The F-35 is still a massive clusterfeth

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.

**Peregrine**

dogma wrote:
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.

Sigh. So much for style.

**dogma**

Peregrine wrote:

Sigh. So much for style.

Don't feel too bad, De Havilland designed this...

...just before Hawker bought the company.

Cool plane, though.

**Seaward**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
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.

So it's got a larger radius than the F-35, then? /thread

**djones520**

Seaward wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
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.

So it's got a larger radius than the F-35, then? /thread

Radius is not the sole thing to take into account.

**Ninjacommando**

Isn't the development of stealth planes kind of pointless now with passive radar? I mean pretty much every nation has cellular towers and a constant signal is being emitted and when a stealth aircraft passes through these signals it blocks/alters it allowing the passive radar to track it's exact location.

Why don't we dump money into quicklaunch or railgun tech and just build large batteries of these weapons at home and allow us to shell any location on the planet or orbit? (As a bonus we could use both to move supplies into space at a fraction of current costs)

**djones520**

Ninjacommando wrote:
Isn't the development of stealth planes kind of pointless now with passive radar? I mean pretty much every nation has cellular towers and a constant signal is being emitted and when a stealth aircraft passes through these signals it blocks/alters it allowing the passive radar to track it's exact location.

Why don't we dump money into quicklaunch or railgun tech and just build large batteries of these weapons at home and allow us to shell any location on the planet or orbit? (As a bonus we could use both to move supplies into space at a fraction of current costs)

As far as I'm aware, knowing something is there because it creates a split second block of a cell tower signal is differant from being able to actively track it with weapon systems and knock it out of the sky.

I don't keep up to date with the latest technologies in weapon tracking, but I've never heard of anything like that.

Edit: The more I think about this, the more I realize it's impossible to work. Your passive system would require something on the receiving end to realize the signal has been blocked. Your trying to use this to determine something flying at 12,000 feet is there, and lock a weapon on it, and shoot it down. Well what is going to be on the other end of where that signal was supposed to be? It would be impossible to build that system as far as I can figure.

**KalashnikovMarine**

djones520 wrote:
Seaward wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
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.

So it's got a larger radius than the F-35, then? /thread

Radius is not the sole thing to take into account.

It's got a larger radius then the F-35... in some bizarre universe where 125 > 475

**Seaward**

djones520 wrote:
Radius is not the sole thing to take into account.

No, it isn't, and the F-35 has a larger radius, anyway. Not by all that much, though, all things considered. It was, in other words, a joke.

Sort of like how I mentioned your average city bus has more endurance earlier in the thread. Probably can go faster, too.

**KalashnikovMarine**

the F-35 has a range of 350 miles more on internals then the Viper, and if you go max range it beat s the Viper by 600 miles. That's a pretty significant distance.

**Seaward**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
the F-35 has a range of 350 miles more on internals then the Viper, and if you go max range it beat s the Viper by 600 miles. That's a pretty significant distance.

If you go max range, you might as well be using a Super Hornet, because it'll be just as stealthy as the F-35 with external tanks.

But, again, the joke is that the F-35 has a pretty pathetic range, and it's only likely to end up even smaller as they continue to need to cut weight. Or, you know, they'll just not fix that whole "likely to combust when hit with anything" problem.

**DAaddict**

The whole problem is building the bleeding edge tech and then saying we want to do it all...

If we assume just 2x the cost for each element:
com
Stealth
VTOL
Performance for Air Superiority
Payload (with Stealth) for Ground Attack
Range so that it has a decent threat radius

We now combined all of that, and we have at least 5 levels... 2,4,8,16,32 and then factor in sticker shock and reduced building... so 64... now we assume a base line of 10 mill for a plane and our super-everything plane is going to cost us 640 million each.

So the question in the real world - assuming you have a limited budget - are we better fielding 12 F## fighters at a price tag of 7.7 billion or say dropping VTOL and Payload from one and Performance and Stealth from another... for the same 7.7 billion fielding 24 Fxx fighters and 24 Axx bombers...

I know this is simplistic but it seems the US penchant for bleeding edge and multi-role design could end up costing us.

9

**KalashnikovMarine**

Yeah actually that's a very good point, it's not a stealthy CAS/Ground attack bird that's the problem. It's that it's a stealthy ground attack/CAS/air superiority fighter/cuisinart bird.

**chaos0xomega**

Silverthorne wrote:
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.

Silverthorne,

I whole-heartedly agree with ever word you've posted, but I have one point to make: To a Marine, any acquisition program that nets them something new, or something that might be moderately useful to them, is "going well" ;P

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. 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.

And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...

Anyway, there was a quote a few years back, I believe by a Marine General actually that was to the effect of "In the future, fighter aircraft are going to be so expensive that we will have one plane for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. It will spend half the year with the Air Force on the East Coast, half the year with the Navy on the West Coast, and one day every leap year with the Marines flying from one side of the country to the other."

**Rented Tritium**

I really like "cuisinart bird" as a term.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Marine Corps Acquisition Program: Robbing armories or vehicle depots belonging to one of the other services.

**Kilkrazy**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yeah actually that's a very good point, it's not a stealthy CAS/Ground attack bird that's the problem. It's that it's a stealthy ground attack/CAS/air superiority fighter/cuisinart bird.

This takes me back to the flying tank controversy of the 80s.

I should think that a big carrier can carry several squadrons of planes which are specialist in different areas -- air superiority, penetration and strike, ground support, etc (there may be some overlap). Wouldn't that be better than one plane which is fairly good at lots of things but basically a compromise?

**KalashnikovMarine**

chaos0xomega 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. 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.

And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...

And yet in reality nine times out of ten in our regular operations (past a major war/joint deployment like OIF/OEF) we're more likely to be able to call Santa Clause for direct support then the Airforce and we haven't figured out a way to get A-10s on carriers yet... or steal enough A-10s to put some squadrons together for that matter. So we bring the most effective CAS we can with us. If we can get the 'Hogs? Groovy, the Devil's Cross is sexier then most playboy playmates otherwise as long as ANGLICO's getting a response when they pick up the phone for aerial delivery of hurt no one gives a good goddamn what that support looks like.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yeah actually that's a very good point, it's not a stealthy CAS/Ground attack bird that's the problem. It's that it's a stealthy ground attack/CAS/air superiority fighter/cuisinart bird.

This takes me back to the flying tank controversy of the 80s.

I should think that a big carrier can carry several squadrons of planes which are specialist in different areas -- air superiority, penetration and strike, ground support, etc (there may be some overlap). Wouldn't that be better than one plane which is fairly good at lots of things but basically a compromise?

Well when it comes to full size Naval carriers that's how we did things up till around the 90s... the MEUs on the other hand have a little less room to work with, but still manage a wide variety of helos, with harriers and now F-35s for spice.

**chaos0xomega**

Rented Tritium wrote:
I really like "cuisinart bird" as a term.

This. Need to push that into common usage...

I should think that a big carrier can carry several squadrons of planes which are specialist in different areas -- air superiority, penetration and strike, ground support, etc (there may be some overlap). Wouldn't that be better than one plane which is fairly good at lots of things but basically a compromise?

There is some room for effective/efficient overlap, one airframe being suitable to several uses... but trying to shoehorn an air superiority airframe into a close air support role shouldn't be done, the qualities that make for a good CAS platform make for a gakky air superiority fighter, and vice versa. Mind you, that doesn't necessarily mean that an aircraft shouldn't have the capability for role conversion (switch out its sensors, weapon hardpoints, etc.) to be used for something other than their intended in the event of a serious clusterfeth situation where you need to fill a serious capability gap NOW, but it should never be considered a serious substitute. Thats one of the things that the aircraft industry (or maybe just the Pentagon) seems to have not yet learned by the way, the avionics are separate from the air frame.... I've heard it argued that we need to keep funding the F-35 for reasons such as its AESA radar or helet HUD, because its so awesome and advanced and has all these awesome capabilites, etc. etc. etc.... well, none of those things are exclusive to the F-35, those are electronics systems that can theoretically function in any airframe (though some modification might be required). No reason why we can't axe the plane and still keep what goes into the plane...

And yet in reality nine times out of ten in our regular operations (past a major war/joint deployment like OIF/OEF) we're more likely to be able to call Santa Clause for direct support then the Airforce and we haven't figured out a way to get A-10s on carriers yet... or steal enough A-10s to put some squadrons together for that matter. So we bring the most effective CAS we can with us. If we can get the 'Hogs? Groovy, the Devil's Cross is sexier then most playboy playmates otherwise as long as ANGLICO's getting a response when they pick up the phone for aerial delivery of hurt no one gives a good goddamn what that support looks like.

Have we had a deployment in the past few decades where the Air Force wasn't there in some capacity already? We already have A-10s positioned in Europe and South Korea, and if need be the Air Force has demonstrated its ability to make absurdly long flights to anywhere in the world within 17 hours of a major crisis... in fact the Air Force has a faster response time than the Marines or Navy does in that regard.

As for "no one gives a good goddamn what the support looks like", well.. I wish that was true yet oddly enough I've heard more than a fair few stories of people bitching because they had one platform providing CAS instead of another.

**Rented Tritium**

chaos0xomega wrote:

And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...

The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.

**chaos0xomega**

Rented Tritium wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...

The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.

Sad but true... they want to replace the A-10 with the F-35 though... such a HUGE step down in capability. Apparently at some point last year the Air Force determined that the F-35B (which it was considering replacing the A-10 with) couldn't come anywhere close to generating the same number of sorties as an A-10, so they are (for now) sticking with the F-35A as a replacement...

I actually think the F-35B would be a good thing for the Air Force, for doctrinal reasons rather than for actual utility.

**Ratbarf**

Rented Tritium wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...

The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.

Why don't they just do a second production run? You know, like sane people do.

**Rented Tritium**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...

The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.

Sad but true... they want to replace the A-10 with the F-35 though... such a HUGE step down in capability. Apparently at some point last year the Air Force determined that the F-35B (which it was considering replacing the A-10 with) couldn't come anywhere close to generating the same number of sorties as an A-10, so they are (for now) sticking with the F-35A as a replacement...

I actually think the F-35B would be a good thing for the Air Force, for doctrinal reasons rather than for actual utility.

Yeah there really isn't anything that comes close YET, but it's important that they keep trying so we don't end up with our pants down.

**chaos0xomega**

Ratbarf wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...

The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.

Why don't they just do a second production run? You know, like sane people do.

Fairchild Republic went out of business and was bought up by other companies... I'm not sure who would have production rights to the airframe anymore... in the 90s the company was acquired by ze Germans, and then was sold to the Israelis at a later date, the original production facilities in the US have been shut down AFAIK. I would love for their to be a second production run of an updated design. Some people have thrown around the idea of building a variant with a downgraded main cannon (BLASPHEMY!) that fired smaller rounds, since the large milk jugs they currently fire are better suited to hunting tanks and vehicles and are really overpriced for taking out Joe Towelhead and/or infantry. Also there was a proposed 2-seat variant which might be useful too...

Rented Tritium wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...

The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.

Sad but true... they want to replace the A-10 with the F-35 though... such a HUGE step down in capability. Apparently at some point last year the Air Force determined that the F-35B (which it was considering replacing the A-10 with) couldn't come anywhere close to generating the same number of sorties as an A-10, so they are (for now) sticking with the F-35A as a replacement...

I actually think the F-35B would be a good thing for the Air Force, for doctrinal reasons rather than for actual utility.

Yeah there really isn't anything that comes close YET, but it's important that they keep trying so we don't end up with our pants down.

Unfortunately the Brasses idea of trying is the F-35...

**Rented Tritium**

Ratbarf wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...

The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.

Why don't they just do a second production run? You know, like sane people do.

I've heard an explanation of this from a defense analyst and I didn't understand a word of it. Airplane production is weird and apparently there is a reason why this can't happen. I am not the one to ask.

**KalashnikovMarine**

chaos0xomega wrote:

And yet in reality nine times out of ten in our regular operations (past a major war/joint deployment like OIF/OEF) we're more likely to be able to call Santa Clause for direct support then the Airforce and we haven't figured out a way to get A-10s on carriers yet... or steal enough A-10s to put some squadrons together for that matter. So we bring the most effective CAS we can with us. If we can get the 'Hogs? Groovy, the Devil's Cross is sexier then most playboy playmates otherwise as long as ANGLICO's getting a response when they pick up the phone for aerial delivery of hurt no one gives a good goddamn what that support looks like.

Have we had a deployment in the past few decades where the Air Force wasn't there in some capacity already? We already have A-10s positioned in Europe and South Korea, and if need be the Air Force has demonstrated its ability to make absurdly long flights to anywhere in the world within 17 hours of a major crisis... in fact the Air Force has a faster response time than the Marines or Navy does in that regard.

As for "no one gives a good goddamn what the support looks like", well.. I wish that was true yet oddly enough I've heard more than a fair few stories of people bitching because they had one platform providing CAS instead of another.

Pretty much every MEU we go on, otherwise why bother bringing our own air assets? I'd also like to see the Airforce get assets for something besides an airstrike into place in that time frame. Meanwhile the Marine Corps can drop a battalion on the shore in question within 24 hours for most things.

**Peregrine**

Rented Tritium wrote:
Why don't they just do a second production run? You know, like sane people do.

I've heard an explanation of this from a defense analyst and I didn't understand a word of it. Airplane production is weird and apparently there is a reason why this can't happen. I am not the one to ask.

Because the factory no longer exists. The company is gone, the experienced workers (who know all the minor things you had to change from the blueprints to make it all work properly) are gone, the factory hardware (which you need to efficiently assemble a plane) is gone, many of the component parts are gone (for example, good luck finding sufficient quantities of some random obsolete computer chip that hasn't been produced in decades), etc. In theory you could overcome these obstacles and get the A-10 back into production, but you're going to be spending almost as much time and effort as creating a new, similar, plane from scratch and you won't get all the benefits of things like modern electronics.

**marv335**

Let's not forget all the tooling jigs you need to make the basic airframe components and fit them together.

**Kilkrazy**

You would at least start with a full set of engineering plans and the knowledge that the plane was combat proved.

Surely with all the difficulties, it would still be cheaper to build more A10s, substituting modern avionics and engines where required, than to make a completely new design.

**Rented Tritium**

Kilkrazy wrote:
substituting modern avionics and engines where required,

I am not sure this is an easy thing. Once you start swapping things, you start to find places where certain entire design concepts were used specifically to accommodate the thing you just swapped out. So now you have to swap those out, etc etc and next thing you know, you just have an extra expensive totally different plane.

I mean, I've had times where a warhammer list unraveled and had to be completely redesigned because I swapped 2 things and this is an entire AIRCRAFT.

**Frazzled**

Yes but a warhammer list is COMPLEX!