F35 a $Trillion boondoggle

[lawrocket 3]

I'm defense, the F-16 was designed as a pure dogfighter. And performs like one, too.

That being said, the F-35 doesn't even have the advantage of speed over the F-16. All it really has is being really hard to see on radar.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

I'm defense, the F-16 was designed as a pure dogfighter. And performs like one, too.

That being said, the F-35 doesn't even have the advantage of speed over the F-16. All it really has is being really hard to see on radar.

And when other tech that can detect sound and visual movement in other spectra becomes more reliable??

[lawrocket 3]

Then you have a jobs program making more F-35s to replace the ones that have been shot down.

But hey. The Air Force won't have the A-10 to deal with anymore.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

The F-35, is impervious to attack,,,,,it has parts made in all 435 congressional districts.
Eisenhower warned us.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Just look where the wings sit compared to the body of the aircraft. The pivot point for the elevators/elevons to rotate the aircraft on its pitch for the f-16 is in the middle, the pivot point for the f-35 is on its ass. The f-16's pitches in the middle like a gyroscope, and the f-35 just plows even with TV its inefficient IMO.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[lawrocket 3]

Anvilbrother

Just look where the wings sit compared to the body of the aircraft. The pivot point for the elevators/elevons to rotate the aircraft on its pitch for the f-16 is in the middle, the pivot point for the f-35 is on its ass. The f-16's pitches in the middle like a gyroscope, and the f-35 just plows even with TV its inefficient IMO.

The F-16 is an inherently unstable platform. A pilot can't fly it without computer assistance. Stable aircraft don't like to turn. The F-16 wants to pitch and turn and roll. So of course it'll be more stable.

Look at the F-14. With swept wings it got so stable it couldn't do a 3G turn. I think this was only on the A model. So the engineers developed the glove vane to destabilize the aircraft by unloading the tail surfaces and the bird could pull up to 7G in a Mach 1.5 turn. But can't do this with a stealth aircraft. And the F-35 tops or at Mach 1.6 anyway

Just for curiosity, see the attached image comparing the F-18 to the F-35.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Phil1111 1,149]

Boomerdog

So...you cite one source; one critic. And I'd be disingenuous if I did not say that right now the F-35 has many critics and some program development problems that appear to be trying the patience of many. But what's the real word? What are the Generals, and Admirals and program managers and current policy makers of this program REALLY saying about this aircraft? We really don't know what they are truthfully saying. Oh they may make a press release for public consumption but whether that's the truth; we'd both be guessing.

I too have questions about a joint aircraft that can be used by three services. The last time it was proposed from one of your heroes, Robert McNamara, we got the F-111. The Marines rejected it, the Navy hated it and the Air Force was cool to it but somehow made it work but the "vark" was the first aircraft to head to the boneyard after Desert Storm. The F-14 was the result of the Navy's legitimate contempt for the F-111 got the name "Tomcat" in honor of Adm Thomas Moorer who faced a Senate Committee and called the F-111 a piece of $#!t.

By far, I'm no expert on the F-35. Having read what I've been able to read, it's performance is impressive, albeit, it's coming at a very high price. It's a very different aircraft with higher performance and combat capabilities from the current fleet of operational fighters. That much has been officially stated in the public domain. But the real story? The real specifics? All of that I can assure you is classified. The "other guys' i.e. America's adversaries are closely watching the F-35 and want to know everything they can and for good reason. Given that, remember the words of Winston Churchill, "In wartime, truth is so precious, that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Everybody here in this forum can have their opinion, but I would caution, in a situation like this all is rarely what it seems.

The real capabilities, like you suggest are really known to few.
CAS has really moved into the area of drones which can remain on station for the hours and hours that would send the A-10 driver back to the base, even if he had dedicated tanker support.

The real advantage of the F-35 is multispectral sensors and secure data sharing between stealthy aircraft. 100 Km+ range air-to-air and ground-to-air missiles. Put radar emitting aircraft in a risky position.

Even though Israel gets big discounts on US hardware it has chosen to buy the F-35 when it could have bought other aircraft. Stealthy AC with GPS independent bombs like SPICE, SDB II, or JDAM-ER.Are the future. Combined with lock on after launch AIM-9 missiles allows a F-35 to "SEE" a F-16 below and behind it without radar emissions and attack from any aspect. To share target info with other F-35s.

Take this with a grain of salt because its from the manufacturer:
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-as-a-%E2%80%9Cflying-sensor-fusion-engine%E2%80%9D-positioning-the-fleet-for-%E2%80%9Ctron%E2%80%9D-warfare/

"The ministerial recommended the procurement of an additional 13 aircraft. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accepted the air force’s request for an additional F-35, the 14th, which would serve as a testbed for Israeli technologies. Israel is still planning to adjust Rafael’s Python 5 air-to-air missile and Spice air-to-ground munition to fit into the F-35 internal weapon bays. Israel also plans to install indigenous electronic warfare capabilities on the JSF.

Air Force Base Nevatim in southern Israel is already making preparations to receive the first F-35s in late 2016. Dubbed “Adir” (Great) in the Israeli air force, the initial 19 F-35As will constitute the first squadron procured under a $2.75 billion contract. An additional $7 million is being allocated to procure the first F-35’s simulator, which will arrive in Israel ahead of the fighters. "
http://aviationweek.com/defense/israel-reduces-f-35-buy-least-now

[Guest]

Quote

It's too easy to pile onto the F-35 now. "Do everything" planes have tended to have problems in the past. On the other hand, sometimes a large, capable aircraft has the stretch capability if the designers don't try to do everything at once, and thus run out of time to get the job done. Like the F-15, at one time "not a pound for air to ground", yet now available in capable air to ground versions too.

Although an air superiority fighter, the F-15 was purposely designed by McD to take on the air-to-ground role in the future. The FAST packs were part of the lifecycle almost from day one. I should know, I worked on the thing for four years. The E models weren't far behind; the canopy was that long for a reason (two seater takes the same canopy).

The avionics were designed to be adapted to the ground-attack role: Aviation Week & Space Technology did a feature on the APG-63 SAR showing photo-quality radar images of the surface through cloud cover, and that was in 1975

That said, more in line with the topic is the insanely overpriced toys the Pentagon doesn't want because the civilians are shoving them down the brass's collective throats.

Then there are things the Pentagon doesn't want because they aren't glamorous or expensive enough, like the A-10. It (procurement) really is a corrupt mess, especially in peacetime.

So yeah, there are multi-role aircraft out there that do the job well, but they aren't multi-service. CV aircraft have to be extra tough with beefy landing gear, anti-corrosion, etc. No F-15 could do that.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So yeah, there are multi-role aircraft out there that do the job well, but they aren't multi-service. CV aircraft have to be extra tough with beefy landing gear, anti-corrosion, etc. No F-15 could do that.

Right. To make the F-15 carrier capable would require such change that it wouldn't be the F-15 anymore.

But will this and go the way of the F-4? Or F-111? The F-4 was a great plane for the concept that aerial combat would be BVR with missiles. The concept didn't end up happening. If air combat doesn't end up being what the F-35 was built for then there is some trouble.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Guest]

lawrocket

Quote

So yeah, there are multi-role aircraft out there that do the job well, but they aren't multi-service. CV aircraft have to be extra tough with beefy landing gear, anti-corrosion, etc. No F-15 could do that.

Right. To make the F-15 carrier capable would require such change that it wouldn't be the F-15 anymore.

But will this and go the way of the F-4? Or F-111? The F-4 was a great plane for the concept that aerial combat would be BVR with missiles. The concept didn't end up happening. If air combat doesn't end up being what the F-35 was built for then there is some trouble.

All I know is that these things are insanely overpriced. It appears that Congress is in bed with the merchants of death, and of course the big aerospace corporations seem to have lots of retired senior military on their boards. I think that in service to the public interest, retired senior military (O-6 and above) should be restricted from serving on the board of any company which has military contracts worth more than (put your $ figure here) for 'x' amount of time after they retire. Some companies do that on their own, but I wonder how much of it is just a smoke screen.

Congress-critters should not be allowed to participate in any committees where there is a similar potential for conflict of interest (e.g., the rep whose territory includes Downey or Palmdale CA, or anywhere else there is a big military-vendor presence [perhaps Oshkosh WI (where big military vehicles are made)]) cannot sit or vote on that committee.

Would it change things? I don't know. All I know is that the status quo is not in the People's best interest, especially with the crushing debt we already have. The smell of graft lingers about the status quo as well.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[lawrocket 3]

Thing is, this is not just a Downey or Palmdale thing. If it was just Downey or Palmdale Congress could shut it down like it did the Apollo program. That's where Lockheed did it I. Best interest. Have vendors from everywhere. 46 states have vendors for the project. 18 states have more than $100 million coming from the project. Eight of those over $400 billion.

So there are 92 Senators who are not apt to cut pork from their states. And any congressperson with a vendor in the district. Politically it is too big to fail and is too widespread to be stopped.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,106]

markharju

All I know is that these things are insanely overpriced. It appears that Congress is in bed with the merchants of death, and of course the big aerospace corporations seem to have lots of retired senior military on their boards.
...

mh
.

I believe Dwight D. Eisenhower told us pretty much the same thing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

markharju

I think Congress-critters should not be allowed to participate in any committees where there is a similar potential for conflict of interest (e.g., the rep whose territory includes Downey or Palmdale CA, or anywhere else there is a big military-vendor presence [perhaps Oshkosh WI (where big military vehicles are made)]) cannot sit or vote on that committee.

Would it change things? I don't know. All I know is that the status quo is not in the People's best interest, especially with the crushing debt we already have. The smell of graft lingers about the status quo as well.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4149707#4149707