More F-35 woes

#3
#3
this is jmo, but it seems like the lack of dogfighting ability would make it very unpopular with the pilots.
 
#4
#4
LouderVol said:
this is jmo, but it seems like the lack of dogfighting ability would make it very unpopular with the pilots.
Click to expand...

Pilots still dogfight? With all this tech, these guys are launching missiles to other aircraft over the horizon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
Septic said:
Pilots still dogfight? With all this tech, these guys are launching missiles to other aircraft over the horizon.
Click to expand...

Actually while they CAN I think there's a real problem when the ROE puts your people at a disadvantage. If you're saddled with not being allowed to engage BVR in an F-35 that apparently could become a real liability.
 
#6
#6
right now yeah its not really an issue because the jihadis aren't flying fighter planes shooting down ours. seems like it becomes a real concern if we had to fight a real war against a developed nation I could easily see the lack of dogfighting capability as a major drawback. their fancy tech won't stop an enemy pilot from lining up a shot and blazing them with 35mm rounds.
 
#8
#8
hndog609 said:
We've spent a awful amount of money for something that seems to disappoint so often.

https://gma.yahoo.com/military-don-t-worry-f-35-most-expensive-213045869--abc-news-topstories.html
Click to expand...

Actually nothing surprising in that article. The F-16 remains one of the best air to air aircraft in the inventory due to its ability to out fly the pilot. The F-35 is designed as a multi-service VSTOL aircraft making it WAY more expensive, way heavier, and way less maneuverable. Get off the hater wagon and get on with life.
 
#12
#12
82_VOL_83 said:
Actually nothing surprising in that article. The F-16 remains one of the best air to air aircraft in the inventory due to its ability to out fly the pilot. The F-35 is designed as a multi-service VSTOL aircraft making it WAY more expensive, way heavier, and way less maneuverable. Get off the hater wagon and get on with life.
Click to expand...

Who's "hating"? It just seems like when Joe Taxpayer sees the incredible amount of money spent and how far behind schedule it is he's rather hoping to see something that looks " worth it". For instance, from a purely fiscal standpoint the Raptor is a damned expensive aircraft, yet even with issues of it's own it doesn't seem to have that "boondoggle" air to it like the Lightning does in people's eyes.
 
#14
#14
Our aging F15s, 16s,and 18s can still best anything other countries have... Waste of tax dollars.
 
#19
#19
A guy I know that served in the Airforce recently said the F35 was a giant waste of money and that the F22 is far superior.
 
#20
#20
hndog609 said:
Who's "hating"? It just seems like when Joe Taxpayer sees the incredible amount of money spent and how far behind schedule it is he's rather hoping to see something that looks " worth it". For instance, from a purely fiscal standpoint the Raptor is a damned expensive aircraft, yet even with issues of it's own it doesn't seem to have that "boondoggle" air to it like the Lightning does in people's eyes.
Click to expand...

The people got what the gubment asked for. Don't hate on the aircraft, hate on the goofballs in the pentagon that are about as ignorant as they come. There is a reason that there is an F-18, F-16, A-10, and Harrier. They each specifically do one job. In fact, if you load the F-16 out for its ground role, it is a sitting duck in a dogfight. There is nothing wrong with the aircraft, in fact, to have gotten it to where it is without more issues is rather astounding. I would dearly love to see it go, but I don't think it will. I think we will see another aircraft for half the price replace it. Unfortunately, we may be on our way to flying several foreign aircraft.
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
82_VOL_83 said:
The people got what the gubment asked for. Don't hate on the aircraft, hate on the goofballs in the pentagon that are about as ignorant as they come. There is a reason that there is an F-18, F-16, A-10, and Harrier. They each specifically do one job. In fact, if you load the F-16 out for its ground role, it is a sitting duck in a dogfight. There is nothing wrong with the aircraft, in fact, to have gotten it to where it is without more issues is rather astounding. I would dearly love to see it go, but I don't think it will. I think we will see another aircraft for half the price replace it. Unfortunately, we may be on our way to flying several foreign aircraft.
Click to expand...
That last part is scary.
 
#22
#22
The f 35 is supposed to replace the f 15 then as a "fire and forget" air superiority fighter? The article suggested it was for ground attack but that doesn't seem reasonable right? That's what we use a10s.efc for?

Is the f 22 supposed to be our next gen air to air fighter to replace the f18. And f16. For maneuverability and close range air to air .
 
#23
#23
marcusluvsvols said:
The f 35 is supposed to replace the f 15 then as a "fire and forget" air superiority fighter? The article suggested it was for ground attack but that doesn't seem reasonable right? That's what we use a10s.efc for?

Is the f 22 supposed to be our next gen air to air fighter to replace the f18. And f16. For maneuverability and close range air to air .
Click to expand...

Iirc the f22 is supposed to be air superiority while the f35 replaces the a10. A very dumb idea. Instead of having warplanes very good at their job they are looking for the magic bullet one size fits all. Again a dumb idea
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
marcusluvsvols said:
The f 35 is supposed to replace the f 15 then as a "fire and forget" air superiority fighter? The article suggested it was for ground attack but that doesn't seem reasonable right? That's what we use a10s.efc for?

Is the f 22 supposed to be our next gen air to air fighter to replace the f18. And f16. For maneuverability and close range air to air .
Click to expand...

The F-35 was supposed to be a 1 stop aircraft. History has shown that isn't practical. I will try to explain the aircraft as I know them.

F-14 all models were standoff fighters. Top Gun was pretty much crap after the introduction of the 15 and 16.

F-15 all models except the E are air superiority. With a good pilot they are still near the top with the 22. E model has some advanced ground capabilities.

F-16 all models designed as fighters. They have been bastardized as ground attack. 22 is the only plane in the inventory that can stay with it in a turn. One of 3 aircraft in the inventory with a greater than 1 thrust to weight ratio. 18's may be now, but weren't when brought into service.

FA-18 all models are fighter and ground attack. Multibranch aircraft that was a dog when introduced but over the YEARS has become a damn good aircraft.

F-22 direct replacement for the 15 and 16 in terms of performance. Way too expensive to replace either.

F-35 a one stop, multibranch, pipe dream. Too expensive and too under powered to replace the 15, 16, or the fighter aspects of the 18. By making this plane fit all the roles, it fits none of them well.

A-10 is a straight up ground support and attack aircraft. One of the best invented IMO. Should be upgraded and kept in the inventory.

There is a reason that we have different branches of soldiers. The same holds true for aircraft.
 
Last edited:
#25
#25
LouderVol said:
Iirc the f22 is supposed to be air superiority while the f35 replaces the a10. A very dumb idea. Instead of having warplanes very good at their job they are looking for the magic bullet one size fits all. Again a dumb idea
Click to expand...

You are right. It gets worse though. The 35 is supposed to replace the 16 for the Air Force, the 18 for the Navy and Marines, the A-10 for the Army (I think), and the Harrier for the Marines. One airframe and powerplant for all of it.

It's going to require multiple airframes to ever work correctly.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top