F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Daryl Hunt]

Yer just trolling now.

Damn, I gotta stop asking questions that are too hard!

Well, Troll, I sent my crystal ball out to be cleaned.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We should invest in French wine.

Actually, that's not a bad idea with the drought in California which affects the wine production.

 

[HenryBHough]

Well, Troll, I sent my crystal ball out to be cleaned.

Will you wait until it's back to send another one? Or, like the overstuffed turkey, possessed of but ONE ball? I will admit the F35 started out as a good idea. But like a particularly beautiful spruce, too many people thought too many things would look good hanging off it. What once might have been a great fighter has become a bloated laughingstock.

But, if it'll make you feel better about it, check out this link and you'll find a graceful "out". Just blame it all on The Republicans!

Republicans The Cocaine Monkeys of Defense Spending - The Daily Beast

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Well, Troll, I sent my crystal ball out to be cleaned.

Will you wait until it's back to send another one? Or, like the overstuffed turkey, possessed of but ONE ball? I will admit the F35 started out as a good idea. But like a particularly beautiful spruce, too many people thought too many things would look good hanging off it. What once might have been a great fighter has become a bloated laughingstock.

But, if it'll make you feel better about it, check out this link and you'll find a graceful "out". Just blame it all on The Republicans!

Republicans The Cocaine Monkeys of Defense Spending - The Daily Beast

Tell you what, you send yours out to be condemned. Okay, Troll, I'll let you have last say no matter how rediculous that may be. Have a nice day.

 

[HenryBHough]

Pity there's no defense left for Obama's overstuffed turkey.

The most recent news on the "fighter front" shows another of America's allies deciding the F35 isn't worth the bloated price:

France Sells 24 Rafale Fighters to Qatar

 

[HenryBHough]

No longer need I call the F35 "an overstuffed turkey"!

Nope.

Now the Brits have come up with a new and improved label:

"White Elephant".

New US fighter jet on course to becoming one of history s biggest white elephants - Home News - UK - The Independent

"A plane so technologically advanced that it would give Britain and the US air superiority in any future conflict and billed as the world’s most advanced stealth fighter jet, could be one of “the biggest white elephants in history”, according to a former defence minister."

"The aircraft, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, was designed to replace the Harrier jump-jet, which went out of service in 2011. The UK once envisaged ordering 150 F-35s, to be ready by 2012. Three years on, the F-35 is still far from ready to fly in combat and the cost of a single jet has risen from £33m to £87m. The UK has ordered only eight to date."

Gee, Golly, Gosh! Fast approaching three times the "original" project cost. Want to bet it'll break that barrier before a single one goes into (probably for a very short time) service?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Personally, I'd kill of the f-35 and build another 200 f-22's!

 

[Cross]

The Harrier doesn't do anything better than the F 35 B.

But they are lighter.

Marine operational training on the USS Wasp.

(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Remington Hall)

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The F-4 was adequate for its time, but its exhaust was it's main downfall. No one wants to fly a combat aircraft with a big black line leading to it.

The F-4 was a serious contender all the way up till it was retired. In the hands of a capable pilot it could match nearly aircraft out there. I watched one wax TWO F-18s in a fight over Owens Valley back in the day.

The F-4 got new engines that cured the smoking pole problem. That wasn't the reason it was retired.

The F-4 came from a time when it was thought if you have enough power that you could intercept your target beyond visual range and shoot it down. The missiles of that time were that capable on fighter type targets. The F-4 was a bomber interceptor. AS long as you forced your enemy into a vertical fight, the F-4 could just about hang with anything. The problem was, sooner or later, it would turn into a turning fight. This was where the F-4 was weakest. The F-4 was conceived from a time that the talking heads all claimed that dog fighting was past. It's been proven wrong. When you see an aircraft with so many surfaces at an odd angle, that is to compensate for bad design.

Plus, the F-4 proved if you put enough gas onboard it can have range and power at the same time. It guzzle fuel. The J-79 engine, while a marvel in it's day, was a hungry, hungry engine.

What made the F-4 work was the pilots. Our pilots were high time pilots with excellent training. I remember when Spang and Bitburg first went at it in a mock full generation. The F-4Es (slatted) held their own against the F-15As. But the rest of the story was, Spang had a 95% generation rate while Bitburg had the best generation rate for any F-15 outfit of 33%. The F-15 held it's own with a 1 to 3 odds. That's been fixed and the F-15C/D/E has that 95% generation rate. As of about 1980, the day of the F-4 was gone.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Harrier doesn't do anything better than the F 35 B.

But they are lighter.

Marine operational training on the USS Wasp.

(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Remington Hall)

View attachment 41477

The Marines do need the F-35. The problem is, there has been a push to get the F-35B first. This has kept the other two (A/C) to slow in it's progress. The AF isn't supposed to have the A in service until 2017 but it looks like it will be in service in 2016. The gun won't be ready to fire in combat until about 2017 but it's ready for ground attack with missiles and bombs. While it won't have the capability until 2017 for the guns and the externals, it's capable if now to use internals. Like the F-15 (also had the same problem with being too new and needing time to mature) it will grow until it reaches it's maturity. Every great fighter has gone through this same problem. Those that weather it become great. Those that don't end up just a blurp in history.

 

[Manonthestreet]

The bright spot about the F35 overstuffed turkey is that many of the innovations being developed to clean up shortcomings can be applied to other actual fighters. So it's not as though NO good can come from any of this boondoggle.

Then it's not a boondoggle.

Not a boondoggle would be an effective platform.....this is not....and wont be.

Without resorting to cheap shots, tell us why it's a boondoggle since it goes into service this year?

No it doesnt........they made parade around a few on a ship for rube food......be assured they have zero capability except parade value

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The bright spot about the F35 overstuffed turkey is that many of the innovations being developed to clean up shortcomings can be applied to other actual fighters. So it's not as though NO good can come from any of this boondoggle.

Then it's not a boondoggle.

Not a boondoggle would be an effective platform.....this is not....and wont be.

Without resorting to cheap shots, tell us why it's a boondoggle since it goes into service this year?

No it doesnt........they made parade around a few on a ship for rube food......be assured they have zero capability except parade value

Let's take a look at those things that are being "Paraded" around on a few ships.

Can it fire the latest Aim-120 beyond where only the F-22 might see them? Yes

Can it fire the latest Aim-9X heat seeker? Yes

Can it handle managing Drones? Yes

Is it almost impossible for ground attack radars to see much less fire on? Yes

Can it drop Smart Ordinance out of it's internal bay? Yes

Can it land on those postage stamps that the Marines call Carriers? Yes

Is it capable of disrupting ground radar and burn many of them out without launching a single missile or bomb? Yes

Sounds to me like "Parading" it around like that is just what is needed. Just think, in 2 months, the F-35B goes operational and goes into full production. By 2019, it's cost will be down to 85 million. About the cost of a new F-15. Funny, the F-15 went through this same thing where it was just too costly. The only difference is, the Internet wasn't invented quite yet in 1968. You would have been one of those naysayers back then and how did that work out again?

 

[westwall]

The bright spot about the F35 overstuffed turkey is that many of the innovations being developed to clean up shortcomings can be applied to other actual fighters. So it's not as though NO good can come from any of this boondoggle.

Then it's not a boondoggle.

Not a boondoggle would be an effective platform.....this is not....and wont be.

Without resorting to cheap shots, tell us why it's a boondoggle since it goes into service this year?

No it doesnt........they made parade around a few on a ship for rube food......be assured they have zero capability except parade value

Let's take a look at those things that are being "Paraded" around on a few ships.

Can it fire the latest Aim-120 beyond where only the F-22 might see them? Yes

Can it fire the latest Aim-9X heat seeker? Yes

Can it handle managing Drones? Yes

Is it almost impossible for ground attack radars to see much less fire on? Yes

Can it drop Smart Ordinance out of it's internal bay? Yes

Can it land on those postage stamps that the Marines call Carriers? Yes

Is it capable of disrupting ground radar and burn many of them out without launching a single missile or bomb? Yes

Sounds to me like "Parading" it around like that is just what is needed. Just think, in 2 months, the F-35B goes operational and goes into full production. By 2019, it's cost will be down to 85 million. About the cost of a new F-15. Funny, the F-15 went through this same thing where it was just too costly. The only difference is, the Internet wasn't invented quite yet in 1968. You would have been one of those naysayers back then and how did that work out again?

You are ignoring the advances the bad guys are making. The PAK-FA will be BETTER than the F-35 at air superiority. The cost estimates are unbelievable at best.

The second they hang external ordnance off of it it loses its stealthiness so can't come close to the ordnance load of the A-10, or even the AV-8b.

Operating in ground attack mode you get to use the old MK I eyeball, so the radar stealth capability is wasted. Further there are now so many optically guided AAM's that once again, the small radar cross section is wasted.

Can any other aircraft be modified so that they can handle drones? Ummm, yes. For a fraction of the cost.

Yes, it can V/TOL, that's one point in its favor.

The F-18 Growler does an even better job of ECM, and once again it is a fraction of the cost.

Yes, the F-15 had development difficulties. They were overcome with time and money, just like the problems with the F-35 will be. However, in this world, at this time, I would rather have more aircraft, that are actually flying, and capable of doing their missions, than a few, very expensive aircraft, that spend most of their time in the shop.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then it's not a boondoggle.

Not a boondoggle would be an effective platform.....this is not....and wont be.

Without resorting to cheap shots, tell us why it's a boondoggle since it goes into service this year?

No it doesnt........they made parade around a few on a ship for rube food......be assured they have zero capability except parade value

Let's take a look at those things that are being "Paraded" around on a few ships.

Can it fire the latest Aim-120 beyond where only the F-22 might see them? Yes

Can it fire the latest Aim-9X heat seeker? Yes

Can it handle managing Drones? Yes

Is it almost impossible for ground attack radars to see much less fire on? Yes

Can it drop Smart Ordinance out of it's internal bay? Yes

Can it land on those postage stamps that the Marines call Carriers? Yes

Is it capable of disrupting ground radar and burn many of them out without launching a single missile or bomb? Yes

Sounds to me like "Parading" it around like that is just what is needed. Just think, in 2 months, the F-35B goes operational and goes into full production. By 2019, it's cost will be down to 85 million. About the cost of a new F-15. Funny, the F-15 went through this same thing where it was just too costly. The only difference is, the Internet wasn't invented quite yet in 1968. You would have been one of those naysayers back then and how did that work out again?

You are ignoring the advances the bad guys are making. The PAK-FA will be BETTER than the F-35 at air superiority. The cost estimates are unbelievable at best.


The second they hang external ordnance off of it it loses its stealthiness so can't come close to the ordnance load of the A-10, or even the AV-8b.

Operating in ground attack mode you get to use the old MK I eyeball, so the radar stealth capability is wasted. Further there are now so many optically guided AAM's that once again, the small radar cross section is wasted.

Can any other aircraft be modified so that they can handle drones? Ummm, yes. For a fraction of the cost.

Yes, it can V/TOL, that's one point in its favor.

The F-18 Growler does an even better job of ECM, and once again it is a fraction of the cost.

Yes, the F-15 had development difficulties. They were overcome with time and money, just like the problems with the F-35 will be. However, in this world, at this time, I would rather have more aircraft, that are actually flying, and capable of doing their missions, than a few, very expensive aircraft, that spend most of their time in the shop.

The PAK-FA has radar right out of the 80s. The Indians already confirmed this and are livid about the billions it already has invested in it. It's already been confirmed that the best rating it can get is a 4.5, not a 5 or 6. You can make it look like a strealth bird but unless it also IS a stealthy bird. The Motors are crap as well.

The ONLY time a F-35 is not a real 5 bird is when the doors open. Ever see one open, fire and close? About a second to 2 time. Even the F-22 becomes partially visible at that time.

Operating in Ground Attack, the F-35, like the F-15E and F-22 uses radar, infra, and Sat positioning to do the job. No MKII aiming. You forget, there won't be a gun able to use until 2017. They don't need to be down in the weeds. And with the stuff even ISIS is walking around with any AC down there is just another target. The A-10 is already obsolete because the big gun is used down in the weeds. if ICUUCMe.

Yes, Air Command Posts already can. As for other fighters, the F-35 already has it. You don't dance with the bird you want, you dance with the bird you brung to the dance. Besides, the only other bird that won't be bagged doing it will be the F-22 and it's already spread pretty thin, Fly your Vaunted Growler into the same area and it lights up every ground system in the area. The Growler depends on the normal Hornets and Super Hormets to keep everyone off it's back. What makes a Wild Weazel work is that it flies around with a huge Hit Me sign on it if you dare. If the ground dares, the EF-18G is capable of hitting them fast and hard. If an enemy fighter (usually a flight) dares the only thing keeping the Growler alive is it's escort fighter cover. There just isn't room enough to add all the toys you want to ad. Only the EA-6 has that kind of generator power.

That Vtol that you so easily dismiss means it can operate off ships that aren't capital ships. They operate off of exaggerated Chopper ships that cost a fraction of what a Carrier does. Comparing the AV-8B isn't too fair. The AV-8B is a gen 3 AC and for the reasons that it can't survive against even the French Rafale which costs a fraction means it's dead in it's track. Yes it did well in the Falklands but the reason was, the Brits had superior Pilots and were facing some pretty old junk by todays standards. If Argentina get's it's orders filled, I suspect they are going after the Falklands once again. The Brits know they need the F-35Bs to combat the threat.

The EA-18G does a better job of Wild Weazel, not hiding from the enemy. They hang a big HIT ME sign on it and wait for the radar to find them then they dispatch the Radar Antennae with SA missiles and smart bombs. The F-35 can do the same but it will likely attack them electronically and burn them out and do it while staying hidden.

All your points are just too easy to dispel. As the F-35 begins going operational in 2 months, and goes into full production at that point, it drives the price down and it still does a good job. The only thing lacking is pilot training and you don't seem to want our pilots trained well.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Major systems do not work yet....it will never be anywhere close to any action for two three yrs if then

 

[Manonthestreet]

not to mention the systems alrdy obsolete that need to be replaced

 

[Manonthestreet]

you know what could control whole lot of drones better than f35......its called awacs or jstars

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The AWACS can't be within 200 miles of any ground or air threats. It comes within that and it stands out like a beacon in the sky. Even the Moon is more stealthy.

I already covered the things it can do. You can't stand it that it's going online for the Marines in less than 2 months and production ramps up which lowers the price per unit. When it's in full production it will cost about 85 mil. Not much more than a Growler AND less than a new F-15.

As for obsolete systems, exactly what is obsolete? Newsflash, 10 minutes after a new system is introduced, it's already obsolete since they are already working on the next system to replace it.

As for growing pains, the F-15 was introduced in 1976 yet it didn't start coming into it's own until 1980 when the Multiphased radar was introduced into the A model and the C was going into production. So, you have gotten only one thing right. 3 or 4 years to maturity is about right. The F-15 had the same argument since it was the most expensive Fighter ever produced from 1980 and earlier. It cost more than the F-14 if the F-14 had stayed in production. And we all know just how crappy the F-15 turned out to be. It's owned the skies for almost 40 years hands down.

Just how much is the Russians paying you to keep this up, Comrade.

 

[westwall]

Not a boondoggle would be an effective platform.....this is not....and wont be.

Without resorting to cheap shots, tell us why it's a boondoggle since it goes into service this year?

No it doesnt........they made parade around a few on a ship for rube food......be assured they have zero capability except parade value

Let's take a look at those things that are being "Paraded" around on a few ships.

Can it fire the latest Aim-120 beyond where only the F-22 might see them? Yes

Can it fire the latest Aim-9X heat seeker? Yes

Can it handle managing Drones? Yes

Is it almost impossible for ground attack radars to see much less fire on? Yes

Can it drop Smart Ordinance out of it's internal bay? Yes

Can it land on those postage stamps that the Marines call Carriers? Yes

Is it capable of disrupting ground radar and burn many of them out without launching a single missile or bomb? Yes

Sounds to me like "Parading" it around like that is just what is needed. Just think, in 2 months, the F-35B goes operational and goes into full production. By 2019, it's cost will be down to 85 million. About the cost of a new F-15. Funny, the F-15 went through this same thing where it was just too costly. The only difference is, the Internet wasn't invented quite yet in 1968. You would have been one of those naysayers back then and how did that work out again?

You are ignoring the advances the bad guys are making. The PAK-FA will be BETTER than the F-35 at air superiority. The cost estimates are unbelievable at best.


The second they hang external ordnance off of it it loses its stealthiness so can't come close to the ordnance load of the A-10, or even the AV-8b.

Operating in ground attack mode you get to use the old MK I eyeball, so the radar stealth capability is wasted. Further there are now so many optically guided AAM's that once again, the small radar cross section is wasted.

Can any other aircraft be modified so that they can handle drones? Ummm, yes. For a fraction of the cost.

Yes, it can V/TOL, that's one point in its favor.

The F-18 Growler does an even better job of ECM, and once again it is a fraction of the cost.

Yes, the F-15 had development difficulties. They were overcome with time and money, just like the problems with the F-35 will be. However, in this world, at this time, I would rather have more aircraft, that are actually flying, and capable of doing their missions, than a few, very expensive aircraft, that spend most of their time in the shop.

The PAK-FA has radar right out of the 80s. The Indians already confirmed this and are livid about the billions it already has invested in it. It's already been confirmed that the best rating it can get is a 4.5, not a 5 or 6. You can make it look like a strealth bird but unless it also IS a stealthy bird. The Motors are crap as well.

The ONLY time a F-35 is not a real 5 bird is when the doors open. Ever see one open, fire and close? About a second to 2 time. Even the F-22 becomes partially visible at that time.

Operating in Ground Attack, the F-35, like the F-15E and F-22 uses radar, infra, and Sat positioning to do the job. No MKII aiming. You forget, there won't be a gun able to use until 2017. They don't need to be down in the weeds. And with the stuff even ISIS is walking around with any AC down there is just another target. The A-10 is already obsolete because the big gun is used down in the weeds. if ICUUCMe.

Yes, Air Command Posts already can. As for other fighters, the F-35 already has it. You don't dance with the bird you want, you dance with the bird you brung to the dance. Besides, the only other bird that won't be bagged doing it will be the F-22 and it's already spread pretty thin, Fly your Vaunted Growler into the same area and it lights up every ground system in the area. The Growler depends on the normal Hornets and Super Hormets to keep everyone off it's back. What makes a Wild Weazel work is that it flies around with a huge Hit Me sign on it if you dare. If the ground dares, the EF-18G is capable of hitting them fast and hard. If an enemy fighter (usually a flight) dares the only thing keeping the Growler alive is it's escort fighter cover. There just isn't room enough to add all the toys you want to ad. Only the EA-6 has that kind of generator power.

That Vtol that you so easily dismiss means it can operate off ships that aren't capital ships. They operate off of exaggerated Chopper ships that cost a fraction of what a Carrier does. Comparing the AV-8B isn't too fair. The AV-8B is a gen 3 AC and for the reasons that it can't survive against even the French Rafale which costs a fraction means it's dead in it's track. Yes it did well in the Falklands but the reason was, the Brits had superior Pilots and were facing some pretty old junk by todays standards. If Argentina get's it's orders filled, I suspect they are going after the Falklands once again. The Brits know they need the F-35Bs to combat the threat.

The EA-18G does a better job of Wild Weazel, not hiding from the enemy. They hang a big HIT ME sign on it and wait for the radar to find them then they dispatch the Radar Antennae with SA missiles and smart bombs. The F-35 can do the same but it will likely attack them electronically and burn them out and do it while staying hidden.

All your points are just too easy to dispel. As the F-35 begins going operational in 2 months, and goes into full production at that point, it drives the price down and it still does a good job. The only thing lacking is pilot training and you don't seem to want our pilots trained well.

On the contrary. I want our pilots to be the best trained in the world. To do that they need an aircraft that actually flies. As I said, the problems with the F-35 will eventually be resolved, but not for a long time, nor for a small amount of money. The pipe dream that they will get unit cost down to 85 million is laughable.

Radar from the 1980's? They were able to track a SU-30 at a range of 310 km. That's outstanding performance. The radar that the Indians got is not what the Russians get. The Russians have a long history of providing what they call the "monkey model" to client states and the original Warsaw Pact nations. They simply don't let the best they have out to the general public.

For people who don't know what we're talking about I have provided a picture below. The PAK-FA is the aircraft on the right, SU 30 on left.

The T-50 has a laser anti IR missile countermeasure in development that looks unfortunately very promising.

And where did you get the impression the T-50 has old engines? It will be equipped with the 117 (AL-41F1) engines which are 5th gen engines.

The primary missile will eventually be the ramjet powered Kh-31 which has a speed in excess of mach 4. Boeing actually produced a version of this missile as a supersonic target drone called the MA-31 which I found out about while at a Farnborough airshow a few years ago. Same missile, one at the Boeing stand, the other at the Zvezda Strela stand!

Anyway, the T-50 is likewise having developmental difficulties so we won't know really how they stack up for awhile.