The F-35 Thread

[Exorcet]

If this plan was thought of 10 years ago, it might have made sense. Except for the cutting F-35A/C orders part.

[SNAFU]

He's only spamming to draw attention on him.

Looks like he`s not the only one.

But he contributes to some cash flow somehow, no wonder someone here got jealous. :smilewink:

[GGTharos]

He tries to contribute to his own cash flow, but his 'company' AFAIK, failed. He was going to run some sort of F-111 upgrade/maintenance company.

[tflash]

Not many would regret the F-35B, a concept almost as ill-founded as the Harrier. With the extra fuel it takes on a vertical take-off or landing you could have an UAV asset for 16 hours in the air.

 

As for the rest of F-35 .. the biggest problem for any new generation fighter program is that the F-16/F-15/F-18 are so good. They have adapted seamlessly to any new mission profile, sport an unthinkable diversity of weaponry, are cheap to operate with abundance in spare parts and a whole support industry in place.

 

This will even be worse if indeed F-35 comes to speed and the USAF will be withdrawing large numbers of perfectly valid F-16's. It wont be long before they sell them to allies at a bargain price.

 

Another problem is that by being protracted and late due to the F-35B issues, the F-35 is gradually losing an edge against refurbished 4th-gen fighters. Super Hornet is already a digital revolution in itself, and sensor pods are getting better by the month so to speak. Can you name any 4th-gen fighter that is not going to switch to AESA in the next couple of years?

 

There are at the moment two or three affordable AESA radar upgrades proposed for F-16.

[GGTharos]

F-16's and F-15's are being upgraded to the point where they're about to burst. They only have so much room for growth, and the airframes are aging. The F-35 incorporates things these other aircraft do NOT have, starting with stealth and sensor fusion.

 

Sticking an AESA radar on an aircraft doesn't qualify as an equal to the F-35 ... adding a data link doesn't quite cut it either.

[tflash]

My guess is stealth is the only real edge: sensor fusion can be done in a 4th gen fighter; and is already to some extent. And again, what is shown now for F-35 is only fully operational in 2015 onwards; time enough to materialise sensor fusion plans on Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen to name a few. The new Helmet for Eurofighter is already very impressive.

[GGTharos]

Your guess is off the mark. The F-35 has capability that cannot be easily retrofitted into legacy fighters. SH, Eurofighters and Rafale's have current growth capability, sure. Older fighters do not.

[mikoyan]

Your guess is off the mark. The F-35 has capability that cannot be easily retrofitted into legacy fighters. SH, Eurofighters and Rafale's have current growth capability, sure. Older fighters do not.

 

f-16IN has tons of features form the f-35.

 

[Cali]

 

As for the rest of F-35 .. the biggest problem for any new generation fighter program is that the F-16/F-15/F-18 are so good. They have adapted seamlessly to any new mission profile, sport an unthinkable diversity of weaponry, are cheap to operate with abundance in spare parts and a whole support industry in place.

 

This will even be worse if indeed F-35 comes to speed and the USAF will be withdrawing large numbers of perfectly valid F-16's. It wont be long before they sell them to allies at a bargain price.

 

Another problem is that by being protracted and late due to the F-35B issues, the F-35 is gradually losing an edge against refurbished 4th-gen fighters. Super Hornet is already a digital revolution in itself, and sensor pods are getting better by the month so to speak. Can you name any 4th-gen fighter that is not going to switch to AESA in the next couple of years?

 

There are at the moment two or three affordable AESA radar upgrades proposed for F-16.

 

Our F-16's are starting to show their age, I'm working on jets almost my age. I do agree that they do an excellent job with everything thrown at them. It's always a race to have the latest and greatest toys. As we speak they are thinking and designing something better then the F-22 and F-35, that's just the way it is. Look how old the F-117 is and how many years it was in hiding before we found out about them.

[Antartis]

F-35 Simulator - AA and AG Modes / Avionics

 

[maobingyishen]

It's more like playing Star Craft.....

[Le0kong]

I was expecting the narrator to say "...and prior to engaging into the mission the pilot engages the autopilot and takes a nap, while the Highly Advanced Tactical Alarm Clock will wakeup him after the mission is sucesfully completed, giving the chance for the pilot to congratulate himself"! :megalol:

 

 

The thing has windows, and a unified cursor for all the windows! Recreating these avionics for a home sim will take forever.

[tflash]

F-35 Simulator - AA and AG Modes / Avionics

 

 

Although recently posted it must be quite an old video featuring mostly footage of X-35.

 

I must say I'm a bit sceptical about this; maybe I'm getting old but this seems more computer whizzkids gone wild than really looking for combat-focused solutions. While the millenial generation pilot is working through this myriad of displays and playing the cursor the enemy is maybe just focused on the kill.

 

It has this uncomfortable Windows X look to me.

 

I would assume avionics for F-35 will become more decluttered in a further development stage. This video definitely still has a nineties sci-fi look dating from a time people actually thought MS Windows was user-friendly and ergonomic.

 

iPad interface and Android are already much more decluttered than say Windows 7 or OSX.

Edited November 13, 2010 by tflash

[mikoyan]

To me there is too much interaction with the screens; ahg airplanes are to pc-like; nothing like old school dials... so... what happens if your screens die? you actually have too look outside to fly the jet?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Domenici-Rivlin Panel wants to Kill F-35 Lightning II, V-22 Osprey

 

Don't get me wrong. I too want F-35, but not at the cost of my Social Security and Medicare. Beside, I don't see anybody trying to invade USA any time soon.

 

I would continue with the research and produce fairly small number of F-35's. With all that capability, you don't need many any way. Then reduce flying time to few hundred hours per airframe per year. Most of the training can be done with increasingly sophisticated and affordable, PC (common parts) based simulators.

 

That would ensure we have technological edge and manufacturing capability.

[GGTharos]

SS and Medicare require some cuts one way or the other ... the F-35 alone isn't going to make up for them, if you know what I mean.

[EtherealN]

As far as I could see from accessible numbers the total development and procurement costs for the us will be around 250 billion dollars. 2008 Social Security costs were ~600 billion dollars. So while the plane is expensive we are talking about developing and producing some two and a half thousand airframes at less than half of one year's social security, and this is a cost spread over a decade or two...

 

Essentially, I wouldn't worry that much. There are way more expensive things that the fed is doing than developing the F-35 and I wouldn't be surprised if you can save all of that money through making things more efficient. For example there was the idea of having a fee of 10 dollars for foreign nationals entering the US on vacations etcetera to cover administration fees for the various security systems involved - and then they increased it to 14 dollars because they found it would cost 4 dollars just to do the administration of the 10 dollar fee... :P

Edited November 18, 2010 by EtherealN

[power5]

I was expecting the narrator to say "...and prior to engaging into the mission the pilot engages the autopilot and takes a nap, while the Highly Advanced Tactical Alarm Clock will wakeup him after the mission is sucesfully completed, giving the chance for the pilot to congratulate himself"! :megalol:

 

The thing has windows, and a unified cursor for all the windows! Recreating these avionics for a home sim will take forever.

 

Yeah, weird that the pilot needs to take over to pickle the bombs, but can launch the A2A missiles just fine without going off AP.

 

 

I have multiple windows and screens in my home computer and I have a single integrated mouse interacting with all them. I also have touch screens. So I have the same interface as the F35. What would be so difficult about a sim pit?

 

I must say I'm a bit sceptical about this; maybe I'm getting old but this seems more computer whizzkids gone wild than really looking for combat-focused solutions. While the millenial generation pilot is working through this myriad of displays and playing the cursor the enemy is maybe just focused on the kill.

 

It has this uncomfortable Windows X look to me.

 

iPad interface and Android are already much more decluttered than say Windows 7 or OSX.

 

Enemy is interacting with his gauges and MFDs just like the F35 pilot is.

 

iPad can do one thing at a time. Fighter pilots need a bit more than that. Of course it is a lot more cluttered, there is a fighter jet connected to it, not some silly tablet game.

 

Domenici-Rivlin Panel wants to Kill F-35 Lightning II, V-22 Osprey

 

Don't get me wrong. I too want F-35, but not at the cost of my Social Security and Medicare. Beside, I don't see anybody trying to invade USA any time soon.

 

I would continue with the research and produce fairly small number of F-35's. With all that capability, you don't need many any way. Then reduce flying time to few hundred hours per airframe per year. Most of the training can be done with increasingly sophisticated and affordable, PC (common parts) based simulators.

 

That would ensure we have technological edge and manufacturing capability.

No one attacks the USA because we have so many capable pilots and jets. What good is your SS if you are dead, or if a socialist country takes over?

I dont think a pilot with a couple dozen flight hours makes a very effective combat pilot. Even sticking him in a sim to make up for the flight hours you docked him would not equal what normal fighter pilots are accustomed to right now. Sim time is great for learning systems, but is not so helpful when needing to interface with those systems in high G maneuvers.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

No one attacks the USA because we have so many capable pilots and jets. What good is your SS if you are dead, or if a socialist country takes over?

I dont think a pilot with a couple dozen flight hours makes a very effective combat pilot. Even sticking him in a sim to make up for the flight hours you docked him would not equal what normal fighter pilots are accustomed to right now. Sim time is great for learning systems, but is not so helpful when needing to interface with those systems in high G maneuvers.

What good is to have thousands of good pilots when you country implodes due to economy? We can only have a military force we can afford.

 

BTW, which socialist country are you talking about pose a threat to take USA over?

[power5]

Country has been through depression before. This one will not implode us either.

Sorry I meant China so communist.

 

Over the development time of the F35, the illegal aliens using our tax dollars from government programs has leeched more money than the F35 project most likely.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

As far as I could see from accessible numbers the total development and procurement costs for the us will be around 250 billion dollars.

Depending on the source of information and the time info was published, the cost of the program could be as high as 382 billions of dollars.

 

Saving SS and Medicare will take more then just cutting/reducing F-35 program. ANother measure would be cutting in half our basis around the world.

 

Also we should charge countries that want our protection. We were able to protect countries for free for many years, but we can not do that any more. I am not getting free KIA although my money is paying for protecting South Korea. That is just one example, and there are many more I could cite here.

 

F-35 program must be slashed severely as well as many other military programs, where we invest enormous and are not getting much in return. For every dollar our government spend, 40 cents is borrowed. Borrowing so much money is severe threat to the security and well being of this country. I really don't feel good paying taxes and knowing that my money is going overseas to pay for interests and loans we are taking to build unnecessary military programs.

 

I still do want F-35, but instead of 2500 of them, a 800 to a 1000 would do just fine.

[GGTharos]

Saving SS and Medicare will take more then just cutting/reducing F-35 program. ANother measure would be cutting in half our basis around the world.

 

Actually cutting SS and Medicare should a) be done and b) is the only thing you can to not cripple other things. A little tax raise, some cuts in the military sector, as well as some cuts in medicare and social security, including raising the age of retirement and stricter checking of disability claims.

 

Also we should charge countries that want our protection. We were able to protect countries for free for many years, but we can not do that any more. I am not getting free KIA although my money is paying for protecting South Korea. That is just one example, and there are many more I could cite here.

 

No, you're getting intangible benefits, such as the ability to buy a KIA.

 

F-35 program must be slashed severely as well as many other military programs, where we invest enormous and are not getting much in return. For every dollar our government spend, 40 cents is borrowed. Borrowing so much money is severe threat to the security and well being of this country. I really don't feel good paying taxes and knowing that my money is going overseas to pay for interests and loans we are taking to build unnecessary military programs.

 

No, it doesn't. The F-35 needs to replace thousands of fighters. A-10's, F-16's, F-15s as well.

 

I still do want F-35, but instead of 2500 of them, a 800 to a 1000 would do just fine.

 

Except they wouldn't. That number is not enough.

[EtherealN]

There's more to "protecting" South Korea and similars than getting a free KIA. The US is there technically to protect it's interests, and those interests include trade. That doesn't necessarily mean there is a need for bases there, but with me not being a security specialist or national economist I really can't say if it's worth the expense.

 

As for which country would be in a position to invade the US... Well, none right now, but that's not the point. The question is "which country/ies will gain the ability to threaten american interests within timespan X", and that makes things a lot more uncertain. Whether they're uncertain enough to merit really expensive programs... well, I dunno. Not having top clearance at the Pentagon, Langley and NSA makes that hard for me to say. :P

 

That said, the F-16 is prettier than the F-35 and that alone is enough to keep that system alive as far as I'm concerned. :D (Thankfully I don't have to pay for that tho. :P )

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

No, you're getting intangible benefits, such as the ability to buy a KIA.

Ohh yeah? So, now as an American I have to pay a tax to South Korea so that I can buy KIA?

 

No, it doesn't. The F-35 needs to replace thousands of fighters. A-10's, F-16's, F-15s as well.

First of all, there is no need. And there is no money either. Gone are the times of unlimited supply of money.

 

Except they wouldn't. That number is not enough.

Enough for what? And they will cat the numbers, they have to. Otherwise, we are heading the same path as Soviet Union ...

 

Ohh .. BTW

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

Edited November 19, 2010 by =4c= Hajduk Veljko

[EtherealN]

Ohh yeah? So, now as an American I have to pay a tax to South Korea so that I can buy KIA?

 

No, americans have as a people (through electing representatives) decided that they'll spend some money to ensure that their trade interests in South Korea are protected. Right or wrong, that's what it is. It's not a tax to South Korea, it's an expense that the US government takes to protect what it perceives as national interests. Compare to Operation Desert Shield - was that a tax to Saudi Arabia for the pleasure of filling one's car with gasoline, or was it a national expense aimed at protecting one's national interests?

 

First of all, there is no need. And there is no money either. Gone are the times of unlimited supply of money.

 

As a hobbyist fan of austrian economics - well sure there is! The US uses fractional reserve banking so there is a theoretical unlimited supply. :P (Obviously though, using said unlimited supply is probably a bad idea. :P )

 

On the needs, I dunno. There is the obvious question of fatigue on the airframes that would make extending their service lives impractical and possibly simply too expensive - my country had that issue with the JA-37, where some people suggested extending the service lives of that system rather than develop the JAS-39, but the analyses I've seen of that said that that would basically be even more expensive since those old planes would end up having to be pretty much rebuilt to do that extension. However, there is a lot to be said for savings long-term through reducing the amount of weapon systems in service - just like sweden reduced from J-35, AJ-37, JA-37 and S-37 to just the JAS-39, the US appears to intend to drop from a rediculous amount of diverse weapon systems to relying mainly on two - the 22 and 35. I don't know if this really is the best idea, but as far as I can see the economics and logic of it seems sound.