the AV8. It's safer to operate, has greater speed, longer range. The B has all the advantages of the AV8 without all the problems.

I don't think the AU really needs the F-35C like they planned. While I may be a promoter to the A model, unless you need it don't buy it. The US needs it.

.

 

[Manonthestreet]

No, F-35 Can't Fight Long-Range, Either No F-35 Can t Fight Long-Range Either RealClearDefense
Flying truck.....great fighter

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No, F-35 Can't Fight Long-Range, Either No F-35 Can t Fight Long-Range Either RealClearDefense
Flying truck.....great fighter

The claimed ranges for the Russian Radar is out of what. You would have to be in orbit to see 750 miles away. Your article is about as misinformed as it can get.

 

[Manonthestreet]

In the assessment submitted to Frank Kendall, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, Gilmore said “Marine maintainers had rapid, ready access to spare parts from shore” and “received significant assistance” from Lockheed and subcontractor personnel.

Even with these advantages, “aircraft reliability was poor enough that it was difficult for the Marines to keep more than two or three of the six embarked jets in a flyable status on any given day,” he wrote. Lockheed F-35 s Reliability Found Wanting in Shipboard Testing - Bloomberg Business
Wow...can you imagine how quickly your air wing would be inoperable under real conditions.....thing might only be good for pretty pictures and wasting money.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In the assessment submitted to Frank Kendall, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, Gilmore said “Marine maintainers had rapid, ready access to spare parts from shore” and “received significant assistance” from Lockheed and subcontractor personnel.

Even with these advantages, “aircraft reliability was poor enough that it was difficult for the Marines to keep more than two or three of the six embarked jets in a flyable status on any given day,” he wrote. Lockheed F-35 s Reliability Found Wanting in Shipboard Testing - Bloomberg Business
Wow...can you imagine how quickly your air wing would be inoperable under real conditions.....thing might only be good for pretty pictures and wasting money.

The F-15 and the F-22 was no different. New Birds are like that. They grow out of it in time. You forget that I was with the F-15 on the first front lined unit. We still had more than our fair share of problems and could only do a 33% generation rate until the last mods were made on the A model that corrected many of the problems.

The Navy has announced that they could care less if the F-35C can dogfight or not. They are looking forward to getting in the air in their carrier group because of the sensors. The F-35C may not be the one to launch the Aim-120s. It may come from the F-18 where the F-35 guides it in.

In Syria, the F-22 has been used to knock out ground radar sites allowing the legacy fighters to do their jobs. We just don't have enough F-22s to do it all. We need the F-35 to keep the legacy fighters alive. So keep hammering. The F-35 is doing just fine.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Please provide more than your say so...F-22 had teething problems which are much different than not working period

 

[Manonthestreet]

if its not firing missles but only "guiding" it aint a fighter...... awacs do guiding...

 

[Manonthestreet]

BTW there wont be F-18s to guide since those are supposed to go away.......oooops

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Please provide more than your say so...F-22 had teething problems which are much different than not working period

Not working means it kills pilots. And the F-22 has at least 2 to it's name and some really serious close to death incidence as well. Do you ever watch news programs or listen to a radio, read a paper? Slowly back away from Foxsnews and read a newspaper for a change. Change the channel on your radio to a regular local station instead of NPR. Your response doesn't mean a thing other than you are ignorant.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

BTW there wont be F-18s to guide since those are supposed to go away.......oooops

They won't be going away anytime soon. The Navy won't have enough F-35s to replace all of them. What goes out is the old A/F-18C/D. The Bug, not the Superbug. The E/F will still be around. They are newer and cheaper to maintain than the old Bug which are really long on the tooth. The Marines will get rid of the Bug and the Harrier. Both are very expensive to fly.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

if its not firing missles but only "guiding" it aint a fighter...... awacs do guiding...

Yuppers, an AWACs that you can't find. The AWACs of today are based on the 747, 777 and 737. As important as an AWACs is, they fly with a great big "Shoot Me" sign painted on the side.

 

[HenryBHough]

So today it's announced that the overstuffed turkey is ready for limited combat.

"Limited".

So any enemy is gonna do, what, blindfold their fighter pilots just to make things fair?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So today it's announced that the overstuffed turkey is ready for limited combat.

"Limited".

So any enemy is gonna do, what, blindfold their fighter pilots just to make things fair?

Glad you brought up the enemy having fighters with blindfolds on. That is exactly why the F-35 is going to make happen. During the last Green Flag, that is exactly what the enemy experienced. You only get to see the missile or JDAM just before impact. This goes for air and ground enemies. The F-22 is operating completely unseen over Syria. They are waiting to see if the Syrian AF will attack the legacy fighters. If they do, the F-22 already has lock. They have also been knocking out ground radar installations. But we only have 187 F-22 and the next 400 F-35As will be a godsend. ICUUCMe doesn't apply with either the F-22 or the F-35 and the enemy just as well wear blindfolds.