some F35 info (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I have very high hopes for it coupled with very low expectations.

It could be a great one or our downfall ... I'm hoping for the former ... just not really expecting it to be as advertised. Still, the planes to date in the post 3rd-generation jet fighter era have mostly been pretty good ones. Perhaps this one will continue the trend. If it does, I REALLY hate to see what the follow-on will cost!

If we went back to spears and bows and arrows, war would stop or at least be localized ... unless we attack from helicopters with crossbows.

I say balloons and blunderbusses at 50 meters! Liek in "Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines." Stay away from the wastewater pond!
 
Last edited:
no worse off than in a downed F-15, F-16 or Tornado .... lets remember that some Lancaster and Halifax crewmen were abused by Germans who caught them ....
 
People question the ability of the F35 but personally I am all for it. There is no doubt that the wars that have been fought recently could have been won with an F4 which causes some to doubt the need. However the first time the USAF go up against a sophisticated enemy they will appreciate every advantage it gives them.

Instead of concentrating on what people think it cannot do, does anyone know have a better attack aircraft to fly when up against a modern defence?
 
No doubt the plane will be good. Its just so expensive, its unaffordable. Its plainly obvious that the only way to attack high value targets in a well defended area will be UAVs going on one way missions.
 
No doubt the plane will be good. Its just so expensive, its unaffordable. Its plainly obvious that the only way to attack high value targets in a well defended area will be UAVs going on one way missions.

Possibly but current UAV's will simply get swatted out of the sky. They will need significant improvements before that will happen, which will increase the cost and complexity to an almost unaffordable level.
 
I have a VERY hard time understanding the incremental cost of the capabilities added. The software to fly a modern fly-by-wire aircraft is fairly straightforward. It comes in airliners for crying out loud. It comes in a 6-seat business jet.

I don't need software to drop a piece of ordnance, but I can do it on Microsoft Flight Simulator for under $30.

So exactly what is costing so much? If we break down the costs of the software, my bet is we can rapidly identify things that are NOT and never will be needed. If I were on the Armed Services Committee, that's where I would start ... by identifying the incremental costs of the F-35 and eliminating things that cannot be easily justified, and I don't mean justified by a goup of people hostile to the program who have no qualifications to make the decision. The group doing the justifying it should be composed of senior pilots and senior military leaders. When they gtet finished, send the recommendations to the President and the Congress.

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it really should be done.

I have no specific thing I want to elminate, but the cost is ridiculous and there at LEAST would be some understanding of what various things cost to add to an aircraft's capability list. We could balance thath against all the identifiable times we have needed that capability in the past shile looking at new threats coming down the pike.

If manned aircraft are going to be THIS costsly, scrap 'em and let's get to fighting with drones as rapidly as possible. For the cost of a single F-35, how many combat drones of what type could be acquired together with weapons? I would hate for it to come to that exclusively, but the companies that design manned fighter aircraft are pricing themselves out of the business as far as I'm concerned. Maybe this puppy SHOULD be the last manned combat aircraft.

I suppose we'll have to see the combat legacy of the F-35 to know for sure, but the cost is not in any manner acceptable to me as a taxpayer. Since we're buying it anyway, we should at LEAST understand why it costs so much, down to the penny.
 
Last edited:
Neither the Russians nor the Chinese will forego the use of manned fighter/multi-strike aircraft for drones .... they operate on a different cost-benefit model than NATO countries .... but I think we have no choice but to push the envelope and bear the costs ... that is the price of leadership.
 
I have a VERY hard time understanding the incremental cost of the capabilities added. The software to fly a modern fly-by-wire aircraft is fairly straightforward. It comes in airliners for crying out loud. It comes in a 6-seat business jet.

I don't need software to drop a piece of ordnance, but I can do it on Microsoft Flight Simulator for under $30.

So exactly what is costing so much? If we break down the costs of the software, my bet is we can rapidly identify things that are NOT and never will be needed. If I were on the Armed Services Committee, that's where I would start ... by identifying the incremental costs of the F-35 and eliminating things that cannot be easily justified, and I don't mean justified by a goup of people hostile to the program who have no qualifications to make the decision. The group doing the justifying it should be composed of senior pilots and senior military leaders. When they gtet finished, send the recommendations to the President and the Congress.

Look at all the specs and requirements imposed on certain systems. There was a push to use "off the shelf" equipment, but you have a lot of pentagon bureaucrats who just add on more and more compliance and oversight. The F-35 "SHOULD HAVE" eliminated a lot of this waste, instead it added to it.
Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it really should be done.
That the problem with think takns and "dreamers' within the military. There's always a push to improve things - it looks good on your military resume.
I have no specific thing I want to elminate, but the cost is ridiculous and there at LEAST would be some understanding of what various things cost to add to an aircraft's capability list. We could balance thath against all the identifiable times we have needed that capability in the past shile looking at new threats coming down the pike.
Agree
If manned aircraft are going to be THIS costsly, scrap 'em and let's get to fighting with drones as rapidly as possible. For the cost of a single F-35, how many combat drones of what type could be acquired together with weapons? I would hate for it to come to that exclusively, but the companies that design manned fighter aircraft are pricing themselves out of the business as far as I'm concerned. Maybe this puppy SHOULD be the last manned combat aircraft.
Combat drones as primary combat aircraft are a pipe dream, especially in an air to air scenero. I think there will always be manned combat aircraft and I also believe that drones will eventually SUPPLEMENT but never replace...
I suppose we'll have to see the combat legacy of the F-35 to know for sure, but the cost is not in any manner acceptable to me as a taxpayer. Since we're buying it anyway, we should at LEAST understand why it costs so much, down to the penny.

I remember similar arguments in 1976 when the F-15 and F-16 were entering service and people were questioning why we needed TWO fighters!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back