F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[westwall]

Not at all. A statement of FACT.

Yep, and I'm sure you've got little pictures of patches to prove it, you do indeed speak for the entire aviation community and you hang out in fighter pilot bars and saw Top Gun 37 times etc. whatever.

You're too funny. You make blanket statements and then try and attack me because I happen to know people in the business. I didn't show any "patches" silly man. I posted pictures of the goodie BAG that all participants get at Tailhook to show that yes indeed I had been there. Many posters make statements then can't back them up. I can. That's all.

It is sad that you feel the need to belittle people who disagree with you.

 

[HenryBHough]

F35. The airplane (well, alleged airplane) that was the laughingstock at the world's biggest air show when it failed to appear.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I stated that an updated and improved Harrier would cost far less and do nearly as good a job. That is what I said. My argument has ALWAYS been that the F-35 is not worth purchasing because it's performance doesn't match its cost. Period.

The quote function is inconvenient for you:

As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models. 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.

You fail... again.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I didn't show any "patches" silly man. I posted pictures of the goodie BAG that all participants get at Tailhook

Okay that is even funnier. How many pictures did you take of your little goodie bag?

It is sad that you feel the need to belittle people who disagree with you.

Look back thru your own posts too there Mr. Self-Righteous.

 

[SteadyMercury]

And I stated that if it were true, that would make it better. Can't you read?

Yep I saw you say this pages later after called out on your initial bullshit.

But hey I get it and I'm with you... if I knew the F-35C's specs showed a greater range than our current naval fighter my initial reaction would be to type "It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised" yep makes perfect sense now.

 

[Indofred]

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.

The question is, as a CAS aircraft, does it need to be better, or can you just upgrade the electronics to improve targeting?
Same applies for the A10 - you have to admit - it's a hell of a monster against ground targets.
Cash Vs. speed?

 

[westwall]

I stated that an updated and improved Harrier would cost far less and do nearly as good a job. That is what I said. My argument has ALWAYS been that the F-35 is not worth purchasing because it's performance doesn't match its cost. Period.

The quote function is inconvenient for you:

As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models. 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.

You fail... again.

No, I don't. Even you admit that it is inferior to the F-22. Thus it fails as an interceptor. It costs 16 times more than an A-10, can't take a hit, and doesn't carry anywhere near the ordnance of the A-10, nor have the loiter time. Fail. It is superior to the Harrier, but at 35 million per, the Harrier is four times cheaper to purchase. Plus, if you upgrade the Harrier and redesign the airframe for the new engines that are now available, it will still not be as good as the F-35 but it would still be at least three times cheaper to procure thus once again the F-35 is forced to do the work of three aircraft which it can't. Thus it fails again.

You are myopic in the extreme allowing yourself merely to compare single aircraft while the rest of us look at what we can buy with that money and we say to ourselves that the F-35 is not three times as good as the Harrier. Do you get it yet?

 

[SteadyMercury]

No, I don't. Even you admit that it is inferior to the F-22. Thus it fails as an interceptor.

This exactly the type of irrational logic I've come to expect from you. Since the F-35, a multirole fighter/bomber, isn't as good as the most advanced air superiority fighter in the world, it fails as an interceptor. Taking your puddle deep thinking further, every other fighter in the world also fails as an interceptor too.

It costs 16 times more than an A-10, can't take a hit, and doesn't carry anywhere near the ordnance of the A-10, nor have the loiter time.

Really?

Okay why don't you tell me the loiter time of an A-10 (range 800 miles) flying low with hardpoint mounted weapons versus an F-35 (range 1,200 miles) flying higher where air is thinner and 8 SDB IIs carried internally? Including the fuel used to get to the battlefield.

How much longer is the A-10s loiter time than the F-35s then?

You are myopic in the extreme allowing yourself merely to compare single aircraft while the rest of us look at what we can buy with that money and we say to ourselves that the F-35 is not three times as good as the Harrier. Do you get it yet?

Nope, I'm just not interested in your constant attempts to weasel out of getting called on making bullshit claims by suddenly getting interested in cost. I'm here to discuss the capabilities of the aircraft.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The question is, as a CAS aircraft, does it need to be better, or can you just upgrade the electronics to improve targeting?
Same applies for the A10 - you have to admit - it's a hell of a monster against ground targets.
Cash Vs. speed?

I don't think F-35 is necessarily better than the A-10 at CAS, just different. There are things the A-10 will do better in a close air support role, and things the F-35 will do better.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I think you guys are missing the point.

Whether the F-35 performance is merely lacking or complete fail doesn't matter: Just think of the jobs it'll provide.

 

[Manonthestreet]

No edge for F-35 on most missions: report No edge for F-35 on most missions report - Yahoo News

 

[westwall]

No, I don't. Even you admit that it is inferior to the F-22. Thus it fails as an interceptor.

This exactly the type of irrational logic I've come to expect from you. Since the F-35, a multirole fighter/bomber, isn't as good as the most advanced air superiority fighter in the world, it fails as an interceptor. Taking your puddle deep thinking further, every other fighter in the world also fails as an interceptor too.

It costs 16 times more than an A-10, can't take a hit, and doesn't carry anywhere near the ordnance of the A-10, nor have the loiter time.

Really?

Okay why don't you tell me the loiter time of an A-10 (range 800 miles) flying low with hardpoint mounted weapons versus an F-35 (range 1,200 miles) flying higher where air is thinner and 8 SDB IIs carried internally? Including the fuel used to get to the battlefield.

How much longer is the A-10s loiter time than the F-35s then?

You are myopic in the extreme allowing yourself merely to compare single aircraft while the rest of us look at what we can buy with that money and we say to ourselves that the F-35 is not three times as good as the Harrier. Do you get it yet?

Nope, I'm just not interested in your constant attempts to weasel out of getting called on making bullshit claims by suddenly getting interested in cost. I'm here to discuss the capabilities of the aircraft.

Sorry for the delay in answering I just noticed you had replied! Loiter for the A-10 is 250 nautical miles out, 1.7 hour loiter time with a payload of 9,500 pounds, and 250 nautical back to base. Nearly five times as much ordnance as your F-35. There ARE no figures I can find for the F-35's loiter time. None, nada, zilch, zero.

 

[westwall]

The question is, as a CAS aircraft, does it need to be better, or can you just upgrade the electronics to improve targeting?
Same applies for the A10 - you have to admit - it's a hell of a monster against ground targets.
Cash Vs. speed?

I don't think F-35 is necessarily better than the A-10 at CAS, just different. There are things the A-10 will do better in a close air support role, and things the F-35 will do better.

The only thing I can see the F-35 doing "better" in the CAS role is getting to the scene. There's no question it will get there faster. Once there though, and every edge is to the A-10.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Loiter for the A-10 is 250 nautical miles out, 1.7 hour loiter time with a payload of 9,500 pounds, and 250 nautical back to base. Nearly five times as much ordnance as your F-35.

First it isn't "my" F-35, you are clearly approaching this like someone rooting for a college football team or boxer, which probably explains how willing you are to sling such laughable bullshit.

There ARE no figures I can find for the F-35's loiter time. None, nada, zilch, zero.

And hence your bullshit... you are admitting you have no idea what the loiter time is for the F-35, after having just claimed that loiter range was inferior to the A-10.

This comes right on the heels of you claiming it doesn't have the range to be a naval fighter, despite F-35C having superior range to the F-18. Then suddenly you're questioning whether the stated range of F-35C is true.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The only thing I can see the F-35 doing "better" in the CAS role is getting to the scene. There's no question it will get there faster. Once there though, and every edge is to the A-10.

A-10 does some things better, F-35 does other things better.

You can't see anything better about the F-35 because you rah rah fanboy go team.

 

[Indofred]

Sorry for the delay in answering I just noticed you had replied! Loiter for the A-10 is 250 nautical miles out, 1.7 hour loiter time with a payload of 9,500 pounds, and 250 nautical back to base. Nearly five times as much ordnance as your F-35.

Fast is nice but, when you attack a ground target, you need to blast it to hell.
That in mind, if the F35 gets there, but only does half the job, what use is it?

As for loiter time, the F35 probably wins as it seems to have a range of a little less twice that of the A10, but how is its survivability.
An aircraft attacking a ground target from low level will get everything the enemy has available tossed at it. That will probably include a lot of big machine guns and canons.
The A10 can take a lot as it's simple and rugged, but the F35 seems pretty much unable to fly in a straight line without a computer.
What happens if it takes a hit in a sensitive system?

 

[SteadyMercury]

An aircraft attacking a ground target from low level will get everything the enemy has available tossed at it. That will probably include a lot of big machine guns and canons.
The A10 can take a lot as it's simple and rugged, but the F35 seems pretty much unable to fly in a straight line without a computer.
What happens if it takes a hit in a sensitive system?

F-35 doesn't attack a ground target from low level.

It uses sensors to identify/track/engage targets from an altitude outside the range of guns or MANPADS. It has a Distributed Aperture System to see in every direction at once and a built-in EOTS for targeting. There are advantages to flying low using your eyes, and advantages to flying higher with superior sensors seeing the whole battle field.

Not getting hit at all is better than being able to survive getting hit.

 

[westwall]

Loiter for the A-10 is 250 nautical miles out, 1.7 hour loiter time with a payload of 9,500 pounds, and 250 nautical back to base. Nearly five times as much ordnance as your F-35.

First it isn't "my" F-35, you are clearly approaching this like someone rooting for a college football team or boxer, which probably explains how willing you are to sling such laughable bullshit.

There ARE no figures I can find for the F-35's loiter time. None, nada, zilch, zero.

And hence your bullshit... you are admitting you have no idea what the loiter time is for the F-35, after having just claimed that loiter range was inferior to the A-10.

This comes right on the heels of you claiming it doesn't have the range to be a naval fighter, despite F-35C having superior range to the F-18. Then suddenly you're questioning whether the stated range of F-35C is true.

I don't recall claiming the range on the F-35 was poor.... The supercruise is a very nice capability but it can't do CAS half as good as a A-10. The A-10 carries 5 times as much ordnance so your claim that it can do some things better than the A-10 are not born out by fact. What I care about is efficiency. If the aircraft isn't efficient then it had better be the best in it's class. And by a lot. The F-35 isn't the best in any category. Other than cost. It's faaaaar superior in that class!

 

[westwall]

The only thing I can see the F-35 doing "better" in the CAS role is getting to the scene. There's no question it will get there faster. Once there though, and every edge is to the A-10.

A-10 does some things better, F-35 does other things better.

You can't see anything better about the F-35 because you rah rah fanboy go team.

Tell us what it does better. I am curious.

 

[westwall]

An aircraft attacking a ground target from low level will get everything the enemy has available tossed at it. That will probably include a lot of big machine guns and canons.
The A10 can take a lot as it's simple and rugged, but the F35 seems pretty much unable to fly in a straight line without a computer.
What happens if it takes a hit in a sensitive system?

F-35 doesn't attack a ground target from low level.

It uses sensors to identify/track/engage targets from an altitude outside the range of guns or MANPADS. It has a Distributed Aperture System to see in every direction at once and a built-in EOTS for targeting. There are advantages to flying low using your eyes, and advantages to flying higher with superior sensors seeing the whole battle field.

Not getting hit at all is better than being able to survive getting hit.

Spotting the target is kind of important too. The F-15 Strike Eagle is doing the same job as the F-35. It's problem is it is high and fast so it's capability in the CAS role is nowhere near as good as the A-10. That's a fact that the Army realizes. The Army has threatened the Air Force that if they retire the A-10 the Army will take it over. Maybe all those generals know more about the issue than you do.