F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Delta4Embassy]

Am unclear why in the missile age we need fighters as opposed to better SAMs and such? Planes are just weapons delivery systems. Why use the middle man at all? Why not just put Sams everywhere you might need them like ringing Moscow. Would anyone in any aircraft wanna fly into Moscow aggressively faced with the gazillion SAMs locking onto them?

 

[westwall]

GAO Draft Slams F-35 On ‘Unaffordable’ Costs: $8.8B Over Legacy Fighters
By Colin Clark
on September 22, 2014 at 3:00 PM GAO Draft Slams F-35 On 8216 Unaffordable 8217 Costs 8.8B Over Legacy Fighters Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary

http://archive.gao.gov/f0902c/105793.pdf

A nice report on the F-16 which states that before purchasing more than 650 of them, there should be a review of the project.

 

[westwall]

It's every bit as true today as well. When you go fast you can't spot the target. It's as simple as that. Targeting pods help you hit what you see but if you can't see it they are useless.

You're just making shit up again, an F-35 can engage in CAS mission at speeds that allow it's targeting to function as intended. Pilots who have flown the F-35 say it gives a better battlefield view and situational awareness than any combat aircraft in existence.

And again, the overwhelming majority of A-10 CAS is using targeting pod and precision guided munitions.

However, a SU 27 can tangle with the F-35, and win. That's unacceptable when one considers the cost differential between the two aircraft and the fact that the F-35 is supposedly a 5th gen fighter.

Any plane can shoot down any other plane, an F-35 would be engaging the Flanker before the it even knew the F-35 was there.

That is untrue. Before your precious targeting pod can do its work the target must first be identified. That means you can't go screaming in at Mach 1.1 pick a random target on the ground and blow it up. Rules of engagement dictate that and so do ground troops who don't wish to be blown up by friendly fire. There are exceptions of course if a ground based FO has a laser painting a target then you a

 

[westwall]

It's every bit as true today as well. When you go fast you can't spot the target. It's as simple as that. Targeting pods help you hit what you see but if you can't see it they are useless.

You're just making shit up again, an F-35 can engage in CAS mission at speeds that allow it's targeting to function as intended. Pilots who have flown the F-35 say it gives a better battlefield view and situational awareness than any combat aircraft in existence.

And again, the overwhelming majority of A-10 CAS is using targeting pod and precision guided munitions.

However, a SU 27 can tangle with the F-35, and win. That's unacceptable when one considers the cost differential between the two aircraft and the fact that the F-35 is supposedly a 5th gen fighter.

Any plane can shoot down any other plane, an F-35 would be engaging the Flanker before the it even knew the F-35 was there.

Once again you ignore the simple reality that before the target pod can be used, the target must first be identified. Once the target has been spotted, then it can be targeted. Hell a B-1 can fly by and drop a JDAM from 35,000 feet so long as there's a Combat Controller on the ground LASING it. But, if there is no one on the ground capable of doing that for the pilot then he must go down and do it.

Yes A-10's use their targeting pods, doesn't negate the fact that the pilot has to see his damn target and identify it first.

I certainly hope that the F-35 can kill the 27 before it is spotted. BVR kills are the best after all. However, ROE dictate a great deal of the tactics allowed these days so BVR kills are getting rarer and rarer. As far as the situational awareness goes that is due to it's helmet and airframe mounted cameras. Guess what you can do that with any aircraft.

Below is the view from a lowly F-16. Hard to get a better cockpit view than that.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[westwall]

I never claimed the Harrier was better than the F-35. I said it could be re-engineered to be so. Best get your facts straight.

That's right, you have some fantasy all we need to do is do some tweaking on a 50 year old subsonic plane and voila it'll be better. Equally hilarious.

I don't make appeals to authority either. I merely stated that I am a pilot, know a shitload of combat pilots and have actually flown fast movers. You?

You don't make appeals to authority... well other than entire posts where you try to win an argument by posting a bio and pictures of patches without making any actual arguments about the subject matter.

You are the very definition of someone who throws out the appeal to authority fallacy, and in fact you just did it again when trying to deny it.

You must be making some good money trying to defend this project is all I can say. Try and repeat ACCURATELY what I said about the Harrier why don't you. Your last statement is simply a lie.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Am unclear why in the missile age we need fighters as opposed to better SAMs and such? Planes are just weapons delivery systems. Why use the middle man at all? Why not just put Sams everywhere you might need them like ringing Moscow. Would anyone in any aircraft wanna fly into Moscow aggressively faced with the gazillion SAMs locking onto them?

Assuming you mean just for intercepting adversary aircraft, fighters have much wider coverage.

 

[SteadyMercury]

A nice report on the F-16 which states that before purchasing more than 650 of them, there should be a review of the project.

And which states many concerns about the program, including:
- Turbine blade failures and noncontainment of turbine blades in engine.
- Engine stalls.
- Engine stagnations.
- Main fuel pump malfunctions.
- Ground starting problems.
- Augmentor malfunctions and durability problems.
- susceptibility of the proposed canopy coating to wind and rain erosion.
- ejection seat failures
- structural integrity (cracks in bulkhead)
- radar performance
- flight stability
- environmental control effectiveness
etc.

Point being every new aircraft has issues during development with both performance and program costs, so posting a GAO report critical of F-35 isn't exactly eye popping

 

[SteadyMercury]

That is untrue. Before your precious targeting pod can do its work the target must first be identified. That means you can't go screaming in at Mach 1.1 pick a random target on the ground and blow it up. Rules of engagement dictate that and so do ground troops who don't wish to be blown up by friendly fire. There are exceptions of course if a ground based FO has a laser painting a target then you a

It isn't "my precious targeting pod" and the F-35s EOTS is very similar to the sniper pod used by "your precious A-10" to accomplish most of it's CAS missions.

You sound like you're that type of old guy who doesn't understand newer technology so just thinks anything newfangled ain't as good as the old way, and goddamit Bob Cousy would still dominate in today's NBA.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Once again you ignore the simple reality that before the target pod can be used, the target must first be identified. Once the target has been spotted, then it can be targeted. Hell a B-1 can fly by and drop a JDAM from 35,000 feet so long as there's a Combat Controller on the ground LASING it. But, if there is no one on the ground capable of doing that for the pilot then he must go down and do it.

Wow you don't even know what a JDAM is do you?

Yes A-10's use their targeting pods, doesn't negate the fact that the pilot has to see his damn target and identify it first.

An F-35 can see the target at magnification (and IR at night) without the pilot needing to turn his head or even have is plane at an angle that allows visual. Modern targeting sensors are built specifically for long range detection, identification and surveillance.

As far as the situational awareness goes that is due to it's helmet and airframe mounted cameras. Guess what you can do that with any aircraft.

Yup why didn't anyone thing of that? It is as genius as your plan to give the Harrier bigger wings and a longer fuselage so that is magically becomes a subsonic non-stealthy 50 year old fighter that is better than the F-35.

 

[SteadyMercury]

You must be making some good money trying to defend this project is all I can say.

Woah we have a winner, Westwall goes to the conspiracy theory playbook.

You got me dude, Lockheed Martin pays me to hang around this forum and defend their program from the brilliance of the extendo-harrier.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Some people can't see past a good sales pitch. Math doesn't lie.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Here are the specific WestWall posts that are so ridiculous I can't resist repeatedly poking fun at them:

It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised. It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock

Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world.

We can address these one at a time, if you'd like. How about we start with your statement it won't be a good naval fighter because it's range is compromised?

Range
F-35C = 1,200 nm
F-18 = 1,090 nm

So you then must also be saying the F-18 isn't a good naval fighter. You know, the one we count on to defend our carrier groups. So what exactly is the range cutoff that makes the F-35 not a good naval fighter?

 

[westwall]

A nice report on the F-16 which states that before purchasing more than 650 of them, there should be a review of the project.

And which states many concerns about the program, including:
- Turbine blade failures and noncontainment of turbine blades in engine.
- Engine stalls.
- Engine stagnations.
- Main fuel pump malfunctions.
- Ground starting problems.
- Augmentor malfunctions and durability problems.
- susceptibility of the proposed canopy coating to wind and rain erosion.
- ejection seat failures
- structural integrity (cracks in bulkhead)
- radar performance
- flight stability
- environmental control effectiveness
etc.

Point being every new aircraft has issues during development with both performance and program costs, so posting a GAO report critical of F-35 isn't exactly eye popping

No argument. However some have far more problems then others. Don't they. Some have problems that are so bad they get cancelled.

 

[westwall]

That is untrue. Before your precious targeting pod can do its work the target must first be identified. That means you can't go screaming in at Mach 1.1 pick a random target on the ground and blow it up. Rules of engagement dictate that and so do ground troops who don't wish to be blown up by friendly fire. There are exceptions of course if a ground based FO has a laser painting a target then you a

It isn't "my precious targeting pod" and the F-35s EOTS is very similar to the sniper pod used by "your precious A-10" to accomplish most of it's CAS missions.

You sound like you're that type of old guy who doesn't understand newer technology so just thinks anything newfangled ain't as good as the old way, and goddamit Bob Cousy would still dominate in today's NBA.

I understand new tech quite well. I also understand its limitations. Tell me. How does a targeting pod ID its target?

 

[westwall]

Once again you ignore the simple reality that before the target pod can be used, the target must first be identified. Once the target has been spotted, then it can be targeted. Hell a B-1 can fly by and drop a JDAM from 35,000 feet so long as there's a Combat Controller on the ground LASING it. But, if there is no one on the ground capable of doing that for the pilot then he must go down and do it.

Wow you don't even know what a JDAM is do you?

Yes A-10's use their targeting pods, doesn't negate the fact that the pilot has to see his damn target and identify it first.

An F-35 can see the target at magnification (and IR at night) without the pilot needing to turn his head or even have is plane at an angle that allows visual. Modern targeting sensors are built specifically for long range detection, identification and surveillance.

As far as the situational awareness goes that is due to it's helmet and airframe mounted cameras. Guess what you can do that with any aircraft.

Yup why didn't anyone thing of that? It is as genius as your plan to give the Harrier bigger wings and a longer fuselage so that is magically becomes a subsonic non-stealthy 50 year old fighter that is better than the F-35.

You mean these? For someone who is so knowledgeable I'm shocked you didn't know that JDAMS were also targeted by lasers.



Boeing to deliver additional Laser JDAM weapons to US Navy

Boeing to deliver additional Laser JDAM weapons to US Navy - Naval Technology


Untrue. As he turns his head the image is projected onto the helmet visor and that way he can see "through" the aircraft.

 

[westwall]

You must be making some good money trying to defend this project is all I can say.

Woah we have a winner, Westwall goes to the conspiracy theory playbook.

You got me dude, Lockheed Martin pays me to hang around this forum and defend their program from the brilliance of the extendo-harrier.

Pointing out that someone is acting like an ass is not a "conspiracy". Nice try at deflection though.

 

[westwall]

Here are the specific WestWall posts that are so ridiculous I can't resist repeatedly poking fun at them:

It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised. It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock

Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world.

We can address these one at a time, if you'd like. How about we start with your statement it won't be a good naval fighter because it's range is compromised?

Range
F-35C = 1,200 nm
F-18 = 1,090 nm

So you then must also be saying the F-18 isn't a good naval fighter. You know, the one we count on to defend our carrier groups. So what exactly is the range cutoff that makes the F-35 not a good naval fighter?

Nope. The F-18 is a fine aircraft. How many of those can I buy for ONE of your F-35's? Let's see here. The absolute top price for an F-18 is 57 million for the newest and bestest with all the bells and whistles. The PROJECTED cost for the F-35 is now 160 million (and still going up). Per plane. Hmmm.

Seems to me that the three F-18s I can get, can do a near equal job, in more places, than your F-35. Cost per hour is pretty favorable for the F-18 as well. Currently the all up cost per hour of the F-18 (including carrier costs on deployment) is 16,000 per hour, 10,000 per hour for just normal operations. The best guess for the F-35 is 65,000 per hour but that is likely to be on the low side as all cost predictions for the F-35 have proven to be.

 

[SteadyMercury]

You mean these? For someone who is so knowledgeable I'm shocked you didn't know that JDAMS were also targeted by lasers.

Hah, nice try. You said JDAM, not LJDAM.

There is a LSDB under development too, that doesn't mean an SDB is laser guided.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Pointing out that someone is acting like an ass is not a "conspiracy". Nice try at deflection though.

Nope, you implied I was getting paid to defend the F-35 program, typical tin-hatter rhetoric.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Nope. The F-18 is a fine aircraft. How many of those can I buy for ONE of your F-35's? Let's see here. The absolute top price for an F-18 is 57 million for the newest and bestest with all the bells and whistles. The PROJECTED cost for the F-35 is now 160 million (and still going up). Per plane. Hmmm.

I'm sorry you must have misunderstood the question I brought up, I'll try again.

You said the F-35s won't be a good naval fighter because its range is compromised, but the range of the naval variant F-35B is in fact greater than the F-18.

You are attempting to explain this bizarre logic by going into cost projections.

I'll try again: how does the F-35's range make it a poor naval fighter (your words) when it is on par with F-18, which you say is a good naval fighter?

Focus. Range.