Bye-bye F-35?

#151
#151
NorthDallas40 said:
We shot the old stuff quite a while back man on the most common munitions. šŸ˜¬
Click to expand...

I always wondered what they do with old stock of all sorts of AA and A2G munitions. Prior to 911, I used to drive around Redstone Arsenal unattended and drive right up to the earthen bunkers wondering what was inside.
 
#152
#152
rjd970 said:
And Iā€™m sure itā€™s been stated, but the ā€œjointā€ nature of the F-35 is what did it in. There isnā€™t a one size fits all, it was doomed from the beginning. The AF, Navy, and Marines have 3 different missions and, consequently, need 3 different aircraft. Starting from the same platform for all 3 is inefficient and doomed to end in cost overruns instead of designing to mission needs from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Your colors are showing and that is fine. Aint no "did it in" happening. It is here to stay and already at IOC, so much for it being doomed. All Pentagon development is cost over run and protracted, which is a serious problem, but did not start with the 35.

You show me 3 simultaneous developments that would be cheaper, show me the data.

As far as being the same platform, they probably only have about 60% commonality and are just trying to use economies of scale to keep costs down. I thought your premise was all about keeping costs down?

I get it...you disagree. Aint nobody on this forum going to know the combat effectiveness. but anecdotal evidence says it is a game changer.
 
#154
#154
Orangeburst65 said:
Your colors are showing and that is fine. Aint no "did it in" happening. It is here to stay and already at IOC, so much for it being doomed. All Pentagon development is cost over run and protracted, which is a serious problem, but did not start with the 35.

You show me 3 simultaneous developments that would be cheaper, show me the data.

As far as being the same platform, they probably only have about 60% commonality and are just trying to use economies of scale to keep costs down. I thought your premise was all about keeping costs down?

I get it...you disagree. Aint nobody on this forum going to know the combat effectiveness. but anecdotal evidence says it is a game changer.
Click to expand...

Again, the 35 has its place and is needed. However I think you are overstating itā€™s effectiveness in the larger scheme of things. When looked at through a cost-effectiveness prism there are better ways to get where we need to be.

I donā€™t have a dog in the fight, just what I remembered from my previous stops working with defense. An effective EW suite, combined with other effective long range strike capabilities and 15ā€™s, 16ā€™s, and 18ā€™s hauling iron under 22ā€™s providing CAP gets the job done just fine. And it could have been done without the first dollar ever being spent on the 35 development.

Now that we have them and they are IOC, your position makes sense. But itā€™s hard to argue it was absolutely needed when the contract was awarded. I would have liked to seen more resources spent on UAV R&D and I think the return on investment would have been better for the military, especially in the asymmetric threat we are actually fighting.

Iā€™ve spent time overseas in combat zones. Never saw a single 35...or for that matter a F-15. What I did see was a bunch of 16ā€™s hauling bombs and providing CAS. We need the cheap workhorses right now. That is not the 35. Not by a long shot.
 
#160
#160
I have a friend who was in the air force. He said the talk amongst the base was that the F35 is a flawed aircraft and has been a huge waste of money. He said the F16 and F22 are both far more superior in maneuverability and overall use even given their age.
 
#161
#161
Coug said:
I have a friend who was in the air force. He said the talk amongst the base was that the F35 is a flawed aircraft and has been a huge waste of money. He said the F16 and F22 are both far more superior in maneuverability and overall use even given their age.
Click to expand...

It looks pretty maneuverable here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and Obsessed
#162
#162
Footage of its combat strike mission launch/landing.

U.S. Marine Corps Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA 211) F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighters from the amphibious assault ship USS Essex (LHD 2) conducted the F-35B's first combat strike. The strike occurred in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility in support of Operation Freedomā€™s Sentinel in Afghanistan. During this mission, the F-35B conducted an air strike in support of ground clearance operations, and the strike was deemed successful by the ground force commander. The aircraft are assigned to the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) which is the first combat-deployed MEU to replace the AV-8B Harrier with the F35B Lightning II. (U.S. Marine Corps video by Cpl. Francisco Diaz and Lance Cpl. A. J. Van Fredenberg

F-35B From USS Essex Conducts Its 1st Combat Strike
 
#165
#165
Guess I am fighting a losing battle on this, but there is so much anecdotal evidence by such qualified people that fly and test the thing that basically would ruin reputations. If people would take the time to look

F35 Lightning II elevates art of aerial warfare

Suggest everyone read this article. Air shows are in no way a representation of combat capability because of DRAG INDEX. Who GAF how maneuverable it is with NO weapons:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-demo-pilot-paris-performance-will-crush-years-misinformation

Not as agile as the Super Hornet nor as fast as the Typhoon? Donā€™t you believe it, says Lockheed Martin test pilot Billie Flynn. He will put the F-35A through its paces at Le Bourget this week, proving that the aircraft is more maneuverable than any he has flown, he says, including Boeingā€™s F/A-18, the Eurofighter, and his own companyā€™s F-16 Viper.


Everything they see becomes the F-35 out there...Every radar hit, every communication is about the stealth jet. They want to illuminate or eliminate a threat they can't handle...It has nothing to do with their skill or technology. They're at such a technological disadvantage... I've seen guys in F-18s turn directly in front of me and show me their tails cause they have no idea I'm there...It aggregates to a completely inept response to what we're doing in the air..People are so hellbent on shooting down the stealth fighter that they invariably make mistakes that I can exploit."

- Maj. Dan Flatley, USMC( ret.)


"When we're sitting here on USS America, a ship that was built for the F-35, with the F-35 in mind, and you put 6 or 8 or 12 F-35s on this ship, this ship instantly becomes the most powerful concentration of combat power to put to sea in the history of the world."

Maj. John Dirk, USMC

ā€œThe F-35 is a great airplane. The comments that I make about the F-35 are about program execution. Thereā€™s a real difference. The airplane itself is a high-performing, advanced, fifth-generation fighter.ā€

Patrick M. Shanahan - DEPSECDEF and former Boeing Sr. VP

Knight divulged a little more information about flying basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) in an F-35. ā€˜When our envelope was cleared to practise BFM we got the opportunity to fight some fourth generation fighters. Remember, back then the rumors were that the F-35 was a pig. The first time the opponents showed up [in the training area] they had wing tanks along with a bunch of missiles. I guess they figured that being in a dirty configuration wouldnā€™t really matter and that they would still easily outmaneuver us. By the end of the week, though, they had dropped their wing tanks, transitioned to a single centerline fuel tank and were still doing everything they could not to get gunned by us. A week later they stripped the jets clean of all external stores, which made the BFM fights interesting, to say the leastā€¦"
-- Lt Col Ian Knight

'In the debrief 'Niki' told us it was one of the most memorable sorties he had ever flown. Having previously worked in the F-35 program office he was elated to find out how effective the F-35 was, but at the same time he was frustrated by not getting a single shot off the rail against us, while getting killed multiple times. After that sortie it really hit us that the F-35 was going to make a big difference in how we operate fighters and other assets in the Royal Netherlands Air Force'.

I could sit here and literally past quote after quote all night and the A was just cleared to 9G a month or so ago and was limited to 7.5G.

Ohh well...I am switching sides and going to be an ally of Lawgator....you bastages.
 
#166
#166
Orangeburst65 said:
Guess I am fighting a losing battle on this, but there is so much anecdotal evidence by such qualified people that fly and test the thing that basically would ruin reputations. If people would take the time to look

F35 Lightning II elevates art of aerial warfare

Suggest everyone read this article. Air shows are in no way a representation of combat capability because of DRAG INDEX. Who GAF how maneuverable it is with NO weapons:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-demo-pilot-paris-performance-will-crush-years-misinformation

Not as agile as the Super Hornet nor as fast as the Typhoon? Donā€™t you believe it, says Lockheed Martin test pilot Billie Flynn. He will put the F-35A through its paces at Le Bourget this week, proving that the aircraft is more maneuverable than any he has flown, he says, including Boeingā€™s F/A-18, the Eurofighter, and his own companyā€™s F-16 Viper.


Everything they see becomes the F-35 out there...Every radar hit, every communication is about the stealth jet. They want to illuminate or eliminate a threat they can't handle...It has nothing to do with their skill or technology. They're at such a technological disadvantage... I've seen guys in F-18s turn directly in front of me and show me their tails cause they have no idea I'm there...It aggregates to a completely inept response to what we're doing in the air..People are so hellbent on shooting down the stealth fighter that they invariably make mistakes that I can exploit."

- Maj. Dan Flatley, USMC( ret.)


"When we're sitting here on USS America, a ship that was built for the F-35, with the F-35 in mind, and you put 6 or 8 or 12 F-35s on this ship, this ship instantly becomes the most powerful concentration of combat power to put to sea in the history of the world."

Maj. John Dirk, USMC

ā€œThe F-35 is a great airplane. The comments that I make about the F-35 are about program execution. Thereā€™s a real difference. The airplane itself is a high-performing, advanced, fifth-generation fighter.ā€

Patrick M. Shanahan - DEPSECDEF and former Boeing Sr. VP

Knight divulged a little more information about flying basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) in an F-35. ā€˜When our envelope was cleared to practise BFM we got the opportunity to fight some fourth generation fighters. Remember, back then the rumors were that the F-35 was a pig. The first time the opponents showed up [in the training area] they had wing tanks along with a bunch of missiles. I guess they figured that being in a dirty configuration wouldnā€™t really matter and that they would still easily outmaneuver us. By the end of the week, though, they had dropped their wing tanks, transitioned to a single centerline fuel tank and were still doing everything they could not to get gunned by us. A week later they stripped the jets clean of all external stores, which made the BFM fights interesting, to say the leastā€¦"
-- Lt Col Ian Knight

'In the debrief 'Niki' told us it was one of the most memorable sorties he had ever flown. Having previously worked in the F-35 program office he was elated to find out how effective the F-35 was, but at the same time he was frustrated by not getting a single shot off the rail against us, while getting killed multiple times. After that sortie it really hit us that the F-35 was going to make a big difference in how we operate fighters and other assets in the Royal Netherlands Air Force'.

I could sit here and literally past quote after quote all night and the A was just cleared to 9G a month or so ago and was limited to 7.5G.

Ohh well...I am switching sides and going to be an ally of Lawgator....you bastages.
Click to expand...

Itā€™s definitely a capable platform. Anybody that knows anything about it canā€™t argue that fact. However, itā€™s not a matter of CAN we build something better than the legacy platforms. Itā€™s a matter of SHOULD we. Itā€™s effectiveness is clearly superior, but itā€™s cost-effectiveness simply isnā€™t.

All JMO....and full disclosure, I work for a contractor that has a portion of the F35 contract, so I like to think Iā€™m coming from a completely objective opinion.
 
#167
#167
rjd970 said:
Itā€™s definitely a capable platform. Anybody that knows anything about it canā€™t argue that fact. However, itā€™s not a matter of CAN we build something better than the legacy platforms. Itā€™s a matter of SHOULD we. Itā€™s effectiveness is clearly superior, but itā€™s cost-effectiveness simply isnā€™t.

All JMO....and full disclosure, I work for a contractor that has a portion of the F35 contract, so I like to think Iā€™m coming from a completely objective opinion.
Click to expand...

You still have not said how we are to recapitalize the force though? Or the cost effectiveness of an alternative?
 
#168
#168
I just always get caught up in the ā€œone fighter to rule them allā€ scenario.

I always come back to the A-10 for this argument. There is no other aircraft in the inventory that can do that job as well. Theyā€™ve tried to replace it for decades they canā€™t.

No other aircraft can maintain the sustained control of the air space over a battle field like it. It can pivot on a dime. Itā€™s a dump truck for ordnance, itā€™s got an incredible gun like no other, and it can sustain a battle damage level near that of a WWII B-17 and still safely bring her pilot home.

Instead of trying to replace it we need to modernize it.
 
#169
#169
NorthDallas40 said:
I just always get caught up in the ā€œone fighter to rule them allā€ scenario.

I always come back to the A-10 for this argument. There is no other aircraft in the inventory that can do that job as well. Theyā€™ve tried to replace it for decades they canā€™t.

No other aircraft can maintain the sustained control of the air space over a battle field like it. It can pivot on a dime. Itā€™s a dump truck for ordnance, itā€™s got an incredible gun like no other, and it can sustain a battle damage level near that of a WWII B-17 and still safely bring her pilot home.

Instead of trying to replace it we need to modernize it.
Click to expand...

We are on fighters, not CAS aircraft now. I think the wart is a beast....short legs and low level subject to all sorts of crap...the ultimate Fulda Gap tank killer that would of destroyed tank divisions and been totally decimated at the same time. With short legs that means you basing must be close to action, hence close to easier retribution on the housing base.

Show me where the A-10's are in Afghanistan, or even ME period. I may be incorrect. but legs are too short so we fly SH's and Bones thousands of miles for CAS in Ghan. Not sure about Syria, but 22's are flyin with S-300's deployed.

I have spent ad nauseum time debating this and asking questions that detractors will not answer.

You are dead to me Dallas...I hope the next time you open an air hose that a nasty oily condensate ruins your new pants!
 
#170
#170
Orangeburst65 said:
You still have not said how we are to recapitalize the force though? Or the cost effectiveness of an alternative?
Click to expand...

I have answered. I donā€™t know what you mean by ā€œrecapitalizeā€ but you can get to the same end point the 35ā€™s get you by upgrade and modernization of the current fleet, utilize existing EW, let the 22ā€™s provide CAP and air-to-air, and haul iron with aircraft that are cheaper to operate. Long range strike weaponry can augment all of that in any ā€œkick down the doorā€ phase scenario against a near peer.

All at a lower cost than what the F35 gives you. Plus, the 35 buys you absolutely nothing in the 3rd world asymmetric conflicts we are fighting today.

Now that we have them, so be it. But it wasnā€™t the best use of taxpayer dollars.
 
#171
#171
Orangeburst65 said:
We are on fighters, not CAS aircraft now. I think the wart is a beast....short legs and low level subject to all sorts of crap...the ultimate Fulda Gap tank killer that would of destroyed tank divisions and been totally decimated at the same time. With short legs that means you basing must be close to action, hence close to easier retribution on the housing base.

Show me where the A-10's are in Afghanistan, or even ME period. I may be incorrect. but legs are too short so we fly SH's and Bones thousands of miles for CAS in Ghan. Not sure about Syria, but 22's are flyin with S-300's deployed.

I have spent ad nauseum time debating this and asking questions that detractors will not answer.

You are dead to me Dallas...I hope the next time you open an air hose that a nasty oily condensate ruins your new pants!
Click to expand...

Iā€™m fine with the F-35 itā€™s just the current one platform for everything approach which puts a burr under my saddle! Itā€™s an incredible airplane I just hate the doctrine. I understand it, itā€™s logistics driven. But I still hate it. The Army is doing a similar consolidation with rotary wing. The OH-58 was a casualty. The H-53ā€™s lost out to the V-22 also at least with AFSOC not sure on Marine Corps.

With regard to Syria and Afghanistan I think we had air controllers embedded with A teamā€™s that handled a very large part of the battle space control. No idea if that was driven by forward airfield limitations or not, maybe initially. But once we had Bagram we could easily cover 2/3 of the country no problem I think. No idea if a suitable airfield around Kandahar was available or not.

Think back to the glorious days of the Century Series. Within the same timeframe we had F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104 (love that one), F-105 (more attack role), F-106, F-107, etc etc...

No we canā€™t afford to do that. But what an era.
 
#172
#172
Orangeburst65 said:
We are on fighters, not CAS aircraft now. I think the wart is a beast....short legs and low level subject to all sorts of crap...the ultimate Fulda Gap tank killer that would of destroyed tank divisions and been totally decimated at the same time. With short legs that means you basing must be close to action, hence close to easier retribution on the housing base.

Show me where the A-10's are in Afghanistan, or even ME period. I may be incorrect. but legs are too short so we fly SH's and Bones thousands of miles for CAS in Ghan. Not sure about Syria, but 22's are flyin with S-300's deployed.

I have spent ad nauseum time debating this and asking questions that detractors will not answer.

You are dead to me Dallas...I hope the next time you open an air hose that a nasty oily condensate ruins your new pants!
Click to expand...

Yes, the A-10 has been integral in the Stan. Based out of Bagram.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#173
#173
NorthDallas40 said:
Iā€™m fine with the F-35 itā€™s just the current one platform for everything approach which puts a burr under my saddle! Itā€™s an incredible airplane I just hate the doctrine. I understand it, itā€™s logistics driven. But I still hate it. The Army is doing a similar consolidation with rotary wing. The OH-58 was a casualty. The H-53ā€™s lost out to the V-22 also at least with AFSOC not sure on Marine Corps.

With regard to Syria and Afghanistan I think we had air controllers embedded with A teamā€™s that handled a very large part of the battle space control. No idea if that was driven by forward airfield limitations or not, maybe initially. But once we had Bagram we could easily cover 2/3 of the country no problem I think. No idea if a suitable airfield around Kandahar was available or not.

Think back to the glorious days of the Century Series. Within the same timeframe we had F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104 (love that one), F-105 (more attack role), F-106, F-107, etc etc...

No we canā€™t afford to do that. But what an era.
Click to expand...

Back to Pierre Sprey.. the liar who said he helped designed the F-16 and a member of the fighter mafia and wants air to air gun kills only and thinks missiles and radar are ineffective, using Nam as his basis, which would be correct in 1965.

I will take Lt Col Berke's opinion more.

 
#174
#174
Grand Vol said:
Yes, the A-10 has been integral in the Stan. Based out of Bagram.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected sir. But I want us to be able to handle peer conflict in PACRIM....and I have stated the Warthog is an excellent COIN craft with allowed close base operations. Even the A-10 is overkill for the Stan and the USAF is working on a new turbo prop craft that will be effective in a permissive environment with no SAM's present, unless the Russians decide to "Stinger" us.
 
#175
#175
Orangeburst65 said:
I stand corrected sir. But I want us to be able to handle peer conflict in PACRIM....and I have stated the Warthog is an excellent COIN craft with allowed close base operations. Even the A-10 is overkill for the Stan and the USAF is working on a new turbo prop craft that will be effective in a permissive environment with no SAM's present, unless the Russians decide to "Stinger" us.
Click to expand...

You mean the same prop aircraft that's been talked about for nearly a decade with no significant progress? Started as the LA/AR program back in 2009, morphed into the OA-X program and has just proceeded to phase 2 this year?

Bells and whistles, guy. They have to pay for the F-35 at $80M per copy and such aircraft are shunned by the mainstream USAF. There are several different promising designs off the shelf that could be purchased rapidly like the Embraer A-29, Textron AT-6B and Textron Scorpion. Cheap options for COIN and CAS in the fights we're doing now rather than worrying about the fights we may be in 30 years from now.

I'm not sure how you consider the A-10 "overkill" for the Stan when they toss Bones out there performing the same mission. Nearly every aircraft in our inventory has been used in that theater save the F-22. Basically, the A-10 is the best aircraft ever designed for CAS of troops in contact. The GAU-8A doesn't just have the depleted uranium shells it uses. There is a high explosive incendiary round as well that's just fine for unarmored threats.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top