• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The F-35 is a piece of garbage!

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Electronic warfare aircraft have apparently been very useful against Jihadists, especially ISIS. Unfortunately it does seem that Coalition forces are having a hard time dealing with ISIS drones, which ISIS apparently is using to good effect for targeting their mortars.

Also, electronic warfare, cyber warfare, drones, and artillery have been huge in the Ukrainian War.
 
WASHINGTON — Boeing is challenging the Danish government’s recommendation that Denmark select Lockheed Martin’s F-35 for its next-generation fighter fleet, claiming that the Danes used flawed data to determine the cost of each plane.
Boeing Vice President Debbie Rub told a Danish parliamentary committee in a private hearing Thursday that the recommendation that Denmark buy 27 F-35s to replace its aging F-16 fighter fleet was based on “incomplete and possibly flawed data,” the company confirmed to Defense News. The news was first reported by Reuters.
Click to expand...
All those pseudo-journalists like David Axe ganging up on the F-35, since they envy the righteousness of all the military officials, government officials, and defense industry officials who all support the F-35 because of the all-aspect, expeditionary, multi-purpose, modular, operationally efficient, innovative, shock-and-awe, transformative, agile developable, modularly deployable, inter-operable, inter-innovative qualitative superiority of the F-35.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...g-disputes-denmarks-f-35-evaluation/84613000/
 
Blackjack200 said:
Why?

Why would the U.S. Government care whether Denmark purchased their fighters from Boeing or Lockheed?

Why would Denmark care what the American Government thought?

If you read the reports its very clear that Denmark did consider that the USAF is planning on keeping the F-35 around for 50 years. Do you think that Denmark wants to be stuck with a bunch of obsolete F-18s in 20 years when the USN is transitioning to F-35s and whatever gen 6 fighter comes next? This is a no-brainer from Denmark's perspective. The only reason to buy old fighter designs is to tide you over until your F-35s are ready.
Click to expand...

Because we are members of NATO and completely fvcked if we don't have US support towards Russia.
 
I still think the F-35 has been a huge waste of money myself, IMHO.

It seems like they are integrating drone control into the F-35, but even in the early 80's I had started a book along the lines of the Osprey when it was in development, but something larger like the troop ships in The Edge of Tomorrow, with drones flying CAP, Electronic Warfare, etc.

Would be like a flying aircraft carrier, but that has been done in the movies also now I guess.

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1671305-air-force-fighter-jets-will-control-drones

It's kind of like the drones in EVE, much as I hate equating a video game to RL, haven't even played EVE in years.

I'd imagine drones will come into usage more before you ever see F-35s lasting decades or being mass produced on a large scale.

But they keep a lot of people employed just producing them is one of the main drivers I imagine.
 
Last edited:
norseamd said:
Not sure if you remember, but the numbers were also fudged when the Norwegian Defense Secretary awarded their competition to the F-35.
Click to expand...

And the reason Saab pulled their offer.

They have used the most pessimistic numbers on the F-18 (two seat model and air craft carrier stress) and put it against the most optimistic price of the F-35.
 
Last edited:
Blackjack200 said:
Not about the F-35 specifically, but interesting.

http://www.janes.com/article/60357/...uffer-34-mid-air-engine-failures-in-two-years

As a reminder, in the process of extensive flight testing, exactly one F-35 engine and airframe have been lost (two years ago this June). The safety record of this aircraft and the testing program are absolutely extraordinary.
Click to expand...

The Russians are known for both manufacturing shitty unreliable shit, as well as providing shitty unreliable shit in their export programs, as well as pulling off a ton of shady shit, or even downright fraud.

See the INS Vikramaditya scandal, the Kilo submarine sinking incident, or the operational record of the Mig-21s.
 
biostud said:
Because we are members of NATO and completely fvcked if we don't have US support towards Russia.
Click to expand...


😀 If I were President of this the U.S. where I reside, you can bet your ass your country and every other NATO country would have missile defense shields. What's Puttin gonna do? :twisted:

But do your leaders have any balls? I mean are they willing to go to Russia if need be? 🙂
 
Congrats to Denmark! They are procuring the world's most advanced tactical jet, and one that will be long upgraded and supported by NATO. Eurofighter or Super Hornet would have been more money for less capability. Really would not have made any sense.
 
u've got to understand that the dumb turdz in the united states contract all defense to outside firmz.
most countries keep their defense in house, to say, not contracted.
the dumb turdz in the united states used to have an organization called nasa that was in house.
as the chinese laugh at the dumb turdz in the united states for their foolish method of contracting out defense, they are comfortable in the fact that they have superior technology for weapons/defense, have a military force in numbers that is larger than the population of the united states, and realize the dumb turdz in the united states cannot defend themselves in war due to the fact that less than 10% of the military aircraft, ground weaponz, etc are functional.
the past few years, all the military planes that have crashed due to lack of parts.
the dumb turdz in the united states are so inferior militarily, they allow soldierz to drift into foreign waterz and be taken prisoner, with no explanation ever given.
 
shimpster said:
u've got to understand that the dumb turdz in the united states contract all defense to outside firmz.
most countries keep their defense in house, to say, not contracted.
the dumb turdz in the united states used to have an organization called nasa that was in house.
as the chinese laugh at the dumb turdz in the united states for their foolish method of contracting out defense, they are comfortable in the fact that they have superior technology for weapons/defense, have a military force in numbers that is larger than the population of the united states, and realize the dumb turdz in the united states cannot defend themselves in war due to the fact that less than 10% of the military aircraft, ground weaponz, etc are functional.
the past few years, all the military planes that have crashed due to lack of parts.
the dumb turdz in the united states are so inferior militarily, they allow soldierz to drift into foreign waterz and be taken prisoner, with no explanation ever given.
Click to expand...

Hello troll. The S button is up and to the right of the Z.
 
Blackjack200 said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFJD View Post
I've heard it been said that the f-35 would have been a much better plane if the marines had not been involved, their requirement for vstol/vtol is one of the major issues with the plane? ANy truth to this?
Click to expand...
No.

And it's not just the Marines, the UK also required a STOVL aircraft.
Click to expand...
Sorry for dragging this up, but I think it's an interesting question, and might merit a little more discussion. Even if the answer doesn't change. 😛

I suspect we would have a more capable plane and a much cheaper R&D cycle if the original spec had been for one plane, a versatile F/A capable of carrier ops. The AF would have to deal with a larger wing and beefier landing gear, but that's not so bad. The approach worked fairly well with the F-4 (some early problems there for sure, but not really due to commonality). You don't have to invent lift fans or whatever. I do wonder what it would have looked like, certainly nothing like the F-35.

On the downside, if you can't use it on small carriers, you lose the UK and most or all of the Marines purchases, and your production run gets smaller. Shortened production runs tend to annihilate military programs. Look at Zummwalt, B2, etc. Might've ended up like the A12.
 
norseamd said:
The Russians are known for both manufacturing shitty unreliable shit, as well as providing shitty unreliable shit in their export programs, as well as pulling off a ton of shady shit, or even downright fraud.

See the INS Vikramaditya scandal, the Kilo submarine sinking incident, or the operational record of the Mig-21s.
Click to expand...

And India is trying to back out of their dumb procurement of Russia's Pak Fa.

Russia probs isn't going to actually deploy a run of 5th gen fighers.
 
Gibsons said:
Sorry for dragging this up, but I think it's an interesting question, and might merit a little more discussion. Even if the answer doesn't change. 😛

I suspect we would have a more capable plane and a much cheaper R&D cycle if the original spec had been for one plane, a versatile F/A capable of carrier ops. The AF would have to deal with a larger wing and beefier landing gear, but that's not so bad. The approach worked fairly well with the F-4 (some early problems there for sure, but not really due to commonality). You don't have to invent lift fans or whatever. I do wonder what it would have looked like, certainly nothing like the F-35.

On the downside, if you can't use it on small carriers, you lose the UK and most or all of the Marines purchases, and your production run gets smaller. Shortened production runs tend to annihilate military programs. Look at Zummwalt, B2, etc. Might've ended up like the A12.
Click to expand...


The Navy, Air force and Marines have missions they need to be able to fulfill.
Government sets aside money to pay for assets that can cover that capability.
Our defense budget is X dollars and each service has to justify their chunk of change.

In order to bring unit cost down, a manufacturer needs to sell a lot of planes and engines.

F-35A is the cheapest model and has the volume. This is the aircraft that everyone and their mother will be buying.

F-35B IS the equivalent of what a dedicated VTOL \Harrier replacement would look like. The Marines need it. UK needs it. Italy and other countries that have that requirement to either deploy from kiddie carrier or deploy close to the troops runways be damned. Even Israel wants F-35bs.

F-35C is the priciest, lowest volume version for a reason. Big wing. structural crap. Stuff that needs to be put in place specifically for US navy requirements. What you seem to be proposing is that we should have only built an aircraft that met USN navy requirements.

If the starting point is the heavier, larger F-35C, then what becomes of the aircraft that satisfies the requirements of F-35B customers? A new aircraft program to replace Harriers\AV-8b's? You can't deploy an F-35c on a Helicopter carrier. You can't deploy F-35c to forward airfields like you can with Harriers.

You are now looking at 2 distinct aircraft programs now where you have not only doubled outlay for program costs, you now have higher unit prices for both "F-35" and huge unit price for "Mystery VTOL aircraft"

If we had unlimited budgets and could guarantee unlimited budgets for 60 years then it would be feasible to make dozens of specialty aircraft with narrow mission capabilities.

The F-4 was designed to be a Navy interceptor and then over time had its capability expanded. Systems were added or updated over time.
So when the program started for the F-4, they had concurrent programs and platforms other aircraft designed for singular roles.
FYI: When the F-4 was being designed, they were working on specifications for VTOL aircraft because they saw the need for that type of aircraft and saw the benefit it brings. To get rid of VTOL aircraft means you lose a lot of flexibility and capability.

We spent X dollars to develop multiple aircraft and as time went on we spent more money expanding the capability of each unique platform. It is not cheaper to pay for multiple programs and then maintain and upgrade multiple platforms over the life each distinct program.
 
Given what I know, my opinion is the the F-35B and F-35A/F-35C should have been entirely separate aircraft platforms altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top