F-35

[HeyYou]

Yeah, design by committee, NONE of whose members had flown more than a paper airplane..... (I haven't seen any paper helicopters..... <img src="http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=":D">)<br><br>The F-35 introduces some interesting technology, but, being a multi-role fighter, it is a flying compromise. The F-22, which has been canceled now??? Was a dedicated air superiority fighter, FAR better at it's role in air combat. There seems to be some debate on if the electronic doo-dads in the F-35 can actually make the aircraft the equal of the F-22 in air combat. At a distance, perhaps, but, when it gets up close and personal, the F-35 isn't going to stand a chance against its more maneuverable opponents..... Edited April 19, 2012 by HeyYou

[Aurielius]

@HY

Our brilliant armchair strategists in DC decided to only pay for 30 F-22's not the 200 plus that was originally on the table. Remember when these same genius's thought stealth technology was not worth the cost also? :wallbash:

[HeyYou]

@HY

Our brilliant armchair strategists in DC decided to only pay for 30 F-22's not the 200 plus that was originally on the table. Remember when these same genius's thought stealth technology was not worth the cost also? :wallbash:

 

Lets require that THEY go out and sit in the pilots seat for a few missions, and THEN decide which aircraft they would rather have...... making these decisions only by dollars signs is a good way to get good men killed. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be flying the 'latest generation' technology, built by the lowest bidder.... (Of course, the shuttle fell into that category as well...... and is the safest form of travel per passenger mile on earth..... of course, no one was shooting at them either. :D)

[Aurielius]

@HY

Our brilliant armchair strategists in DC decided to only pay for 30 F-22's not the 200 plus that was originally on the table. Remember when these same genius's thought stealth technology was not worth the cost also? :wallbash:

 

Lets require that THEY go out and sit in the pilots seat for a few missions, and THEN decide which aircraft they would rather have...... making these decisions only by dollars signs is a good way to get good men killed. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be flying the 'latest generation' technology, built by the lowest bidder.... (Of course, the shuttle fell into that category as well...... and is the safest form of travel per passenger mile on earth..... of course, no one was shooting at them either. :D)

Well it would solve the congressional term limits issue for the short sighted among them..... :whistling:

[HeyYou]

@HY

Our brilliant armchair strategists in DC decided to only pay for 30 F-22's not the 200 plus that was originally on the table. Remember when these same genius's thought stealth technology was not worth the cost also? :wallbash:

 

Lets require that THEY go out and sit in the pilots seat for a few missions, and THEN decide which aircraft they would rather have...... making these decisions only by dollars signs is a good way to get good men killed. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be flying the 'latest generation' technology, built by the lowest bidder.... (Of course, the shuttle fell into that category as well...... and is the safest form of travel per passenger mile on earth..... of course, no one was shooting at them either. :D)

Well it would solve the congressional term limits issue for the short sighted among them..... :whistling:

 

Ok, there it is. Yet another monitor cleaning courtesy of Aurielius........ :D

[Aurielius]

Ok, there it is. Yet another monitor cleaning courtesy of Aurielius........ :D

Well if I am responsible.....then. :whistling:

 

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/4597/monitorcleanup.gif

[MajKrAzAm]

One thing: are the F-15 SE's and F/A-18 E/F SH's really need replacing? They're doing perfectly fine so far from the looks of things, and at a fraction of the cost.

 

The F-15SE is still under development and the US does not intend to procure any. It’s pretty much a poor man’s F-35 for international partners that are not signed up to the JSF program.

 

The F-35 won’t replace the E/F only the F/A-18 which will probably be fully phased out by the mid-2020s. The USN intends to use both the F-35 and F-18EF in its CVW. In fact the USN ordered over 40 F/A-18E/Fs last year as a hedge against the JSF program shortcomings. I really don’t fully understand why they need to add the F-35 to the carrier wings. Would 2 squadrons of F-35Cs and 2 squadrons of F-18E/Fs be significantly better than a CVW of 5 12 plane squadrons of Super Hornets + 2 squadrons of EA-18 Growlers? I really doubt it.

[Gracinfields]

Well from what I saw of the program the over all intentions of the F-35 was to replace the ageing AV-8 Harrier for the Marine corp. which by the sounds of it the F-35Bs can't really do that as it seems the VTOL version didn't make it out of prototyping. As for the Airforce version its mainly intended to replace the F-16. As for why these two aircraft would be replaced by the F-35 would also decrease over all operational cost as the parts to replacements could be shared between the marine, navy and airforce version thus easier to find and store spare/replacement parts when needed.

[Vindekarr]

Here's a question, and mind you this isn't a joke, I'm throwing this out here as a hypothetical.

 

Do we NEED stealth capability? Why not design something that's A simple and efficient and B highly durable.

 

The other problem is jumping on a technology before everyone else. Russia and China both now have planes equivalent to the Raptor in a war-ready form, and they have a helluva lot more than we do. More concerning is that the PAK-FA atleast seems to also have a relatively high payload, certainly more than an F-35. They also designed them around the Raptor's weaknesses, since the Raptor jumped first, and told them what needed to be done.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Vindekarr

[Aurielius]

Here's a question, and mind you this isn't a joke, I'm throwing this out here as a hypothetical.

 

Do we NEED stealth capability? Why not design something that's A simple and efficient and B highly durable.

 

The other problem is jumping on a technology before everyone else. Russia and China both now have planes equivalent to the Raptor in a war-ready form, and they have a helluva lot more than we do. More concerning is that the PAK-FA atleast seems to also have a relatively high payload, certainly more than an F-35. They also designed them around the Raptor's weaknesses, since the Raptor jumped first, and told them what needed to be done.

OK , I'll treat your question as a fair one. In terms of air combat the pilot who sees his opponent before they see him is the usual survivor. Most all dogfights are really only seconds long in duration in rare cases minutes. Any advantage in detection or lack of detection is vital. That being said I am not totally convinced that the F-35 is a platform that meets those criteria but the technological envelope is stretched by every new generation of fighter development. We (US) do not utilize quantity but rather quality in our engagement philosophy, it is presumed that we will be outnumbered in air to air combat and that superior training and technology will be the advantage that will provide survivability for our aviators / pilots. Technological edges are the most fleeting of advantages in warfare, either you are ahead or you are dead.