Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Saw this article. Just wanted to share. Can't help but ask why? I don't know a lot about the F-35, but it sounds like it's supposed to fulfill the attack role. Why an apparent lack of common sense with regards to the attack role? Why the mentality that a modern tactical plane must have as many "gee whiz" gizmos, and be as complicated as possible? Why not heed the KISS principle as exemplified in the A-4's and A-10's designs? Why the apparent fear to go with "brutish simplicity" like one finds in Russian attack birds? Why repeat situations like we had with the F-111's genesis?   

 

Based upon open source information, it sounds like the F-35 needs another Admiral's revolt like the F-111 had in order to get the F-14. I admit I haven't been following the F-35 closely, but it sounds like the military is once again trying to get a "one size fits all" plane and it's never worked as far as I know.

 

Just build updated A-10s and let that program morph into a replacement for attack / CAS. The root of the F-35's problems is cultural - not technical. Assuming they want to build a new attack jet, why the assumption it needs to be equally as sophisticated as the F-22? Why not emulate the A-10's capability - especially with the gun.

 

Please pardon my ignorance of the details and history of the F-35, but why the heck are folks insisting on replacing the A-10 with an apparently less capable plane? Ultimately, Marines and soldiers are going to suffer for the someone's short-sightedness. We might need A-10 capabilities again here real soon given Russia's behavior.

 

I'm just a civilian, but my Dad was a Marine pilot and this stuff ticks me off. At the rate things are going, they might as well go ahead and take the gun out of the F-35 to save weight for more gadgets that let you see through ground to the earth's core.(sarcasm).

 

This F-35 program sort of sounds like me wanting to use the Navy's new magnetic rail gun to hunt deer.

 

 

. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/15/first-version-of-f35s-wont-outdo-a10-in-battlefield-capabilities.html?ESRC=dod.nl

 

 

I just bugs me when it appears folks have lost sight of what we need. Instead, they adhere to the latest forces of conformity and orthodoxy.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a monument to bureaucracy.  Cost has more than doubled and the goddamn thing still doesn't fly.  I assume at some point, given enough trillions of dollars, it will enter service.

 

The pentagon insisted it must be a single platform that does everything, and what we have is a turd that will do everything worse than the planes it replaces. 

 

It's too heavy to be a vtol, doesn't have enough wing area to be a carrier bird, doesn't have enough load capacity to be a bomber, isn't maneuverable enough to be a fighter, and costs way more than the planes it replaces.

 

All the fuel trucks had to be painted white to keep the fuel from getting warm, cause it won't fly at all with warm fuel.

 

But it looks kinda cool I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wont matter when we go automatous. Even drone pilots will be a thing of the past.

 

Large planes will also likely be a thing of the past once drone swarming becomes viable.  Imagine 30 duck-sized jet powered drones surrounding a fighter while they self-destruct simultaneously.  Warfare in 50 years is going to be very strange.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if it's a quote or what but it goes something like this:

 

If collectivist actions make no sense short of insanity then the real purpose is not understood.

 

You think this was intended to fulfill it's stated mission?

 

Wrong purpose.

 

Apply this liberally 

bad_smile.gif

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The A-10 is old, simple,durable,reliable, and PROVEN.  The F35 is a money pit design and concept. 

 

Unfortunately the A-10 would also be costly to resurrect, because all of the specialized tooling and dies to produce it no longer exist. I'm sure the blueprints and docs to get a production line up and running still exist, but it's plainly obvious that nobody is interested in doing it. They already scrape the bottom of the barrel keeping existing airframes operational due to the lack of spare or new production parts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so lets modernize the A10, or build a new one that would cost a FRACTION of the F35?  The amount of money we  have thrown into the F35 is staggering and has only benefited lobbyist's and state politicians that WANT the planes/assemblies built in their states.  It is total BS how we go about funding projects for our Military.  The V22 Osprey...what a money pit.  Didn't have to cost half of what it did/does.  Thank you special interest groups.  Don't want to build it to specs and keep within budget?  Fine, buy from someone else.  Period. 

 

I sat on a board once with numerous Gunners and we were discussing the purchase, use and problems with the M4 being in the Marine Corps.  At the end of the discussion, with everyone's valuable input, the chrome chicken stood up and said, 'It doesn't matter, it is high speed/low drag, and the Commandant wants it.'

 

I give you the F35......

Link to post
Share on other sites

The A10 is awesome for it's role, but that role is limited.  The F35 was not intended to replace just the A10 but every fighter and ground attack airplane in the inventory.

 

It's a bigger tragedy to lose the Hornet, a better fighter than the F35, a better bomber than the F35, and a whole lot cheaper than the F35.  The only thing it doesn't do better than the F35 is VTOL, which the F35 sucks at anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had read about the pilots helmet awhile back and meant to post it but I forgot.

 

Supposedly it (the helmet) costs 400 thousand. Each. The plane is supposed to have multiple cameras on the underbelly and when the pilot looks down can actually see through the plane.

 

I agree from what I've read that the f35 fails to deliver. But that is pretty cool. Of course, my personal experience with air combat ends at, well, ace combat the video game. So I don't really know if that's practical for the money spent.

 

Also reading on Wikipedia they talk about how there are software issues and the plane currently has either 2 million or billion lines of code ( I can't remember, either way, that's a lot of code) and while we are willing to sell the plane to our allies, there is no plan to sell te code with it. Who the hell will want to buy that? And the price per unit climbs higher.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

We should go back to piston engine GA planes.  Most MANPADS type launchers are built to intercept jet aircraft by their heat plume.  A piston aircraft runs much cooler and most launchers can't lock on it!  Remember the guy that flew the Cesna 150 into the White House?  Secret Service couldn't get their Stinger missiles to lock on the engine heat and couldn't shoot him down.

 

Sometimes going backward is better than forward!

 

F35 = LHX x 10,000 = All the loiter time required with the firepower of the 2 .38's the pilots are wearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tartonic nailed, drones. Why spend lives on people who don't like us anyway.

 

If you thought a tomahawk was accurate, the drone could follow before it flies in the car window.

 

Come to think of it, why can't we upgrade a tomahawk to drone status?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We should go back to piston engine GA planes.  Most MANPADS type launchers are built to intercept jet aircraft by their heat plume.  A piston aircraft runs much cooler and most launchers can't lock on it!  Remember the guy that flew the Cesna 150 into the White House?  Secret Service couldn't get their Stinger missiles to lock on the engine heat and couldn't shoot him down.

 

Sometimes going backward is better than forward!

 

F35 = LHX x 10,000 = All the loiter time required with the firepower of the 2 .38's the pilots are wearing.

 

The Navy evaluated the Super Tucano for use in special recon assignments specifically because of this. I don't know any more than that, and it probably would never win a contract because not invented here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Cost has more than doubled and the goddamn thing still doesn't fly."

 

Really, I've seen it fly and I guess all those vids are CGI

 

 

 

 

"It's too heavy to be a vtol"

 

Only when fully loaded which is the same as the Harrier, which was another platform that was considered a debacle when it was first built.

 

 

 

 

"doesn't have enough wing area to be a carrier bird"

 

There is a carrier variant

 

 

 

 

'doesn't have enough load capacity to be a bomber" 

 

Total BS

 

 

 

 

"isn't maneuverable enough to be a fighter" 

 

Total BS

 

 

 

 

"and costs way more than the planes it replaces" 

 

You can not compare this Jet to legacy programs unless you consider the immense cost they require to keep them in service.

 

 

 

 

"Supposedly it (the helmet) costs 400 thousand. Each. The plane is supposed to have multiple cameras on the underbelly and when the pilot looks down can actually see through the plane. " 

 

Supposedly???? The cameras are all around it, not just on the belly

 

 

 

 

It's a bigger tragedy to lose the Hornet, a better fighter than the F35, a better bomber than the F35, and a whole lot cheaper than the F35.  The only thing it doesn't do better than the F35 is VTOL, which the F35 sucks at anyway." 

 

The F35 isn't even in it's infancy, it's still in the womb.  I'm working on the first Jets built so there is no way to compare it to a legacy AC yet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This AC is built for the next conventional large scale war that will probably be known as WW3 when it's over, drones and missiles have their purpose but they can never replace and AC flown by a pilot

Edited by Boba Debt
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay boba, calm down.

 

I don't know shit about this plane other then what is available to the "civilian" population. Ya know. The people paying for the damn thing.

 

I won't speak to the other comments. I don't know, and I can't defend them. That's up to them.

 

What I will say, in regards to what I said, is that the yahoo article only mentioned cameras on the underbelly and the cost if the helmet. I don't know shit about planes. If you do, please enlighten us. Didn't know about other cameras. How can I?

 

Say what you want. As a loose rule of thumb working in the construction industry for 15 years I learned a few things. Multitools suck. They purport themselves as being able to replace several tools but in actuallity just do the that job in a much more poor quality fashion while saying. " hey. I can do it!"

 

I abhor anything that says it can replace 3 of my tools and do the same job just as well

I've already realized the engineer is an idiot and should be designing mini golf arenas.

 

But hey. That's just me

Edited by fatty alcohol
Link to post
Share on other sites

The leatherman supertool is excellent, and always has been. Every tool on it is a good version of the type. i.e. the file cuts better than a nichols. The swiss army knives have a hundred unusable features. Multitools aren't all created equal. These threads are interesting, but i don't have a dogfighter in the fight. 

 

It seems to me from outside observation that the central idea between the F22 and F35 is having all the planes networked together sharing target and threat informaiton and responding automatically faster and better than any one plane or human could. They are built around the notion of only having a small fleet of high performance rigs that can be deployed to dominate a short term engagement. They are not designed to be able to be mass produced and win anything long term. The WWII notion of being able to crank out plane after plane and just out produce any enemy is not feasible with this model. They aren't designed for big wars, so much as absolutely trouncing in a skirmish against a less modern small time rival. -- people who know what they are talking about can correct me where I am wrong, but that is the pitch I remember. 

 

I don't know a lot about the planes but I do know that aluminum frames get weaker as they flex and have a finite service life. One way or another, the old planes are due for a replacement.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...