Can the F35 work in a Combat Air Support role?

Ren2k7

Captain Chaos wrote: »

No, the B2 the most expensive aircraft ever built and the F-22 is more expensive per aircraft than the F-35.

The F-35 is the most expensive aircraft weapons system development program ever though. A very, very different thing.

The USAF don't want to replace the A-10C but they have no choice if they want to afford the F-35. Another option they are looking at is withdrawing more F-16s early from service to keep some more A-10s around longer.

Actually the USAF has been eager to kill off the A-10 and have it replaced by the F35, an aircraft uniformly inferior in CAS to the A-10. The US Army and Congress though want it kept. There's just one problem, the A-10 is expensive as hell to maintain, which in the present climate of sequestration it's really not surprising the USAF is eager to move over to the F-35.

IrishTrajan

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Actually the USAF has been eager to kill off the A-10 and have it replaced by the F35, an aircraft uniformly inferior in CAS to the A-10. The US Army and Congress though want it kept. There's just one problem, the A-10 is expensive as hell to maintain, which in the present climate of sequestration it's really not surprising the USAF is eager to move over to the F-35.

The F35 can be equipped with GAU-22/A. It's more accurate than the A-10s GAU-8 but carries less rounds, but also has greater payload capacity (8100kg vs 7260 kg) with more accurate bombs/missiles, and a much greater combat radius. The F-35 is designed to fulfil multiple roles, the fact it can also be used for CAS to replace the A-10 means it can be used in theatre for a wide variety of purposes, hopefully reducing the logistic footprint required for sustained operations.

I like the A-10 but if you're going to make a multirole fighter, there's little point in having specific aircraft to add to the logistics burden.

Morpheus

An f35 cant loiter in support of troops for a couple of hours also it has pretty stubby wings which basically means its fast in a straight line but it turns like an oil tanker. I think they made a jack of all trades master of none. shame really. however saying that its going to be the mainstay of the us airforce and navy for the next 30 - 40 years replacing many other aircraft in the process. its going to be a money generator for aviation and military companies that support it which means jobs etc. no way will they shelve it now, the scales have tipped, the costs of not having it for next 30 - 40 years now outweigh the costs already burned in building it.

IrishTrajan

Morpheus wrote: »

An f35 cant loiter in support of troops for a couple of hours also it has pretty stubby wings which basically means its fast in a straight line but it turns like an oil tanker. I think they made a jack of all trades master of none. shame really. however saying that its going to be the mainstay of the us airforce and navy for the next 30 - 40 years replacing many other aircraft in the process. its going to be a money generator for aviation and military companies that support it which means jobs etc. no way will they shelve it now, the scales have tipped, the costs of not having it for next 30 - 40 years now outweigh the costs already burned in building it.

Not entirely true. The F35's engine is powerful enough to largely mitigate the effect of having a shorter wingspan than something such as the F18 (it has 5-6% more mass lift despite having a 15% shorter wingspan) and has an incredible HAoA. They did the classic American tactic: strip weight and put a big áss engine in it. On loiter time: the A-10 only carries 5000kg of fuel vs the F35s 8300kg of fuel (they have roughly the same loaded weight in CAS missions, the F35 is slightly heavier). I think the only real downside to having an F35 do CAS is that it has less rounds in its GAU-22 (but it is more accurate), no?

The fact the F35 can be used in theatre for many different missions (SEAD/DEAD, CAS, Air superiority) is probably a significant upside to the F35 replacing the A10, in that it would significantly reduce the logistical footprint.

beauf

They seem to make a big deal how easier the 35 is to maintain, vs old types too. I dunno if that has been true of the F22 skin issues aside.

BoJack Horseman

Morpheus wrote: »

the costs of not having it for next 30 - 40 years now outweigh the costs already burned in building it.

Indeed.... The costs of maintaining the F16 for the next 40 years is quadruple that of the F35.

As to the money 'burned'..... $60bn is a lot.
Where I a politician, I'd be more peeved at the length of development time rather than money spent.

IrishTrajan

beauf wrote: »

They seem to make a big deal how easier the 35 is to maintain, vs old types too. I dunno if that has been true of the F22 skin issues aside.

The F35s stealth skin is not as fragile as others, they have pretty much moulded it into the airframe, so only a direct hit could knock the panelling off.

Morpheus

Id warrant that the A10 is far more survivable than the F35 in the low and slow CAS role
also A10 carries over 1,174 rounds of 3mm vs the just about 220 rounds in the F35. Accuraccy isnt an issue if you carry 4 or 5 times the ammunition, but point taken.

F35 tactics will have to be high and fast CAS missions and will be COMPLETELY different to the low slow approach of the A10. We will have to wait and see if this works or not and we probably wont know until a grunt calls in a danger close mission, which most likely wont be until after the a10 is retired.

The f35 will rely heavily on its PGMs (Precision guided munitions), note standing safety range for PGMs (Precision guided munitions) the F35 will use is 200m vs 90m for the 30mm, as as the a10 primarily uses the 30mm surely this means potentially higher numbers of friendly fire incidents?

I would hope the USA sticks them in Type1000 storage long term (climate controlled hangers) like the F117s - Just in case!

Morpheus

started new thread to merge others

IrishTrajan

Morpheus wrote: »

Id warrant that the A10 is far more survivable than the F35 in the low and slow CAS role
also A10 carries over 1,174 rounds of 3mm vs the just about 220 rounds in the F35. Accuraccy isnt an issue if you carry 4 or 5 times the ammunition, but point taken.

F35 tactics will have to be high and fast CAS missions and will be COMPLETELY different to the low slow approach of the A10. We will have to wait and see if this works or not and we probably wont know until a grunt calls in a danger close mission, which most likely wont be until after the a10 is retired.

The f35 will rely heavily on its PGMs (Precision guided munitions), note standing safety range for PGMs (Precision guided munitions) the F35 will use is 200m vs 90m for the 30mm, as as the a10 primarily uses the 30mm surely this means potentially higher numbers of friendly fire incidents?

I would hope the USA sticks them in Type1000 storage long term (climate controlled hangers) like the F117s - Just in case!

Quite possibly, though the F35's infra-red systems are quite complex (it allows the pilot to "see through" the floor of the plane on his helmet display), which operates better at a height. They can provide CAS from higher up, so it isn't truly a necessity.

On the danger close, the F35 will also have small-diameter bombs (whose CEP is ~5 1/2 meters) but I agree, we'll just have to wait and see.

We also agree on the storage. They have enough Abrams just sitting around collecting rust and they're still building more, the least they could do is keep the old warthog around.

BoJack Horseman

Morpheus wrote: »

Id warrant that the A10 is far more survivable than the F35 in the low and slow CAS role

Of course!
The A-10 has titanium armour for peats sake!

F35 tactics will have to be high and fast CAS missions and will be COMPLETELY different to the low slow approach of the A10. We will have to wait and see if this works or not and we probably wont know until a grunt calls in a danger close mission, which most likely wont be until after the a10 is retired.

So its no different to to vast bulk of CAS missions which are not performed by an A-10

I would hope the USA sticks them in Type1000 storage long term (climate controlled hangers) like the F117s - Just in case!

I hope so too.
It would be a shame for them to end up in a boneyard.

helimachoptor

since i took an interest in all things military back in my younger years i've always been a fan of the hog.

In a lot of the books I've read, the guys on the line have huge love for it and a lot owe their lives to that gun shredding and intimidating the enemy.

Iirc a few months back some General was reassigned because he was so against the deprecation of the hog

BoJack Horseman

The US army have no fixed wing plane.

I think they should take it off the AF's hands & run it themselves.

IrishTrajan

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The US army have no fixed wing plane.

I think they should take it off the AF's hands & run it themselves.

Don't the US Army already have rotary wings for close air support?

Oafley Jones

I think the thread should be shortened to "Can the F35 actually work?"

Seems to be an absolute cluster**** of a programme between massive cost over runs and systems that simply don't work.

BoJack Horseman

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Don't the US Army already have rotary wings for close air support?

Indeed.

But if they had their own warthogs, they don't have to worry about the internal politics of the air force & its battles with congress.

But I'm sure the Army may baulk at the expense, even if they love the platform.

BoJack Horseman

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Seems to be an absolute cluster**** of a programme between massive cost over runs and systems that simply don't work.

Is that so?

The F35-A is superior to the F16 it replaces at a similar price tag .

The F35-B is much superior to the AV-8B Harrier that it replaces (though costs more).

The F35-C is the last to arrive on stream & will have the lowest procurement as it will only replace the older F18 C/D hornets for the foreseeable future.

Its cost a lot & its taken too long to develop, but it will leave its predecessors in the dust once complete.

IrishTrajan

Oafley Jones wrote: »

I think the thread should be shortened to "Can the F35 actually work?"

Seems to be an absolute cluster**** of a programme between massive cost over runs and systems that simply don't work.

Yes, yes it can. It has improved radar to the F22, it has incredibly thrust:weight ratio, it is second in stealth only to the F22, it is one of only 2 fifth-generation fighters that are likely to come into IOC before 2030, it's supposed to produce around 3000 units whilst costing less than 4.5th Gen competitors and out-gunning them in every measure.

Yes it has over runs and delays. That's the point of LRIP, to find the problems and fix them before you have to reach HRP. If they didn't find and fix problems, I'd be more worried.

The F35 is easily going to be the greatest aircraft for the next couple decades, until the sixth-gen is ready.

Oafley Jones

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Is that so?

The F35-A is superior to the F16 it replaces at a similar price tag .

The F35-B is much superior to the AV-8B Harrier that it replaces (though costs more).

The F35-C is the last to arrive on stream & will have the lowest procurement as IG will only replace the older f18 hornets for the foreseeable future.

Its cost a lot & its taken too long, but it will leave its predecessors in the dust once complete.

It's an absolute joke of an aircraft. It doesn't function on a most basic systems level. It's staggering how far from completion this plane is. They haven't even figured out basics like the fuel tank FFS. I feel bad for anyone who has to fly one. I've a feeling this will be the SA80 of the plane world. A product that never functioned correctly but was pushed through owing to political level. I've also a feeling this plane will kill piloted fighter aircraft. Why take the risk on a dodgy unreliable money pit when you can field cheaper and relatively disposable drones. Pretty though.

Edit to say similar price point as f16?!?! Seriously wtf. We're heading towards a cost on 1.5 trillion dollars on the f35.

IrishTrajan

Oafley Jones wrote: »

It's an absolute joke of an aircraft. It doesn't function on a most basic systems level. It's staggering how far from completion this plane is. They haven't even figured out basics like the fuel tank FFS. I feel bad for anyone who has to fly one. I've a feeling this will be the SA80 of the plane world. A product that never functioned correctly but was pushed through owing to political level. I've also a feeling this plane will kill piloted fighter aircraft. Why take the risk on a dodgy unreliable money pit when you can field cheaper and relatively disposable drones. Pretty though.

Yes they have.

"drones" Yeah, best of luck with air-to-air combat, or SEAD, or DEAD with a Reaper drone.

amen

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The US army have no fixed wing plane.

I think they should take it off the AF's hands & run it themselves.

Under the rules for the formation of the US Air Force, the army is prohibited from operating Fixed Wing Aircraft. If the Army was allowed to operate Fixed Wing Aircraft you now have a Fly Corps (like WWI, WWII) except that this time you also have an Airforce.

BoJack Horseman

Oafley Jones wrote: »

It's an absolute joke of an aircraft. It doesn't function on a most basic systems level.

It does though.
Both A & B variants seem to be testing well.... With every software block, new abilities are added (just like its predecessors)

It's staggering how far from completion this plane is.

I've said twice the development time is too long, but its also unprecedentedly complex using the most powerful fighter jet engine ever created.

Edit to say similar price point as f16?!?! Seriously wtf. We're heading towards a cost on 1.5 trillion dollars on the f35.

The development budget has ballooned to $60bn.

The full rate production price for the F35-A will be $85m.
Cheaper than the Typhoon/Raphael & similar to the new F-16 viper.
The F35-A will also be much much cheaper to maintain & be much superior throughout its lifespan vs the F16.

So yes.... Similar price.

Zambia

Its just cooler.

Oafley Jones

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The full rate production price for the F35-A will be $85m.
Cheaper than the Typhoon/Raphael & similar to the new F-16 viper.
The F35 will also be much much cheaper to maintain & be much superior throughout its lifespan vs the viper.

So yes.... Similar price.

Just on this point. Where are you getting these figures.

Honestly lads I'm kind of amazed reading your comments. Every new aircraft has issues, but the f35 has a litany of fundamental flaws. This type of **** puts pilots lives at risk and you're sounding like you're playing top trumps.

Captain Chaos

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Just on this point. Where are you getting these figures.

Honestly lads I'm kind of amazed reading your comments. Every new aircraft has issues, but the f35 has a litany of fundamental flaws. This type of **** puts pilots lives at risk and you're sounding like you're playing top trumps.

It's the most complex fighter weapons system ever designed. The amount of software code alone is staggering. It will have capabilities at IOC that no other fighter has or is planned to have.

Look how basic the F-16 stared out in life for it's spec at time compared to what it can do today as it's requirements changed.

The Rafale had only basic air to air abilities when it entered service, same with the Eurofighter. Neither could drop a bomb until years later.

IrishTrajan

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Just on this point. Where are you getting these figures.

Honestly lads I'm kind of amazed reading your comments. Every new aircraft has issues, but the f35 has a litany of fundamental flaws. This type of **** puts pilots lives at risk and you're sounding like you're playing top trumps.

Wrong, only 1 case of the F35 failing in the air (called a Class A Mishap) as opposed to 5 for the F-15 and 2 for the F22.

Oafley Jones

That's no excuse for the state of the programme or where it is today. This isn't building the SR-71 in the 60s. Which i'd argue was a relatively more much complex engineering project.

Oafley Jones

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Wrong, only 1 case of the F35 failing in the air (called a Class A Mishap) as opposed to 5 for the F-15 and 2 for the F22.

Are you for real? Was my point coming out of sun? And besides, How many hours have each of those planes logged. Also, again where did you get your costs.

Captain Chaos

If it was so easy to do then someone else would already be doing it. The fact no one else can or is even close speaks volumes.

IrishTrajan

Oafley Jones wrote: »

That's no excuse for the state of the programme or where it is today. This isn't building the SR-71 in the 60s. Which i'd argue was a relatively more much complex engineering project.

Have you been listening to Sprey's bullshít? Don't trust that senile old coot, every time he makes a claim, Lockheed come out with new press releases and shatter his claims to the point where all he is doing now is sitting on his ass saying "n-no stealth, n-no cup holders, i-its a lemon"

Oafley Jones

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Have you been listening to Sprey's bullshít? Don't trust that senile old coot, every time he makes a claim, Lockheed come out with new press releases and shatter his claims to the point where all he is doing now is sitting on his ass saying "n-no stealth, n-no cup holders, i-its a lemon"

Third time I've asked for where you're getting your numbers.

IrishTrajan

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Are you for real? Was my point coming out of sun? And besides, How many hours have each of those planes logged. Also, again where did you get your costs.

I think it was in the region of 8-10,000 flight hours (which would be roughly 80-100,000 maintenance hours).


https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-deal-targets-unit-cost-below-100-million
(first link is high rate, second is low rate)

An F-35A purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will be $85 million, which is the equivalent of $75 million in today’s dollars.

IrishTrajan

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Third time I've asked for where you're getting your numbers.

You know, you could just google them like a regular person...

Oafley Jones

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I think it was in the region of 8-10,000 flight hours (which would be roughly 80-100,000 maintenance hours).


https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-deal-targets-unit-cost-below-100-million
(first link is high rate, second is low rate)

How many flight hours have the F15s, F22s logged per your incident. You're helping prove my point here.

Your quoting Lockheed Martin as a source. Seriously. Not even the pentagon and their eternally optimistic and downright magically accounting aren't near that number.

BoJack Horseman

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Just on this point. Where are you getting these figures.

From the people who pay the bills.

Last November, a low-rate production (LRP) batch of F35-A went into production.... 29 units @ $94m each.

This week Congress closed a deal for materials procurement worth $920m for another LRP batch of 94 planes, across the 3 variants.....

The unit production price for the 'A' variant has gone from.$221m to $94m.
Once its fully in production of its 1200 or so units, the price is expected to drop to $85m Inc engines. (According to LM).

This type of **** puts pilots lives at risk and you're sounding like you're playing top trumps.

What in Christ's name are you on about??
I didn't know I was endangering lives.

Pilots died during the development of the F16.
No one has died during the replacement of its successor!

I'm flummoxed as to what the hell you are getting at?

IrishTrajan

Oafley Jones wrote: »

How many flight hours have the F15s, F22s logged per your incident. You're helping prove my point here.

You were complaining about the F35 being unsafe. I told you that it only experienced a single case of engine problems. You asked how many hours it flew, and I told you... Now you're saying that the F15s and F22s logged more (I don't even think they did log more, I don't have the hours on hand and I'm not googling and searching books for them when I haven't slept) before they crashed as if to nullify the fact that it took 8-10,000 hours to before they even have one Class A (and they've already solved it)? That's more hours than most combat aircraft have seen, what exactly are you complaining about?

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Your quoting Lockheed Martin as a source. Seriously. Not even the pentagon and their eternally optimistic and downright magically accounting aren't near that number.

Yes, I am. You quote Raytheon when talking about the Tomahawk, you quote the contrators when you're talking about ships being built... Why the bugger wouldn't you quote the people who build it when Congress has brought out the same figures?

BoJack Horseman

Captain Chaos wrote: »

The Rafale had only basic air to air abilities when it entered service, same with the Eurofighter. Neither could drop a bomb until years later.

And it should be noted, the Eurofighter took longer to develop & development costs were roughly the same as the F35.

the_syco

IrishTrajan wrote: »

"drones" Yeah, best of luck with air-to-air combat, or SEAD, or DEAD with a Reaper drone.

Who else is still able to do air-to-air combat against the "allies"?

The F35's software is poop. Pure re-pooped poop. Someone said it'll be more accurate than the A-10. When it's fixed, yeah, maybe. I think the lightening strike capability still has to be fixed as well.

And when it's all done, will it be actually ahead of the competition? I doubt it. Chinese hackers got a load of info, and it's feared any advantage the F35 will have, so too will the other jets have.

Lemming

the_syco wrote: »

The F35's software is poop. Pure re-pooped poop.

Whilst not a cheer-leader for the F35; I've got no dog in the fight, I find comments like the above irritating as someone who writes code for a living. Are you working on the F35 software? In which case expect a knock on your door from the NSA in 3 ... 2... 1...

Otherwise, you can't really comment on the state of the software. Like with all software. Everywhere. Ever; some of it will be good, some of it will be middling, and some not so good as all software has its weaknesses, contrived as those weaknesses may sometimes be.

BoJack Horseman

the_syco wrote: »

The F35's software is poop. Pure re-pooped poop

Its been the slowest part of the process.

Here's where they are at.... Pending a tonne of testing no doubt....

Block 1A/1B – Block 1 comprises 78 percent of the more than 8.3 million source lines of code required for the F-35’s full warfighting capability. Block 1A was the ready for training configuration while Block 1B provided initial multi-level security.
Block 2A – Block 2A is currently released to the F-35 fleet. It provides enhanced training including functionality for off-board fusion, initial data links, electronic attack and mission debrief. With Block 2A, nearly 86 percent of the required code for full warfighting capability is flying.
Block 2B – Block 2B provides initial warfighting capabilities, including but not limited to expanded data links, multi-ship fusion and initial live weapons. The U.S. Marines will declare IOC with Block 2B. With Block 2B, more than 87 percent of the required code for full warfighting capability is flying.
Block 3i – Block 3i provides the same tactical capabilities as Block 2B. The principal difference between 2B and 3i is the implementation of new hardware, specifically the updated Integrated Core Processor. The Air Force will declare IOC with Block 3i. With Block 3i, 89 percent of code required for full warfighting capability is flying.
Block 3F – Block 3F provides 100 percent of the software required for full warfighting capability, including but not limited to data link imagery, full weapons and embedded training. Mission Systems Block 3F software development is 98 percent complete.
Current Software Development Status

As of May 2015, 97.5% percent of the required F-35 software is currently flying and 99.9% percent of the required software has been coded. This equates to about 10,000 lines of code that remain to be written.

And when it's all done, will it be actually ahead of the competition? I doubt it. Chinese hackers got a load of info, and it's feared any advantage the F35 will have, so too will the other jets have.

Remains to be seen
Shenyang-31 is still very early in its development, we may not know for at least a decade.

And besides, that is no argument for not replacing the F16.

What chance has an F16 30 years from now?
The obvious answer is: zero chance.

Oafley Jones

IrishTrajan wrote: »

You were complaining about the F35 being unsafe. I told you that it only experienced a single case of engine problems. You asked how many hours it flew, and I told you... Now you're saying that the F15s and F22s logged more (I don't even think they did log more, I don't have the hours on hand and I'm not googling and searching books for them when I haven't slept) before they crashed as if to nullify the fact that it took 8-10,000 hours to before they even have one Class A (and they've already solved it)? That's more hours than most combat aircraft have seen, what exactly are you complaining about?

Talk about hand holding.... In missing my point you offered up a stat on class a failures. You favourably compared it to the F15 an F22. The F15 must be almost 40 years old at this stage. It's fought in wars. It's been produced on a huge scale. So again....

Number of aircraft produced multipled by hours flown divided by incident.

And you choose this to as comparison to an aircraft that's being handled with kid gloves.

Oafley Jones

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yes, I am. You quote Raytheon when talking about the Tomahawk, you quote the contrators when you're talking about ships being built... Why the bugger wouldn't you quote the people who build it when Congress has brought out the same figures?

Why wouldn't I listen to seanie on Anglo's level of exposure. Why wouldn't I listen to the Greeks on their financial situation. The answer to all these and your question is so amazingly obvious that this is where I leave this conversation. There's no level of response, no matter how charitable I was willing to be, that wouldn't get me a ban.

BoJack Horseman

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Why wouldn't I listen to seanie on Anglo's level of exposure. Why wouldn't I listen to the Greeks on their financial situation. The answer to all these and your question is so amazingly obvious that this is where I leave this conversation. There's no level of response, no matter how charitable I was willing to be, that wouldn't get me a ban.

Its OK to admit you have no info to back yourself, though proving a negative is always harder to do.

The costs of these planes is a matter of public record, the future prices are obviously a target.

It isn't a matter of trusting Lockheed or not.

IrishTrajan

the_syco wrote: »

Who else is still able to do air-to-air combat against the "allies"?

The F35's software is poop. Pure re-pooped poop. Someone said it'll be more accurate than the A-10. When it's fixed, yeah, maybe. I think the lightening strike capability still has to be fixed as well.

And when it's all done, will it be actually ahead of the competition? I doubt it. Chinese hackers got a load of info, and it's feared any advantage the F35 will have, so too will the other jets have.

No, actually. They did a test last year when an F35 was struck over 800 times by lightning and its systems were entirely unaffected.


Even if China does get the software, their metallurgical skill is not up to the challenge. They derided the F35 and F22 as failures and that stealth would never work... Then came out and said they were going to build a stealth fighter. Anyone with a lick of sense knows China's industrial skill simply isn't up to the US' standard. They can make stuff look like a 5th Gen fighter, but it's still not going to be up-to-par with the F35 or F22.

AbusesToilets

I'm laughing here at the comments stating that the F-35 will be capable of performing CAS to the standard of the aircraft it is replacing. This aircraft is going to be an albatross around the neck of the US and its allies for decades to come. It's design is so compromised in order to support the requirements for USMC STVOL version that is beyond salvaging. Horrible performance due to its single engine design, extremely high drag levels due to the space require to accommodate the vertical thrust components, poor internal capacity, terrible cockpit visibility, the list goes on and on.

In direct comparison to the A-10, it is extremely vulnerable to any damage as a result of efforts to reduce overall system weight. Read some of the articles on here writing about the debacle the program has been.

https://medium.com/search?q=f35

Here's one of the main designers and architects of the A-10 (and also the F-16) talking about the thought and consideration that was put into its creation. The whole series of interviews are pretty detailed in explaining exactly why the F-35 is garbage and one of the worst procurement blunders that the US has ever made.

IrishTrajan

We went so long without someone bringing up Sprey and his bullshít. You know what they said about the F16? That it would be an absolute failure and was useless, yet we now know it was/is a good aircraft. Sprey is doing the exact same thing to Lockheed that happened to him. Funnily enough, he's thrashing the F35 because it is replacing both of his aircraft: the A-10 and the F-16.

Lockheed was working with DARPA for years developing this jet before the competition was even announced. Look at any of the statistics for the F35 and compare them to other aircraft you want. Sprey's complaints are based upon the assumption that you need specialization of hardware which, in this day and age, is entirely naive. If I can get 1 plane to do all the missions, but you need 6, which of us is going to be able to put an effective fighting force in theatre in a short time? We both have €10 billion for the war. Who is going to be able to carry out more sorties, the guy who has the F35 (meaning fewer aircraft, fewer maintenance crews, less food/oil/ammunition consumption, lower transportation costs) or the person with a half dozen aircraft?

There's a reason why Russia and China are trying to copy the US' stealth capabilities, and that's because it works.

AbusesToilets

Well done completely ignoring all the points about the F-35 design flaws and performance failures. Saying that this plane is going to be capable of performing multiple missions well is staggeringly naive. I'm assuming you are familiar with the Rand report from a few years ago that simulated a conflict between the F-35 and the equivalent Russian fighters, where the F-35 force was wiped out in short order?

To claim that this plane will facilitate a reduction in maintenance time relative to other aircraft is hilarious. The A-10, which claims to be able to replace, can run multiple sorties per day, be hot loaded with fuel and ammo, can operate from dirt strips, and has some of the lowest maintenance down times of any operational aircraft. Compared to the F-35 which needs its specialised fuel truck so that it won't catch fire. I know which plane I want overhead when I call for CAS.

IrishTrajan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well done completely ignoring all the points about the F-35 design flaws and performance failures. Saying that this plane is going to be capable of performing multiple missions well is laughable. I'm assuming you are familiar with the Rand report from a few years ago that simulated a conflict between the F-35 and the equivalent Russian fighters, where the F-35 force was wiped out in short order?

You mean the one they said was not done accurately, redacted it, and then one of the people behind it then went to work for Boeing. That one?

Everything that is in development has flaws. That is the nature of development. However, they've been remedied and are working well.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

To claim that this plane will facilitate a reduction in maintenance time relative to other aircraft is hilarious. The A-10, which claims to be able to replace, can run multiple sorties per day, be hot loaded with fuel and ammo, can operate from dirt strips, and has some of the lowest maintenance down times of any operational aircraft. Compared to the F-35 which needs its specialised fuel truck so that it won't catch fire. I know which plane I want overhead when I call for CAS.

And it uses different parts, needs more people to run maintenance (increasing the logistics chain exponentially, as you have to bring people in theatre and increase the food/water/goods reaching them), consumes more fuel if you're using it in conjunction with other aircraft like the F-18Fs and air surveillance, and so on.

Nobody is saying the A-10 isn't good at what it does. It is good. But if you think keeping it around with F-16s or F-18s instead of making changes now (it will cost four times as much to keep F-16s in service than it will be to replace them with the F35) so that China or Russia can play catch-up, then I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.

The F-35 can perform a wide variety of missions, from CAS (it will actually be more accurate than the A-10 and F-18s), to A2A (superior to the F-18/F-16), to SEAD/DEAD of advanced air defences (once again, superior to the F-18/F-16: the Canadians have dropped the F35 procurement for the F18s because they said "we probably won't have to SEAD advanced air defences"). If you think Sprey, who has been proved wrong time and again by Lockheed, is doing anything other than trying to smear shít, then I don't know what to tell you.

AbusesToilets

The F-35 will be less effective at CAS than the A-10 because it cannot safely fly at lower altitudes due to its vulnerability to ground fire. All the guff about future battlespace being too dangerous for the A-10 ignores that those were the specific environments it was designed to fly in. You can't perform effective CAS from 10000ft, you have to get low and slow, which for the F-35 would be a death sentence. In addition, these high threat environments are exactly the same ones the Army plans on flying its helos in, which I doubt anybody could seriously claim to have greater survivability than the A-10.

I'd love to hear the evidence to support a claim that it is more accurate than the A-10, given they both utilize the same guidance tech for dropping ordinance. Trying to present the F-35's pathetic 25mm 150rd gun pod as equal to the A-10's cannon is some serious trolling. The F-35 can't even carry bombs yet and is waiting on development of miniaturised munition being designed around its limited internal capacity.

What criticisms are you disputing? Multiple sources have laid out the F-35's issues; the problems caused by the single engine design and large weight, the increased vulnerability to enemy fire, poor cockpit visibility, lack of speed and maneuverability, needing a huge amount of maintenance and requiring specialised fueling procedures. The massive, ever increasing expenditure on a multi-role platform that does none of the various roles better than the aircraft it's supposed to replace. Please elaborate.

BoJack Horseman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The F-35 will be less effective at CAS than the A-10 because it cannot safely fly at lower altitudes due to its vulnerability to ground fire.

Just as well the A-10 isn't going anywhere then.... So your point is irrelevant.

All the guff about future battlespace being too dangerous for the A-10 ignores that those were the specific environments it was designed to fly in.

I'm not sure.... In a peer-to-peer conflict, an A10 would probably come a cropper pretty quickly.
MANPADS are far more sophisticated now compared to those in the 80's. (See '9K333 Verba' now in full production in Russia).

does none of the various roles better than the aircraft it's supposed to replace

The people actually using it (and not those on the RT/Kremlin pay-roll) say otherwise.

The F35-A is proving superior to the F16 it replaces, with a few years to go before IOC.
(The F16 being another single engine aircraft... Which was fine though)

The F35-B is a massive leap ahead of the venerable old harrier it replaces.

The F35-C is replacing the F/A-18 Hornett, which went out of production 15 years ago, & will be pushing 40 years old when the F35-C is ready...... These old Hornets are relegated to mostly national guard duty & by all accounts, falling apart..... We don't know yet if the F35-C will be superior to its 40 year old predessor, but I hazard a guess that it will be, by some distance.

AbusesToilets

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Just as well the A-10 isn't going anywhere then.... So your point is irrelevant.


I'm not sure.... In a peer-to-peer conflict, an A10 would probably come a cropper pretty quickly.
MANPADS are far more sophisticated now compared to those in the 80's. (See '9K333 Verba' now in full production in Russia).



The people actually using it (and not those on the RT/Kremlin pay-roll) say otherwise.

The F35-A is proving superior to the F16 it replaces, with a few years to go before IOC.
(The F16 being another single engine aircraft... Which was fine though)

The F35-B is a massive leap ahead of the venerable old harrier it replaces.

The F35-C is replacing the F/A-18 Hornett, which went out of production 15 years ago, & will be pushing 40 years old when the F35-C is ready...... These old Hornets are relegated to mostly national guard duty & by all accounts, falling apart..... We don't know yet if the F35-C will be superior to its 40 year old predessor, but I hazard a guess that it will be, by some distance.

How is it proving to be a massive leap ahead of these aircraft when it has yet to even undergo more vigorous, combat level testing? It has amazing technology integrated into it certainly but so do many other planes. Which production block of the Hornet are you referring to btw? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/02/us-boeing-fighter-idUSBREA210NK20140302

To give you an example as to one area that it is lacking versus some of the planes it plans to replace, check out this article.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/is-the-f-35s-targeting-system-really-10-years-behind-cu-1676442535

In short, its sensor suite is outdated relative to the latest pods being deployed nowadays, it lacks a laser pointer and is unable to broadcast a ROVER feed to ground forces. These are all common and incredibly useful tools for aircraft performing CAS, and the only way that the F-35 is apt to acquire said capabilities is through external attachments, which is going to greatly diminish its stealth profile.

Many of the airframes slated to be replaced are older. They are also proven in combat, something that the F-35 is years away from achieving at present, if ever, given the issues it has. All that aside, economically, it is a disaster and legitimately represents a serious threat to the long term functioning of the US military.