F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[DrainBamage]

Two decades and still not rdy for prime time

They have seen more combat than the F-22 that you love, tell the Marines flying them that they aren't ready to do what they are using them for.

If you want to go by cost and readiness then neither F-22 or B-1 is ready for prime time.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Two decades and still not rdy for prime time

They have seen more combat than the F-22 that you love, tell the Marines flying them that they aren't ready to do what they are using them for.

If you want to go by cost and readiness then neither F-22 or B-1 is ready for prime time.

They've dropped some bombs for proppo…..2 decades and still cant go full rate. Think how many F-22 all that waste could have purchased

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Two decades into F-35 development and production, prime contractors Lockheed Martin and engine maker Pratt and Whitney would like to sign multi-year production contracts.

However, the F-35 program is still plagued by what Garamendi called high operating costs, inadequate repair capacity, spare part shortages and poor replacement part reliabilities. Ongoing challenges running the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which was created to deliver parts to aircraft maintainers, are compounding the spare parts problems. Lawmakers Cooling on F-35 Multi-Year Production Contracts - USNI News Two decades and still not rdy for prime time

Or they can do it the old fashioned way and let the Techs handle it. That's what the Marines and USAF is doing while waiting for for the software to catch up. We were flying back from Sondy to Anchorage and we had an engine that was out of Sync. Ever hear a sledge hammer pounding on the side of an airplane? I adjusted the Props without the high dollar test equipment by ear. Took me about 20 minutes but I got the pounding stopped. You believe the Techs rely soley on their high tech gear? It's nice but a good tech can get by without it.

Right now, the B model is flying missions that should really be flown by the C but the C isn't mission ready. They are flying the wings off the B. When you do that you are going to have a high breakage rate. But it's getting the job done in not only it's missions but the C model missions as well. The F-35B has turned into money well spent doing things that a F-18 can't do. When the C model comes online and they get the parts problem for the C up to speed, the pressure on the B will help the mission rate of the B go back to the plus 70 easy. Right now, the B is flying real time combat missions. And chalking up ground kills left and right. unlike the other type of birds, it does them with NO fear of shoulder fired surface to air missiles.

The A is doing it's job. It's stationed in forward theaters. It's job is to scare the living hell out of North Korea, China and Russia just by being there. And it's doing a very good job. The A isn't seeing combat but the other sides aren't pushing to see just how good it is either because they don't have a thing to stop it. Even with a parts shortage, the A is still flying with a 70 plus rating making it one of the best fighters in the world.

The F-35A can do 3 mission a day. The deciding factor is the Pilot. The F-22 can only do one. Plus, the biggest weakness of both the F-35A and the F-22 is the stealth covering.

The difference is, the F-35A's covering is baked into it's panels that are held into place by fittings. When one gets damaged, they just pull the panel and replace it with another one and turn the bird. The Panel is sent to the field maintenance shop for repair. It takes about 3 days for the repairs on the panel to cure.

The F-22 has it's stealth painted on with a special paint. When it gets damaged, the whole bird has to go to the maintenance shop for those 3 days.

Drumstick already pointed out the cost of the F-35A versus the F-16. The F-35A costs less than 90 million while a full tilt F-16 is pushing into the plus 80 million these days. Against a quality Air Force, the F-16 is obsolete while the F-35 makes the other guy obsolete. In that environment, the F-16 may get a 1 to one or maybe (being kind) a 1 to 2 while the F-35 is going to get at least a 1 to 20. That 10 mil you saved by buying new F16s ends up meaning you are going to have to buy at least 10 new F-16s to make up for not buying every single F-35A. So the cost savings of the F-35A is very evident.

And since you can't buy any more F-22s you are going to need the F-35A to make up the difference there. What good is your brand new SU-35 when it keeps blowing up by an unseen enemy even if you know he's there but you can't do a damned thing about it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Two decades and still not rdy for prime time

They have seen more combat than the F-22 that you love, tell the Marines flying them that they aren't ready to do what they are using them for.

If you want to go by cost and readiness then neither F-22 or B-1 is ready for prime time.

They've dropped some bombs for proppo…..2 decades and still cant go full rate. Think how many F-22 all that waste could have purchased

The A has gone full rate. It can hit a moving zig zag truck. Plus about anything else you can ask from it. It still has more range without drop tanks than a F-16, flies faster than a loaded F-16, penetrates further in without detection, burns out or jams the bad guys electronics, what more can you ask? And it scares the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans shitless without firing a shot. Any time you have a weapons system so good that you don't have to use it then it's pretty damned good and should be kept.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Two decades and still not rdy for prime time

They have seen more combat than the F-22 that you love, tell the Marines flying them that they aren't ready to do what they are using them for.

If you want to go by cost and readiness then neither F-22 or B-1 is ready for prime time.

The F-22 is lucky if it can make a sortie every other day. The Bone is well below 50 rating and getting worse. It's on it's way out fast. Right now, the Buff is being depended on heavily like it always has been. In the end, the B-1 and B-2 will be out of the inventory and the 1960s vintage Buff will still be handling the bulk of the load even with the new B-21 coming into the inventory. One of these days, the Buff will have to have a new nick changed to the Millennium.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Americans can buy planes, tanks, missiles and submarines from Russia.
We will sell them to you to fight terrorism in the desert, especially submarines.
-----------
They are inexpensive and of higher quality than American

When you register with Grubhub we might consider it.

 

[DrainBamage]

They've dropped some bombs for proppo…..2 decades and still cant go full rate. Think how many F-22 all that waste could have purchased

Clearly this isn't true, given that the overwhelming majority of the strike missions they've been churning haven't been released to the press. There was some fanfare for the first strike mission (as there is for any plane that first sees combat) but since then it's been pretty silent, just count the strike decals on that bird.

 

[Pilot1]

The F-35 is essentially a multi role replacement for the F-16, and some variants of the F/A-18. Is it better than these? Yes.

Yeah, but is it better enough to warrant the cost? Anyone can design something better when you have a nearly unlimited budget. But once designed, if they are too expensive to deploy in quantity, then it doesn't matter.

My limited understanding, is that each F-35 is $90 Million per unit, whereas an F-16 costs just $25 Million. You can almost get 4 times as many planes for the same price. Can that be justified?

Meanwhile an A-10 unit, is only $18 Million, and as far as I can tell, is still superior in close air-support for ground units, which at this time appears to be the majority of our engagements.

What do you think? I assume you have more knowledge on this.

Well, everything is a balance and compromise due to cost, and other factors. The F-16, F-15 and F/A-18 will be around for quite some time. The AV-8B Harrier will not. One never knows how many F-35's and F-22's will be built, and put into front line service. Will they ever see actual combat, or just be an effective deterrent? BTW, I am a big fan of the A-10. The Russians have a saying, "Quantity has a Quality all its own", so more is better.

I really don't know which is better. Fewer of the latest and greatest or a lot of less capable stuff. I hope we never have to find out.

 

[DrainBamage]

Interesting different take on readiness:

F-35 Mission Capable Rates Up for All Variants, Lord Tells HASC

Mission capable rates have jumped for all variants of the F-35 over the past year, Pentagon acquisition and sustainment chief Ellen Lord told a panel of the House Armed Services Committee on Nov. 13. The improvement came even as the size of the fleet expanded considerably, she said.“As the F-35 fleet has grown, aircraft readiness has improved,” Lord said in prepared testimony for the HASC readiness subcommittee. The fleet—now 458 airplanes across the US services and international partners and customers—grew 50 percent larger in 2019 than it was a year ago, and the F-35 enterprise “is on track to produce 150 percent more aircraft than we built two years ago.”

Across the US fleet, mission capable rates—the metric that shows how many aircraft in a fleet are available for action at any given time—“increased from 55 percent in October 2018 to 73 percent in September 2019,” she wrote. Marine Corps F-35B readiness leaped from 44 percent to 68 percent during that period, Air Force F-35A jets improved from 66 percent to 75 percent, and Navy jets, which only became operational this year, are over 75 percent mission capable, Lord asserted.

She and F-35 Joint Program Office officials have in recent months touted an increased availability of parts as the key element in the improved readiness of the fleet, which is still not quite hitting the 80 percent mission capable rate mandated by former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis a year ago.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

F-35C isn't competing with F-18, USN is continuing with their plans to continue buying Super Hornets and start filling in with F-35C squadrons until carriers have a mix of the two aircraft. They will eventually start replacing the oldest F-18s Super Hornets with whatever 6th gen fighter comes along in the 2030s to serve alongside the F-35Cs.

F-18s are usually seen as part of the usual cast of candidates offered to countries using them as land based fighters, where they do compete against F-35As. Switzerland is currently evaluating F-35, Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen. Germany will probably be buying F-18s to replace Tornadoes because they are already nuclear certified. Canada is mired in their endless upgrade drama that includes both F-35 and F-18.

The Germans do not have nuclear weapons. Why do they need a a nuclear certified aircraft?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

... The Russians have a saying, "Quantity has a Quality all its own", so more is better.

This is the first time I hear such a saying ..
Maybe it means that "Quantity changes quality." But this is the topic of materialism.
The Russians have a different saying, "Genius lies in simplicity," which means that simpler things must be done to get a good effect.
A typical example: Americans spent millions of dollars to invent a pen that writes in zero gravity in space. The Russians did not spend money, but used a chemical pencil.

Sorry, I'm talking with google translator

I am aware of the Russian Lead Space Pencil. It just works.

We did a wargame in Wiesbadden (spelling) in 1980. We ended up being the Soviet AF. We were very much aware we were behind the technology power curve. But we had a tremendous quantity advantage. In the initial stages, that quantitative advantage meant miles and miles of advance. The first 3 days was critical. After that, the US would start bringing in it's massive arsenal of quality resources from around the world and we would lose that advantage. The idea was to hurt them enough where they would have trouble deploying those resources later. We did exactly that. When we go through, there was no front line fighters from either side, the Soviets controlled the Air Space of Greater Europe. It was junk against junk at that point. A-10s versus 1950s Soviet Jets. We had to prove to the Moderators that an A-10 could NEVER win a battle against a subsonic soviet attack plane on a one on one basis first. We did that. We already knew that since we had previously proved that an A-7 could take out an A-10 100% of the time. But it wasn't a one on one in the game. It was closer to one on 50.

Today, the Russians don't have that huge quantity advantage to make up for the quality advantage that the US is slowly growing back to. The Russians no longer can field the "Simple" Fighter and expect to survive even the first couple of minutes. Instead, they field the SU-27 and the SU-35 in high numbers. But the are being met by high numbers of F-15s that are their equals backed up by superior F-22s. And the number of F-35s keeps growing each year by a larger number than even the Russians are buying the SU-35.

Ground is another issue. The Russians have a high degree of "Quantity" that isn't that far below the quality of Nato. Yes, some systems are considered better but overall, it's still less quality. But since ground resources are very difficult to mobilize over long distances, the edge goes to Russia for .....and we are right back to that first 3 days equation.

Overall, in the first 3 days, the Russians can take ground. How much? It all depends on just how many people they are willing to lose doing it. But at the end of 3 days, it's going to be a standstill. No winner.

 

[DrainBamage]

The Germans do not have nuclear weapons. Why do they need a a nuclear certified aircraft?

NATO nuclear sharing agreement. See Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Turkey.

 

[DrainBamage]

The Russians no longer can field the "Simple" Fighter and expect to survive even the first couple of minutes. Instead, they field the SU-27 and the SU-35 in high numbers.

The joke of the SU-35 is that it was originally meant to be an interim solution that would eventually serve primarily for the export market until they got their glorious 5th generation fighter.

Of course their 5th gen program effectively collapsed with SU-57 being built in only token numbers, so now Russia is planning on going well into the 2030s with their primary fighter aircraft being basically an upgrade of the SU-27 that first flew in the 1970s. Meanwhile they don't even have the economy to produce it in high numbers, there have already been more 5th generation F-35s produced in 2019 alone than the total number of operational SU-35s serving Russia's military.

Going forward they are going to build 10 SU-35s per year, USA will be surpass with that by the 3rd week of January.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Russians no longer can field the "Simple" Fighter and expect to survive even the first couple of minutes. Instead, they field the SU-27 and the SU-35 in high numbers.

The joke of the SU-35 is that it was originally meant to be an interim solution that would eventually serve primarily for the export market until they got their glorious 5th generation fighter.

Of course their 5th gen program effectively collapsed with SU-57 being built in only token numbers, so now Russia is planning on going well into the 2030s with their primary fighter aircraft being basically an upgrade of the SU-27 that first flew in the 1970s. Meanwhile they don't even have the economy to produce it in high numbers, there have already been more 5th generation F-35s produced in 2019 alone than the total number of operational SU-35s serving Russia's military.

Going forward they are going to build 10 SU-35s per year, USA will be surpass with that by the 3rd week of January.

One of these days, their SU-27s and Mig-29s are going to be in the same plight as our F-15Cs and F-16Cs and the cost of operation will go clean out the window. We have replacements. They only can afford 10 per year.

They keep trying to sell the F-15E short. But we already know the F-15C can turn and burn with a Mig-29 which is a tighter dog fighter than the SU-27. So the new F-15EX is still a viable war bird to replace the C model F-15 until something else comes along. At least USAF can get the flying dead ones of the F-15Cs off the tarmac.

 

[Manonthestreet]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...mes-head-lawmaker-threatens-hold-up-contract/
However, the program is having trouble keeping the F-35s mission-capable, an odd problem for a brand-new fleet. The overall F-35 fleet was capable of performing all of its tasked missions only about a third of the time, said Diana Maurer, defense capabilities and management director for the Government Accountability Office, on Wednesday.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Russians no longer can field the "Simple" Fighter and expect to survive even the first couple of minutes. Instead, they field the SU-27 and the SU-35 in high numbers.

The joke of the SU-35 is that it was originally meant to be an interim solution that would eventually serve primarily for the export market until they got their glorious 5th generation fighter.

Of course their 5th gen program effectively collapsed with SU-57 being built in only token numbers, so now Russia is planning on going well into the 2030s with their primary fighter aircraft being basically an upgrade of the SU-27 that first flew in the 1970s. Meanwhile they don't even have the economy to produce it in high numbers, there have already been more 5th generation F-35s produced in 2019 alone than the total number of operational SU-35s serving Russia's military.

Going forward they are going to build 10 SU-35s per year, USA will be surpass with that by the 3rd week of January.

One of these days, their SU-27s and Mig-29s are going to be in the same plight as our F-15Cs and F-16Cs and the cost of operation will go clean out the window. We have replacements. They only can afford 10 per year.

They keep trying to sell the F-15E short. But we already know the F-15C can turn and burn with a Mig-29 which is a tighter dog fighter than the SU-27. So the new F-15EX is still a viable war bird to replace the C model F-15 until something else comes along. At least USAF can get the flying dead ones of the F-15Cs off the tarmac.

I'm interested in your sources of information.
I believe this is the beginning of 2019.
Show your sources
of course i know american sources you have to confirm

I believe those sources have already been given in here a few times in response to the Lighting II Haters.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...mes-head-lawmaker-threatens-hold-up-contract/
However, the program is having trouble keeping the F-35s mission-capable, an odd problem for a brand-new fleet. The overall F-35 fleet was capable of performing all of its tasked missions only about a third of the time, said Diana Maurer, defense capabilities and management director for the Government Accountability Office, on Wednesday.

It's a bit of a mess to say the least. One that does need to be address and address fast.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I believe those sources have already been given in here a few times in response to the Lighting II Haters.

for more-or-less smart Americans - The Main Source of War in American Mass Media is National Interest
For other Americans - CNN
-----------
As a rule, American media are late with information.

Do you disagree?
Then I repeat my question ..
Give me the sources of your information.

You have access to google. You use. You also have access to the search on this Board. Use it. Do your own homework.

 

[DrainBamage]

However, the program is having trouble keeping the F-35s mission-capable, an odd problem for a brand-new fleet.

Really? Of USA's latest aircraft designs F-35, F-22, and B-2 which haven't had problems with availability when brand new?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

However, the program is having trouble keeping the F-35s mission-capable, an odd problem for a brand-new fleet.

Really? Of USA's latest aircraft designs F-35, F-22, and B-2 which haven't had problems with availability when brand new?

At Bitburg, AB in Germany, we were the first Forward Operational F-15 Air Base. The best we could do until the C model was introduced and the As were upgraded was 33% and that was the best in USAF. This was offset by the fact that the F-15 could take out 4 enemy aircraft in a fight. Meaning, it would win. Nothing the Soviets had was even close to being it's equal. But it had severe teething problems like every other new weapon system. When the C and the upgraded As to C was done, it jumped all the way to just under 70% and became the world class fighter it has would always be. It took it 6 years of Operation to get to that point.