Bye-bye F-35?

#476
#476
WBO said:
The initial versions of the F-14 would eject their turbine blades during rapid increases and decreases in power (like on final approach to the boat). It still went on to be a premier naval fighter. The F-35 has some great performance parameters, but it's all about its avionics and weapons systems. Keep hearing about its ability to "manage" other assets. This will still be a successful aircraft, simply because of the availability of a Naval variant..

But do you notice we don't sell Raptors? Partly the operational cost per hour to fly, but we keep that one to ourselves because it is the superior fighter, so much so that they use different tactics just for its capabilities that we want to keep secret. There are other planes with better thrust to weight ratios, but the Raptor is superior in so many other ways including stealth. F-35 is a great platform, the F-22 is a superior fighter.
Click to expand...
The Navy should have built the carrier variant of the F-22 when it had the chance.

The stealth profile degradation due to the swept wings would not have even mattered today. Ah, hindsight…
 
#477
#477
85SugarVol said:
Yup.
But that tech will be back was all I was saying.

Too much heat management potential to handle the speeds and whiz-bangs we want incorporated into the next gen’s.
Click to expand...

Well if they dont complete it now, looking at 10+ years. Unacceptable. Thought they might use this new engine for NGAD as well. Read that article I posted above about the industrial base.
 
#478
#478
Orangeburst said:
Well if they dont complete it now, looking at 10+ years. Unacceptable. Thought they might use this new engine for NGAD as well. Read that article I posted above about the industrial base.
Click to expand...
This is where competition helps.

GE has the XA100
PW has the XE100
RR will have something

Somebody will figure it out.
 
#479
#479
85SugarVol said:
This is where competition helps.

GE has the XA100
PW has the XE100
RR will have something

Somebody will figure it out.
Click to expand...
The significance of the defect with current engine cannot be underestimated. No TR-3,TR-4 or lasers or anything without the new core and it will not be ready until 2030. Unless you want Russian motor overhaul schedules.
 
#480
#480
Orangeburst said:
Axed for now. What gets me is the demonstrators have been built, but takes another $6B and like 7 years to complete development
Click to expand...
Having done it for a few decades it makes sense to me. It’s one thing to build a one or two off engineering prototype or technology demonstrator. It’s another to make a design that lends itself easily to mass production. Additionally all of the product specific custom tooling and jigs need to be thought out and designed too
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and C-south
#481
#481
Orangeburst said:
The significance of the defect with current engine cannot be underestimated. or lasers or anything without the new core and it will not be ready until 2030. Unless you want Russian motor overhaul schedules.
Click to expand...
No TR-3,TR-4 ? what is this reference to?
 
#482
#482
NorthDallas40 said:
Having done it for a few decades it makes sense to me. It’s one thing to build a one or two off engineering prototype or technology demonstrator. It’s another ti make a design that lends itself easily to mass production. Additionally all of the product specific custom tooling and jigs need to be thought out SHS designed too
Click to expand...

I concede it isn't easy, but They built the Apollo program quicker than that.
I get we try and produce kit that is ahead of the game, but these 20 year development cycles will not work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#483
#483
NorthDallas40 said:
Having done it for a few decades it makes sense to me. It’s one thing to build a one or two off engineering prototype or technology demonstrator. It’s another ti make a design that lends itself easily to mass production. Additionally all of the product specific custom tooling and jigs need to be thought out SHS designed too
Click to expand...
Yea. Production is where the Russians are still stuck in 1991…

Yo @Rasputin_Vol



Lockheed is pushing 150+ off the line every year. Russia has SIX planes, total. Lolz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and NorthDallas40
#486
#486
Orangeburst said:
I concede it isn't easy, but They built the Apollo program quicker than that.
I get we try and produce kit that is ahead of the game, but these 20 year development cycles will not work.
Click to expand...
As silly as this sounds since we went to the moon with it the Apollo hardware was much simpler than the technology in a fifth Gen fighter.

Plus software was limited in its ability to torpedo a program since processor and memory were limited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#488
#488
NorthDallas40 said:
As silly as this sounds since we went to the moon with it the Apollo hardware was much simpler than the technology in a fifth Gen fighter.

Plus software was limited in its ability to torpedo a program since processor and memory were limited.
Click to expand...
Different era. Different priorities.

We were flying manned aircraft Mach 7 at 300,000 feet in the 1960’s lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#490
#490
Orangeburst said:
So last year the USAF was saying the engine industrial base could collapse without AETP.

Advanced aircraft engine industrial base could 'collapse' if tech doesn't transition: USAF official - Breaking Defense
Click to expand...

The most reasonable solution would be to simply dump the vertical takeoff version (F-35B) of the F-35. We keep learning and forgetting the lessons learned in trying to make one piece of hardware do everything. At best you get a jack of all trades and master of none, and just as often when carried to the extreme, one that does nothing well and fails more completely on others. You get the impression that if the military doesn't adapt the advanced technology engine for the F-35 then it's the equivalent of letting one minor variant drag the whole program into the abyss. In the long term what did the Harrier ever really bring to the game that would say we should resurrect the concept in a new platform anyway?

This seems to be another case of users of technology dictating to builders what should be built and failing to let the developers be a voice of reason. Another reason why I get back to saying the AF made a mistake years ago in making the AF Academy for pilots only. It's about trust and relationships, and separating the paths of people who need to work together disrupts commonality and even the language necessary to work together effectively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#491
#491
85SugarVol said:
The Navy should have built the carrier variant of the F-22 when it had the chance.

The stealth profile degradation due to the swept wings would not have even mattered today. Ah, hindsight…
Click to expand...

You may be right, but it wouldn't have been as good. The thrust to weight ratios get even worse when you have to "strengthen" the airplane to handle the structural effects of cat shots and carrier landings. It adds a huge amount of weight. Remember a friend of mine who was in 14's saying they would go out to play with the AF in their F-15s. The Tomcats would be huffin and puffin to get up to 50,000 feet and the 15s would come cruising in at 54k. Altitude superiority is still desirable in a dogfight. (It wasn't all due to the structural modifications, F-14 was 2 seater, that's another person plus another ejection seat, but there is still a big weight difference.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#492
#492
WBO said:
You may be right, but it wouldn't have been as good. The thrust to weight ratios get even worse when you have to "strengthen" the airplane to handle the structural effects of cat shots and carrier landings. It adds a huge amount of weight. Remember a friend of mine who was in 14's saying they would go out to play with the AF in their F-15s. The Tomcats would be huffin and puffin to get up to 50,000 feet and the 15s would come cruising in at 54k. Altitude superiority is still desirable in a dogfight. (It wasn't all due to the structural modifications, F-14 was 2 seater, that's another person plus another ejection seat, but there is still a big weight difference.)
Click to expand...
“Good” is subjective.

But yes, the AF’s F-35A is more nimble than the Navy’s F-35C. Same would have been true of a naval variant of the F-22.

But nimble is not what the Navy finds itself in need of. It’s range and speed.
 
#493
#493
85SugarVol said:
“Good” is subjective.

But yes, the AF’s F-35A is more nimble than the Navy’s F-35C. Same would have been true of a naval variant of the F-22.

But nimble is not what the Navy finds itself in need of. It’s range and speed.
Click to expand...

The Navy brass is stupid, dumber than the other 3 services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#496
#496
hog88 said:
The Navy brass is stupid, dumber than the other 3 services.
Click to expand...

Hog is just trying to get a rise out of me, must be porcine irritability due to the upcoming Easter holiday and its focus on ham.
 
#497
#497
Best military commercial ever, "The Shield" but it had one mistake when it says you have to get past us, it should have said through us. Only recently learned that Peter Berg made that commercial.

 
#499
#499
The F-35 Lightning's Vulnerability To Lightning Is Both Ironic And Unforgivable | ZeroHedge

That the F-35 Lightning II has been prohibited from flying anywhere near lightning is ironic. That the F-35 has been under development since 1994 and that the Pentagon “doesn’t have a path forward” to fix the F-35 is unforgivable.

That a plane that’s supposed to be the foundation of American air supremacy has an Achilles heel so easily exploitable is a glaring example of how our military procurement system wastes taxpayer dollars while failing to provide the weapon systems needed to meet our national security needs.

Yes, the F-35, the aging “wunder plane” that the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin have been assuring us for decades is just that one fix away from being ready for full-rate production, isn’t allowed to fly within 25 miles of a thunderstorm.
 
#500
#500
Lockheed Martin’s $1.7 trillion F-35 fighter jet is 10 years late and 80% over budget—and it could be one of the Pentagon’s biggest success stories

This might seem puzzling to anyone who follows the news. Almost since the F-35 program was announced in 2001, it has been the symbol of America’s dysfunctional military-industrial complex. The jet is 10 years behind schedule for final approval and almost 80% over budget, its production repeatedly stalled by defects and miscalculations. Last fall, comedian Bill Maher captured the conventional thinking about the fighter during a monologue on his HBO show. “We spent $1.5 trillion on the F-35, which has never worked, and never will, and yet we still buy it,” Maher declared, concluding, to peals of laughter, “It’s the Yugo of fighter jets.” Maher’s critique was a little off: The estimated cost of developing, building, and maintaining the F-35 fleet over its anticipated life span of about 60 years is actually $1.7 trillion.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top