F-35 Fail

[KissMy]

When was the last time a new aircraft design didn't require a lengthy and expensive development process?
We can't continue to rely on forty year old designs, F-16s and F-15s are already outclassed by the latest Russian designs.

Do you know the difference between development & tax payer fleecing production to fill a scrap yard? That is like paying someone to dig a hole just to fill it back in. Cronyism!!!!!!!!

 

[Discombobulated]

When was the last time a new aircraft design didn't require a lengthy and expensive development process?
We can't continue to rely on forty year old designs, F-16s and F-15s are already outclassed by the latest Russian designs.

Do you know the difference between development & tax payer fleecing production to fill a scrap yard? That is like paying someone to dig a hole just to fill it back in. Cronyism!!!!!!!!

I had no idea that aircraft design and development was part of your repertoire of expertise.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

The F-22 Raptor is, without a doubt, the most advanced and capable combat aircraft in the sky today. The F-35 will be to the F-22 exactly what the F-16 was to the F-15.

Are there issues, yes there are. With such a complex system, I can only imagine. However, when someone begins to blather about how horrible these weapon systems are, I tend to remind them of the same crap that was said about the M-1 Abrams, the F-14, the F-15 and of course the F-16 when they were developed and deployed. I remember the cries of doom and gloom when the F-16's fly-by-wire system was deployed and how they would 'fall out of the sky.' The F-15, it was said back in 1972 when it was first deployed, was a completely unnecessary boon doggle and would never stand up to the Mig-25 because it couldn't fly fast enough. The F-15 has NEVER lost a dogfight, regardless of who's flying it. The Israeli's can make that aircraft sing like Frank Sinatra.

The F-22 should be placed back into production and another 185 aircraft should be produced. The B-2 should also be placed back into production or at least an upgrade. But of course, until we rid the government of whiners and hand-wringers it won't.

This thread is a major fail if you have your facts. Don't believe me? Ask the people who fly them, they'll tell you. But really, why should facts preclude another cry of 'the sky is falling!'

 

[Manonthestreet]

Low, slow, and fat = dead. Always has always will. Not any more complicated than that. f-35 is outclassed by those 30 yr old outdated designs.

 

[longknife]

I am, in no way, shape, or form, an expert on aviation or military aircraft.

The original purpose of the F-35 was based on a very sound concept. Produce a versatile weapons system to replace at least three current platforms. Make it VSTOL but give it the speed the Harrier never had. Let it fly low and slow to replace the A-10. And give it the ability to carry a huge variety of weapons.

Has it had problems? Of course it has! As Sniper pointed out, there has never been ANY weapons system that didn't have teething problems.

At the same time, the F-35 and others face one simple problem - DOD procurement procedures! Asking the low bidder to build something outstanding is a joke. Political pressures from entrenched politicians also raise the ante. And then there are always cost over-runs and delays.

But, in the end, the only thing that counts is battlefield performance.

I have one other question. If the F-22 and F-35 are such pieces of junk, why have the Russians and Chinese done everything possible to steal their specs and build clones of their own?

 

[westwall]

The F-22 Raptor is, without a doubt, the most advanced and capable combat aircraft in the sky today. The F-35 will be to the F-22 exactly what the F-16 was to the F-15.

Are there issues, yes there are. With such a complex system, I can only imagine. However, when someone begins to blather about how horrible these weapon systems are, I tend to remind them of the same crap that was said about the M-1 Abrams, the F-14, the F-15 and of course the F-16 when they were developed and deployed. I remember the cries of doom and gloom when the F-16's fly-by-wire system was deployed and how they would 'fall out of the sky.' The F-15, it was said back in 1972 when it was first deployed, was a completely unnecessary boon doggle and would never stand up to the Mig-25 because it couldn't fly fast enough. The F-15 has NEVER lost a dogfight, regardless of who's flying it. The Israeli's can make that aircraft sing like Frank Sinatra.

The F-22 should be placed back into production and another 185 aircraft should be produced. The B-2 should also be placed back into production or at least an upgrade. But of course, until we rid the government of whiners and hand-wringers it won't.

This thread is a major fail if you have your facts. Don't believe me? Ask the people who fly them, they'll tell you. But really, why should facts preclude another cry of 'the sky is falling!'

I agree with everything except the B-2. That aircraft I think is a waste. the technology developed to build it is cool, but the aircraft itself has no real mission. And at 2 billion a pop, I'd rather have a fully equipped and manned Guided Missile Destroyer.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

The F-22 Raptor is, without a doubt, the most advanced and capable combat aircraft in the sky today. The F-35 will be to the F-22 exactly what the F-16 was to the F-15.

Are there issues, yes there are. With such a complex system, I can only imagine. However, when someone begins to blather about how horrible these weapon systems are, I tend to remind them of the same crap that was said about the M-1 Abrams, the F-14, the F-15 and of course the F-16 when they were developed and deployed. I remember the cries of doom and gloom when the F-16's fly-by-wire system was deployed and how they would 'fall out of the sky.' The F-15, it was said back in 1972 when it was first deployed, was a completely unnecessary boon doggle and would never stand up to the Mig-25 because it couldn't fly fast enough. The F-15 has NEVER lost a dogfight, regardless of who's flying it. The Israeli's can make that aircraft sing like Frank Sinatra.

The F-22 should be placed back into production and another 185 aircraft should be produced. The B-2 should also be placed back into production or at least an upgrade. But of course, until we rid the government of whiners and hand-wringers it won't.

This thread is a major fail if you have your facts. Don't believe me? Ask the people who fly them, they'll tell you. But really, why should facts preclude another cry of 'the sky is falling!'

I agree with everything except the B-2. That aircraft I think is a waste. the technology developed to build it is cool, but the aircraft itself has no real mission. And at 2 billion a pop, I'd rather have a fully equipped and manned Guided Missile Destroyer.

I do understand your thoughts. However, I'm thinking solely along the lines of keeping the Triad in tip-top shape. Besides, believe it or not the B-2 is ten to twenty year old technology. That's why I said we should look into an 'upgrade' to the weapons system.

I think you might get a lot more use out of a ship as opposed to another long-range bomber. Building another B-52 is not really something that is feasible. An aircraft that will fly for 50+ years is completely unheard of. But, according to the 'experts' in the 50's the B-52 was the biggest waste of money ever! Hmmmmm...

 

[Manonthestreet]

F-35 can't carry much can't fly very far very fast or very high compared to current competition but don't worry it'll be alright.........

 

[Manonthestreet]

f35 shortcomings - Google Search

 

[Discombobulated]

F-35 can't carry much can't fly very far very fast or very high compared to current competition but don't worry it'll be alright.........

The F-35 STOVL version will be a tactical game changer, there are a half dozen navies waiting for final development of pre production models. The Harrier Carriers will all have vastly greater combat capability with supersonic strike aircraft.

 

[Discombobulated]

The F-35 critics need to come to terms with reality.
https://www.f35.com/global

 

[Manonthestreet]

They have and its ugly and pilots are going to get waxed.
Mr Secretary - Why Does the Pentagon Say the JSF is a 5th Generation Fighter . . Really?
Look at that chart, simply no defense for building such a piece of junk

 

[Manonthestreet]

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html

 

[Picaro]

When was the last time a new aircraft design didn't require a lengthy and expensive development process?
We can't continue to rely on forty year old designs, F-16s and F-15s are already outclassed by the latest Russian designs.

How many of these latest Russian designs will anybody ever be facing in dogfights?

And, why do modern designers keep designing manned fighter aircraft at all?

 

[SteadyMercury]

Low, slow, and fat = dead. Always has always will. Not any more complicated than that. f-35 is outclassed by those 30 yr old outdated designs.

Bullshit.

There are lots of competing interests around the F-35 and lots of stuff on the web that is written with an agenda in mind. Most of its performance parameters are still classified, and as others have pointed out any new aircraft goes thru hiccups in development you can find many successful planes including F-111 and A-10 that were panned when first introduced.

I can't believe the amount of hyperbole in this thread.

 

[williepete]

You go to war with what you've got.

Y'all can talk until you're blue in the face but the only manned fighter we're buying is the F-35 to augment the pitifully few F-22s we already have. The F-16s, F-15s, F-15Es and A-10s are long in the tooth and headed for the bone yard. The F-18 Super Hornet has fared beyond fantastic for the Navy and will help bridge the gap as the newbies come on line. These 70's and 80's jets also all share the same radar cross section of a WWII B-24. These non super cruise radar reflectors can't survive in the modern air battle.

You go to war with what you've got.

Once the feces hits the oscillator, it's too late to design a custom built fighter.

If you can, find a WWII vet who fought in a Sherman tank. Ask him about weapon systems bought by politicians and built by the lowest bidder. This tragedy is as old as the human race.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Exactly.....not an excuse to build crap though and then say well ya go to war with what ya got.....

 

[Manonthestreet]

Has the f-18 ever engaged an enemy combatant???

 

[SteadyMercury]

Co-Designer of F-16.

He's given far more credit for the F-16 than he deserves.

You want to know how wise this old man that you're taking word as gospel from? Here is his analysis from 1982, in PDF:

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/08.pdf

He basically believes small, simple, and highly maneuverable trumps all and argues against the effectiveness of the larger more complex fighters including the F-15 and F-14. He goes on about how an effective air superiority fighter cannot be achieved with the trend towards multi-mission because of the "crippling penalties" since no effective air-to-air fighter can also do things like bombing. He advocates designing planes for the smallest possible physical size, specifically pointing out they need to design planes smaller than the F-15, use single engine instead of dual like F-15, and using passive avionics instead of a powerful look down doppler like F-15. He talks up the F-5 of all things, since it is small and simple.

Since 1982 when his paper was published what spent the ensuing three decades being the world's dominant air superiority fighter with almost 100-1 kill ratio? F-15. Too big, too fancy, etc.

There goes your hero.

 

[mamooth]

Has the f-18 ever engaged an enemy combatant???

Aircraft vs. aircraft?

Baby Hornets engaged Iraqi aircraft in the 1991 Gulf War. A MiG-25 shot down a Hornet, and two Hornets downed two MiG-21s.

Super Hornets, no aircraft vs. aircraft combat that I know of. Lots of bombing ground targets.