The F-35 is a piece of garbage!

[John Connor]

I'm glad we have them over any other aircraft (including the F-22).

What? The F-22 is much more capable, especially the massive thrust. It's why the F-35 is for export and not the F-22.

 

[Blackjack200]

What? The F-22 is much more capable, especially the massive thrust. It's why the F-35 is for export and not the F-22.

What I actually said is

and for their role I'm glad we have them over any other aircraft (including the F-22).

The F-22 is far more expensive to produce and support than an F-35. It's older technology. The F-35 has a superior radar, better avionics and sensor packages, etc. The helmet mounted targeting systems are really important when you have missiles that can do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ

 

[norseamd]

But now I have to say, I've changed my opinion. There are certainly many valid criticisms of the F-35 program, but when you think about the global strategic picture in the mid 21st century, I think the F-35 is exactly what's needed, and for their role I'm glad we have them over any other aircraft (including the F-22).

I used to think the F-35 was probably a piece of shit, but from what I have learned in the last few months, the plane is actually quite nice and powerful, but the procurement program is what is the real trash here. The development and construction of the F-35 is spread out as much as possible, thus turning it into a pain in the ass for any one to cancel, yet it also makes the development and construction of the F-35 very inefficient and excessively expensive.

 

[norseamd]

The helmet mounted targeting systems are really important when you have missiles that can do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ

The F-22 is getting those also. The F-22 would win against the F-35 in any one-on-one engagement. There is also a lot of technology on the F-22 that is not cleared for export, and thus not on the F-35.

 

[MongGrel]

What I actually said is



The F-22 is far more expensive to produce and support than an F-35. It's older technology. The F-35 has a superior radar, better avionics and sensor packages, etc. The helmet mounted targeting systems are really important when you have missiles that can do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ

AIM-9 has been around for decades, what does a F-15 or a F-18 shooting down an antiquated F-4 have to do with a F-35.

They are still a giant waste of money.

Upgraded F-15's can take out an enemy plane outside of 15 miles.

 

[norseamd]

Here are a few good videos to watch on the subject of defense procurement and the defense industry.

Government-Sponsored Patent Pools: Addressing "Innovation Mercantilism"

The Industrial Base After the Drawdown

How to Tackle the Cost of Sustainment?

Outcomes of Recent Defense Acquisition Reform: Lessons for the Future

Force of the Future

Future Vertical Lift: From Concept to Acquisition

Defense Acquisition Reform: Rethinking the Packard Commission Approach after 30 years

Air Force Acquisition

Keeping the Technological Edge

Past, Present, and Future of War Funding

 

[norseamd]

AIM-9 has been around for decades, what does a F-15 or a F-18 shooting down an antiquated F-4 have to do with a F-35.

The AIM-9X

You can aim it with your helmet, thus the pilot can lock on and fire at any plane he can see from his cockpit, instead of needing to maneuver the whole plane to lock on to the enemy aircraft. Dramatically increases the WVR capabilities of any aircraft with JHMCS and AIM-9X.

 

[Blackjack200]

I used to think the F-35 was probably a piece of shit, but from what I have learned in the last few months, the plane is actually quite nice and powerful, but the procurement program is what is the real trash here. The development and construction of the F-35 is spread out as much as possible, thus turning it into a pain in the ass for any one to cancel, yet it also makes the development and construction of the F-35 very inefficient and excessively expensive.

I agree. I'd just point out that most large procurement programs have similar kinds of problems. Look at the engine issues the F-14 had and how many pilots that killed. Look at the F-111 debacle.

From what I can tell, there were two big mistakes in F-35 program. First was trying to get one airframe to suit the Airforce, Naval CATOBAR, and USMC STOVL requirements. The second was a deliberate decision to accelerate the development, rush operational capability, and add enhancments along the way through retrofits. The F-35 will be available sooner because they did this, but the cost of re-designs and retrofits proved substantial, and it doesn't really seem worth it.

 

[Blackjack200]

The F-22 is getting those also. The F-22 would win against the F-35 in any one-on-one engagement. There is also a lot of technology on the F-22 that is not cleared for export, and thus not on the F-35.

I believe the system the F-35 is getting is superior. The F-35 has 4 IR sensors that provide a 360 degree view to the pilot based on the orientation of the helmet. So the pilot can look down and see through the floor of the plane (this is especially useful for the ground attack missions.)

I agree that the F-22 is a superior air-to-air fighter. It operates at higher altitudes with more energy and less RCS. In an imaginary engagement between F-22s and F-35s I don't think either would acheive BVR missle lock, so they would enter WVR combat with the F-22 at an altitude and speed (supercruise) advantage.

A maneuvering target at a higher speed and altitude than the launching aircraft would be a very difficult target even for an AIM-9X.

 

[pauldun170]

I agree. I'd just point out that most large procurement programs have similar kinds of problems. Look at the engine issues the F-14 had and how many pilots that killed. Look at the F-111 debacle.

The TF30 were always meant to be temporary on the F-14. Grumman was forced to use it because they needed to leverage all the work on F-111. Once they started rolling out the GE engines the Tomcat was a beast.
TF30's were actually very revolutionary. Its just sucked in the F-14.

While the F111 blew it as a fighter\interceptor, it was bad ass as a bomber\attack aircraft. At least for the time period. The EF1111 also was a great asset to the airforce (despite it flaws as a EW platform)

 

[lupi]

Don't have anything to add for these planes, but I was watching some Ospreys the other day doing touch and go type maneuvers with the rotors tilted almost full vertically and was impressed with the speed the managed in that configuration.

 

[KMFJD]

The F-35 is actually a great, albeit very expensive design that should serve the United States fleet very well. Its ace card is the avionics package and its ability to identify and collect intelligence data. Unfortunately I think what people don't realize is that most air combat these days is against ground targets. If there is the potential threat for enemy aircraft in an area, the United States will field air superiority fighters on combat patrols (F22 and F15's) alongside F-35s to address the targets.

Also, the F-35B is a necessary design because a vital component to US force projection isn't just our aircraft carriers, but the Amphibious Assault Ships that form the vanguard for getting US forces onto a beachhead. These ships, like the aircraft carriers, also launch fighter aircraft and are currently operating Harrier II's, which the F-35B is a massive upgrade to.

Most fighter aircraft are just bomb trucks.



The two arguments have their similarities, but they're not quite the same. The F-35 is supposed to be built in the thousands to replace an entire fleet of Air force, Marine Corp, and Navy aircraft. The battleship argument is about the US Navy's ability to provide Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS), which is a much more specialized role. The 16" guns of the Iowa's are of their own class of firepower support that still cannot be matched by a cruiser or destroyer. Their destructive power is phenomenal, and their psychological effect on an enemy is simply unreal, and cannot be replicated by smaller caliber weaponry. You can't really describe it in words. Although their range is very short by today's warfare standards, advances in metallurgy, powder, and shell design could extend their 24 mile range to 50-100 miles or more with greater accuracy. On top of that, everyone talks about the 70 mile range of the AGS that'll be fitted onto the Zumwalts, but those guns can just as easily be outfitted to the Iowas too.

Arguments for keeping the battleships are as follows:

1. We spent $22.5 billion dollars designing and building three Zumwalt class destroyers. Although there was definitely some good R&D to come out of these, the Navy will be returning to purchasing additional Arleigh-Burke class destroyers because the Zulwalts are just too expensive. The bottom line, the Zumwalt is overall a failed project, and two battleships could have been upgraded and operated for many years for substantially less money.

2. The current Zumwalts we do have will basically be delegated to NSFS duties for now, which is exactly what the battleships did. And the exact same weaponry the Zumwalts will do it with can also be outfitted to an Iowa. See below.

3. A single battleship can provide more ordinance and destructive power at a fraction of the cost than an entire aircraft carrier's maximum sorty level, and four battleships can be operated for a fraction of the operating costs of a single carrier. The Navy claims that the battleships are prohibitively expensive to operate, and they definitely are more costly to operate than destroyers, but this statement is often misinterpreted. The operating costs of a battleship are very high if you consider that it only has one single role; NSFS. Otherwise they're just fear weapons (and believe me, the world fears the Iowa's). At least destroyers can be off doing other things while they're not doing that, but this idea that the Iowa's are massively costly to operate is overblown.

4. We have to be honest with ourselves, is rail gun technology actually going to make it to the battlefield? The idea is sound, but launching an object at Mach 10 is devastating to the barrel it's flying out of. This technology is still many years out imho before it'll be usable on a ship. Note, the battleships definitely CANNOT use rail guns, as they don't generate enough electrical power. The Zumwalts generate electricity in droves though.

Basically the bottom line is that we spent $22.5 billion dollars designing 3 ships that don't do the job as well as what they're replacing. Sound a lot like the F-35 project? It's similar, but not quite. We could have just spent $2-3 billion each on upgrading two battleships and had a much better platform for NSFS. I used to be very pro-Zumwalt, get rid of the dang ancients, but when it comes to the money and the very specialized role that the Iowa's do, it's hard to argue many billions in savings.

Sounds good for bullying 3rd tier forces, but wouldn't they be nice big targets for Russian/Chinese land to sea missiles?

 

[norseamd]

Sounds good for bullying 3rd tier forces, but wouldn't they be nice big targets for Russian/Chinese land to sea missiles?

Which specific hardware?

 

[Ventanni]

Sounds good for bullying 3rd tier forces, but wouldn't they be nice big targets for Russian/Chinese land to sea missiles?

The Iowa's would fair better against a direct hit from an anti-ship missile than most any other ship in the Navy. I'm in no way saying they're invincible (they're most definitely not), but they were designed to take multiple direct hits from enemy 3000lb AP shells and 500lb bombs with armor up to 17 inches thick, and most anti-ship missiles aren't designed for ships with that kind of armor. Comparatively, today's Navy ships are very lightly armored, instead relying on advanced active defenses to prevent the ships from being hit. These same active defenses can be outfitted to the battleships, and given the complete absence of shore batteries in the world, this makes the battleships a very tough target to sink. In all actuality, the Iowa's probably put its supporting ships more in danger than they do themselves given their very limited attacking range.

Again, I'm not saying bring them out of retirement, but in hindsight it probably would have been a better option given that we spent $22.5 billion on 3 ships that will pretty much do the exact same role as the BB's.

 

[Blackjack200]

The TF30 were always meant to be temporary on the F-14. Grumman was forced to use it because they needed to leverage all the work on F-111. Once they started rolling out the GE engines the Tomcat was a beast.
TF30's were actually very revolutionary. Its just sucked in the F-14.

While the F111 blew it as a fighter\interceptor, it was very bad ass as a bomber\attack aircraft. At least for the time period. The EF1111 also was a great asset to the airforce (despite it flaws as a EW platform)

Yeah, I should have been more clear in what I meant there. They both went on to be very successful aircraft, so I'm hoping that despite it's issues, the F-35 can also be successful.

 

[Blackjack200]

The Iowa's would fair better against a direct hit from an anti-ship missile than most any other ship in the Navy. I'm in no way saying they're invincible (they're most definitely not), but they were designed to take multiple direct hits from enemy 3000lb AP shells and 500lb bombs with armor up to 17 inches thick, and most anti-ship missiles aren't designed for ships with that kind of armor. Comparatively, today's Navy ships are very lightly armored, instead relying on advanced active defenses to prevent the ships from being hit. These same active defenses can be outfitted to the battleships, and given the complete absence of shore batteries in the world, this makes the battleships a very tough target to sink. In all actuality, the Iowa's probably put its supporting ships more in danger than they do themselves given their very limited attacking range.

Again, I'm not saying bring them out of retirement, but in hindsight it probably would have been a better option given that we spent $22.5 billion on 3 ships that will pretty much do the exact same role as the BB's.

I'm not really sure what role the Iowas fill though. I mean, it's great to hurl 16 inch shell 23 miles and all, but you need a ship that displaces 68,000 tons (compared to 102,000 for a carrier) and a crew of 1,800 to do it. And those ships are not nuclear powered, you need enormous amounts of fuel to keep them moving. You keep saying that we wasted a lot of money on the Zumwalts, and that might be the case, but that doesn't mean it would have been a good idea to waste them on WWII era ships.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I'm not really sure what role the Iowas fill though. I mean, it's great to hurl 16 inch shell 23 miles and all, but you need a ship that displaces 68,000 tons (compared to 102,000 for a carrier) and a crew of 1,800 to do it. And those ships are not nuclear powered, you need enormous amounts of fuel to keep them moving. You keep saying that we wasted a lot of money on the Zumwalts, and that might be the case, but that doesn't mean it would have been a good idea to waste them on WWII era ships.

artillery support is the short answer

 

[gorobei]

Israel may get an order some silent eagles as part of accepting the iran nuke deal. should be interesting as far as seeing what a gen 4.5 plane can do.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-requests-extra-squadron-of-f-15s-418487/

 

[desura]

Someone explain how the f35's engineers overcame what is probably the fundamental critique: that by making it VTOL, it ends up crippling the Air Force version.

 

[PottedMeat]

Israel may get an order some silent eagles as part of accepting the iran nuke deal. should be interesting as far as seeing what a gen 4.5 plane can do.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-requests-extra-squadron-of-f-15s-418487/

Other systems being requested by Israel in order to maintain its operational edge include Bell Boeing V-22 tiltrotors, Boeing KC-46A tankers, additional Lockheed Martin F-35s and bunker-busting bombs that have until now not been exported by the USA.

hehe this stuff isn't probably going to be denied

iran wont have to worry about the US coming in to enforce the deal, just a separate technologically advanced military that really doesn't have to answer to anyone

 

[gorobei]

Someone explain how the f35's engineers overcame what is probably the fundamental critique: that by making it VTOL, it ends up crippling the Air Force version.

they didnt overcome it.

the liftfan and transmission linkage to the engine behind the cockpit makes the fuselage far wider than a conventional stealth type design like the f22. that extra width disrupts airflow increasing drag and reducing speed = poor maneuverability and range.

for the airforce who is looking to replace the f16, having to use the same basic fuselage as the vtol marine version means they get severely compromised flight performance from the start. i dont think they even get to fill the space from the absent liftfan with any extra ordinance, just fuel.

 

[Blackjack200]

UK nearly triples its orders for F-35: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/25/Why-UK-Going-All-F-35-Joint-Strike-Fighter

Someone explain how the f35's engineers overcame what is probably the fundamental critique: that by making it VTOL, it ends up crippling the Air Force version.

Easy, the Air Force version is not VTOL.

they didnt overcome it.

the liftfan and transmission linkage to the engine behind the cockpit makes the fuselage far wider than a conventional stealth type design like the f22. that extra width disrupts airflow increasing drag and reducing speed = poor maneuverability and range.

for the airforce who is looking to replace the f16, having to use the same basic fuselage as the vtol marine version means they get severely compromised flight performance from the start. i dont think they even get to fill the space from the absent liftfan with any extra ordinance, just fuel.

That doesn't make sense, there's less than 30% in common between the three versions, and the lift fan does not appreciably add to its width.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I believe the major driver for the wider fuselage is so it can internally carry ordinance to provide for a stealthier aircraft.

It would have been better, however, if they had developed a family of aircraft with common avionics but optimized for the service and mission. So, the Marines get there lift fan, the Navy get folding wings and sturdier landing gear, and the USAF get a streamlined AC with better turning and speed. Again, they could have developed three largely different AC but utilizing common avionics and components.

If you ask me the thing that's going to make or break this is the missiles and the radar.

Ultimately, unmanned is the way to go and I suspect that we will never see the numbers they originally planned so the unit cost will go up.


Brian

 

[MongGrel]

UK nearly triples its orders for F-35: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/25/Why-UK-Going-All-F-35-Joint-Strike-Fighter



Easy, the Air Force version is not VTOL.



That doesn't make sense, there's less than 30% in common between the three versions, and the lift fan does not appreciably add to its width.

I seem to see some lunacy in the article to begin with.

I'd hope the US would go to UAV's before they would ever build 2440 F-35's, even one of the Air Forces top pilots said he did not see that happening.

I posted that elsewhere, I forget exactly where off hand.

 

[lupi]

The Iowa's would fair better against a direct hit from an anti-ship missile than most any other ship in the Navy. I'm in no way saying they're invincible (they're most definitely not), but they were designed to take multiple direct hits from enemy 3000lb AP shells and 500lb bombs with armor up to 17 inches thick, and most anti-ship missiles aren't designed for ships with that kind of armor. Comparatively, today's Navy ships are very lightly armored, instead relying on advanced active defenses to prevent the ships from being hit. These same active defenses can be outfitted to the battleships, and given the complete absence of shore batteries in the world, this makes the battleships a very tough target to sink. In all actuality, the Iowa's probably put its supporting ships more in danger than they do themselves given their very limited attacking range.

Again, I'm not saying bring them out of retirement, but in hindsight it probably would have been a better option given that we spent $22.5 billion on 3 ships that will pretty much do the exact same role as the BB's.

What the BB became late in life can now be done much cheaper by SSN (and while they're left grossly exceeded by SSGN).