USMC & USAF Pilots on the capabilities of the F-35

[Vraciu]

P-40 was obsolete and continued production of it was actually brought up in trials post-war to see if corruption and bribery were the reason it was so prolific. That's not a good example to use for "numbers are everything" -- because they aren't.


P.S. The F-15 would cost more than the F-35 at a fraction of the capability. assuming the fuselage didn't crumple between the cockpit and the intakes like several have already begun to do.

The airplane was available in large numbers and it did the job worldwide.   The F-15 is not an ideal comparison because it is actually better on a relative basis.

Learn some facts.   The reason the fuselage is breaking is because they're ancient.    They need to be replaced.   Same with the F-16.   They're being held together with bailing wire.   

The Marines are suffering because they won't buy Supers.   Gotta hold onto their VTOL fantasy.   As a result, Marines are being killed because the Classic Hornet fleet is falling apart. 

Capability?    What can the T/A-35 do that an F-15 can't?    Oh, yeah, get shwacked by the Su-27, PAK-FA, or some random Chinese J-xx.

Cost? The Just So Failed is gonna' cost at least double what an F-15 would (and I'm being generous) for no capability or performance whatsoever. 

The F-15 gives you options.   The T/A-35 doesn't.

[Krusty]

Yes, learn some facts. You can't just "start production up again" -- the momentum is what keeps prices down. Once the production stops and must be started again prices skyrocket.

The marines won't by supers because they would cost more than the F-35 and have almost none of the benefits.

Keep spreading mass exaggerations and outright false notions and you'll get this thread locked too.

[DaveBB]

I can't remember the name of the book, but I once read that for each successive generation of fighter aircraft, the number produced is 1/2 of the previous generation, and the cost is 10X as much. 

[PR3D4TOR]

I can't remember the name of the book, but I once read that for each successive generation of fighter aircraft, the number produced is 1/2 of the previous generation, and the cost is 10X as much.

Not surprising when you look at the first generation.

[Vraciu]

See Rule #4

[Vraciu]

I can't remember the name of the book, but I once read that for each successive generation of fighter aircraft, the number produced is 1/2 of the previous generation, and the cost is 10X as much.

If you plot the cost of airplane development it tracks a fairly predictable path.   With the T/A-35 it spikes upward. 

Interestingly enough the only fighter to bend the curve downward is the F-16.    Its cost per pound tracked the line but its flyaway cost did not.   Lighter jet x cost per pound equals price cut.   

The T/A-35 is an abject disaster in every area.   The Air Force is buying hundreds of mistake jets that it can barely even use for training.   Sad.

The Navy has seen the light.  They're working to get by with as few Joint Strike Failures as possible.   

[Ack-Ack]

The new SoD has ordered an operational review of the F-35C to see how it would compare to a Super Hornet as part of his total review of the F-35 program.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-f35-review-20170127-story.html

[Vraciu]

The new SoD has ordered an operational review of the F-35C to see how it would compare to a Super Hornet as part of his total review of the F-35 program.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-f35-review-20170127-story.html

The Super will have trouble against first tier threats, and I say that as a proponent of the airplane.    Naval Aviation is in big trouble.   

[Serenity]

The Super will have trouble against first tier threats, and I say that as a proponent of the airplane.    Naval Aviation is in big trouble.

It pains me to say this, but that's not really a factor. Hornets are NOT a Day One asset. You won't find us trucking in country until AFTER the B-2s and F-22s have flown through slapping down everything that moves. If there ARE first tier threats in the air, there WON'T be Hornets.

[Vraciu]

It pains me to say this, but that's not really a factor. Hornets are NOT a Day One asset. You won't find us trucking in country until AFTER the B-2s and F-22s have flown through slapping down everything that moves. If there ARE first tier threats in the air, there WON'T be Hornets.

And that's why Naval Aviation is in big trouble.   Tip of the spear?    Well, if you're bombing Somalia maybe...

It's a massive step back from what we learned in WWII (Mitscher's raids and his frustration over lack of standoff range, etc.) and developed all the way up through the mid-80s: a massive, diverse, deep strike, hard-hitting Air Wing.

ASH with EPE (more powerful vs more durable) motors will help, but our power projection is not where it needs to be, unfortunately.

[Serenity]

And that's why Naval Aviation is in big trouble.   Tip of the spear?    Well, if you're bombing Somalia maybe...

It's a massive step back from what we learned in WWII (Mitscher's raids and his frustration over lack of standoff range, etc.) and developed all the way up through the mid-80s: a massive, diverse, deep strike, hard-hitting Air Wing.

ASH with EPE (more powerful vs more durable) motors will help, but our power projection is not where it needs to be, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, without a carrierized F-22, the Navy isn't going to be a Day One Asset. That's become the purview of the Air Force with their super stealth platforms. What we have is the ability to continue the clean-up after the SEAD rolls through.

[Vraciu]

Unfortunately, without a carrierized F-22, the Navy isn't going to be a Day One Asset. That's become the purview of the Air Force with their super stealth platforms. What we have is the ability to continue the clean-up after the SEAD rolls through.

Sadly, you are correct.   Unfortunately, there are not enough Raptors to do the job.   They can't deploy quickly enough for every flare-up nor can they be everywhere at once. Worse still, somewhere around 60 of the roughly 187 built are not combat coded.   With retirements and losses we are staring at force of F-22s hovering near 100.


Having a CVN roaming the sea in range of a potential adversary is no longer  the deterrent it once was.    Huge step back and the JSF won't cure that.   We are moving backwards.

[Serenity]

Sadly, you are correct.   Unfortunately, there are not enough Raptors to do the job.   They can't deploy quickly enough for every flare-up nor can they be everywhere at once. Worse still, somewhere around 60 of the roughly 187 built are not combat coded.   With retirements and losses we are staring at force of F-22s hovering near 100.


Having a CVN roaming the sea in range of a potential adversary is no longer  the deterrent it once was.    Huge step back and the JSF won't cure that.   We are moving backwards.

I don't think we are NECESSARILY moving backward. With regard to not being able to send Raptors everywhere, the list of places that a Hornet CAN'T comfortably fight their way into is still a VERY small list. Short of a hot war with China or Russia, the Hornet is still WELL equipped to lead the charge. And even looking at China and Russia, Hornets may not be Air Superiority fighters, but they're no pushovers either.

[Vraciu]

I don't think we are NECESSARILY moving backward. With regard to not being able to send Raptors everywhere, the list of places that a Hornet CAN'T comfortably fight their way into is still a VERY small list. Short of a hot war with China or Russia, the Hornet is still WELL equipped to lead the charge. And even looking at China and Russia, Hornets may not be Air Superiority fighters, but they're no pushovers either.

They don't have the range.   

When we dumped the KA-3 we lost a tremendous tanker asset.   The KA-6 was so-so, but passable.   The SH with buddy tanking is abysmal. 

Look at what the Air Wing could do with a single KA-3 both in terms of numbers and how far they could drag them compared to now.   Half your Strike Force is stuck offloading gas now.   You're right back where we were in 1942--you have to get in really close to the enemy to hit him...........where he can sink your carriers.   

China has ASMs that can reach further than the Air Wing can.  That's a step backwards.   Actually half a dozen.

[Gman]

I won't bother posting links to past threads, but I've been posting for a couple years about the USN's lack of a dedicated tanker post KA6D/S3/etc.  McCain's white paper is interesting in this regard, the USN is proceeding with the UCAV tanker, the MQ25 is its new designation, and in testing it has worked extremely well.  It's going to free up a lot of Hornets that can be strikers or CAP now instead of hauling gas, almost 1/3 of the Hornets in a carrier air wing in many scenarios. 

The MQ25A "Stingray" will be more than just a tanker too, it'll have the potential capability to defend itself with internally carried a2a missiles as an option, and also will work as an ISR platform, and be able to hand off targets, and do the same trick recently done with the SM6 and F35C working in combination.  All that as well as being a very low observable tanker.  The stealth part of the new tanker is a very important feature, as the Chinese have been making weapons and aircraft that are obviously dedicated to making long range high speed runs and attacks specifically on tankers and other larger, slower assets that are frequently orbiting/etc.  The USN's near future new tankers are going to be much harder to locate than previous tankers, which will give the USN a lot more options in where to put them, which opens up the playbook a lot for planning strikes, etc.

Navy Puts Procurement of Carrier Drone on Fast Track

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/december/Pages/NavyPutsProcurementofCarrierDroneonFastTrack.aspx

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/25bff0ec-481e-466a-843f-68ba5619e6d8/restoring-american-power-7.pdf