The F-35 is a piece of garbage!

[shimpster]

One can only hope the west never gets into a shooting war with the Russians or the Chinese for no matter how much of an advantage we have in weapons quality and now weapons quantity they both have formidable nuclear arsenals. Assuming the fight starts conventional and we start kicking there ass and depleting them of there high value assets how long would it be before they feel a need to kick things up a few notches and start popping mushroom clouds over our forces. If that happens the world comes to an end!

Not mentioned in this discussion is the advantage the west has with AWACs and satellite and aerial recon. In the engagements we had with Iraqis forces, when they dared try, was that we knew they were coming the moment the left the ground and often before that. The poor fucks that tried ... died! Some of that is down to superior AC, some to superior training, and the rest to better intel and coordination via AWACs etc.

Against the Russians vaunted S400 and similar systems the US would kill them before they fired a shot and before US forces were in harms way. It doesn't matter how good there system are if they're a pile of smoldering slag!

But, to be fair, there's every reason to bet they'd be able to drop some nasties on us to.


Brian

wunder y the dumb turdz of the united states and nato didnt use their awacs when russia took control of crimea?
the dumb turdz of the US military werent even aware that russia had started bombingz in syria, until cnn broke the newz.
united states military is a joke, and china n russia r laffing n fartin as they ridicule it.
now here is the truth;
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.
why, the dumb turdz of the US military are afraid to go within 12 nautical miles of chinas artificial islandz in the south china sea.
the past few years, all the military planes that have crashed due to lack of parts, in fact another helicopter crash today!!!!
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.

 

[Gibsons]

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.

It wouldn't be the F-35. It might not be LockMart making it, maybe MD would still exist, who knows. I think it's highly likely that the result would perform better, and have a much reduced R&D cycle, both in time and money.

Forward airfields might be overrated, once you account for having to move all the necessary supplies forward too.

Smaller aircraft carriers really benefit from fixed wing assets though, and that's a big gap in this scenario.

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"

Yep. That's a huge problem, probably enough to can the whole program before it gets off the ground.

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.

Military aircraft procurement was a bit excessive at that time. Circa '65, I think we had F4, F100, 101, 104, 102/106, 107 (not really a fighter, I know), and F8s all flying? And still found a use for A26, A1, A4, A6, and A7.

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.

Yep. I just hope we've got a real winner here and not a modern day Bf 210.

 

[norseamd]

Danish F-35 Promises Leave Local Companies Wary

 

[MongGrel]

wunder y the dumb turdz of the united states and nato didnt use their awacs when russia took control of crimea?
the dumb turdz of the US military werent even aware that russia had started bombingz in syria, until cnn broke the newz.
united states military is a joke, and china n russia r laffing n fartin as they ridicule it.
now here is the truth;
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.
why, the dumb turdz of the US military are afraid to go within 12 nautical miles of chinas artificial islandz in the south china sea.
the past few years, all the military planes that have crashed due to lack of parts, in fact another helicopter crash today!!!!
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.

Your good for comic relief, at any rate.

 

[pauldun170]

Danish F-35 Promises Leave Local Companies Wary

That article is bit "interesting".

Some Danish defense companies are worried that they won't see some of the action that other preferred Danish companies will be seeing on a program that is HUGE and going to last for decades?
So they mention Super Hornets, a platform that is on its last legs that no one really wants any more and the Typhoon who's sales are based on how much certain Arab countries think Typhoons will look next to their Bugatti collection (while grumbling that the US won't offer them F-35's)?

 

[lupi]

A-10 getting ordnance upgrade, looks like equivalent of the old multiple round rocket pod but this time each rocket has laser guidance.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...ittle-more-badass-2016-6?yptr=yahoo?r=UK&IR=T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrsBPq6xj-k

 

[pauldun170]

A-10 getting ordnance upgrade, looks like equivalent of the old multiple round rocket pod but this time each rocket has laser guidance.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...ittle-more-badass-2016-6?yptr=yahoo?r=UK&IR=T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrsBPq6xj-k

They have rolled this out to a couple of platforms, basically anything that currently fires hellfires and mount rocket pod. They rolled this out to Harriers, Apaches, Cobras, and I think yo momma.

I believe they developed this because they realized it was a waste of money to use hellfires on Toyotas and Nissan pickup trucks.
Basically any thing that does COIN will be blowing up the best the Japanese automotive industry can offer with the occasional Mercedes taxi with these rockets.

Somewhere, someone based their requirements on Robotech\Macross Saga

 

[pauldun170]

“As a soldier and a guy who has been in my share of firefights, the only thing I care about is the effect on the target, and I don’t give a rat’s ass what platform brings it in,” he said June 23 at a conference hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“I could care less if it’s a B-52, if it’s a B1 bomber, an F-16, an F-15, an A-10. I don’t care if the thing was delivered by carrier pigeon. I [just] want the enemy taken care of,” he added.

Citing a long history of operational successes, Milley said he would defer to the Air Force when it comes to assessments of which planes are needed to carry out close-air support missions.

“The fact of the matter is — when push comes to shove and bullets are actually flying and there are peoples' lives at stake — the United States Air Force never failed me and it doesn’t fail the Army,” he said. “I don’t care what the platform is, the Air Force delivers, they deliver on time and on target… and they’re very, very good at it. So I have enormous confidence that they will make the right decisions on the platform and it’s not really my place to say [whether they should use] this platform or that platform.”

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2232

 

[Blitzvogel]

Given what I know, my opinion is the the F-35B and F-35A/F-35C should have been entirely separate aircraft platforms altogether.

Absolutely. The VSTOL requirement absolutely screwed up the development cycle by shoehorning such a capability into a conventional airframe, driving costs up for all versions.

The Marines and other Harrier I/II users would've likely gained a successor had it not been for the end of the Cold War and the creation of the CALF, then JAST program that rolled into JSF. Both BAe and McDonnell Douglas had numerous practical in-house designs for supersonic and subsonic successors to the Harrier.

It's also noteworthy as to how much avionics have changed since 1990, with AESA radar, sensor fusion, and arguably over-wired aircraft. Today's aircraft should be able to shoot their cannon and fire a Sidewinder without "proper software" for it. A cannon just requires a firing circuit to the fire button (with a few safety switches, like if the landing gear is down), and a Sidewinder at it's most austere only needs to deliver a lock growl tone to the pilot's ear.

 

[MongGrel]

Absolutely. The VSTOL requirement absolutely screwed up the development cycle by shoehorning such a capability into a conventional airframe, driving costs up for all versions.

The Marines and other Harrier I/II users would've likely gained a successor had it not been for the end of the Cold War and the creation of the CALF, then JAST program that rolled into JSF. Both BAe and McDonnell Douglas had numerous practical in-house designs for supersonic and subsonic successors to the Harrier.

The Marines pushed a lot for the Osprey, which pretty much was another overpriced project that took decades to develop.

 

[Blitzvogel]

The Marines pushed a lot for the Osprey, which pretty much was another overpriced project that took decades to develop.

I'll admit I do like the Osprey and what it allows. Yes, it was pricey and took forever to develop however. Anything worthwhile often requires alot of capital and all the teething issues had to be worked out somewhere to pave the way for more production tiltrotor aircraft. If it wasn't for weight carrying capacity, I'd almost say that the XV-15 should've been modified within it's already feasible dimensions by using more powerful engines and increasing the fuel capacity. Would've made for a very fast airborne cavalry type vehicle, especially for inserting special forces teams.

Unfortunately, "going big" was pushed for instead of what is feasible and would've filled a nice niche that also was essentially ready for the civilian world too.

 

[Blackjack200]

Absolutely. The VSTOL requirement absolutely screwed up the development cycle by shoehorning such a capability into a conventional airframe, driving costs up for all versions.

How did the VSTOL requirement in the B drive up costs for the A?

It's also noteworthy as to how much avionics have changed since 1990, with AESA radar, sensor fusion, and arguably over-wired aircraft. Today's aircraft should be able to shoot their cannon and fire a Sidewinder without "proper software" for it. A cannon just requires a firing circuit to the fire button (with a few safety switches, like if the landing gear is down), and a Sidewinder at it's most austere only needs to deliver a lock growl tone to the pilot's ear.

A couple of problems there. As far as the cannon is concerned, like you said, you need lockouts for things like the landing gear being down, there is also a door that needs to open for the cannon to fire, for LO reasons. I imagine that there are also barrel temperature sensors and other systems to prevent the cannon from firing for any number of reasons.

The sidewinders are even more complicated. You need a sequence to open the weapons bay, lower the launch rail, and fire the missile. You also need to connect the targeting to the helmet. Remember that todays sidewinders are HOBS capable, so helmet targeting is needed.

 

[norseamd]

I'll admit I do like the Osprey and what it allows. Yes, it was pricey and took forever to develop however. Anything worthwhile often requires alot of capital and all the teething issues had to be worked out somewhere to pave the way for more production tiltrotor aircraft. If it wasn't for weight carrying capacity, I'd almost say that the XV-15 should've been modified within it's already feasible dimensions by using more powerful engines and increasing the fuel capacity. Would've made for a very fast airborne cavalry type vehicle, especially for inserting special forces teams.

Unfortunately, "going big" was pushed for instead of what is feasible and would've filled a nice niche that also was essentially ready for the civilian world too.

The Osprey seems to finally work now, and it seems to be an amazing aircraft that is able to do stuff no other aircraft could earlier.

The problem was that the project was so mismanaged and neglected that it was a real shit show for much of the project life. The government and military need to get much more involved with the projects that they run, and keep much more overwatch on everything that the defense industry ever does.

 

[Blitzvogel]

How did the VSTOL requirement in the B drive up costs for the A?

By using common airframe and aerodynamics that have to satisfy an aircraft made for regular airfield use (F-35A), VSTOL (F-35B), and CATOBAR carrier use (F-35C). Ironically enough, many sources state that their actually is only a 30% parts commonality between all 3 versions. Ouch. You can bet that wasn't the original vision. When looking at the JSF program and it's predecessors of JAST and CALF at the beginning, it all began with designing a VSTOL aircraft for the Marines that got pushed into being an F-16 replacement by deleting the VSTOL components like a lift fan/engine.

A couple of problems there. As far as the cannon is concerned, like you said, you need lockouts for things like the landing gear being down, there is also a door that needs to open for the cannon to fire, for LO reasons. I imagine that there are also barrel temperature sensors and other systems to prevent the cannon from firing for any number of reasons.

A door doesn't have to be connected to a computer that is programmed to open the door when the software says a fire button is being depressed. You could put a door opening motor on a parallel circuit or is mechanically connected to the gun so when it fires, the door is open too. F-35 likely doesn't have enough ammunition to heat the barrel up enough to matter. Cannons are fired in short bursts anyways. The GAU-12 25mm Gatling cannon has been around since the 70s, and any teething problems are likely worked out.

The sidewinders are even more complicated. You need a sequence to open the weapons bay, lower the launch rail, and fire the missile. You also need to connect the targeting to the helmet. Remember that todays sidewinders are HOBS capable, so helmet targeting is needed.

You're right about internally carried weapons, but internally carried missiles in interceptors were around in the 1950s. I'm not sure how their systems carried out the door opening and launch proceedure, but you don't need it tied to a computer to make it happen. Also the F-35 has provision for externally carried Sidewinders, notably at the tips like with many other fighters.

If AIM-9Xs are like older Sidewinders, they likely have a "Flood Mode" that allows the seeker to lock onto anything in it's immediate front, or via a pre-programmed seeker sensor sweep. That means locking onto anything that catches their attention unless it has built in processing for exhaust temps and target recognition (which the AIM-9X does IIRC). This isn't about taking the HMD cueing and HOBS capability out of the equation, but allowing the missile to still be useful in the event of an aircraft computer and fire control system failure. HOBS capability is technically built into the missile, not fire control system dependent. Otherwise it would incredibly less useful as an active seeking system.

 

[Blackjack200]

By using common airframe and aerodynamics that have to satisfy an aircraft made for regular airfield use (F-35A), VSTOL (F-35B), and CATOBAR carrier use (F-35C). Ironically enough, many sources state that their actually is only a 30% parts commonality between all 3 versions. Ouch. You can bet that wasn't the original vision. When looking at the JSF program and it's predecessors of JAST and CALF at the beginning, it all began with designing a VSTOL aircraft for the Marines that got pushed into being an F-16 replacement by deleting the VSTOL components like a lift fan/engine.

But the 'A', 'B', and 'C' don't use a common airframe, as you yourself pointed out, so how could the 'B' drive up the cost of the 'A'? How would the 'A' be cheaper if the 'B' didn't exist?

A door doesn't have to be connected to a computer that is programmed to open the door when the software says a fire button is being depressed. You could put a door opening motor on a parallel circuit or is mechanically connected to the gun so when it fires, the door is open too. F-35 likely doesn't have enough ammunition to heat the barrel up enough to matter. Cannons are fired in short bursts anyways. The GAU-12 25mm Gatling cannon has been around since the 70s, and any teething problems are likely worked out.

I'm not sure why you place such importance on this, but there are obviously other reasons to route the cannon electronics through a computer. If the cannon door jams, the aircraft needs to notify the pilot since that probably impacts his radar signature. I'm guessing that ALIS will also instruct the maintenance crew to load more cannon rounds, and track the rounds fired so when it reaches a certain number, cannon maintenance can be performed.

You're right about internally carried weapons, but internally carried missiles in interceptors were around in the 1950s. I'm not sure how their systems carried out the door opening and launch proceedure, but you don't need it tied to a computer to make it happen. Also the F-35 has provision for externally carried Sidewinders, notably at the tips like with many other fighters.

They had integrated circuits in the 1950s, I also wouldn't be surprised if many of those old interceptors had engagement sequences where the pilot or WSO needed to manually open the doors, lower the missile, and fire.

I do not believe F-35s can mount Sidewinders on the wingtips. Every image I've seen shows pylons near the end of the wing.

If AIM-9Xs are like older Sidewinders, they likely have a "Flood Mode" that allows the seeker to lock onto anything in it's immediate front, or via a pre-programmed seeker sensor sweep. That means locking onto anything that catches their attention unless it has built in processing for exhaust temps and target recognition (which the AIM-9X does IIRC). This isn't about taking the HMD cueing and HOBS capability out of the equation, but allowing the missile to still be useful in the event of an aircraft computer and fire control system failure. HOBS capability is technically built into the missile, not fire control system dependent. Otherwise it would incredibly less useful as an active seeking system.

I'm not sure why you place such importance on sidewinder and cannon functionality in the event of a computer failure. Fighters today require their computers just to stay airborne at all. That's been the case since the F-16.

 

[shimpster]

post deleted as it is a repost

You already posted this same thing in post 401. I'm so sorry your 's' key is broken. Please get it fixed before you post more.

admin allisolm

 

[tynopik]

But the 'A', 'B', and 'C' don't use a common airframe, as you yourself pointed out, so how could the 'B' drive up the cost of the 'A'? How would the 'A' be cheaper if the 'B' didn't exist?

it's a complicated issue, but the B drove a lot of design decisions like using one massive engine

If it has just been the A and C, they likely would have used two smaller engines and if they didn't have to worry about B and C, A would probably have a larger wing which would help with various performance issues (range).

So i'm not sure it's so much about costs as it is about capability.

 

[Blackjack200]

it's a complicated issue, but the B drove a lot of design decisions like using one massive engine

If it has just been the A and C, they likely would have used two smaller engines and if they didn't have to worry about B and C, A would probably have a larger wing which would help with various performance issues (range).

So i'm not sure it's so much about costs as it is about capability.

Two engines seems very unlikely to me. Using one engine saves weight, cost, and complexity, and allows for a smaller overall jet, again saving on costs.

The three versions don't share the same wing, so I don't see how you could say that compromised performance, and a larger wing would result in less range (as it does in the 'C' model).

 

[pauldun170]

it's a complicated issue, but the B drove a lot of design decisions like using one massive engine

If it has just been the A and C, they likely would have used two smaller engines and if they didn't have to worry about B and C, A would probably have a larger wing which would help with various performance issues (range).

So i'm not sure it's so much about costs as it is about capability.

No, no and no

Range is not an issue.
Compare range on the F-35 on internal fuel with any of the aircraft it is trying to replace where they are on internal fuel and have a combat load.
If you are going to compare an F-16 carrying 3 drop tanks to an F-35 on internal only, then what do you think happens when you end up with an F-35 with bags? What happens when you take both planes and give them an actual combat load?
The range issue is an issue with people relying on wikipedia and blogs.
Pilots have already reported that range is not an issue.


To go with 2 smaller engines would have been stupid. Add cost, weight and complexity for little benefit for the class of fighter the F-35 is.
What engine family would have been adopted? GE 4XX's? Why bother when you can get better results with F-22 engine family PW series. Less weight. Less complexity. This is plane that will be operated by several countries over half a century. Single powerful engines are cheaper over the life of the program.
We're not Russia or China. Our engines don't fail after 500 hours. Single engine American fighters have proven themselves to be safe and reliable for decades.
The engine in the F-35 is an evolution of the F-22's engine which is an evolution of the engines that power a majority of F-16's which shares engines with the F-15.
Operators would rather stock 200 spares and deal with overhauls on 100 engines than stock 400 spares and maintain 200 engines.

What you are saying is that following the same formula as the F-16\F-15 was a bad idea. That we should not have leveraged the core of the most powerful engine family in the world as used in the F-22 and that we should have followed the pattern used by the super hornet, or the euro canards. That we should have used 2 engines. Twice the hours for overhaul. Twice the maintenance cost. Twice the inventory an operator will require for spares.
Once again, pilots across the globe have already reported that power and performance is not an issue and that it exceeds expectations.


"Larger wing"? What are you trying to say here? What performance issues are you talking about. The F-35C has a "larger wing" to deal with the weight gain from navy requirements. What impacts do you think that had on performance. What tradeoffs have you identified occurred going from the F-35A\B wing to the F-35C wing?
You're willing to increase drag and hurt parts of the flight envelope but gain a little fuel capacity and improve low speed handling characteristics.
You increase the maximum payload but now the question is what did that extra capability get you? Air force asked for a plane to carry "X". Plane delivers X. Internet complains that due to "more is always better rule" plane sucks because it doesn't carry Y.
The wing is designed to requirements.
Making it "bigger" is pointless if it falls outside your requirements.
On top of that. Bigger wings require more materials and structural changes to handle the bigger wings add cost.

 

[pauldun170]

Two engines seems very unlikely to me. Using one engine saves weight, cost, and complexity, and allows for a smaller overall jet, again saving on costs.

The three versions don't share the same wing, so I don't see how you could say that compromised performance, and a larger wing would result in less range (as it does in the 'C' model).

F-35A and F-35B have same wing.
F-35b traded the fuelt tank behind the pilot for the lift fan.
F-35C ended up with the bigger wing due to Navy requirements (Carrier ops require beefier components which lead to weigh gain)

I believe that the F-35C has better range than the F-35A due to the additional fuel it carries thanks to the bigger wings. C model is lugging around 20,000lbs of fuel vs 18K on the A.

 

[tynopik]

Two engines seems very unlikely to me. Using one engine saves weight, cost, and complexity, and allows for a smaller overall jet, again saving on costs.

except the F135 is massive and expensive

two smaller engines would have allowed for more thrust cheaper and an overall bigger plane with bigger wing and bigger fuel tanks while also having better performance and growth potential

The three versions don't share the same wing, so I don't see how you could say that compromised performance, and a larger wing would result in less range (as it does in the 'C' model).

the exact wing isn't the same, but it's still limited from ideal. i don't know the technical reasons behind it, i just know that's what's been said

 

[tynopik]

No, no and no

Range is not an issue.

range is always an issue

Compare range on the F-35 on internal fuel with any of the aircraft it is trying to replace where they are on internal fuel and have a combat load.

that doesn't mean it couldn't have been better

To go with 2 smaller engines would have been stupid. Add cost, weight and complexity for little benefit for the class of fighter the F-35 is.

the benefits are more thrust and less development expense

also the F135 has a huge bypass ratio (for a fighter engine) which might be efficient for cruise but isn't great at rapidly changing thrust scenarios

What you are saying is that following the same formula as the F-16\F-15 was a bad idea.

no matter how much you squint, the F-35 is NOT the F-16. It is a heavy plane. It's empty weight is more than an F-15C! It would work better with more thrust and bigger wings. It would also provide more growth potential.

 

[tynopik]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ansatlantic-flight-riat-farnborough/86580962/

Each of the three remaining jets was refueled seven times during the almost eight-hour-long flight

that's a heckuva a lot of refuelling

 

[tynopik]

just to be clear, I'm not an F-35 hater. I think it will be a great plane for many years to come.

However, the needs of the -B variant definitely compromised the design of the -A

on the plus side, the -B drove a lot of weight savings . . .

 

[norseamd]

Range is not an issue.