Why USAF, USN, USMC and others want this F-35?

[Ack-Ack]

And it is still not capable of arrested landing due to critical design issues in the tailhook.

That issue has been resolved when Lockheed redesigned the tailhook.

ack-ack

[artik]

Show me one pilot that has flown the F-35 that has any concerns or complaints. You can't because they all praise it. I've personally spoken with two of them and listened to their lecture of the F-35, and they're both veteran F-16 drivers.

Ok: http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf

Enjoy reading 

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

We all know this happens. The question is sorting out legitimate need and public good versus crony capitalism. I see the F-22 and F-35 as the latter. We'd be so much better off buying upgraded versions of the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

Im sorry but one air mans life is not worth his wife, children family or friends crying over his or her loss because some suit wearing smuck can save a buck.

Money is no option. My nations already trillions in debt, what do i care if some of that go's to making our people safer while in combat.

[Ardy123]

hahahha..... sorry, this conversation is too stupid....

Seriously, you guys are arguing about what horse drawn carriage is better in a world on the brink of being dominated by model Ts...

[GScholz]

Ok: http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf

Enjoy reading 

I read that back in February. You obviously do not understand what it says if you think it is criticism of the F-35, and it doesn't say anything about pilots not liking it. It is just a normal report of the early stage of testing pointing out what works, doesn't work and recommendations for what needs to be done.  Are you seriously suggesting an early test report represents the finished product?

The very first recommendation from that report:

"Given its many significant limitations, the results of the OUE should not be used to make decisions regarding the readiness of the JSF system..."

Again Artik, why are you biased against the F-35?

[artik]

I'm not biased.

It would be good strike aircraft to handle SAMs in first wave of attack, it would be excellent STOVL aircraft. It would be good aircraft for performing hidden strikes at night and escape.

And I understand that for example having a small squadron of such specialized forces for IAF would be a good improvement for some new threats.

However I'm looking on a simple numbers and it looks inferior. I'm looking at the design decisions - and it is super over-complicated with many risk factors that finally would make it hard:

1. Its performance in terms of T/W, maneuverability is inferior, it is build in ~60th early 70th standards... You can't deny it, these are numbers.
2. It has one engine - how many F-16 were lost due to engine failure? How many F-15? So basically it is very pricey, it is maintenance is costly and its reliability is low.
3. It used unproved technologies. Small example, lets get rid of HUD and use helmet... So if you have a problem in helmet (any mulfunction) you can't aim because you don't have HUD!
4. Lets use internal fuel only... OMG even F-22 has external tanks (F-35 hasn't them yet) which makes the range very short.
5. Lets make it CTOL, STOVL, CATOBAR, I don't believe that it can be done without sacrifices

What can I say? It does not seems to me as F-16/F-18 replacement as it costs much more and besides stealth it gives much less: less weapons, less range, less maneuverability, less acceleration. That's it.

[bj229r]

There's a more broad reason why the F-35 will never be a success---its existence is owed solely to politicians, for political reasons, not ones layed out on a drawing table

[GScholz]

1. Its performance in terms of T/W, maneuverability is inferior, it is build in ~60th early 70th standards... You can't deny it, these are numbers.

What are the numbers and where did you get them?

2. It has one engine - how many F-16 were lost due to engine failure? How many F-15? So basically it is very pricey, it is maintenance is costly and its reliability is low.

In the '80s we lost a number of F-16's to all sorts of problems. The last time we lost one was in 2002. Engines today are a lot more reliable than back in the '70s and '80s.

3. It used unproved technologies. Small example, lets get rid of HUD and use helmet... So if you have a problem in helmet (any mulfunction) you can't aim because you don't have HUD!

For how many years have we flown with just a HUD, and no back up? If the HUD fails you can't aim because you don't have HUD! OmG!!1 OMG!!!11!!1!

4. Lets use internal fuel only... OMG even F-22 has external tanks (F-35 hasn't them yet) which makes the range very short.

F-35 "hasn't" a lot of things at the moment, because it IS STILL BEING DEVELOPED!  On only internal fuel the F-35 already has more range than the F-16 with all its drop tanks, but still the F-35 will get drop tanks eventually.

Here they are wind tunnel testing the new tank design:

5. Lets make it CTOL, STOVL, CATOBAR, I don't believe that it can be done without sacrifices

The three versions are hardly the same plane. They share components and systems.

What can I say? It does not seems to me as F-16/F-18 replacement as it costs much more and besides stealth it gives much less: less weapons, less range, less maneuverability, less acceleration. That's it.

I wonder where you get your information? The F-35 has more range on internal fuel than both the F-16 and F-18 with drop tanks. By using external pylons the F-35A/C can carry more weapons than the F-16 and F-18. With an equal amount of fuel and stores the F-35 is equal or more maneuverable than the F-16 and F-18, and has better acceleration.


As for the bad press and who's pushing it, lobbying it, pulling strings wherever it can, here's a conspiracy theory for you:

Lockheed Martin is today the world's largest military defense contractor thanks to the F-22 and F-35. What company used to be the largest?

What company produces and sells the F-18?

What company produces and sells the AV-8?

What company produces and sells the F-15?

What company was in direct competition for the JSF contract and lost to Lockheed Martin?

What company stands to benefit hugely if the F-35 fails?

All those questions have the same answer.

[Rich46yo]

There's a more broad reason why the F-35 will never be a success---its existence is owed solely to politicians, for political reasons, not ones layed out on a drawing table

WTF does that mean?

[nrshida]

5. Lets make it CTOL, STOVL, CATOBAR, I don't believe that it can be done without sacrifices

 

[CAP1]

The F-35 is turning to be a white elephant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant)

 i said this back when it first became public.

[artik]

What are the numbers and where did you get them?

Seriously... they were posted at the beginning of the thread!

In the '80s we lost a number of F-16's to all sorts of problems. The last time we lost one was in 2002. Engines today are a lot more reliable than back in the '70s and '80s.

You have been talking   ... Today, after I had written about reliability of the single engine fighter:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4401944,00.html

Latest, modern F-16I lost due to engine failure. Fortunately both pilot and WSO are fine.

Or what would happen to F-35 in this case: http://www.idf.il/1283-13467-en/Dover.aspx
F-15 landed with one engine stopped and on fire after a birds strike

So don't try sell this kind of stuff

Single engine fighters lost much more than double engine ones - it is fact.

For how many years have we flown with just a HUD, and no back up? If the HUD fails you can't aim because you don't have HUD! OmG!!1 OMG!!!11!!1!

Difference? How fragile is helmet and how fragile is HUD that is firmly connected to the airframe?

On only internal fuel the F-35 already has more range than the F-16 with all its drop tanks,

And were did you get these numbers from? Maybe more than F-16 with internal fuel  

For example,

F-35 ferry range 1,200 nmi
F-16 ferry range 2,280 nmi

Ok, lets take an operational example Opera, distance from Eilat to Baghdad is 610. So twice it is 1220 not including combat requirements and not including the fact that the flight wasn't in straight direction.

F-16A with 3 drop tanks and 4,000 lbs of bombs covered  it in one direction on the deck, which is far from efficient flight mode and than back at altitude and than back.... F-35 would be lying somewhere in the dessert (until stealthy tanker would be developed in 2050)

Now modern F-16s have CFTs which make their range even better... So no, F-35 does not have good range at all.

Don't believe my numbers, read this: http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:193f1ee3-bac2-4a8d-b0b0-c42c84351a6a

The three versions are hardly the same plane. They share components and systems.

Except they are almost indistinguishable for incompetent eye, they

Also this picture show shared components of different air frames... Not the aircraft in general!

Why wouldn't navy adopt F-15E? How hard would it be to make a stronger gear and stronger tailhook?
And F-15E has much better performance that F-18. Why wouldn't havy use the cheap F-16 - just
change the design a little. Why wouldn't USAF use F-18 and F-14?

Stop selling the LM PR stories

Lockheed Martin is today the world's largest military defense contractor thanks to the F-22 and F-35.

How many LM F-22 had been produced: ~200
How many LM F-35 had been produced: ~63

How many MD F-18 had been produced: ~1,500
How many MD F-18E had been produced: ~500
How many MD F-15 had been produced: ~1,200
How many MD F-15E had been produced: ~330
How many GD F-16 had been produced: ~4,500  (GD was purchased by LM but they didn't develop it)

So who is the largest military defense contractor? Ohhh maybe LM indeed... by the COST to the customer  

[bj229r]

WTF does that mean?

The primary, driving force is that it's a frikkin UN project, meaning that pointy-headed types' opinions will always take a backseat to what the pols want

[Rich46yo]

The primary, driving force is that it's a frikkin UN project, meaning that pointy-headed types' opinions will always take a backseat to what the pols want

 


Nieuport - 1 engine
Spad - 1 engine
Mustang - 1 engine
Jug - 1 engine
Saber - 1 engine
Crusader -1 engine
Super Saber - 1 engine
MiG-21 - 1 engine
Starfighter - 1 engine
Thud - 1 engine
Dart - 1 engine
Viper -1 engine (but two OEMs?)
Mirage - 1 engine
Gripen - 1 engine
Jianji-10 - 1 engine

There were issues with the original PW-100 engine on both the F16 and F15 fighters but the contract for new engine was then split between GE and PW resulting in the GE-F110, and then later, PW-F100-229. The reliability of the F16s single engine was improved dramatically resulting in a manufacturing/export bonanza for the most popular fighter now flying. In fact "reliability" of the F135 is going to be one of the strongest points FOR the aircraft as it will be for the F35 system in general. It will set a new standard in sortie rates and maintenance. It always amazes me how people forget the teething problems other aircraft have had in the past when talking about the F35. The F-111, Carlos little dream boat, was a disaster at first. We had a lot of problems with the F15. In fact pretty much all fighters have issues in the beginning. They are very complicated machines.

The F35 was designed to perform as it does. Theres a reason we didnt make a super fast air show fighter, with a RCS like an elephant, and with an inferior avionics package. Instead a "fusion" of systems and performance was produced in order to build a multi-role 5'th gen fighter bomber. Again I ask you, why would the Chinese and Russians spend fortunes trying to develop stealth fighters if their SU super-jets are going to be so capable against the F35?

I'd rather bet my life on a one engine Yank or European design then any 2 engined Russian, or especially Chinese, fighter. Russian engines have nowhere near the reliability or sortie life of American engines and Chinese efforts have basically been a disaster.

[bj229r]

One engine.....two engines, five engines....really wasn't the point I am obviously failing to make. This gets into it a bit  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html