User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 6:38:11 PM EST
Have we had a full-blown, all-encompassing F-35 thread here? If so, I missed it. The fighter, and the entire program, is certainly controversial.
 Some reports say that it will not be a match for the latest Russian fighters, others say that it will, partially due to some stuff that they can't tell us about. The cost has gone well over the initial budget. The engine is very loud, which may cause basing issues. The engine does not supercruise, and is damaged by use of the afterburner. The aircraft is not as stealthy from the rear and sides as it is from the front. Some say that we shouldn't have compromised the design by trying to make it do too much (3 different variants). And it has a number of unresolved issues - here is a list from Wikipedia:
On the plus side, it has a number of cutting-edge features: the helmet system, if it can be made to work as designed, is revolutionary and supposedly will make for a much more effective pilot. It has a number of new sensors that even the F-22 lacks, including an infrared detection system that is reported to be very effective. And the "con" listed above regarding the 3 different variants could also be looked at as a plus. So, what is your opinion of the F-35, and its effectiveness against both current and future threats? Should we continue full speed ahead with the program, trusting that its issues will be resolved and it will deliver on its promises? Or should we scrap the entire program? Or something in between? Poll inbound. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 6:41:19 PM EST
[#1]
It's been almost two weeks since the last F-35 thread. That one devolved (evolved?) into a discussion on ship design.
I haven't heard anything new. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1370458_Incoming_F_35_Director_Thumps_Lockheed_Leadership.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 6:44:07 PM EST
[#2]
an all stealth force makes no sense now. we are making too many design compromises for a technology that has expired against top-tier threats and is unnecessary against other threats.
and I still don't get the wonder woman see through feature for a strike aircraft. Not counting hidden maintenance costs that will inevitably slaughter us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 6:44:37 PM EST
[#3]
You missed the part about being short ranged and needing external stores that defeat the whole point of it being stealthy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 6:45:20 PM EST
[#4]
F35 = turd. Jack of all trades, master of none. Plus it's a single engine maritime jet with the glide ratio of a boulder
We should have designed different airframes for the different services, because a big shortfall of the F35 is that it has to adhere to the lowest common denominator. Example: Marine requirement: Must fit in escort carrier elevator. What happened because of this? The airframe had to be small, sacrificing a lot of space that didn't need to be sacrificed on the AF/USN models. This restriction is why they only have 1 engine, carry a small amount of fuel (when compared to engine burn rate) and a small amount of stores. That are external. Which defeats the whole 'stealth' aspect.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 6:48:28 PM EST
[#5]
Quoted:
F35 = turd. Jack of all trades, master of none. Plus it's a single engine maritime jet with the glide ratio of a boulder
We should have designed different airframes for the different services, because a big shortfall of the F35 is that it has to adhere to the lowest common denominator. Example: Marine requirement: Must fit in escort carrier elevator. What happened because of this? The airframe had to be small, sacrificing a lot of space that didn't need to be sacrificed on the AF/USN models. This restriction is why they only have 1 engine. Forbes Disagrees with Your Turd Assumption |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 6:50:24 PM EST
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
F35 = turd. Jack of all trades, master of none. Plus it's a single engine maritime jet with the glide ratio of a boulder
We should have designed different airframes for the different services, because a big shortfall of the F35 is that it has to adhere to the lowest common denominator. Example: Marine requirement: Must fit in escort carrier elevator. What happened because of this? The airframe had to be small, sacrificing a lot of space that didn't need to be sacrificed on the AF/USN models. This restriction is why they only have 1 engine. Forbes Disagrees with Your Turd Assumption Oh, the F35 is awesome for business. It just sucks for the war fighter and the tax payer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 6:50:39 PM EST
[#7]
Reads like the Pentagon wrote it and quotes Wikipedia as a source. I'm not impressed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 6:55:20 PM EST
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
F35 = turd. Jack of all trades, master of none. Plus it's a single engine maritime jet with the glide ratio of a boulder
We should have designed different airframes for the different services, because a big shortfall of the F35 is that it has to adhere to the lowest common denominator. Example: Marine requirement: Must fit in escort carrier elevator. What happened because of this? The airframe had to be small, sacrificing a lot of space that didn't need to be sacrificed on the AF/USN models. This restriction is why they only have 1 engine. Forbes Disagrees with Your Turd Assumption Oh, the F35 is awesome for business. It just sucks for the war fighter and the tax payer. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 6:55:43 PM EST
[#9]
Quoted:
F35 = turd. Jack of all trades, master of none. Plus it's a single engine maritime jet with the glide ratio of a boulder
We should have designed different airframes for the different services, because a big shortfall of the F35 is that it has to adhere to the lowest common denominator. Example: Marine requirement: Must fit in escort carrier elevator. What happened because of this? The airframe had to be small, sacrificing a lot of space that didn't need to be sacrificed on the AF/USN models. This restriction is why they only have 1 engine, carry a small amount of fuel (when compared to engine burn rate) and a small amount of stores. That are external. Which defeats the whole 'stealth' aspect. I thought it out ranged the F/A-18C and F-16C (without external stores and conformal tanks)? Same with the AV8B? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 6:59:00 PM EST
[#10]
Scrap it.
1) Can't afford it. 2) It's already compromised by the Chinese 3) It was a compromise to begin with. A single airframe to fit 3 distinct needs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:00:05 PM EST
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
F35 = turd. Jack of all trades, master of none. Plus it's a single engine maritime jet with the glide ratio of a boulder
We should have designed different airframes for the different services, because a big shortfall of the F35 is that it has to adhere to the lowest common denominator. Example: Marine requirement: Must fit in escort carrier elevator. What happened because of this? The airframe had to be small, sacrificing a lot of space that didn't need to be sacrificed on the AF/USN models. This restriction is why they only have 1 engine, carry a small amount of fuel (when compared to engine burn rate) and a small amount of stores. That are external. Which defeats the whole 'stealth' aspect. I thought it out ranged the F/A-18C and F-16C (without external stores and conformal tanks)? Same with the AV8B? It does. Carries about the same amount of gas as an F22. Big engine and lower cruise speeds/altitudes, so it isn't going to get super duper range, but it's enough to make it to the tanker. The B probably looses gas to the lift fan, but it'll still be better in every way then a Harrier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:01:18 PM EST
[#12]
The best I've heard anyone say about it is, "but we've got no other option." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:02:12 PM EST
[#13]
Quoted:
Reads like the Pentagon wrote it and quotes Wikipedia as a source. I'm not impressed. Not saying your wrong, but where's does the article reference Wikipedia? Edit: N/M, found it. That does put the article into question; I'm surprised the Forbes editors would allow a Wiki reference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:06:11 PM EST
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
F35 = turd. Jack of all trades, master of none. Plus it's a single engine maritime jet with the glide ratio of a boulder
We should have designed different airframes for the different services, because a big shortfall of the F35 is that it has to adhere to the lowest common denominator. Example: Marine requirement: Must fit in escort carrier elevator. What happened because of this? The airframe had to be small, sacrificing a lot of space that didn't need to be sacrificed on the AF/USN models. This restriction is why they only have 1 engine, carry a small amount of fuel (when compared to engine burn rate) and a small amount of stores. That are external. Which defeats the whole 'stealth' aspect. I thought it out ranged the F/A-18C and F-16C (without external stores and conformal tanks)? Same with the AV8B? It does. Carries about the same amount of gas as an F22. Big engine and lower cruise speeds/altitudes, so it isn't going to get super duper range, but it's enough to make it to the tanker. The B probably looses gas to the lift fan, but it'll still be better in every way then a Harrier. My info must have been bad then. The whole external weapons killing stealth point stands, and so does the fact that there's way too much compromise going on with that airframe |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:07:29 PM EST
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
F35 = turd. Jack of all trades, master of none. Plus it's a single engine maritime jet with the glide ratio of a boulder
We should have designed different airframes for the different services, because a big shortfall of the F35 is that it has to adhere to the lowest common denominator. Example: Marine requirement: Must fit in escort carrier elevator. What happened because of this? The airframe had to be small, sacrificing a lot of space that didn't need to be sacrificed on the AF/USN models. This restriction is why they only have 1 engine, carry a small amount of fuel (when compared to engine burn rate) and a small amount of stores. That are external. Which defeats the whole 'stealth' aspect. I thought it out ranged the F/A-18C and F-16C (without external stores and conformal tanks)? Same with the AV8B? It does. Carries about the same amount of gas as an F22. Big engine and lower cruise speeds/altitudes, so it isn't going to get super duper range, but it's enough to make it to the tanker. The B probably looses gas to the lift fan, but it'll still be better in every way then a Harrier. My info must have been bad then. The whole external weapons killing stealth point stands, and so does the fact that there's way too much compromise going on with that airframe How many weapons can it carry internally? I've read it can only carry 4 AIM-120s in a full air to air stealth config.
Edit: 8 missiles isn't a whole lot, but probably what they would typically carry into combat anyways. But 4? Seems a bit low for post 2012. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:11:18 PM EST
[#16]
In the mid-nineties the project was a clusterfuck. From all that I can see from the outside, it's still a clusterfuck. The plane could be one serious piece of machinery. The project is another story.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:11:44 PM EST
[#17]
we've got two amazing jets in the works the F22 and the F35. Both are in fear of being cut. The F22 atleast flies but has a couple issues. Lets drop the F35 and finish the F22 That way we save some money and atleast get one of the projects finished. The F35 files can go in a big locked box that no one touches until it looks like the world is going to hell again. It seems like as long as we have one air superiority fighter to take out enemy fighters first, our currently existing airforce could bombard the ground all it needs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:15:51 PM EST
[#18]
Quoted:
we've got two amazing jets in the works the F22 and the F35. Both are in fear of being cut. The F22 atleast flies but has a couple issues. Lets drop the F35 and finish the F22 That way we save some money and atleast get one of the projects finished. The F35 files can go in a big locked box that no one touches until it looks like the world is going to hell again. It seems like as long as we have one air superiority fighter to take out enemy fighters first, our currently existing airforce could bombard the ground all it needs. Thing is our F-16/A-10s won't last forever. Check out the price of the F-16 Block 60. It isn't as expensive as the F-35 but it isn't cheap. Harriers have no other aircraft that can replace it, so unless you want the USMC to loose its ability to operate fixed wing aircraft off of assault ships there is no other option period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:18:32 PM EST
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: we've got two amazing jets in the works the F22 and the F35. Both are in fear of being cut. The F22 atleast flies but has a couple issues. Lets drop the F35 and finish the F22 That way we save some money and atleast get one of the projects finished. The F35 files can go in a big locked box that no one touches until it looks like the world is going to hell again. It seems like as long as we have one air superiority fighter to take out enemy fighters first, our currently existing airforce could bombard the ground all it needs. Thing is our F-16/A-10s won't last forever. Check out the price of the F-16 Block 60. It isn't as expensive as the F-35 but it isn't cheap. Harriers have no other aircraft that can replace it, so unless you want the USMC to loose its ability to operate fixed wing aircraft off of assault ships there is no other option period. Does the A-10 even fit a mission profile anymore with man portable antitank weapons and helos available these days? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:23:48 PM EST
[#20]
Okay, I posted my F-35B thread tonite because I came across this cool picture.
 http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1376014_Lockheed_Martin_F_35B_s_________.html I didn't realize there was some kind of faux controversy about them.  Photo: August 22, 2012 - F-35 test pilots Marine Corps Maj. C. R. Clift and Navy Lt. Cmdr. Michael Burks fly BF-2 and BF-4 during a formation flying qualities test. Testing formation flying qualities provides data on handling characteristics. The F-35B is the variant of the Joint Strike Fighter designed for use by U.S. Marine Corps, as well as F-35 international partners in the United Kingdom and Italy. The F-35B is capable of short take-offs and vertical landings to enable air power projection from amphibious ships, ski-jump aircraft carriers and expeditionary airfields. The F-35B is undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River, Md., prior to delivery to the fleet.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:27:03 PM EST
[#21]
Gtfo the cockpit Maverick you're obsolete.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:30:38 PM EST
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
we've got two amazing jets in the works the F22 and the F35. Both are in fear of being cut. The F22 atleast flies but has a couple issues. Lets drop the F35 and finish the F22 That way we save some money and atleast get one of the projects finished. The F35 files can go in a big locked box that no one touches until it looks like the world is going to hell again. It seems like as long as we have one air superiority fighter to take out enemy fighters first, our currently existing airforce could bombard the ground all it needs. Thing is our F-16/A-10s won't last forever. Check out the price of the F-16 Block 60. It isn't as expensive as the F-35 but it isn't cheap. Harriers have no other aircraft that can replace it, so unless you want the USMC to loose its ability to operate fixed wing aircraft off of assault ships there is no other option period. Does the A-10 even fit a mission profile anymore with man portable antitank weapons and helos available these days? A low and slow gun/bomb platform designed from the ground up for CAS/Antitank, with a 30mm GAU-8 and hardpoints. Yeah, it's perfectly relevant as a CAS platform. Think: Pinned down squad in a town. They call in A-10s. A-10s unleash unholy hell upon the down with 30s and JDAMS/SDBs. Our boys walk away relatively unscathed, while the enemy is now dust. Slightly less vulnerable than a helo because it moves faster as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:32:09 PM EST
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
we've got two amazing jets in the works the F22 and the F35. Both are in fear of being cut. The F22 atleast flies but has a couple issues. Lets drop the F35 and finish the F22 That way we save some money and atleast get one of the projects finished. The F35 files can go in a big locked box that no one touches until it looks like the world is going to hell again. It seems like as long as we have one air superiority fighter to take out enemy fighters first, our currently existing airforce could bombard the ground all it needs. Thing is our F-16/A-10s won't last forever. Check out the price of the F-16 Block 60. It isn't as expensive as the F-35 but it isn't cheap. Harriers have no other aircraft that can replace it, so unless you want the USMC to loose its ability to operate fixed wing aircraft off of assault ships there is no other option period. Does the A-10 even fit a mission profile anymore with man portable antitank weapons and helos available these days? Attack helis were in service for about a decade or more before the A-10 entered service. I doubt man portable anti tank weapons will do the job either. Have you seen how big a Javelin is? And have big the missiles are? You'll probably only get 1 shot. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
we've got two amazing jets in the works the F22 and the F35. Both are in fear of being cut. The F22 atleast flies but has a couple issues. Lets drop the F35 and finish the F22 That way we save some money and atleast get one of the projects finished. The F35 files can go in a big locked box that no one touches until it looks like the world is going to hell again. It seems like as long as we have one air superiority fighter to take out enemy fighters first, our currently existing airforce could bombard the ground all it needs. Thing is our F-16/A-10s won't last forever. Check out the price of the F-16 Block 60. It isn't as expensive as the F-35 but it isn't cheap. Harriers have no other aircraft that can replace it, so unless you want the USMC to loose its ability to operate fixed wing aircraft off of assault ships there is no other option period. Does the A-10 even fit a mission profile anymore with man portable antitank weapons and helos available these days? A low and slow gun/bomb platform designed from the ground up for CAS/Antitank, with a 30mm GAU-8 and hardpoints. Yeah, it's perfectly relevant as a CAS platform. Think: Pinned down squad in a town. They call in A-10s. A-10s unleash unholy hell upon the down with 30s and JDAMS/SDBs. Our boys walk away relatively unscathed, while the enemy is now dust. Slightly less vulnerable than a helo because it moves faster as well. This. It has a very specific role. If you want good airpower you need at least 4 types of planes: 1) Air superiority; think F-15C and F-22. 2) CAS; A-10 and Su-25. 3) Multi role jack of all trades; F-16, F/A-18. 4) Strike, F-15E, Su-30s, two seater Eurofighters. A bunch of air superiority only fighters won't help much when you have artillery or tanks pounding your ground forces. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:33:11 PM EST
[#24]
Quoted:
Gtfo the cockpit Maverick you're obsolete. Until you trust a computer to make shoot/no-shoot decisions on its own, there will be someone in the cockpit of a fighter. The control delay inherent in remotely piloted vehicles means a manned plane's OODA loop is faster, all else being equal. Therefore, a piloted plane is still going to be used by basically everyone until we're willing to put deadly force decisions and actions in the hands of an autonomous machine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:34:31 PM EST
[#25]
Quoted:
an all stealth force makes no sense now. we are making too many design compromises for a technology that has expired against top-tier threats and is unnecessary against other threats. and I still don't get the wonder woman see through feature for a strike aircraft. Not counting hidden maintenance costs that will inevitably slaughter us. I actually agree, we need some reasonable cost airframes that can do the heavy lifting after the Stealth Aircraft have served as a wedge to pry open the door. Unfortunately we are buying a whole lot of force multipliers and no forces for them to multiply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:35:06 PM EST
[#26]
Quoted:
How many weapons can it carry internally? I've read it can only carry 4 AIM-120s in a full air to air stealth config.
Edit: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/ 8 missiles isn't a whole lot, but probably what they would typically carry into combat anyways. But 4? Seems a bit low for post 2012. The F-35 is a glorified bomb truck. And when carrying bombs, they need to be on the hardpoints. Bye bye stealth. I'd like to see some air to air tests. I doubt it will turn out as one size fits all as the .gov wants it to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:43:32 PM EST
[#27]
In reality, when it comes to the F-35, they did it wrong. When designing aircraft, design them to a specific purpose. Oftentimes, we find that when we design something to do one job really well, it will be able to do other jobs just as well.
They designed the F-35 to be an Air SuperioribombiCASfighter. You simply can't design something like that, because there are many variables for each mission type, and not all can be accounted for at the same time. Some of our most successful attack aircraft were designed as fighters. Then someone said "Hey, let's strap some bombs to the fucker and see how it does!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:50:33 PM EST
[#28]
Quoted:
Have we had a full-blown, all-encompassing F-35 thread here? If so, I missed it. The fighter, and the entire program, is certainly controversial. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fP7ZHF3g3yg/SwLe3UKJmhI/AAAAAAAAAMc/evogBbCV-6M/s1600/Lockheed+F-35+Lightning+IIbombing.jpg Some reports say that it will not be a match for the latest Russian fighters, others say that it will, partially due to some stuff that they can't tell us about. The cost has gone well over the initial budget. The engine is very loud, which may cause basing issues. The engine does not supercruise, and is damaged by use of the afterburner. The aircraft is not as stealthy from the rear and sides as it is from the front. Some say that we shouldn't have compromised the design by trying to make it do too much (3 different variants). And it has a number of unresolved issues - here is a list from Wikipedia:
On the plus side, it has a number of cutting-edge features: the helmet system, if it can be made to work as designed, is revolutionary and supposedly will make for a much more effective pilot. It has a number of new sensors that even the F-22 lacks, including an infrared detection system that is reported to be very effective. And the "con" listed above regarding the 3 different variants could also be looked at as a plus. So, what is your opinion of the F-35, and its effectiveness against both current and future threats? Should we continue full speed ahead with the program, trusting that its issues will be resolved and it will deliver on its promises? Or should we scrap the entire program? Or something in between? Poll inbound. I don't know how we can trust anything that is on Wiki on this issue. I suspect the F35 to be way over budget, but in terms of its performance, nobody, except for the privleged few on this site who might give us a tease or two, knows what they are talking about. Shut, the fuck, up, unless you have something to provide other than regurgitating what you read on the newswires. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 7:59:59 PM EST
[#29]
I bet if the X-32 had won out in the JSF program, Boeing would already be delivering operational aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 8:09:41 PM EST
[#30]
Quoted: LOL, ALL of these issues have been reported from numerous sources; I cited Wikipedia because it's the only place I found that presented them all in one place. I'm asking for people's opinions, as I clearly stated (even if you didn't see where I asked "what is your opinion," the poll should probably have been your first clue). I don't know what your problem is with my thread. You're way out of line IMO in telling me to "Shut, the fuck, up" here. But since you started it, shut, the fuck, up, unless you can add something worthwhile to the discussion. Quoted: Have we had a full-blown, all-encompassing F-35 thread here? If so, I missed it. The fighter, and the entire program, is certainly controversial. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fP7ZHF3g3yg/SwLe3UKJmhI/AAAAAAAAAMc/evogBbCV-6M/s1600/Lockheed+F-35+Lightning+IIbombing.jpg Some reports say that it will not be a match for the latest Russian fighters, others say that it will, partially due to some stuff that they can't tell us about. The cost has gone well over the initial budget. The engine is very loud, which may cause basing issues. The engine does not supercruise, and is damaged by use of the afterburner. The aircraft is not as stealthy from the rear and sides as it is from the front. Some say that we shouldn't have compromised the design by trying to make it do too much (3 different variants). And it has a number of unresolved issues - here is a list from Wikipedia:
On the plus side, it has a number of cutting-edge features: the helmet system, if it can be made to work as designed, is revolutionary and supposedly will make for a much more effective pilot. It has a number of new sensors that even the F-22 lacks, including an infrared detection system that is reported to be very effective. And the "con" listed above regarding the 3 different variants could also be looked at as a plus. So, what is your opinion of the F-35, and its effectiveness against both current and future threats? Should we continue full speed ahead with the program, trusting that its issues will be resolved and it will deliver on its promises? Or should we scrap the entire program? Or something in between? Poll inbound. I don't know how we can trust anything that is on Wiki on this issue. I suspect the F35 to be way over budget, but in terms of its performance, nobody, except for the privleged few on this site who might give us a tease or two, knows what they are talking about. Shut, the fuck, up, unless you have something to provide other than regurgitating what you read on the newswires. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 8:12:05 PM EST
[#31]
Its probably a moot point as the super committee has yet to do their job.
So the Defense budget is likely going to be reduced by 1 trillion dollars over ten years. I'm betting F-35 is the first program to get slashed by Obama |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 8:13:58 PM EST
[#32]
Quoted:
There are three distinct versions of this aircraft They all share common dimensions and a common airframe. Hence the 'Joint' part of JSF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2012 8:24:02 PM EST
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: There are three distinct versions of this aircraft They all share common dimensions and a common airframe. Hence the 'Joint' part of JSF. The do not share a common airframe. They are similar but not the same. They do share some components and manufacturing processes. Joint has to do with the multiple nations jointly working to develop the aircraft. It is meant to be fielded by several allied nations. http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_variants.htm    |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 5:25:38 AM EST
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
we've got two amazing jets in the works the F22 and the F35. Both are in fear of being cut. The F22 atleast flies but has a couple issues. Lets drop the F35 and finish the F22 That way we save some money and atleast get one of the projects finished. The F35 files can go in a big locked box that no one touches until it looks like the world is going to hell again. It seems like as long as we have one air superiority fighter to take out enemy fighters first, our currently existing airforce could bombard the ground all it needs. Thing is our F-16/A-10s won't last forever. Check out the price of the F-16 Block 60. It isn't as expensive as the F-35 but it isn't cheap. Harriers have no other aircraft that can replace it, so unless you want the USMC to loose its ability to operate fixed wing aircraft off of assault ships there is no other option period. Does the A-10 even fit a mission profile anymore with man portable antitank weapons and helos available these days? Attack helis were in service for about a decade or more before the A-10 entered service. I doubt man portable anti tank weapons will do the job either. Have you seen how big a Javelin is? And have big the missiles are? You'll probably only get 1 shot. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
we've got two amazing jets in the works the F22 and the F35. Both are in fear of being cut. The F22 atleast flies but has a couple issues. Lets drop the F35 and finish the F22 That way we save some money and atleast get one of the projects finished. The F35 files can go in a big locked box that no one touches until it looks like the world is going to hell again. It seems like as long as we have one air superiority fighter to take out enemy fighters first, our currently existing airforce could bombard the ground all it needs. Thing is our F-16/A-10s won't last forever. Check out the price of the F-16 Block 60. It isn't as expensive as the F-35 but it isn't cheap. Harriers have no other aircraft that can replace it, so unless you want the USMC to loose its ability to operate fixed wing aircraft off of assault ships there is no other option period. Does the A-10 even fit a mission profile anymore with man portable antitank weapons and helos available these days? A low and slow gun/bomb platform designed from the ground up for CAS/Antitank, with a 30mm GAU-8 and hardpoints. Yeah, it's perfectly relevant as a CAS platform. Think: Pinned down squad in a town. They call in A-10s. A-10s unleash unholy hell upon the down with 30s and JDAMS/SDBs. Our boys walk away relatively unscathed, while the enemy is now dust. Slightly less vulnerable than a helo because it moves faster as well. This. It has a very specific role. If you want good airpower you need at least 4 types of planes: 1) Air superiority; think F-15C and F-22. 2) CAS; A-10 and Su-25. 3) Multi role jack of all trades; F-16, F/A-18. 4) Strike, F-15E, Su-30s, two seater Eurofighters. A bunch of air superiority only fighters won't help much when you have artillery or tanks pounding your ground forces. Why multi-roles when you have single purpose? unless its low cost alternatives, dump #3 and use them for 4. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 2:53:39 PM EST
[#35]
Quoted:
Gtfo the cockpit Maverick you're obsolete. Not for a lot more years. Hauling pax from A to B is much simpler than air combat. How many remotely piloted airliners are there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 2:55:36 PM EST
[#36]
Quoted: an all stealth force makes no sense now. we are making too many design compromises for a technology that has expired against top-tier threats and is unnecessary against other threats. and I still don't get the wonder woman see through feature for a strike aircraft. Not counting hidden maintenance costs that will inevitably slaughter us. I have to agree. Stealth technology was overcome by certain SAM systems for quite a few years, now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 3:03:45 PM EST
[#37]
This layman says we should have updated the F-15, F-16, and F-18 with newer thrust vectored engines, radars, electronics, etc and designed a worthy replacement for the A-10 (hell just update it too). Bam saved a bunch of money, have more aircraft, and you have better planes for those roles. As far as the Marines go with their Harrier replacement, I don't know what the best answer is. The F-22 continues to be our super stealth weapon as usual (but we order more). I've always said putting all of our eggs in the stealth basket is absolutely retarded. While still useful today, it could be negated tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 3:20:13 PM EST
[#38]
I didnt vote, but IMO we should look hard at scrapping it. The project has been a clusterfuck from the get go, due to both LM and the pentagon. Buy more of the latest greatest F-18s and F-15s, incorporate as many of the avionic updates from the F-35 as we can, and put out a bid to contractors to develope on their own dime stealth drone tech. If they come up with something then we can buy if we need it and the price is right. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 3:23:09 PM EST
[#39]
There will be a 5-7 year period where it will be very useful. Then it will require extensive upgrades and better munitions to cope.
We could just go the better EW and munitions route now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 3:28:06 PM EST
[#40]
If Sukhoi can update the Su-27 to Thrust vectoring, why can we update the F/A-18 to them? we did it in the HARV program.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 3:35:58 PM EST
[#41]
Quoted:
If Sukhoi can update the Su-27 to Thrust vectoring, why can we update the F/A-18 to them? we did it in the HARV program. The fact we haven't used thrust vectoring except in the F-22 (in that case to assist with stealth as much as maneuverability) should speak volumes. We have plenty of experience with thrust vectoring, yet the vast majority of our fighters don't use it. There are reasons for that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 3:41:20 PM EST
[#42]
"Oh, the F35 is awesome for business.
It just sucks for the war fighter and the tax payer." EXACTLY !!! Espically the tax payer part |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 3:42:21 PM EST
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If Sukhoi can update the Su-27 to Thrust vectoring, why can we update the F/A-18 to them? we did it in the HARV program. The fact we haven't used thrust vectoring except in the F-22 (in that case to assist with stealth as much as maneuverability) should speak volumes. We have plenty of experience with thrust vectoring, yet the vast majority of our fighters don't use it. There are reasons for that. Cause were so gung-ho on BVR engagements? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 3:47:43 PM EST
[#44]
It is going to be the plane that ate the Dept of Defense.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 3:48:20 PM EST
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If Sukhoi can update the Su-27 to Thrust vectoring, why can we update the F/A-18 to them? we did it in the HARV program. The fact we haven't used thrust vectoring except in the F-22 (in that case to assist with stealth as much as maneuverability) should speak volumes. We have plenty of experience with thrust vectoring, yet the vast majority of our fighters don't use it. There are reasons for that. Cause were so gung-ho on BVR engagements? Weight, complexity, utility, and the AIM-9X. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 3:56:32 PM EST
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: Gtfo the cockpit Maverick you're obsolete. Until you trust a computer to make shoot/no-shoot decisions on its own, there will be someone in the cockpit of a fighter. The control delay inherent in remotely piloted vehicles means a manned plane's OODA loop is faster, all else being equal. Therefore, a piloted plane is still going to be used by basically everyone until we're willing to put deadly force decisions and actions in the hands of an autonomous machine. that would actually be the easy part. all you need is for the off-board human supervisor to authorize the prosecution of a target, which would override the dedicated "safe" mode that the UAV would be in by default. the control systems in the drone would then handle the attack profile. thus lag would be a non-issue. if TID is ambiguous, then the UAV would stay in "no-shoot" until such time as ID could be made by other assets. this is technologically possible right now. deadly force is never going to be out of human hands, at least as far as US and NATO UMV doctrine goes. there will always be a human supervisor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 4:06:46 PM EST
[#47]
I'm not quite understanding the whole F-35 debacle. Whats currently wrong with the F-16 in the role that it fills for the USAF?
I can understand that the AV-8 Harrier is getting old and the Marines need a replacement. What is wrong with the F-18E/F models? Does the Navy need to replace it? We're still buying new ones. The A-10 is a badass airplane that serves it's purpose. How will the F-35 be better at its role than the A-10C models? Then the F-22? Why did we cancel it? We had the R&D cost per paid for. I know that airframe has it's warts, but it seems like it could be upgraded/modified (still within the air superiority role or inderdiction/ground attack role). We don't have enough of them as it stands, with plans for F-15Cs to still fill air superiority roles well into the future. There is no replacement for the F-15E in the cards. Does there need to be? And we're buying F-35s that are quickly getting about as expensive per airframe as the F-22. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 4:15:42 PM EST
[#48]
Quoted:
It is going to be the plane that ate the Dept of Defense. There is no plan B. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 4:23:28 PM EST
[#49]
Unmanned. We don't need pilots in the plane anymore.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 4:49:44 PM EST
[#50]
In honor of my delayed double tap: I want to have John Warden's love child.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
