The F-35 fiasco

[RED]

Back in the 1960's, Robert McNamara and the Dream Team came up with the idea of one shoe that fits all airplane. It was called the F-111. It was supposed to be everything, a long range nuclear bomber, a fighter interceptor, a close air support attack and the Navy's all around airplane. Actually it was a great airplane but just like a shoe it just didn't fit every role the Dream Team imagined.

Now we have another shoe that is supposed to fit every foot and every mission... Air Force, Navy, and USMC, and it is called the F-35. It is supposed to do everything from VTOL, close air support, turn and burn dog fights, beyond the merge intercepts, and carrier operations.

AS an old Naval Flight Officer, I can tell you this ain't gonna work. 1. No shoe fits every foot. 2. Two engines are better than one. 3. Two sets of eyes and two brains working together is better than one set of each.

https://spectator.org/the-f-35-fighter-jet-fiasco/

[Art]

Because of this fiasco the Air Force is going to keep the F16, still the most numerous fighter aircraft in the U.S. inventory, and a plane that's been in service for over 40 years in service, indefinitely. The F16 was supposed to be retired and taken out of service in place of the F35 within five years. So much for that. They have also shelved plans to replace the F15 another aircraft that's been in service with the USAF for 40+ years. The Navy is going to keep the F/A 18 because, among other issues, to stay "stealthy" the F35 cannot carry external stores which greatly compromises its usefulness as a strike fighter, especially in the STOVL versions.

The people really shafted by this are the Brits who built two big deck carriers that can only operate the STOVL very short range version of the F35. I bet they wish they had those Harriers back now.

The bulk of our aircraft, it appears, will be the functional equivalent of the Russian MiG 29 and the Su 27 series of fighters for the forseeable future.

Ugh.....

[Gun Smoke]

I wonder if the F-35 helmet technology could be adapted to other planes. I realize the adaptation would have to go beyond just the helmet.

[Art]

I wonder if the F-35 helmet technology could be adapted to other planes. I realize the adaptation would have to go beyond just the helmet.

Yes, the first aircraft to use similar helmet technology was the MiG 29 over 30 years ago. We didn't know the extent of its possibilities until the West German Air Force took over the East German MiGs which unlike the "29" export versions we were familiar with had the first line capabilities including the helmet technology. Of course the systems have been upgraded a lot since then. So yeah, not only can it be done but advanced helmet technology was first made available for the F16 and A10 almost 20 years ago. I'm sure its a lot better now.

[RED]

Trust me, Russian technology is probably superior to us in things like variable thrust, turning and burning, But their advanced technology aircraft are produced by tens, ours are produced by the hundreds.

[Art]

Trust me, Russian technology is probably superior to us in things like variable thrust, turning and burning, But their advanced technology aircraft are produced by tens, ours are produced by the hundreds.

Correct on all counts from what I've read. The Russian Air Force deploys 137 MiG31 and 35, 230 Su 34 & 35 4th generation ++++ fighters with more on order which are completely upgraded versions of the MiG 29 & Su 27. They are so heavily upgraded they are functionally new aircraft. These aircraft would be the equivalent of the current models of the U.S. F16 and F15. Their new Su 57 stealth fighter has just entered production and they have a total of 11 (10 prototypes they have put in active service and 1 serial production) with another 75 on order but they won't have all of them on line for at least 10 years. They also have 17 Tu 160 bombers. Everything else they have in service is inferior, sometimes very inferior to our best equipment though they are useful in limited roles.

We (USAF) have 453 F15s, and 761 F16s. Today it was announced that We're putting the F15 back into production. In stealth aircraft we have 178 F22s and 199 F35s as of today with more F35s on order. We also deploy 66 B1 and 20 (stealth) B2 bombers.

This does not count Naval Aviation and all of the front line aircraft of NATO nations.

Our numerical superiority is overwhelming.

[PWC]

USAF got the F-15 Eagle as an air superiority fighter, and the F-16 as a ground support fighter. Hmmmm...then the hung bombs off of the F-15 (Strike Eagle) and made it "multi-role" mission. 1:1 test F-16 vs F-15 resulted in 1:1 loss ratio, air to air.

Did the same with the P-47 in WW II; took ground support tank and rolling stock killer and made it into a heavily armored "air superiority" fighter, which did quite well, actually.

[PWC]

Do we have any acft with "vectored thrust" like the Russians?
That is a game changer; closest thing to having an acft turn on a dime I've ever seen. Saw a Sukoy do a nearly vertical swap ends to reverse direction.

What does this have to do with guns? Airborne guns / cannons are firearms too....

[Gun Smoke]

What does this have to do with guns? Airborne guns / cannons are firearms too....

"Gun Talk" is the "catch-all" for things of interest here since there is no Misc. section or Airplane, Dogs, Cars, conflicts with my Mother-In-law etc sections. People have posted pictures of insect eggs here wanting to know what kind of bug to expect. There was a recent thread on postal service here and sometimes topics just drift to other things as the thread starts to burn out.

A lot of things come up here that aren't gun or gun related--just no where else to write about them.

[jon_norstog]

Art you are dead-on right. The US should have moved forward with the F-22 and if we needed specialized aircraft, designed and built them. The F-35 is just a repeat of the f-one-murphy's law-eleven IMHO.

jn

[oscars]

I'm going to wait on giving opinions until I see some reports on actual combat efficacy and to hear reports from those that actually fly the F35 in combat instead of listening to keyboard commandos.

Our Secretary o Defense (Shanahan) suffers from massive conflicts of interest (35 yr with Boeing) as he pushes fourth generation planes that the AF doesn't want. He ought to confine himself to fixing the refueling camera on the new tanker and explain why he can't deliver on a modification of a 40 yr old design (B767) for the new tanker.

Most of the flak on the supposed superiority of the F16 vs the F35 emanates from Pierre Sprey who hasn't been relevant since his glory days with the fighter mafia. He was full of venom concerning the F15, then, and refuses to relinquish his supposed title of aircraft designer with constant babbling about complex radar systems on modern lighters.

[Art]

Well, I might not be a jet jockey but I can count. I do know that the F35 flew for the first time in 2006 and did not reach initial operational capability with U.S. forces until last year by that time the cost of the program, was almost a half trillion dollars before a single using unit had a combat ready aircraft. it is the definition of "too big to fail." Now the Israelis did get the F35s we sent them, which they modified extensively and had up and running a full two years before we did and have used them in combat effectively but all of their aircraft have been effective against their third and fourth rate opposition.

The simple fact is that the F35 can not do what the specification called for which was to replace the F117, F16, F/A 18 and A10 strike fighters. The U.S. military has conceded as much. The F117 was taken out of service years ago and as I said above the F16 and F/A 18 aren't going anywhere. Even the A10 seems destined to soldier on indefinitely.

As far as combat efficiency goes, it's actually a little hard to tell. It is important to remember that the last time the United States faced a competitive enemy in an air war was 1973, the last time the United States faced an enemy with comparable aircraft and pilot skill was 1953. While we do have to be prepared for the extremely unlikely possibility of an air war with the Russians, the fact is that aside from that remote possibility, the air forces of the U.S. and its allies have become services without real competition.

[Vern Humphrey]

The simple fact is that the F35 can not do what the specification called for which was to replace the F117, F16, F/A 18 and A10 strike fighters. The U.S. military has conceded as much. The F117 was taken out of service years ago and as I said above the F16 and F/A 18 aren't going anywhere. Even the A10 seems destined to soldier on indefinitely.

The A10 will definitely "soldier on" -- every time the Air Force tries to get rid of it, the Army steps up and says, "We'll take it." And the Air Force isn't about to let the Army get into the jet aircraft business.

[S.A. Boggs]

With the retro uniforms the AAC is just about due.
Sam

[oscars]

Humphrey, you are so full of crap that it is unbelievable.
1. Where would the Army get the funds to support the infrastructure for the A10? The plane is only a small part of the cost of the program (maintenance, maintainer training, flight training and crew costs, parts and supply pipeline etc.)

2. The only faction of the AF after the A10 was the group led by General David Deptula who undervalued close air support. He has subsequently retired. By the way, the AF pried money out of congress to rewing approximately 240 A10's. Incidentally the A10 is always a sacrificial lamb during budgeting as it is a known congressional favorite and will be funded.

3. A large faction of the AF loves close air support. Not everyone who flies in the AF is part of the white scarf brigade.