F-35

[GScholz]

Actually not far from the truth. I would rate western Europe, the Euro-Union, a "Super Power" on many levels.

Several of the countries have deliverable nuclear weapons/platforms as good as America has. They build as good, or better, modern weapons as America does. Far better then any other Industrial base. Including, arguably, the best short and medium range ATA missiles. The best tanks. The best short range defense missiles. Some of the best surface naval platforms, including carriers. THE best 4.5 gen fighter and fighter bomber. A Scandinavian country, Sweden, builds an incredibly sophisticated fighter for the money. I believe Norway build the penguin sea defense missiles that protects USN ships. Some of the top submarine talent in the world commands both nuclear and diesel boats in west Euro navy's. Probably the best medium airlift aircraft is built by the Euro consortium and on all levels of science they are either world class or world beaters.

Yes I would say the Euro-Union IS a Super power. One that unfortunately never agrees at one time, most of the time. But its no strecth to believe they could protect themselves from any realistic enemy alone without Yank help.

I do favor a system where nothing gets done unless a majority agrees. It's far better than letting some radical element "get things done". It's all good as long as Europe pulls together wen it is important, and it seems it is able to do that most of the time. Yes we make the Penguin and now also the NSM and JSM, the latter which is specifically designed to fit in the F-35 weapons bay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmdphFiKyAo

[GScholz]

Only every operator of Block 50/52 and above:

Export aircraft for Greece, Chile, Israel, Poland, Turkey, Singapore, Morocco, Egypt and the UAE all plumbed for carriage of two CFTs mounted on top of the aircraft near the wing root. Each is capable of holding 450 US gallons (1,703.4 L)

Bull. Most of these F-16 fleets are Block 30+ with a handful of Block 50+. The Hellenic air force for example has 30 Block 52 out of a force of 279 aircraft.

Additionally if you take a look, 3 drop tanks contain more fuel than 2 CFTs... so it works in either way   + There are no drop tanks for F-35 even designed.

Only with CFT's AND three drop tanks will the F-16 carry more fuel the the F-35 does internally. In addition drop tank for the F-35 is in development.

So... still the fact remains the fact... F-35 range isn't close to one of F-16.

You're right about that, The F-35 has much greater range than the F-16.

How many of these missiles are operated by USAF/USN/Marines?

As many as they want to buy.

any of these missiles were tested... even AMRAAM isn't cleared - currently. Also fir IRIS-T and ASRAAM - please show me sources that state explicitly on a use withing weapon bay - because so far all these missiles are rail lunched.

Only the AMRAAM has been test fired as of now. The IRIS-T missile for the F-35 is still in development along with its SAM and even submarine(!) launched versions (Type 212 German). The current missile already has data link and is lock-on after launch capable (it can even be fired at targets directly aft), so it's just a matter of developing the drop-launcher.

[bozon]

The argument that goes on here is completely off the real issues.

F35 is not a bad plane. It is actually quite good. The problem is that it is not really really good and its absolute price tag is high. What does that mean? The first part means that it is not good enough to convince many experts that most of its missions could not be achieved by conventional designs or upgrades to previous generation models. The only unique advantage of the F35 is stealth, but that is not required and is lost anyway due to configuration in many of the missions. Then what is the point?

There are a few missions that F35 can do significantly better than an upgraded F15/16/18 etc and most of those relate to deep surgical strikes. That alone may make this plane worth producing, since these missions are very important. However, for that purpose, you only need a relatively small force of F35s and not replace you whole airforce.

Now the price tag. This has huge consequences beyond simply the number of planes you can afford. An expensive plane means less money for training in actual flying hours, so either you make an even smaller force, or cut back on pilot training (very very bad). Absolute numbers have a big tactical and strategical significance, especially for a power like the US that has to spread its forces across the globe. Even for a country as concentrated as Israel, there is power in numbers that cannot be easily replaced by quality. Example, in strategic strike operations you open a corridor through the enemy air defenses. While this corridor is open, you want to get as many planes as possible through it during the short time that it can be kept open. For this you want a massive force to swarm through it, saturate what ever little air defense is left, and do as much damage to as many targets as possible. Only numbers will achieve that and the planes doing the hauling of the bombs do not have to be latest generation.

The biggest criticism against the F35 and the one I subscribe to is that it cannot replace an entire airfoce. It is too expensive and while good, not good enough to be used that way. It is a good plane and worthwhile to get for a specific set of missions. The rest are better and more efficiently achieved by cheaper alternatives.

[Vraciu]

Well said, Bozon.  However, I do not think it is a good plane.  It is hyped beyond belief.   We are going to regret adopting it.


It flies low.  It flies slow.  It will be detectable at long range.  Has poor radar.

What's not to like?

[artik]

Bull. Most of these F-16 fleets are Block 30+ with a handful of Block 50+. The Hellenic air force for example has 30 Block 52 out of a force of 279 aircraft.

Seriously... see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory
Quote: 32 C/D Block 30, 39 C/D Block 50, 56 C/D Block 52+, 30 C/D Block 52M - i.e. about 50% are capable of carrying CFT.

Only with CFT's AND three drop tanks will the F-16 carry more fuel the the F-35 does internally

And has the engine that consumes HALF of the F-35's engine fuel...

In addition drop tank for the F-35 is in development.

Like CFT, Two seat F-35 and 1001 other things that we will see maybe in many-many years...

You're right about that, The F-35 has much greater range than the F-16.

Exactly how?... F-35 with non-existing drop tanks against F-16B?

Now please... I understand you think that F-35 is great bird. We may disagree if it would be useless plane or the best plane in 21th century - but facts... You either think we don't have access to information sources at all or you just get things terribly wrong.

As many as they want to buy.

Wow... you have seriously hadn't read about selling any weapon to US.

Only the AMRAAM has been test fired as of now. The IRIS-T missile for the F-35 is still in development along with its SAM and even submarine(!) launched versions (Type 212 German). The current missile already has data link and is lock-on after launch capable (it can even be fired at targets directly aft), so it's just a matter of developing the drop-launcher.

Exactly... you are telling use what we would see in future  Not what we have today - even in test plans...

Also small note, the time required for non-rail launched missile to drop is about 1 second... which is quite significant delay for close dogfight. There is the reason why close range missiles are launched from rails and the reason F-22 has rails for AIM-9...

Don't let the facts confuse you  


Don't get me wrong - it has its own unique roles it can handle better than any other plane - but it does not look like F-16/F-18/A-10 replacement.

[GScholz]

Well said, Bozon.  However, I do not think it is a good plane.  It is hyped beyond belief.   We are going to regret adopting it.


It flies low.  It flies slow.  It will be detectable at long range.  Has poor radar.

What's not to like?

Lol, the AN/APG-81 is such a poor radar it won the 2010 David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award for performance against jammers, and has met and exceeded all its performance objectives successfully.

You're so full of it I can smell you through the internet.

[Vraciu]

Lol, the AN/APG-81 is such a poor radar it won the 2010 David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award for performance against jammers, and has met and exceeded all its performance objectives successfully.

You're so full of it I can smell you through the internet.

Wow.  It won an award.  So did the Buffalo.  Ask the Marines how that worked out.

They can't even keep the radar from overheating in your beloved mistake jet.   The smell emanates from you.

[GScholz]

Seriously... see:
Quote: 32 C/D Block 30, 39 C/D Block 50, 56 C/D Block 52+, 30 C/D Block 52M - i.e. about 50% are capable of carrying CFT.

Only their Block 52+ are CFT capable, and they bought them specifically for long-range missions. If you actually read that page (I know it must be difficult) you'll see the Hellenic air force has a total strength of 279 aircraft, including 157 F-16 of which 30 are CFT capable.

And has the engine that consumes HALF of the F-35's engine fuel...

Lol! Your thinking too simplistically! How much thrust does the F-16 use at best cruise speed with all that crap hanging off it? It's an aerodynamic nightmare, just look at the picture you posted! How much thrust does an F-35 use at best cruise clean with 4000 lbs of internal stores? The F-35 is a game-changer when it comes to range.

Exactly how?... F-35 with non-existing drop tanks against F-16B?

No. Clean with 18,498 lbs of internal fuel (yes it's internal tankage is that big). The F-35 is still in development; I though this was common knowledge. It's drop tanks will be ready in due time.

Wow... you have seriously hadn't read about selling any weapon to US.

Europe sell a lot of weapons to the US. Everything from the Italian Beretta pistol to the M1 Abrams' German made main gun; Swedish AT rockets and Belgian machine guns. My little country make the AGM-119 anti-ship missile in use by the US Navy. Even the US President's new "Marine One" helicopter will be a version of the AgustaWestland AW101 Merlin, due for delivery in 2015. The Americans are not afraid to buy from allies.

Exactly... you are telling use what we would see in future  Not what we have today - even in test plans...

The F-35 is still in development. Do you expect everything to be ready now?! That's retarded! It took the F-16 six years after it entered service for it to get its BVR capability (Sparrow missile) with Block 25. The F-35 is not out of its own testing phase yet and you expect everything to be ready?  

Also small note, the time required for non-rail launched missile to drop is about 1 second... which is quite significant delay for close dogfight. There is the reason why close range missiles are launched from rails and the reason F-22 has rails for AIM-9...

With the F-22 and AIM-9 it was necessary. It doesn't have DAS and the AIM-9 has no lock-on after launch capability. The F-35 has DAS and will be able to fire the IRIS-T (and other similar future missiles) in any direction. Modern drop-launch systems don't just use gravity; they eject the missile with mechanical force.

Don't let the facts confuse you  

When you actually post some, let me know.  

[GScholz]

Wow.  It won an award.  So did the Buffalo.  Ask the Marines how that worked out.

As the Finns.

[Butcher]

Testing work on the AIM-9X Block III version began in September 2008.[18] The Block II adds Lock-on After Launch capability with a datalink, so the missile can be launched first and then directed to its target afterwards by an aircraft with the proper equipment for 360 degree engagements, such as the F-35 and F-22.

Taken right off the Rayethon website, as for now the F-35 and F-22 do carry the Block III model.

[Vraciu]

As the Finns.

Against second tier opponents.

Irrelevant comparison.

[GScholz]

Soviets "second tier" compared to the Japanese? Lol!

[Changeup]

Soviets "second tier" compared to the Japanese? Lol!

Yes, second tier. 

[GScholz]

The Japanese were "first tier"?

[Karnak]

The Japanese were "first tier"?

Yes, very highly trained.  The Finns would not have seen the success they did against the Soviets had they been facing the IJN pilots of 1942.  The IJN pilots in 1942 probably had the highest average skill level of any air force in the world.  Due to the inadequacies of the Japanese training program that was shortly not true, but when the USMC faced them at Midway it still was.