So What about the F-35?

[AirDnD]

Pork barrel boondoggle, or skunk secret sauce?

 

Lots of bad press, but what dose this crowd think? Specifically what is the roll of a future fighter/ bomber?

 

 

What impresses me is the helmet display linked to external cameras. The F35 jock would fly in a real world "arcade" battlefield. He sees his instrument readings everywhere he looks. He sees through his aircraft @ any angle. He shoots whatever he sees. Who needs maneuverability when you fly in "wonder woman" mode?

 

But what need have we, technology? The B-52 has toured the globe a decade longer than The Rolling Stones. The A-10 gets re-booted at about the same rate as Star Wars. Meanwhile the likes of the F-16 have bombing and CAS capabilities shoehorned in with all the grace and utility of a Corvette hauling a camper.

 

How do you build weapons for the future battlefield? It's like drawing and discarding before you know what kind of poker you're playing.

 

Maybe the Pentagon is terrified of committing amidst this uncertainty, Maybe the F-35 is spreading the chips and hoping to score: the coward's bet.

[johncage]

it's better than anything else out there. i'd say that's a good deal

[SOLIDKREATE]

It can't even fire it's gun until 2019. It is someones palm greasing political agenda with wings. We could have just kept our F-14's and given them thrust vectoring engines. The A-6 could have benefited greatly from the GE-F404 engine from the F-18. I'd say take away the after burner though or you would shred the airframe. The planes we have now can use all of the latest electronic enhancements and pods. The F-35 is using OUTDATED technology. Don't believe me read about. This plane is a huge embarrassment to my country. It will actually lose wars for us. It cannot support the boots on the ground. And ONE....ONE engine for Naval usage? SWTF?!

Edited January 1, 2015 by SPEKTRE76

[Cybermat47]

The A-10 gets re-booted at about the same rate as Star Wars.

Sorry to be 'that guy', but Star Wars has never been rebooted.

[Bullets]

The worst part is, the f35 as an aircraft sucks.... Its slow & un-manoeuvrable (Wings too small, fuselage too big & heavy) all because they decided STOL / VTOL was the future...  Waste of money IMO.  

Edited January 1, 2015 by Bullets

[GP*]

Yes, the F-35 has issues, but as far as keeping legacy / 4th Gen assets around longer, these platforms are not very survivable in today's SAM environment. 

[GP*]

It can't even fire it's gun until 2019. It is someones palm greasing political agenda with wings. We could have just kept our F-14's and given them thrust vectoring engines. The A-6 could have benefited greatly from the GE-F404 engine from the F-18. I'd say take away the after burner though or you would shred the airframe. The planes we have now can use all of the latest electronic enhancements and pods. The F-35 is using OUTDATED technology. Don't believe me read about. This plane is a huge embarrassment to my country. It will actually lose wars for us. It cannot support the boots on the ground. And ONE....ONE engine for Naval usage? SWTF?!

 

I'm curious, what outdated technology is it using? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering if there's something I don't know about it.

 

The F-14's operational rate was pretty atrocious as it neared the end of its life. You can stuff all the fancy electronics in an aging jet that you want and, while it makes it more capable, in the case of the F-14, you're still stuck with an exhausted jet that would still have marginal BVR performance, and was pretty terrible from an EM perspective in the WVR environment. It also has a monstrous RCS and visual signature as well. Thrust vectoring allows you to point your nose at the expense of a tremendous energy bleed. Missiles also have considerable min ranges as well, so you can't just point and shoot like many believe. 

 

The cost of giving jets new engines, especially if they're fundamentally different than the ones they're replacing (i.e. thrust vectoring), is substantial. It would take years to test and implement as well. Ultimately, you'd save little money and have a pretty bad platform.

 

If we're talking about upgrading a Viper or Eagle, however, that's a different story. But only in some cases.

[Phant0m]

Obsolescence of equipment in long procurement projects is nothing new - and it is something the media love to hype (though I don't know any of the particulars in this instance).

 

On face value, the F-35 should serve its purpose well - but the sheer number of planned purchases by the USA is ridiculous. They could easily get the job done with fewer than 500 and put the remaining budget into better bang for buck support aircraft. On the other hand, jets are sexy - so there's that.

 

All of this has happened before...

[LizLemon]

All of this has happened before...

 

But today the internet makes it easy for everyone to express their opinion no matter how ill-informed.

 

Imagine if the internet was around during the F-15s development... or the F-111.

[Cybermat47]

They could easily get the job done with fewer than 500 and put the remaining budget into better bang for buck support aircraft.

Or even better, they could allocate the surplus money to civil development (I've heard from Americans on another forum that the mental health care system needs some serious development). I can't really see why the US would need to spend any more money on military development, seeing as they've already got one of, if not the most advanced military in the world. Edited January 2, 2015 by Cybermat47

[Sternjaeger]

The F-35 programme, as explained to me by a former US Air Force budget manager:

 

1. "We need a new multi-role aircraft, but it has to tick all the boxes: it needs to be VSTOL, carrier-based, supersonic, stealth,  and carry loads of different payload."
   "Wow, that's impossible! Nobody has done that yet, it's gonna cost a bomb to develop and it might not even work.."
   "We'll make it work, we'll get foreign partners to join in, it's an exceptional opportunity for our industry and will bring a lot of prestige and money"
   "...but"
   "WE WILL DO IT".
    
2. As always, engineering problems get in the way, aerodynamics are a bit of a short blanket: you cover something but in order to do that you need to uncover something else. The top brass don't understand that, they say "here's more money, stretch that blanket".
    
3. years go by, more companies get a sense of what HUGE business this could be, so a convoluted political game starts in order to systematically let in big contractors with "revolutionary ideas that will bring more sophistication to the programme"
    
4. the already unrealistic delivery dates are already surpassed, the addition of new technologies and variation of requirements further delays a realistic delivery date.
    
5. meanwhile the "blanket stretching" operation works, but only to a certain extent: there are still substantial design problems which heavily affect the performance and construction of a first series.
    
6. foreign governments begin to get concerned: despite the reassurance of the US government, the whole development process looks a bit scatty, and the continuous request for funds becomes a major problem for most of the partner countries. Some of them (like Italy) start a serious protest on the matter, and the government is put into a corner without adequate responses on how this exorbitant expense is necessary for the country, especially since they already have a quite efficient line of Eurofighters. In order to keep things quiet, the US "selects" Italy as a major maintenance partner for Europe-bound F-35s. 
    
7. as of today, the F-35 programme is well over 1 trillion dollars, with a unit cost over 100 million dollars each and with an expected maintenance cost to be the highest in history. 
    
8. ...all of this in a scenario where technology is allowing us to develop and effectively deploy more and more sophisticated drones, which can do the same job of an F-35 at a fraction of the cost.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Sternjaeger

[Dakpilot]

LoL not wanting to start anything but that sounds a bit like the story of a recent flight sim  

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Time for Sprey and RAND parrots to roost!

[AndyJWest]

What about the F-35? For a start, appearance wise, as John Farley (Harrier test pilot) notes, the best description is "a badly-opened tin". http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/548696-harrier-replacement.html. "If it looks right, it is right."

 

It was clearly intended to do far too many things, and in order to do them, it requires so many changes between versions that they have ended up with three different aircraft - all named 'F-35' so the taxpayers don't notice.

 

I'm sure that ultimately the USAF/USN will declare the aircraft a great success - because they can't admit to getting it wrong. The leading foreign customer, the British government, will do the same, having built aircraft carriers for it. The wrong ones, for the wrong version. (Not that the aircraft carriers make sense anyway, without the sort of support that they can't afford, having spent all their money on aircraft carriers, and not enough aircraft to equip them.)

 

And they named this the 'Lightning II'? A travesty, if for no other reason than that there were at least two previous Lightnings far more deserving of the name (though I would reluctantly admit that the British one wasn't much of a looker either, by the time they'd fitted it with belly tank and over-wing weapon pods). I think an alternative name is required: how about 'Edsel'? Read this Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel and it all makes sense. 

Edited January 2, 2015 by AndyJWest

[Mastermariner]

One factor adding to the "problem" of the F 35 is the fact that in most nation the "defence" budget in realty is an aid to domestic industries. So they will always be as expensive as the MIC needs. Another is that technical innovation in aviation is quickly moving towards a wall and a paradigm shift. An airplane is nothing more than a  weapons platform designed to get  its ordnance  within range, fire, and then quickly go back home for more. A drone can do that at a much better cost ratio.

 

Master

[SharpeXB]

Safe to say the VTOL is pretty much a mistake and makes the plane too fat and heavy.

Stealth is great but it limits the aircraft to internal stores so I think it only carries two AIM-120s and if my DCS experience counts for anything that's only enough to make a Sukhoi mad at you.

I read something lately that says its targeting pod is last gen and since it has to be built-in stealthy can't function as well as an external one

For ground attack it's too fast and can't loiter or turn tightly like an A-10

The "Wonder Woman" cockpit saves the fact hopefully that the pilot can't see well enough out of the canopy due to the big VTOL fan and something about the ejection seat.

[Sternjaeger]

apparently the first pilots who experimented the "Wonder Woman" cockpit felt extremely nauseous lol

 

It just doesn't make sense anymore.. they'll deliver it because they have to, but I think it'll go the way of the F-22, only quicker..

[SharpeXB]

That's sad that the F-22 they've only made what? 187?! That really might be the lowest production # of a warplane ever. The Germans made more experimental crazy rocket fighters that that.

[Mastermariner]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8uUyHU2rFM

 

Latest news from yesterday and its pretty much in line with what you people say.

[DD_Arthur]

How many customers are there for the F35 VTOL version and how many of this version are planned to be built?  Will the US Marine Corp be the biggest customer for the VTOL version?

[MarcoRossolini]

How many customers are there for the F35 VTOL version and how many of this version are planned to be built?  Will the US Marine Corp be the biggest customer for the VTOL version?

If you see the ads (which for some reason we get in Australia and I don't get it, why advertise to me and my fellow private citizens? If I were in the business of buying fighter aircraft, I'd honestly choose something older) There's at least half a dozen states involved (but easily more), mostly Nato countries and their affiliates... We in Australia are rather unimpressed that our government is withdrawing all this funding to universities, welfare etc, yet is spending piles on these brand new jets...

 

Supposedly the aircraft is also inferior to certain Soviet/Russian designs and Chinese designs as well. Is that true?

The worst part is, the f35 as an aircraft sucks.... Its slow & un-manoeuvrable (Wings too small, fuselage too big & heavy) all because they decided STOL / VTOL was the future...  Waste of money IMO.  

I would have thought they'd have learned from Harrier and the like. (didn't Harriers have a rather bad time of it in the Falklands?)

[SharpeXB]

LoL not wanting to start anything but that sounds a bit like the story of a recent flight sim  

 

Cheers Dakpilot

This...

[Dave]

So What about the F-35?

No point. The Luftwaffe already have the 109 Freidrich.

Oh ... sorry, I thought we were talking about the game.

 

I'm curious, what outdated technology is it using? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering if there's something I don't know about it.

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

Edited January 4, 2015 by Dave

[gavagai]

That's sad that the F-22 they've only made what? 187?! That really might be the lowest production # of a warplane ever. The Germans made more experimental crazy rocket fighters that that.

 

At least the F-22 works.  It is a pure interceptor and nothing is going to beat it in that role.  They seem relatively inexpensive now compared to the F-35.

 

The F-35 was supposed to be a budget aircraft.  It would have the same capabilities as the F-16, but include stealth (that doesn't work), and all the latest avionics.  In reality, it is slower than the F-16, has worse range, and has worse maneuverability.

 

I love military aircraft simulation, but the F-35 project is a stinking hole of corruption and crony capitalism.

[DD_Arthur]

 

the F-35 project is a stinking hole of corruption and crony capitalism.

 

It strikes me that the whole of defence procurement is a stinking hole of corruption and crony capitalism.   Here in the UK, after we equipped our air force with an aeroplane designed to fight an enemy which is no longer an enemy, it was the navy's turn to receive great piles of cash with which to shovel down a vast black hole. 

 

The result; the two biggest warships the navy have ever built are now nearing completion.  One will be mothballed immediately whilst the other will be made ready for the eventual arrival of the F35B. 

Neither of these two white elephants will be equipped with a catapult or arrestor wire system.  If the F35B does not go into production there will be no aircraft capable of operating from either of these two "carriers" and the UK taxpayer will be left with a couple of very large, floating grey boxes.

[DD_Crash]

Dont worry Arthur, our wonderful government will sell them off nice and cheap because we cant afford to run them. Who know,s maybe we can sell one to Pakistan and one to India , just to balance things up

 

Anyway the EE Lightning is a real looker AndyJ

Edited January 4, 2015 by DD_Crash

[SOLIDKREATE]

America’s $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is slated to join fighter squadrons next year—but missing software will render its 25mm cannon useless.

 

The Pentagon’s newest stealth jet, the nearly $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter, won’t be able to fire its gun during operational missions until 2019, three to four years after it becomes operational.Even though the Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is supposed to join frontline U.S. Marine Corps fighter squadrons next year and Air Force units in 2016, the jet’s software does not yet have the ability to shoot its 25mm cannon. But even when the jet will be able to shoot its gun, the F-35 barely carries enough ammunition to make the weapon useful.

The JSF won’t be completely unarmed. It will still carry a pair of Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM long-range air-to-air missiles and a pair of bombs. Initially, it will be able to carry 1,000-pound satellite-guided bombs or 500-pound laser-guided weapons. But those weapons are of limited utility, especially during close-in fights.“There will be no gun until [the Joint Strike Fighter’s Block] 3F [software], there is no software to support it now or for the next four-ish years,” said one Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program. “Block 3F is slated for release in 2019, but who knows how much that will slip?”

 

The tri-service F-35 is crucial to the Pentagon’s plans to modernize America’s tactical fighter fleet. The Defense Department hopes to buy 2,443 of the new stealth jets in three versions—one for the Air Force, one for the Navy, and one for the Marines. Versions of the jet will replace everything from the air arm’s A-10 Warthog ground attack plane and Lockheed F-16 multirole fighter, to the Navy’s Boeing F/A-18 Hornet carrier-based fighter, to the Marines’ Boeing AV-8B Harrier II jump-jet. But the F-35 has been plagued with massive delays and cost overruns—mostly due to design defects and software issues. There have also been problems with the jet’s engine. An F-35 was destroyed on takeoff earlier in the year when a design flaw in its Pratt & Whitney F135 engine sparked a fire.

Another Air Force official familiar with the F-35 confirmed that the jet won’t have the software to fire its gun until the Block 3F software is released to frontline squadrons sometime in 2019. Neither Lockheed nor the F-35 Joint Program Office responded to inquiries about the status of the jet’s gun.

 

Right now, the F-35’s software doesn’t support the use of the aircraft’s GAU-22/A four-barreled rotary cannon. The weapon was developed from the U.S. Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump-jet’s GAU-12/U cannon, but it has one fewer barrel and weighs less.

It’s also supposed to be more accurate—when it can be fired, that is. The gun can shoot 3,300 rounds per minute, though the Air Force’s F-35A version can carry just 180 rounds for the gun.

 

The Navy and Marine Corps versions of the F-35 have differing configurations and rely on an external gun pod. The software won’t be ready for those jets for years, either. And while that gun-pod version for the Navy and Marines carries slightly more ammo, with 220 rounds, some in the military are complaining that it’s not enough. “So, about good for one tactical burst,” the first Air Force official said. “Hope you don’t miss.”

 

The lack of a cannon is a particular problem, as the F-35 is being counted on to help out infantrymen under fire. (This is known as close air support, or CAS, in military jargon.) The F-35 will lack the ability to mark a target or attack enemy forces in “danger close” situations, said one highly experienced Air Force fighter pilot.“Lack of forward firing ordnance in a CAS supporting aircraft is a major handicap,” he added. “CAS fights are more fluid than air interdiction, friendlies and targets move... Oftentimes quickly. The ability to mark the target with rockets and attack the same target 10 seconds later is crucial.”

 

Typically, aircraft will work in pairs where the flight lead will make an initial pass to mark a target with rockets. A second aircraft will then attack with its guns. Incidentally, the F-35 won’t be armed with rockets, either, sources told The Daily Beast.

The reason pilots would choose to use guns over a bomb or a missile is simple. Basically, a pilot might not want to drop a bomb near ground troops in situations where the enemy has gotten in very close to those friendly forces. Even a relatively small 250-pound bomb could kill or injure friendly troops who are within 650 feet of the explosion.

 

By contrast, a gun will allow a pilot to attack hostile forces that are less than 300 feet from friendly ground forces.

Proponents of the F-35 within the Air Force leadership argue that the jet’s sensors and ability to display information intuitively will allow the stealthy new fighter to do the close air-support mission from high altitudes using satellite-guided weapons. But there are situations where that won’t work.

 

“GPS-guided munitions with long times of fall are useless when the ground commander doesn’t know exactly where the fire is coming from, or is withdrawing and the enemy is pursuing,” said another Air Force fighter pilot. “GPS munitions are equally useless when dropped from an aircraft when the pilot has near zero ability to track the battle with his own eyes.”

 

The lack of a gun is not likely to be a major problem for close-in air-to-air dogfights against other jets. Part of the problem is that the F-35—which is less maneuverable than contemporary enemy fighters like the Russian Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker—is not likely to survive such a close-in skirmish. “The jet can’t really turn anyway, so that is a bit of a moot point,” said one Air Force fighter pilot.

“The JSF is so heavy, it won’t accelerate fast enough to get back up to fighting speed,” said another Air Force fighter pilot. “Bottom line is that it will only be a BVR [beyond visual range] airplane.”

 

That means the F-35 will be almost entirely reliant on long-range air-to-air missiles. It doesn’t carry any short-range, dogfighting missiles like the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder when it’s in a stealthy configuration. One pilot familiar with the F-35 added that “they will not have a large enough air-to-air [missile] load to be on the leading edge” of an air battle in any case.

 

Another senior Air Force official with stealth fighter experience agreed. “From an air-to-air standpoint, an argument could be made that the F-35A not having a functional gun—or any gun, for that matter—will have little to no impact. Heck, it only has 180 rounds anyway,” he said. “I would be lying if I said there exists any plausible tactical air-to-air scenario where the F-35 will need to employ the gun. Personally, I just don’t see it ever happening and think they should have saved the weight [by getting rid of the gun altogether].”

 

However, the Air Force official said that very fact the F-35 will not have a functional gun when it becomes operational is symptomatic of a deeply troubled program. “To me, the more disturbing aspect of this delay is that it represents yet another clear indication that the program is in serious trouble,” the official said. F-35 maker “Lockheed Martin is clearly in a situation where they are scrambling to keep their collective noses above the waterline, and they are looking to push non-critical systems to the right in a moment of desperation.”

 

 

Remember the F4 Phantom in Vietnam, yeah the employed a gun quickly.

Edited January 4, 2015 by SPEKTRE76

[Yakmaster]

Thouse army and air force officials are ill informed, Northrop Grumman is fallowing trends and trying to make airplanes more interesting to younger pilots. There is nothing wrong with the gun or its software, pilots just have to fly few combat missions and unlock the gun when they get more XP, they can also earn same extra internal and external weapon pods and bigger bombs. If thouse critics just follow official forum they would know this. 

Nevertheless good thing Boeing lost JSF competition and are focused on drones, i bet sofa drone pilots will see more action in future then new F-35 pilots.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Yakmaster

[Dave]

 

America’s $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is slated to join fighter squadrons next year—but missing software will render its 25mm cannon useless.

 

...

 

Remember the F4 Phantom in Vietnam, yeah the employed a gun quickly.

 

The Pentagon really do have an incredibly short collective memory.

 

 

Another senior Air Force official with stealth fighter experience agreed. “From an air-to-air standpoint, an argument could be made that the F-35A not having a functional gun—or any gun, for that matter—will have little to no impact. Heck, it only has 180 rounds anyway,” he said. “I would be lying if I said there exists any plausible tactical air-to-air scenario where the F-35 will need to employ the gun. Personally, I just don’t see it ever happening and think they should have saved the weight [by getting rid of the gun altogether].”

 

Whilst I follow the logic, experience dictates that you don't always get to pick your fights. Will the Marine Corps be relieving sniper teams of their automatic and personal weapons also? I mean they're long range shooters right? Seriously, the stupidity of peacetime desk warriors baffles me.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Dave

[150GCT_Veltro]

F-35 is only a waste of money.....

[[BTEAM]_Shifty_]

Fail-35

Fails at everything except making Lockheed and some other people money.

Worse than F-15. Worse than F-16. Worse than F/A-18. Can't even be compared to A-10. 

At least F-22 was the best at something. 

I guess it could replace Harrier jumpjets if it carried more payload. But the price... And it still is far from being ready.

 

So much money was sunk into F-35 that there is nothing left to build anything else. Drones can't replace scores of F-16 and A-10, can they?

[Sternjaeger]

At least the F-22 works. 

 

mmmmh....

[Chill31]

The 3 variants of the F-35 look similar, but they are really very different aircraft...My guess is 2 F-35s will cut right through 2 Eurofighters, maybe even 4.  I don't think it will be a bad jet, but you know what they say about the jack of all trades...

[Sternjaeger]

My guess is 2 F-35s will cut right through 2 Eurofighters, maybe even 4. 

 

yeah, maybe from 2019, maybe.. 

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

A jet fighter is put through quite a bit of stress, and the fuselage and engine will start to deteriorate beyond cost effectiveness at some point. Reading all this makes me wonder if it hadn't been better to restart the assembly line of some older machines (F16 for instance) woth updated electronics. It would be far, far cheaper, and the F16 can already fly, and fire it's gun.

[DD_Arthur]

 Reading all this makes me wonder if it hadn't been better to restart the assembly line of some older machines (F16 for instance) woth updated electronics. It would be far, far cheaper, and the F16 can already fly, and fire it's gun.

 

Not a bad idea at all except that it conflicts with the first law of defence procurement;

 

 

a stinking hole of corruption and crony capitalism.

[GP*]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

 

4th Gen platforms are not survivable in a modern SAM environment. Period.

 

They require extensive support from other platforms (via kinetic and non-kinetic effects) to achieve any degree of survivability.

 

If it was as simple as building more F-16s, that would have been done. Does anyone really think that no one else has thought of this? People actually in the military don't profit off of this, except for the fact that technologies like stealth can save the lives of those they lead and win wars. For defense contractors, building legacy jets versus R&D on new jets gets them money NOW versus much, much later.

 

There's a lot wrong with the F-35. There's a lot wrong with the way the project has been handled as well. However, people in general -- especially those writing the articles that everyone keeps linking to -- should approach this subject with some humility. You know why?

 

Because they don't know the whole picture. They don't even know a fraction of it.

[MarcoRossolini]

^^^

 

I guess there would be a certain advantage to everything (including its enemies) thinking the F-35 is useless...

[Sternjaeger]

^^^

 

I guess there would be a certain advantage to everything (including its enemies) thinking the F-35 is useless...

 

+1

 

The F-35 will eventually be a good aircraft, the problem will be its sustainability and cost efficiency. I don't see it being a longeve aircraft because of its intrinsic complexity, and it will probably be the last programme for a high performance multirole manned aircraft.. they already managed to fly an F-16 remotely, there really is no more need for pilots being physically in the cockpit I'm afraid..

[SOLIDKREATE]

I say to give her at least 500rpg. Or back down to a 20 mm (0.787 in) shell with 511 rounds like the F-16C-50 or even 940 like the F-15C Stealth is fine as long as it works but how long will that be. How long will it take some punk kid to come up with a new detection device. Once the enemy knows you're there; stealth is useless anyway. The F-16 could easily be fitted with it's thrust vectoring engine.