The F-35 Thread

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Its funny you talk about tabloid language, but using the single role moniker makes you sound like you're doing just that.

 

It is still single role: ground-attack. The MiG-25 wasn't a multi-role fighter even though it could do many roles like escort, intercept, CAP... The A-10 can only perform the A2G mission satisfactorily, and that's what it was meant to do.

 

If it weren't that the JSF program was supposed to replace the F-16, F/A-18 (excluding E/F variants), AV-8B and the A-10, that response would make sense, but given that the JSF is supposed to replace the A-10 in the CAS role, poor CAS performance would be a significant failing for the F-35, and the director of operational test and evaluation at the Defense Department says the F-35 is not, and will not be, a good CAS aircraft.

But maybe the director of operational test and evaluation at the Defense Department doesn't know what they're talking about...

 

There is a difference between will replace and was designed to replace. The pro-A-10/anti-F-35 lobby keeps trying to play it up as if the F-35 was an incompetent attempt at a A2G aircraft, which it's not. Everyone knows you have to sacrifice specialised performance when designing a multi-role plane. It's a fact of life.

 

A pack of F-35s even with reduced capability will still be able to infiltrate enemy airspace, take out/evade air defenses and air-to-air threats, and drop the bombs on target. That is something the A-10 will never be able to do. So no, it is not inferior in capability to the A-10, and it's not the GAU-8 that will save the Hog from a network of S-300 batteries. I would be softer on this if they just argued the A-10 must be kept together with the F-35, but proposing an Air Force sticks to 40 year old single-mission airframes because its 5th gen. replacement performs a little worse in one aspect of air-to-ground despite beating it at everything else is nonsense.

 

See this example: the Brazilian Air Force in a few years will have retired the Mirages III & 2000C, the F-5EM and the A-1M, replacing all of them with the JAS-39E. The A-1M is a dedicated low-altitude strike and recce fighter with two 30mm cannons that has just been modernised, and I am sure it can do those better than the 39, but no one is arguing against the replacement. The A-10 issue is definitely a touchy one, but just like the F-14 as unique as it was a country has to move on. Old planes are expensive, particularly when you're keeping the because of love.

[Exorcet]

The F-35 will never be a better A-10 than the A-10, but the real question is if it needs to be at all. No one complains that modern bombers lack the self defesnce of a B-29. That's outdated design. Even in the conflicts where the A-10 is useful, it could actually stand to be replaced by smaller and cheaper aircraft.

 

Ideally, the A-10 could be kept along with the F-35, but if you need to pick between the two, it should be pretty obvious that the A-10 is the losing choice unless you simply don't care about a full scale war.

[PiedDroit]

IMO, right now the biggest problem is price. Some missions simply don't need expensive aircraft (I'm quite neutral about capabilities since I'm no expert but I'm pretty convinced that the operating / acquisition cost will never go down due to the complexity and engine power).

Maybe if they finally go for the F-35 we'll see cheaper airframes appear in the inventory (like Super Tucano, you get the idea).

[Aginor]

IMO the one really valid point about the A-10 is the gun.

Even Michael Franzak (USMC Harrier pilot, author of "A Nightmare's Prayer") complains about his jet being too fast and having too few rounds of gun ammo available to be of use once troops are really in contact.

Of the planes available now only the A-10 can support troops with multiple gun runs while the distance between friendlies and enemies is less than 100m, BECAUSE it is slow, and carries a lot of 30mm ammo.

The only alternative at present is a helicopter. But helicopters have only half the maximum speed of an A-10, so they are even slower to reach the kill box. EDIT: And they can't carry bigger stuff like cluster bombs or something like that.

 

So they could maybe replace the A-10 by doing TWO things:

- more combat helis very close to the front lines to support troops in contact

- bigger stuff (stuff you drop bombs on) is done by F-35 or some other fast mover

[rcjonessnp175]

I can't believe people actually are stating the a10c is an outdated aircraft. The one in dcs world yes. The one currently in real world splitting Isis skulls is not. Wiki commandos dear lord.

[NineLine]

One day. After modifications that haven't been defined yet.

At the moment it can carry 2 SDBs & 2 A2A missiles internally and still retain the stealth that is supposed to be one of its 2 significant advantages over 4th Gen aircraft (together with its sensor package).

True, you can stick some racks on it if you have the F-22 (or some clean F-35) maintaining air superiority & then carry more 'deliverables', but then you could just send an A-10 ..

 

Isnt that sort of the point here? When it needs to go in quiet it can, when it needs to go in loud, it can as well... So it can be used in more types of missions, and more roles.

[Pepec9124]

I can't believe people actually are stating the a10c is an outdated aircraft. The one in dcs world yes. The one currently in real world splitting Isis skulls is not. Wiki commandos dear lord.

 

We can also say that F-15C is an old outdated aircraft. Poor Eagle pilots flying with Aim-7M. :megalol:

[NineLine]

We can also say that F-15C is an old outdated aircraft.

 

A F-15C pilot that moved to a F-22 might indeed say just that ;)

[Fer_Fer]

Sorry to ask this,

but to me it seems its kinda poor bargain for the cost you incur.

Essentially, to me, it seems kinda like a too few eggs to many baskets plane.

It has stealth, but it only carries a very small load, if it wants to make use of that capability.

It is multirole, but all things considered, its poor at nearly all of them. It can't really supercruise, Poor Hydraulics incur significant risk from groundfire, and you lose the stealth the moment you want to bring more then 2 missiles on a sortie.

and once you are done, you need to either let it dry 48 hours, or stick it in a fridge, neither of which i think is practical in a warzone, high or low.

 

Likewise, to me, it seems that it still have considerable issues, which indicates poor management and even worse, a very bad development cycle. Likewise i seriously question the need of skipping a proper prototype phase in favor of production.

In addition, the development of High Frequency radars, renders its stealth ineffective, not ot mention the Chinese seem to have considerable data on it as well, pre-empting its only real selling point, its stealth.

 

So why bother with it, and its extremely large pricetag, apart from making hte Shareholders of Lockheed happy?

[HiJack]

Sorry to ask this,

but to me it seems its kinda poor bargain for the cost you incur.

Essentially, to me, it seems kinda like a too few eggs to many baskets plane.

It has stealth, but it only carries a very small load, if it wants to make use of that capability.

It is multirole, but all things considered, its poor at nearly all of them. It can't really supercruise, Poor Hydraulics incur significant risk from groundfire, and you lose the stealth the moment you want to bring more then 2 missiles on a sortie.

and once you are done, you need to either let it dry 48 hours, or stick it in a fridge, neither of which i think is practical in a warzone, high or low.

 

Likewise, to me, it seems that it still have considerable issues, which indicates poor management and even worse, a very bad development cycle. Likewise i seriously question the need of skipping a proper prototype phase in favor of production.

In addition, the development of High Frequency radars, renders its stealth ineffective, not ot mention the Chinese seem to have considerable data on it as well, pre-empting its only real selling point, its stealth.

 

So why bother with it, and its extremely large pricetag, apart from making hte Shareholders of Lockheed happy?

:lol:

[outlawal2]

Sorry to ask this,

but to me it seems its kinda poor bargain for the cost you incur.

OPINION

Essentially, to me, it seems kinda like a too few eggs to many baskets plane.

OPINION

It has stealth, but it only carries a very small load, if it wants to make use of that capability.

I'll give you that one..

It is multirole, but all things considered, its poor at nearly all of them. OPINION It can't really supercruise, (Does it or doesn't it\ Sources please) Poor Hydraulics incur significant risk from groundfire, (Once again source please) and you lose the stealth the moment you want to bring more then 2 missiles on a sortie.

and once you are done, you need to either let it dry 48 hours, or stick it in a fridge, neither of which i think is practical in a warzone, high or low.

Not sure this is a truthful statement as I doubt you have to do this every time it is flown..

Likewise, to me, it seems that it still have considerable issues, which indicates poor management and even worse, a very bad development cycle. (Ever look at the dev cycle of any other airplane? Nothing new here, just way too many arm chair critics) Likewise i seriously question the need of skipping a proper prototype phase in favor of production. OPINION

In addition, the development of High Frequency radars, renders its stealth ineffective, (SOURCES: I cry Bullshit on this one) not ot mention the Chinese seem to have considerable data on it as well, pre-empting its only real selling point, its stealth.

Yeah China knows we built it so right off the bat they can beat it right?

 

So why bother with it, and its extremely large pricetag, apart from making hte Shareholders of Lockheed happy?

 

GOD this thread gets more and more ridiculous by the day..

[Basher54321]

Sorry to ask this,

 

You should be :doh:

[SharpeXB]

I can't believe people actually are stating the a10c is an outdated aircraft. The one in dcs world yes. The one currently in real world splitting Isis skulls is not. Wiki commandos dear lord.

Yeah. Which plane is out there killing bad guys right now? It's not the F-35.

[NineLine]

Yeah. Which plane is out there killing bad guys right now? It's not the F-35.

 

:doh:

[Pepec9124]

Yeah. Which plane is out there killing bad guys right now? It's not the F-35.

 

I wouldn't send prototype to a fight, too expensive to lose one. Unless it's WW III.

F-22 on the other hand :music_whistling:

[Exorcet]

I can't believe people actually are stating the a10c is an outdated aircraft. The one in dcs world yes. The one currently in real world splitting Isis skulls is not. Wiki commandos dear lord.

 

It is outdated in that it's very vulnerable to modern weapons, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have uses. The A-10 is doing great where it's operating right now, but it would be much less effective if the enemy shot back.

 

Yeah. Which plane is out there killing bad guys right now? It's not the F-35.

 

Who is doing it tomorrow?

[Fer_Fer]

GOD this thread gets more and more ridiculous by the day..

 

on the subject of Firehazard,

http://archive.navytimes.com/article/20130114/NEWS/301140305/Report-Lightning-a-threat-to-the-F-35

 

On the subject of High Frequency radars

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141122/DEFREG03/311220016/China-s-Anti-Stealth-Radar-Comes-Fruition

 

On the subject of Flaws, DoD isn't too happy with them, especially when you consider the F35 is in full mass production

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/not-ready-for-prime-time.html

 

Report mentions deferrence of flight testing, engine problems, Problems with the helmetmounted displays, and a availability of less then the contractually agreed upon 60%, now im no engineer, but a lot of these things could have been ironed out in a limted set of preproduction aircraft, reducing costs, and therefore, not needing to fix these problems on a fleet of what? 100+ aircraft. Seems to me skipped extensive prototype testing....

 

As for the subject of Supercruising,

The official definition is to fly at speeds above Mach 1 without the use of afterburner.

The F-35 can't do that, unless it either uses minimal afterburner, or it drops below mach one after 150 Km. It kinda can, and then, it can't......

Compare this to the Rafale (for which i have the data at hand) which according to Daussault supercruises 39 minutes at mach 1.4 with 6 missiles.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110613/DEFFEAT04/106130302/F-35A-Testing-Moves-Into-High-Speeds

 

As for devs cycles, There is a major difference, comparing the Rafale, EF and F-35 all of them have had issues, the difference is that where the Rafale and EF have gone through the standard system of Drawing-Prototyping-Finalized design-mass production.

Lockheed has gone Drawing-Preproduction-Full production. Testing and mass production are running concurrently, not in sequence as is the norm.

[HiJack]

First comment on the article On the subject of Flaws is

 

This is example of the media getting information and not having a freaking clue what it means as far the F-35

[GGTharos]

Sorry to ask this,

but to me it seems its kinda poor bargain for the cost you incur.

 

It's more or less on the expected price curve actually, and you get a lot for the bargain.

 

Essentially, to me, it seems kinda like a too few eggs to many baskets plane.

I know, like all those other crappy planes that 'do too many things', such as F-15E's, Su-35's, Rafales, Eurofighters etc.

 

It has stealth, but it only carries a very small load, if it wants to make use of that capability.

It carries a pretty significant load, it essentially takes to the enemy what an F-18 or F-16 would haul there, all WITH stealth. Without stealth, the delivery capability is greater than that of those planes.

 

It is multirole, but all things considered, its poor at nearly all of them. It can't really supercruise, Poor Hydraulics incur significant risk from groundfire, and you lose the stealth the moment you want to bring more then 2 missiles on a sortie.

It isn't multi-role, it is a single-role aircraft: It is a strike fighter, and like pretty much every other bloody aircraft on the planet, it is capable of hauling weapons that aren't meant to be used for strike, so it can do some other roles, too.

 

As for 'losing stealth' ... who cares? There's a time to use it, and a time when it's not really needed.

 

and once you are done, you need to either let it dry 48 hours, or stick it in a fridge, neither of which i think is practical in a warzone, high or low.

That's interesting, given that none of that is factually happening.

 

Likewise, to me, it seems that it still have considerable issues, which indicates poor management and even worse, a very bad development cycle. Likewise i seriously question the need of skipping a proper prototype phase in favor of production.

It's pioneering a new way of production. There's no question that there is a corruption involved here as well as poor management, and that was legally addressed - but that's a different matter to the changing development philosophies.

 

Guess how some of the major aerospace companies design their new airliners now? Yup. Same was as the F-35.

 

New ideas require debugging. It's not cheap up-front, it pays off in the long-run.

 

In addition, the development of High Frequency radars, renders its stealth ineffective, not ot mention the Chinese seem to have considerable data on it as well, pre-empting its only real selling point, its stealth.

That is in fact incorrect. There's no radar out there that renders stealth ineffective. And it's low frequency radars, but ok, I can see how this can get confusing. Here's a hint on how 'ineffective' stealth is against low frequency radars: An F-22 can fly right up to an AWACS and whack it. The F-35 isn't that much less stealthier.

 

It's not that the AWACS can't 'see' the stealth jet coming. After all, stealth reduces the range at which you can detect that thing, it doesn't make it invisible ... on the other hand, that range is so short that it qualifies as 'too late now'.

 

Here's another hint: Why is everyone else trying to build stealth fighters now? Or at least stealth UAVs? I know, I know, the Chinese made this magical radar that can see stealth, but their stealth fighters will work against the crappy US radars, which, despite having stealth fighters to train with/against, have never been updated to deal with low RCS targets!

 

So why bother with it, and its extremely large pricetag, apart from making hte Shareholders of Lockheed happy?

Because it does all those things you think it doesn't. And FYI, I know how to read GAO reports too - in fact, I read the GAO reports, not someone's intepretation of them.

[SilentGun]

It has stealth, but it only carries a very small load, if it wants to make use of that capability.

 

Sorry but 12 A-A missiles is quite a bit, excluding the wing hardpoints. and 12 250lb JDAMS?

 

IMO the F-35 has potential, but I want to see how it preforms in combat scenarios.

Edited April 15, 2015 by SilentGun

[beaupower32]

SilentGun, that is a horrible picture and not current with what the F35 is capable of. It's just make believe of someone's imagination.

[Maximus_G]

The more I think about it I believe the F-35 is not a "jack of all trades". It is not meant to combine all the roles of 4th gen aircraft. It is a genuine 5th generation aircraft that fights in the electromagnetic spectrum and this way redefines all missions.

It has everything it needs to do so.

Swap F-117 with F-35 in OAF 1999 - it still would require extensive support in the air - EW, SEAD etc. What exactly would be redefined?

[OutOnTheOP]

Yes, an F-35 strike package, like an F-117 one, requires some support.

 

But we're talking a KC-135/ KC-10 and E-3 that supports the entire region, *maybe* a standoff jammer. They wouldn't likely take AA escort with them (unless it was F-22 or other F-35), same with SEAD. While they would enjoy the protection of the local BARCAP/ OCA fighter sweeps, so does everyone else.

 

So, you're looking at maybe 8 dedicated aircraft, but more likely 6 F-35 for a modest strike package. 2-4 to deliver ordnance, 2 with something like JSOW for SEAD. Self-defending with their own AMRAAM. Keep in mind that the size of the corridor they must conduct SEAD/ fighter defense in is much, much smaller- obviously it'll take a lot less assets to defend that corridor; assuming they need to at all.

 

F-117 missions were rather smaller than F-16 or F-15E ones.

 

Compare to conventional strike packages running in the dozens.

[GGTharos]

Like OutOnTheOP said, all strikes require some form of support.

 

The trick with an F-35 is that you need less of it. Fewer SoJs, less top cover, etc. This results in bringing fewer air refueling tankers with you, you need fewer battle controllers, and at the end of it all, you do less maintenance, you suffer fewer losses. Things like airborne decoys become more effective. A stealth strike package is also more effective, because it is more difficult to target.

 

As the opposition becomes more sophisticated, your requirements rise again ... what's the problem? There's a reason why every aspiring power is following suit and building stealth fighters.

 

Swap F-117 with F-35 in OAF 1999 - it still would require extensive support in the air - EW, SEAD etc. What exactly would be redefined?

[Maximus_G]

There's no problem sir, just a terminological clarification.