Dogfight : F35 vs F16

[Serenity]

Probably why you don't get to choose these things.   You're just a small cog in a vast machine called the United States of America (Inc.) And you are easily replaced.

So you're okay with pilots being killed because the value of keeping the project alive is more important than their lives?

[GScholz]

It not really about being "ok with it". It's a national imperative. Every soldier that has ever gone to war throughout history has in one way or another been directly affected by what their governments has gambled on would work in the next war. One soldier lucks out and get an Arisaka while the other guy gets lucky and is issued a Garand or even an StG44. I'm not saying that it is ok to send you to war in an F-35 in its current sate of development. I'm saying that the partner nations will never stop developing the F-35, no matter the cost, until it actually does what it says on the box (or at least close enough for comfort). If they don't you might have to go to war in something far worse and there is no money or time to start over with a new design. You would be retired before it could be completed. Every new generation of weapons is a gamble and the odds just keep getting longer and longer.

[Ack-Ack]

Interesting article from the P-35 project chief.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/03/f-35-chief-think-very-very-hard-making-another-joint-fighter/126587/

[GScholz]

The next combat aircraft will look more like this, and Serenity will be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog toejam out of Hong Kong.



It's already making better landings than Serenity!   (j/k)

[Serenity]

The next combat aircraft will look more like this, and Serenity will be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog toejam out of Hong Kong.



It's already making better landings than Serenity!   (j/k)

Actually, it won't. The current stance of SECNAV is that we will NOT invest in unmanned combat aircraft. Drones will be used for spotters, sub hunting, and as tankers, but will not replace Hornets for the foreseeable future.

[Squire]

We now literally have to invests unheard of amounts of money and resources decades ahead of actually building anything.

Which is why sooner or later that model of development will fail.

[GScholz]

Well, we're not really talking about the foreseeable future. The F-35 is designed for a 50-year long service life. However by 3040 at least a large number of nations will be fielding autonomous UCAVS that are as good or better than manned combat aircraft. A European UCAV is planned to enter service in the 2030's based on the experience they're getting with the Neuron program. What may seem like a sound policy now could very quickly change within the next 10 years.

[GScholz]

Which is why sooner or later that model of development will fail.

It has already failed for the Russians with the PAK FA, or at least seriously delayed it. Yes it seems to be a trend toward greater and greater risk, but there might be watershed events in the future that totally change the game. Like the advent of AI and total virtual design and prototyping (already in use in the car industry). These advances may drive cost, development time and risk down again. Time will tell.

[GScholz]

France, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Greece, Switzerland, and I believe the UK has joined as well after this video was made, bringing with them their Taranis UCAV experience as well.

[Ack-Ack]

One of the reasons why the F-35 program has turned into a money pit is that criteria was that all variants were supposed to have 70% common parts but has ended up with only 20% common parts between the variants.

[GScholz]

The inter-branch bickering of your military has always caused nothing but problems. I've never understood why you've never just created a unified command to control it all.

[Serenity]

The inter-branch bickering of your military has always caused nothing but problems. I've never understood why you've never just created a unified command to control it all.

It's not a question of a unified command, it's a question of drastically different missions and requirements. Our Navy does things with their jets no one else in the WORLD does, and that carries certain material requirements. Same can be said for the Marines, and the Air Force.

[Vraciu]

JSF

Joint Strike Failure

Just So Failed

[GScholz]

It's not a question of a unified command, it's a question of drastically different missions and requirements. Our Navy does things with their jets no one else in the WORLD does, and that carries certain material requirements. Same can be said for the Marines, and the Air Force.

In Ack-Ack's linked article Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan explains how the 70% commonality goal was attainable, but that:

"Man, is [compromise] a hard thing to do when you’re spending billions of dollars,” he said. “You want what you want, [but] hopefully get what you need."

And:

"If Pentagon leaders do choose to build a multi-variant plane to serve multiple sets of requirements, he said, the services will have to embrace compromise to a greater degree than happened in the $400 billion F-35 program."

Clearly that would be easier with a unified command (at least on the procurement side) that can cut through the bullcrap and keep all the services in line. To say that the USAF's needs are so different from those of the USN that they need a completely different fighter is absurd. That's like saying the Canadians, Finns, Aussies, Swiss, Kuwaiti, Malayans, and Spaniards can't use the F-18C as an air force jet. Their air forces all do, and chose it over the likes of the F-16.

I mean really, the Swiss! They don't even have a coastline!



You have to love those German MiG's... A DACT goldmine. (Btw. that is just a promotional video for some Swiss air show.)

[Serenity]

In Ack-Ack's linked article Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan explains how the 70% commonality goal was attainable, but that:

"Man, is [compromise] a hard thing to do when you’re spending billions of dollars,” he said. “You want what you want, [but] hopefully get what you need."

And:

"If Pentagon leaders do choose to build a multi-variant plane to serve multiple sets of requirements, he said, the services will have to embrace compromise to a greater degree than happened in the $400 billion F-35 program."

Clearly that would be easier with a unified command (at least on the procurement side) that can cut through the bullcrap and keep all the services in line. To say that the USAF's needs are so different from those of the USN that they need a completely different fighter is absurd. That's like saying the Canadians, Finns, Aussies, Swiss, Kuwaiti, Malayans, and Spaniards can't use the F-18C as an air force jet. Their air forces all do, and chose it over the likes of the F-16.

Scholz, you're not really understanding the issue. It's not that we don't want to compromise because we can't agree on an upholstery color. Naval Aviation is drastically different than land-based aviation. The requirements a carrier aircraft has for beefier landing gear, lower stall speeds and the hook mechanism all equal weight, and reduced high-speed performance. That cuts into the Air Force desires for a higher-speed, higher altitude, longer range aircraft. Now, I'm not talking specifically of the F-35 program requirements, but giving general areas of differences which DO have a large effect on the aircraft. We aren't a nation of 100 airplanes defending a couple of mountains. We have some drastically different missions, with different requirements, and as the old saying goes, a jack of all trades is a master of none. It's very easy to sit back and only think of the cost-effectiveness and diplomacy when it's not your rear in the seat.