F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
4,241
Points
908
Location
Cryogenic capsule under area 51, I am not dead
And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.
And if all 10 things went right to get it to the carrier. Let one thing go wrong and it goes terminal. The chances of it working is not even worth calculating.
We will know the answer under 59 minutes after the USA launches an attack with a carrier. That said the USA will never use an obsolete weapons system in such an attack so the carrier is useless
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,607
Reaction score
4,598
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
You want the best, you pay for the best.


So we should invest in the Eurofighter at over 70K per flying hour. Or maybe we should start up the production lines on the P-51 at over 3500 an hour to operate. Maybe we should get rid of everything else and buy Cubs at less than 25 bucks an hour to operate.

Now you use someone that is no longer employed by the Defense Department. But you can bank on it that he's employed by some other Aerospace Industry. And his new employer wants their cut.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,607
Reaction score
4,598
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
The F-15, F-16, F-18 are all getting help in their programming. What's your point here? That there are bugs? Hell, my computer and windows are almost 10 years old and it's full of bugs. Macs aren't any different. If I leave my computer on, unattended, very quickly, another update will come in from something of the software or OS.

As for calling in the Universities, the Federal Government backrolls the Universities and don't you think that they should get some of their support back?
 

Manonthestreet

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
26,800
Reaction score
11,811
Points
980
The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,607
Reaction score
4,598
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
I'm an old motorhead. When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever. But I didn't ask so much of it. It didn't have it to give anyway. The basic parts were not being overly taxed.

But when I built a performance engine, I didn't expect it to last very long. In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure. No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.

The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds. You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it. The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag. But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast. By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons. But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem". If called on, it does the job and gets home safely. The same won't be said about the other guy.

I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems. Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines. You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate. The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type Aircraft. Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.

Fighters break. Get over it.
 

Manonthestreet

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
26,800
Reaction score
11,811
Points
980
The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
I'm an old motorhead. When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever. But I didn't ask so much of it. It didn't have it to give anyway. The basic parts were not being overly taxed.

But when I built a performance engine, I didn't expect it to last very long. In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure. No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.

The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds. You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it. The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag. But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast. By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons. But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem". If called on, it does the job and gets home safely. The same won't be said about the other guy.

I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems. Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines. You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate. The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type Aircraft. Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.

Fighters break. Get over it.
Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,607
Reaction score
4,598
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
The engines on A-model F-35s, which take off and land conventionally, have been running “hot,” or close to the limits of their design, and that heat has caused premature cracks, or delamination, of turbine blade coatings. That’s forced the engines to be removed or repaired earlier than anticipated, aggravating an already backlogged depot system. The cracks in the coating are not a flight safety issue, but they do reduce an engine’s useful life, said a defense official. Air Force cuts back exhibition flights on new F-35 engine woes | The Edge Markets
I'm an old motorhead. When I built a bread and butter engine, I expected it to run forever. But I didn't ask so much of it. It didn't have it to give anyway. The basic parts were not being overly taxed.

But when I built a performance engine, I didn't expect it to last very long. In fact, on one of my quarter mile builds, I would have to have to identical engines due to engine failure. No engine was run on two consecutive days on my Modified Production builds.

The F-35 engine is like one of my performance engine builds. You are trying to get 5lbs of shit out of a 2lb bag and it's doing it. The bird isn't that fast due to to the airframe drag. But one thing it does is gets up to it's top speed extremely fast. By the same token, it slows down faster than anything else for the same reasons. But as the article says, it meets the combat service requirements even with that "Problem". If called on, it does the job and gets home safely. The same won't be said about the other guy.

I expect things like this as all performance engines will have the same problems. Yes, even the F-15 with the -220 engines and the F-22 with the F-119 engines. You seem to leave out the problems that the Russian have with the engines on their SU-35 where they have a low sortie rate. The F-35A has over a 70% sortie rate which is one of the best in the world for Fighter type Aircraft. Yes, it will have less than 30% sortie problems for various reasons but it's still better than anything anyone else has.

Fighters break. Get over it.
Yeah that's it,car can't fly much because we'll burn too many engines we don't have a fix for. .How long would your skewing last in real war before they couldn't fly .......stupid analogy
Dead on anology. When I fielded a Stock class, I ran the same engine week after week. I might go the whole year before I need to do a rebuild. When I ran a Super Stocker, I might have to go a month before I had to change to the back up motor and do a rebuild. But when I ran a Modified, I did a rebuild on both engines every week. The Guys in the higher classes did a complete rebuild every day. Todays engines are equiv to at least Super Stock Engines and some, like the F-35,are more like the Modified Engines. You are getting 5 lbs of shit from a 2 lb bag.

BTW, I used to work on some of those Military Engines. Did you?
 

Manonthestreet

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
26,800
Reaction score
11,811
Points
980
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may be the Air Force’s “quarterback in the sky,” but it’s also expensive to operate and, to date, still riddled with issues. Now, the Air Force is kicking off a month-long assessment of the branch’s tactical aviation requirements with the intention of potentially fielding an all-new fighter that boasts some of the capabilities found in the F-35 and F-22, but with a significantly smaller price tag.
The Air Force wants a new fighter to fill in for the F-35 - Sandboxx
And there you have it. Its a specialty plane like an AWACS that shoots but doesnt want to let anything get to close, and a fancy drone controller. and we probably alrdy have too many of em
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may be the Air Force’s “quarterback in the sky,” but it’s also expensive to operate and, to date, still riddled with issues. Now, the Air Force is kicking off a month-long assessment of the branch’s tactical aviation requirements with the intention of potentially fielding an all-new fighter that boasts some of the capabilities found in the F-35 and F-22, but with a significantly smaller price tag.
The Air Force wants a new fighter to fill in for the F-35 - Sandboxx
And there you have it. Its a specialty plane like an AWACS that shoots but doesnt want to let anything get to close, and a fancy drone controller. and we probably alrdy have too many of em
After some thought, USAF IS getting ready to introduce a replacement for both the F-22 and the F-35. The Cost won't be nearly has high considering that the RandD has already been spent and the parts are available. And from the sound of things, it's already being tested in the air. Now that the election is over with, look for an announcement when USAF goes for funding to build it, or at least the first 10 or 12 at first.

The problem the F-35 always had was it was a compromise between 3 aircraft. While each of the 3 are better than almost every other fighter in the sky, had they stuck with just one design for each bird, it could have been done much better and cheaper. The new bird has enough off the shelf parts from the F-35, F-22 and F-15EX to be built right off the shelf. And to meet the Gen 6 requirements (whatever they may be). Can you imagine a twin engine fighter using the engines from the F-35 with the upgrades from the F-22 engines for supercruise? What makes the F-22 able to supercruise is the super slickness of it's airframe. If they stuck the F-22 engines into the F-15, it could supercruise just as fast. But the F-35 is more like a flying brick in comparison due to the requirements of having to be also used as the airframe for the F-35B. Look for the USAF to stop buying the
F-35A just a soon as the new Gen 6 Fighter comes online and that's going to be sometime in the late 2020s.

Even if they use only one engine from the F-35A, by building it with a super slick airframe, they can easily get supercruise, excellent stealth, keep the weight down and get a turn and burn all around fighter attack bird.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
197
Points
178
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
Utterly wrong on all counts.
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top