• 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-35B!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BUTCH1 said:
"Not bad", are you F-ing joking dude?, it's the equivalent of a flying "black-hole" money pit and it can't even come close to the performance of the F-22.
Click to expand...

The current F-35 is around the same cost as a new build F-15, Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale (latest version of each). Multirole capability is expensive. Even F-16's nowadays are pretty pricey (30-60 per unit depending on model).

The F-22 is a completely different class of plane. Completely different mission. Having said that F-22 in its current state is slightly gimped due to budget cuts over the years. It doesn't even have a helmet mounted sight yet.
 
pauldun170 said:
Naval version does have some significant differences (larger wing, frame\gear enhancements) and the cost is based on a lower numbers of planes. For the time being, there are more B variants than C so the cost spread favors the B
More planes, lower $$$.
Click to expand...

Technology wise, folding wings and beefier landing gear is stuff that's been done since WW2, at least. I know it's a new plane, but still. Otoh the lifting fan on the B is brand new, never been done before, which usually means DoD level butt$ex.

Yeah I understand the connection between production run length to unit cost. I guess I was just underestimating it here.
 
Everyone says these suck and are a waste of money.

Then the world will see how good it is in action, then everyone will be saying, "See? I knew all along that it'd be a really good plane."
 
Tsavo said:
Everyone says these suck and are a waste of money.

Then the world will see how good it is in action, then everyone will be saying, "See? I knew all along that it'd be a really good plane."
Click to expand...

Find a pilot of one of these planes that says they suck.... then we'll talk. They're upset with the politicians, the delays, the stupidity of their commanders - but I have yet to see any of the actual pilots say these things don't deliver.
 
The Boston Dangler said:
the marine corps DOES NOT need its own aviation. on the other hand, the royal navy does need to get some real carriers.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree with regard to the Brits, but WWII Pacific theater history indicates you are incorrect regarding the Marines. They're not big on relying on a different chain of command to stay alive in the face of superior numbers or firepower, there is a near universal preference among leathernecks to have air support from those who understand what Marines on the ground go through. Personally, I'm ok with it. It's nothing as silly as say, the Japanese Imperial Army having it's own carrier because it didn't want the Kaigun to have all the big toys. Now that was stupid.
 
lupi said:
As a harrier replacement it's good. For CAS, see some of the documentaries or read accounts where deep recon or seal squads have to call in for support on their perimeter and how difficult it is when nearest available is via "precision" bomb.
Click to expand...

Okay, but if they're looking for CAS, it seems like a harrier replacement is kind of stupid. If jets bad because they're too high and fast, how about a newer turbo-prop based plane? They're showing up in other militaries as anti-insurgency platforms. And they could probably operate them off the amphibious assault ships they're using for the F35B. Plus, for CAS, they'd be able to linger longer, they'd still be faster than helicopters, and they'd be likely as effective against low-tech forces as the A10 is. And to top it off, we, the taxpayers, would probably save a bundle of money.
 
kage69 said:
Definitely agree with regard to the Brits, but WWII Pacific theater history indicates you are incorrect regarding the Marines. They're not big on relying on a different chain of command to stay alive in the face of superior numbers or firepower, there is a near universal preference among leathernecks to have air support from those who understand what Marines on the ground go through. Personally, I'm ok with it. It's nothing as silly as say, the Japanese Imperial Army having it's own carrier because it didn't want the Kaigun to have all the big toys. Now that was stupid.
Click to expand...

the entire existence of modern marine corps aviation hinges on the the battle of guadalcanal where the navy pulled the carriers back out of vulnerability, denying the marines air support - something that will never be repeated. the minor aviation in place since before ww1 played no part in ww2.

marines' preference for air support from fellow marines is, frankly, bullshit. insisting on this massive redundancy, especially in these financially tight times, would get anyone else laughed out of the room.

thanks for serving. no, you can't have your own special aircraft when your parent (the navy) is 1 of the world's greatest air powers.
 
I'm fine with the USMC having aviation, I was in the Air Wing myself myself, not a pilot.

Just some things are a waste of money.

B-2 *cough*
 
Last edited:
Brainonska511 said:
Okay, but if they're looking for CAS, it seems like a harrier replacement is kind of stupid. If jets bad because they're too high and fast, how about a newer turbo-prop based plane? They're showing up in other militaries as anti-insurgency platforms. And they could probably operate them off the amphibious assault ships they're using for the F35B. Plus, for CAS, they'd be able to linger longer, they'd still be faster than helicopters, and they'd be likely as effective against low-tech forces as the A10 is. And to top it off, we, the taxpayers, would probably save a bundle of money.
Click to expand...

If you look at CAS missions recently, you'll see B1b, F15e,B52...all sort of planes.
Modern munitions combined with things like the sniper pod are game changers
 
NikolaeVarius said:
My comment was obviously sarcastic as fuck.

Also, the F-22 was also a giant ass money pit that is ACTUALLY useless. The F35 at the very least attempted to be a bit less useless, (Though in the process it became a jack of all trades, shitty at all) plane.

Both are giant boondoggles. I would know. I worked on the F35 engine for a bit.
Click to expand...

So YOUR responsible for this mess!.. :whiste: JK, the F-22 has performance that is unmatched, but if you figure in the procurement, development, ongoing maintenance, yea another money-pit, I question the wisdom of a single-engine design in a supposed 5th Gen fighter,(F-35) WTF were they thinking?.
 
BUTCH1 said:
"Not bad", are you F-ing joking dude?, it's the equivalent of a flying "black-hole" money pit and it can't even come close to the performance of the F-22.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the F-22 cost 3-4 times as much as an F-35....and is currently grounded?
 
I'd say a B1b one of the most impressive things built in recent years.

I'd rather a few more of those were laying around...

But I love my BUFF's always.
 
DaTT said:
Doesn't the F-22 cost 3-4 times as much as an F-35....and is currently grounded?
Click to expand...

No
It cost about 35% more as is to be expected when you slash orders from 750 to 100 on a premium fighter.
It is not grounded and has been performing combat missions over Syria.
 
MongGrel said:
I'd say a B1b one of the most impressive things built in recent years.

I'd rather a few more of those were laying around...

But I love my BUFF's always.
Click to expand...

They parked a B1b over Syria for hours and just "freedom'd" the piss out of ISIS.

http://time.com/3422702/isil-isis-syria-obama/
http://theaviationist.com/2014/10/08/b-1-circling-kobane-light/
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/watch-the-looming-b-1-bomber-that-pounded-isis-in-syria-1644025073
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-guy-just-livetweeted-airstrikes-in-syria-from-the-1643512941
 
Last edited:
pauldun170 said:
If you look at CAS missions recently, you'll see B1b, F15e,B52...all sort of planes.
Modern munitions combined with things like the sniper pod are game changers
Click to expand...
Yeah. I've seen that - things like over 80% of all CAS missions were run by non-A10 aircraft (eg: B52s, fighter jets, B1b...). But people then say those can't loiter like the A-10, hence my suggestion of turbo-props for anti-insurgency CAS if the fighter jets/bombers supposedly aren't good enough (yet, here the Marines are acquiring the F35...).
 
pauldun170 said:
No
It cost about 35% more as is to be expected when you slash orders from 750 to 100 on a premium fighter.
It is not grounded and has been performing combat missions over Syria.
Click to expand...


It's performance is so great that one of it's main issues is how tough it is for the pilot to not experience getting blacked-out during some maneuvers.
 
NoTine42 said:
Why am I thinking that the back-hinged "hood" over that front thruster seems like a bad idea.

The front hood closure fails or is damaged in a dog fight, aerodynamics and stealth is ruined so the pilot is now a sitting duck because his hood flew open.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that you are not an engineer....

im pretty sure the aeronautical engineers at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics are way smarter than you at building advanced fighter aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top