F-35 "lighting II"?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Reynolds
Well, dont you love it when people are personally attacked?

Well guess what: That STOVL or whatever the hell YOU guys are calling it, bad maintenance. and yes, 15s and 16 have been asigned multi role... in the 15E Strike Eagle (Yes, it has a Wizzo) and the 16 Fighting Falcon, and i think it was Viper or something (Yes, again, it has a wizzo)

But lets attack each others ideas, not each other, shall we? Or do you find it too difficult not to degenerate into the mentality of a 3 year old?

Ummm again you are wrong.  The C, CJ, and CG variants of the F16 are all single seaters and they are all multirole.  But again we are talking about A/C that where designed 30 years ago.

[rogwar]

Originally posted by Reynolds
i predict that 2 years after the VTOL model enters service, all of the VTOL systems will either have been individually removed at the pilot/crew cheifs request, or have corroded beyond the ablility to function, and be sealed and locked.

 

Hey Guns,

Do pilots/crew chiefs get to individually make modifcations to an airframe?

[Reynolds]

Hmm, where did you make things personal?

"Yep, it's true, Reynolds spoke with authority and doing so established that he had none to speak with."


How about that? And, the USAF version is, as i remember it, cancelled. Now, since you have had a lot more experience with the aircraft, and therefore are more knowledgeable. And im not saying i want stealth, or that i hate fly by wire. I dont trust it ery much, because if it fails, you are screwed. I dont like the fact that the pilot cannot fly his aircraft without the aid of a computer. Okay, gunslinger, i learned something new. Ill say, i know next to nothing about the F-16. Im just saying, i dont like the implications of the F-35. Maintenance would be difficult, it has a nice big IR signature, and i dont like a bomber without a Wizzo. The tech. bugs, as far as those new systems are not appetizing either. And may i point out, i did not start this whole "JSF sucks" thing, i simply stated my reasons why i dont like it. And, these are MY thoughts. If i am incorrect, im sorry, but what i have stated is what i have known to be true.

[eagl]

I don't like the F-35 because it has all of the weaknesses of the F-16.  Single seat, single engine, small fuel capacity, small bomb load compared to better designs.  That's it in a nutshell.

It's supposed to replace the F-16, A-10, and F-15E, and the only one of those it will actually be able to replace is the F-16.  The F-16 was supposed to replace everything too, and in the end the only thing the F-16 replaced was itself because of the inevitable crashes from the single engine design.  

The F-15E is going to start to look cheap when we start wrecking F-35s and realize that things really haven't changed all that much since WWI and we STILL need a multi-engine multi-crew high threat deep strike aircraft.  

I pretty much agree with Reynolds on this one, with some of the same arguments.  I think the F-35 will make a GREAT F-16 replacement, but for some critical missions it takes 4 F-16s and a tanker to replace a single F-15E without a tanker, and neither the F-16 or F-35 can do night low altitude LGB deliveries or drop/guide the GBU-15/AGM-130.

[Squire]

I think you are judging the F-35 based on 1980s technology. Its true that "back in the day" you needed a 2nd seater WSO to do some of the bombing work, like the F-15E, Tornado, F-111, but those a/c are decades old.

With GPS technology in JDAMs and other "fire and forget" weapons you don't really need a backseater like you used to. F-18s and F-16s can fly poor weather bombing missions now where before they could not (or were certainly limited).

Also the software is orders of magnitude more capable, its like comparing a 286 system with DOS to a Pentium 4 with Win XP.

Heat signature. Hmm, dont buy that one, the F-22 has a large heat signature when flying at combat speeds, its not like you can dissipate the heat trail from a pair of 30,000 lb thrust engines. Its vulnerable to a heat seeking missile. Perhaps less? fine, but its not "IR invisible". Neither is the F-35, fine. Neither is anything the opposition might be making.

I do have a concern over the F-14 being retired, I think a larger, "Fleet Defender" interceptor might have been the way to go, that has a longer range and is capable of firing a longer ranged missile than the AIM 120 AMRAAM does, to protect the CVN Groups.

The current crop of fighters wont last forever, you DO have to replace them at some point, much as we may like the Harriers, F-16s, F-18s ect ect.

[eagl]

Squire,

The backseater is still required.  There is a basic mis-match between the speed of the human brain and the amount of information coming in, and at 500 knots and low altitude, the human brain can't keep up.  We still lose F-15Es even though the pilot's main job is not running into the ground, but it's a lowr rate than we lost F-16s when they were still trying to do the low altitude PGM missions.  One person just can't get it all done even with today's technology, but that's a lesson that the penny-pinchers and civilian decision makers who have never flown anything refuse to believe and the single seat mafia in the military refuse to admit.

[Reynolds]

I agree with all of you really. I just think as far as IR, with that huge exposed engine, at normal (non-supercruise) the JSF MUST have a significantly larger heat signature than the 22.

[Squire]

I do get your point Eagl, I do, but remember we arent talking about F-16s, we are talking about F-35s. We really dont know (cuz its highly classified) what its capable of doing safely. It could very well be able to fly low in poor weather and deliver ordnance safely. Certainly in the last 10 years strike a/c have come farther in that department, especially in the dev of precision weapons that makes the "bombing computers" in a/c like the F-15E not as big of an asset.

But hey, I have no idea, its not like Lockheed is phoning me with the info.

[Brenjen]

I think everyone is overlooking the reasons the U.S. is making the compromises in the first place (yes, I think they are aware of the A/C's shortcomings) It's all about the ability to make 1(one) basic airframe design & have multiple plants kicking out parts that can be used on almost all the A/C with the exception of the few unique parts on the VSTOL. That makes it cheaper not more expensive to maintain, it's all about cost, saving money.

 Fly by wire is an old concept, it did get a few pilots killed in the early F-16's because of design problems that were fixed after widows started filing lawsuits (I'm sure they would have fixed them anyway)

 But I agree it's a bad idea not to have specialized A/C like the A-10's etc. Because then all an enemy has to do is figure out a way to defeat one type of bird or design a weapon specifically to deal with that one type & they have all the services licked.

[Reynolds]

Originally posted by rogwar
Hey Guns,

Do pilots/crew chiefs get to individually make modifcations to an airframe?

If they complain enough, and start crashing, im sure someone higher up but not too high (ie: squadron commander or even carrier comander) will say "I know how you feel, go ahead, ill back you up on it"

[Squire]

A dedicated Close Air Support a/c I think is still needed, but I dont think the USAF ever liked the role. A cheap, high subsonic attack a/c like the A-7, A-6 or A-10 could be very usefull. I think politics, inter service rivalries and "sex appeal" of a/c sometimes still gets in the way.

Case in point the F-22. As remarkable figher as it probably is ( and expensive), look at the roles for the USAF in the last 15 years? 1991-2006. Mainly air-ground and supporting special forces troops, not shooting down enemy bombers at 30,000 feet. Im certainlt NOT suggesting you dont need a fighter (im not that drunk, yet), but it is an interesting observation, no?

The trouble with the A-10 was that it didnt go Mach 3 and look as good as an F-15, despite being perhaps the more usefull of the two for the less glamorous but more important job of flying in low and shooting up enemy ground forces for the grunts.

[Brenjen]

Reynolds
Senior Member

Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 114

Ill take under. Im 13, and he sounds more immature than me.


__________________
Behold!!! The flaming Messerschmitt!!! And since i have been asked why i love the 109 so much, this is why-

"The Bf 109 always brought to my mind the adjective "sinister". It has been suggested that it evinced charictoristics with the nation that conceived it, and to me it looked lethal from any angle, on the ground or in the air- once i had climbed into its claustrophobic cockpit it even felt lethal!" - Lt Cdr Eric 'Winkle' Brown, RAE Farnborough, 1944


  You guys might want to consider this post taken from general discussion, thirteen year olds are at that place in life. We've all been there, as long as "we're" fourteen or over that is.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by rogwar
Hey Guns,

Do pilots/crew chiefs get to individually make modifcations to an airframe?

Not when I was in the service they didnt. This isnt WWII where squadrons make field modifications to aircraft. There are technical orders (TO's) that HAVE to be followed to the letter.

In the F-15 (my favorite aircraft), the E model, you have a Wizzo to help out. Thats much more effective.

In the mid 80's the F-15A/B's that I was working on were tasked with an air to ground role as well as their air superiority role. I was loading bombs directly on the inboard pylons and on TER's (Triple Ejector Racks). The F-15A is a single seat fighter, the B is the trainer version of the A and has 2 seats. Point is, F-15's were carrying ordinance long before the F-15E's were ever in production. In fact, I was loading said ordinance while it was still being debated on whether or not we even needed the E model.

[Reynolds]

Originally posted by Brenjen
Reynolds
Senior Member

Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 114

Ill take under. Im 13, and he sounds more immature than me.


__________________
Behold!!! The flaming Messerschmitt!!! And since i have been asked why i love the 109 so much, this is why-

"The Bf 109 always brought to my mind the adjective "sinister". It has been suggested that it evinced charictoristics with the nation that conceived it, and to me it looked lethal from any angle, on the ground or in the air- once i had climbed into its claustrophobic cockpit it even felt lethal!" - Lt Cdr Eric 'Winkle' Brown, RAE Farnborough, 1944


  You guys might want to consider this post taken from general discussion, thirteen year olds are at that place in life. We've all been there, as long as "we're" fourteen or over that is.

Yes, well, my entire life does now and always has revolved around the military. I do know something of what im talking about, however i will say, those of you who have worked on them do know more than me. And yes, we do need a close air support A/C.

[AquaShrimp]

One large engine is more efficient than two medium engines.  Extra engines= extra weight, more fuel consumption, and less room for fuel.

Having two engines increases reliability, but just by a tiny margin.  When do most engines fail, level flight? No.  Engines fail when an aircraft is in unusual situations, take-off, extreme maneuvering, etc.  These are times when the remaining engine has the least chance of providing sufficient power to help the aircraft recover (ex: Mig29 airshow crashes, F-14 crashes).

There is one thing that adding a backseater really improves however.  That is reducing the chances of friendly fire.  The airforce had more friendly fire incidents than the Navy in the Serbian Air War in the late 90s.  This was attributed to Navy F-14s having two sets of eyes compared to the Airforces A-10s and F-16s one set.