Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There is not much of a threat out there now. Yeah the Russians have planes that can do all kinds of cool acrobatics and gymnastics, but they have to be going pretty slow to do that stuff, and slow mean death in air combat.

The giant problem with the f35 is that they are trying to shoehorn too much into one airframe. When you are pushing the envelope of performance, you really need to specialize, otherwise you end up with a Jack of all trades, ace of none product. Unfortunately the f35 doesn't even appear to be a Jack, but a very expensive piece of crap that can't even perform it's duties up to par wit it's predecessors.

The US have grounded all the F-35s' in service due to a cracked engine blade link here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21554331 man alive this plane must have some sort of curse on it.

I wonder if the one/s that Britain took delivery of recently will turn out to have the same fault?

It was a single aircraft that the fault was found in. It's not (as of yet) indicative of a fleet wide fault. Given the newness of the aircraft, and low number that we currently possess, 51, it's safest just to check them all to see if it is a wider issue.

This isn't really news.
It's standard practice in military aviation.
If an inspection turns up a serious (or potentially serious) fault, the fleet will usually be grounded until checks have been carried out.
I've seen this sort of thing many, many times over my career, on more than one airframe.

Yep just standard procedure.

Yeah, the entire F-15 fleet has been grounded twice in the last decade if I recall correctly.

At least twice.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123338521

The F-35 was recleared for flight 5 days after the crack was found in the test aircraft, with no other faults being found in the other aircraft.

What's wrong with the F-22? I thought that thing was better than anything else out there?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What's wrong with the F-22? I thought that thing was better than anything else out there?

It is, but it's a major pain in the ass when it comes to maintenance. The RAM (radar absorbant material) all over the aircraft causes serious difficulties from what I've heard from our flightline guys. There has also been issues with the oxygen feed, a lot of pilots have complained about that. It's believed to have killed one when he passed out and crashed into a mountain.

Has the F-35 actually conducted real-world air-to-air combat simulations against other planes? I read that it performed not-so-well on virtual and calculated combats, but were there any real tests yet? Wikipedia says it has not been cleared for actual real-world weapons tests yet, is that still the current situation?

I remember reading back in the 80s, when the hot new planes were the F15 and F16, that veteran pilots flying the F5 regularly shot the crap out of young pilots in the latest planes during combat flight trials. Performance is worth nothing without good pilots.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What's wrong with the F-22? I thought that thing was better than anything else out there?

Raptor Cough.

Also, "Not a pound for air-to-ground," design philosophy.

 Seaward wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What's wrong with the F-22? I thought that thing was better than anything else out there?

Raptor Cough.

Also, "Not a pound for air-to-ground," design philosophy.

Now this is a valid point against the F-22, pure air superiority is nigh useless in this day and age.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Now this is a valid point against the F-22, pure air superiority is nigh useless in this day and age.

Of course the real question you need to be asking is would it be cheaper to build a fighter-bomber version of the F-22 than building an entire second plane just to carry a small load of air to ground weapons. Given how poorly the F-35's "cheap alternative" concept seems to have worked I have a feeling the answer to that question is not a good one.

 Peregrine wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Now this is a valid point against the F-22, pure air superiority is nigh useless in this day and age.

Of course the real question you need to be asking is would it be cheaper to build a fighter-bomber version of the F-22 than building an entire second plane just to carry a small load of air to ground weapons. Given how poorly the F-35's "cheap alternative" concept seems to have worked I have a feeling the answer to that question is not a good one.

Possibly. We did it with the F-15. Took an Air Superiority Fighter, and turned it into a superb ground attack aircraft with the F-15E.

I imagine politics had a lot of play in this decision though.

The KC-46, our new tanker, the same questions could be asked. Instead of wasting these millions, possible billions, in that battle to determine the next tanker, why didn't we just get more KC-10's to replace the KC-135 fleet?

Did anyone post the article where they sent the first RAG guys directly to the F-35 squadron? The first nuggets to fly it without fleet experience in other aircraft. They didn't have a lot of nice things to say about the ergonomics of the airplane.

The biggest selling point of the F-35 for me is the passive optical sensor, which is a huge technological leap forward and a major advantage in combat, especially inside visual range. It is very rarely reported on though, I suppose due to secrecy.

The extra durability of the laminate RAM on the F-35 was also a nice touch. But in no way do either of those things justify the incredible price tag. PaK-FAs and J-20s are going to eat these things by the pound. Geeze, S-300 gargoyles will demolish these things, and practically every bad guy out there that can rub two coins together has at least a battallion of S-300s. It's stealthy... if you are an x-band emitter looking at it head on. Problem is, it's going to be employed offensively, so at some point you are going to fly into the country you are bombing and then expose your unstealthy rear aspect to SAMs. Then you're boned. Stupid.

LCS, DDG 1000, F-35, LPD-17, heads need to be freaking heads rolling in the Navy, because they haven't had a single acquisition program (outside the virginia class) that didn't turn out to be a disaster in about 20 years. I mean look at NWUs for christ sake. Someone just needs to walk into the admirals quarters in Norfolk and start blowing these career desk sailors away.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Did anyone post the article where they sent the first RAG guys directly to the F-35 squadron? The first nuggets to fly it without fleet experience in other aircraft. They didn't have a lot of nice things to say about the ergonomics of the airplane.

The biggest selling point of the F-35 for me is the passive optical sensor, which is a huge technological leap forward and a major advantage in combat, especially inside visual range. It is very rarely reported on though, I suppose due to secrecy.

The extra durability of the laminate RAM on the F-35 was also a nice touch. But in no way do either of those things justify the incredible price tag. PaK-FAs and J-20s are going to eat these things by the pound. Geeze, S-300 gargoyles will demolish these things, and practically every bad guy out there that can rub two coins together has at least a battallion of S-300s. It's stealthy... if you are an x-band emitter looking at it head on. Problem is, it's going to be employed offensively, so at some point you are going to fly into the country you are bombing and then expose your unstealthy rear aspect to SAMs. Then you're boned. Stupid.

LCS, DDG 1000, F-35, LPD-17, heads need to be freaking heads rolling in the Navy, because they haven't had a single acquisition program (outside the virginia class) that didn't turn out to be a disaster in about 20 years. I mean look at NWUs for christ sake. Someone just needs to walk into the admirals quarters in Norfolk and start blowing these career desk sailors away.

For the record the Gerald Ford class is going well t and that's a Navy program, and my mates serving aboard San Antonio class ships say those things are a dream Amphib platform. The F-35 is a complete clusterfeth but the Marine variant is working well enough. For the record, the J-20 is still vaporware and probably about as reliable as the new Iranian stealth fighter, the Chinese Aerospace program is lucky to be producing Gen 4 fighters and even that would have to be under license from Russia. The MV-22's a clusterfeth that turned into an advancement in capability and aviation that hasn't been properly recognized, I know several crew chiefs in the program and they love their birds more then their wives. (or husband in one case, I'm still livid I lost my slot in the Osprey program)

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:
Did anyone post the article where they sent the first RAG guys directly to the F-35 squadron? The first nuggets to fly it without fleet experience in other aircraft. They didn't have a lot of nice things to say about the ergonomics of the airplane.

The biggest selling point of the F-35 for me is the passive optical sensor, which is a huge technological leap forward and a major advantage in combat, especially inside visual range. It is very rarely reported on though, I suppose due to secrecy.

The extra durability of the laminate RAM on the F-35 was also a nice touch. But in no way do either of those things justify the incredible price tag. PaK-FAs and J-20s are going to eat these things by the pound. Geeze, S-300 gargoyles will demolish these things, and practically every bad guy out there that can rub two coins together has at least a battallion of S-300s. It's stealthy... if you are an x-band emitter looking at it head on. Problem is, it's going to be employed offensively, so at some point you are going to fly into the country you are bombing and then expose your unstealthy rear aspect to SAMs. Then you're boned. Stupid.

LCS, DDG 1000, F-35, LPD-17, heads need to be freaking heads rolling in the Navy, because they haven't had a single acquisition program (outside the virginia class) that didn't turn out to be a disaster in about 20 years. I mean look at NWUs for christ sake. Someone just needs to walk into the admirals quarters in Norfolk and start blowing these career desk sailors away.

For the record the Gerald Ford class is going well t and that's a Navy program, and my mates serving aboard San Antonio class ships say those things are a dream Amphib platform. The F-35 is a complete clusterfeth but the Marine variant is working well enough. For the record, the J-20 is still vaporware and probably about as reliable as the new Iranian stealth fighter, the Chinese Aerospace program is lucky to be producing Gen 4 fighters and even that would have to be under license from Russia. The MV-22's a clusterfeth that turned into an advancement in capability and aviation that hasn't been properly recognized, I know several crew chiefs in the program and they love their birds more then their wives. (or husband in one case, I'm still livid I lost my slot in the Osprey program)

The Gerald Ford is doing OK, not great, and it is useless against our only near peer competitor. With the DF-21C, the Chicoms can fry any CVN, even the Ford, if it gets within, well a distance that is further than an F-18 can fly even with a tanker hit thrown in. There is no defense against the DF-21C either- unless you truck an AEGIS BMD guy with SM3 to very close to the Chinese coast, where he will be promptly ventilated by ASCMs. What does your friend do? If he is a BM or an EN or a DC sailor, he won't be saying that. Sure they have racks you can sit up in, amazing. But titanium fire mains? Really? Someone thought that was a good idea? Oh and the whole random systems catch on fire because of substandard wiring problem. That and being built from the keel up to support the EFV which was then cancelled, rendering the entire ship kind of pointless. I can't agree that either of those programs are actually doing well. As I said, the only big ticket Navy program from the last 20 years that is doing pretty well is the Virginia Class. And that next-generation jammer, that too.

Marine variant is working well enough? Not accurate. The Marine variant has, if anything, considerably more maintenance and flight hour/ maintenance hour problems than the conventional F-35s. During the recent workups to put them in an operational squadron it took 109 hours to do an engine change out! 109! That's not man hours, that's the entire shop working to pull the engine. On a hornet they can pull and replace in 2 hours. Keep in mind the 109 hours were by lockheed guys, not marines that had never touched the engine before. Plus the marine variant has the minor problem of being completely and totally pointless. A stealthy VTOL? For CAS? What the hell sense does that make? The MANPADS and AAA used against CAS aircraft don't care about your limited x-band signature, since they are optically or thermally guided. Radar doesn't come into it at all. There is no reason for the marines to have a stealthy fighter- doctrinally it doesn't make sense. Think about how many Tucanos or old Mosquitos could have been completely updated and refitted for the cost of a single F-35. And they would be killing terrorists and keeping marines on the ground alive right now, as in today, not maybe 6 years from now, if then. It's not even a straight wing? How are you going to do CAS with a swept wing? SDBs? Please. I see the Cobra community getting a lot more business in the future, since it looks like the pointy nose guys have quit the sincere CAS game. I mean, what the hell is the point of this thing? To penetrate enemy airspace off an LHA? Because we were invading an advanced country and for some reason couldn't spare a real aircraft carrier? What? As I said anyway, taking away all the other numerous problems with this thing, it's SAM bait in the rear angle-- completely pointless. It will get marines, sailors, and airmen killed. No question.

To be somewhat fair to the Marines, though, the F-35 was an offer they couldn't refuse. It was either sign on or not acquire anything for, oh, forty years or so.

Hopefully this will bring an end to this sort of "joint" acquisition crap, but I doubt it. There are still plenty of people in Arlington who think a slow, fragile, flammable, under-armed single-engine strike fighter that doesn't have the range of a city bus is what we need to base our air power around.

I don't see why swept wings are an issue, Shockingly real pilots manage quiet nicely, with CAS being the primary role we (the Marine Corps) uses the Harrier jump jet and it's swept wings for. The stealth aspect and really the bird itself isn't our fault. We needed a new VTOL to replace the aging harrier fleet and we got handed this.

I've long felt the need for VTOLs is seriously overstated by you guys, and that Whiskeys - and, eventually one hopes, the Zulu Cobra - fill that role just fine.

The Zulu cobras (now named Vipers) do a great job of CAS, the new Hueys (Venoms) make nasty gunships as well (so glad we don't have Blackhawks), I'm not up on the MEU planning side of things, but having our own fast mover support, and more specifically the extra range and speed they bring to the fight, all lifting out of the same area, under the same planning and control team gives the MEU that much more flexibility and combat effectiveness so we don't have to rely on a carrier group if we're lucky enough to have one nearby.

Albeit we're getting roughly 300 nautical miles range out of both of them, the Harrier's (and eventually the F-35) going to be getting to where it needs to be and dropping ordnance on target that much faster.

That's actually one of the nice things about the 35 is it's increasing that combat range significantly, move at a double max speed to the harrier and carries twice the max payload.

Actual numbers: 169 nautical miles up, with up to 600 nmi up on external tanks. The max take off weight is literally double and max speed is just shy of double the Harrier's 662 mph.

It's also worth noting that the Viper's combat radius on internal fuel shrinks to 125 nmi with a 2,500 lb payload, and it's cruise speed is right around 180 mph. Fast, but if you're in the deep hurt and need help now... hard to compare to fast movers.

whoa whoa whoa! What do you have against blackhawks?

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
whoa whoa whoa! What do you have against blackhawks?

Nothing, I just don't want them on my flight line.

Real talk I see the Blackhawk as a very limited airframe and wouldn't want it for the Marine Corps. Also it has wheels, after doing a little time with a skid squadron, I find that highly offensive to both man, nature and "god".

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I don't see why swept wings are an issue, Shockingly real pilots manage quiet nicely, with CAS being the primary role we (the Marine Corps) uses the Harrier jump jet and it's swept wings for.

Its a question of CAS doctrine. There is a school of thought that there is a niche for a fixed wing CAS aircraft capable of long station times, and allowing for the delivery of ordinance that helicopters cannot effectively carry (think Skyraider, or Warthog). This is something the Harrier is clearly not capable of nor, really, is the F-35.

Honestly, I agree with Silverthorne in that the F-35 is a rather poor choice as a CAS aircraft. But, conversely, even an upgraded Tucano or Mosquito doesn't really fill that niche due to payload and range limitations. In an ideal situation the Marines would have been given the ability to issue a design call for a purpose built aircraft, but administrative politics being what they are that wasn't going to happen.

 dogma wrote:
Mosquito

The WWII bomber, or something else? Because if you're talking about the bomber, it certainly has my vote. Scrap the entire F-35 project and bring back the Mosquito!

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I don't see why swept wings are an issue, Shockingly real pilots manage quiet nicely, with CAS being the primary role we (the Marine Corps) uses the Harrier jump jet and it's swept wings for.

Honestly, I agree with Silverthorne in that the F-35 is a rather poor choice as a CAS aircraft. But, conversely, even an upgraded Tucano or Mosquito doesn't really fill that niche due to payload and range limitations. In an ideal situation the Marines would have been given the ability to issue a design call for a purpose built aircraft, but administrative politics being what they are that wasn't going to happen.

Yep. "One aircraft for all the branches! Derp!"

 Peregrine wrote:

The WWII bomber, or something else? Because if you're talking about the bomber, it certainly has my vote. Scrap the entire F-35 project and bring back the Mosquito!

It is the Texan II.