Lockheed says F35 will replace F15's

Discussion in 'Modern' started by Torch, Feb 4, 2010.

  1. Torch

    Torch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Colorado
  2. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,207
    Likes Received:
    790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    The F-35 is a lot more maneuverable than being credited for, but I doubt you're going to call it a dedicated air superiority fighter.
     
  3. Butters

    Butters Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    carpenter
    Location:
    South Shore of Nova Scotia
    #3 Butters, Feb 4, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2010
    We might not but LM seems quite happy to:

    "Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed vice president for business development, supported Lockheed's analysis, saying a single F-35 provides the capability of six F-15s in air-to-air simulations. Although the F-35's projected top speed of M1.6 falls short of the F-15's M2.5 maximum, O'Bryan says, the F-35's higher level of stealth offsets the F-15's speed advantage in calculations of overall survivability."

    Let's see... if one F-35 equals six F-15Cs, then 8 F-35s equals... Umm, does this mean that 2 Spanish Typhoons can lay the whoopass on 48 F-35s?

    JL

    PS: BTW, did you see where Gates said that 8 Predators (IIRC) were equal to 36 F-16's as CAS assets?

    EDIT: Here's the link to the O'Bryan quote:

    http://www.flightglobal.com/article...10-lockheed-says-f-35s-will-replace-usaf.html
     
  4. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,207
    Likes Received:
    790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    I saw it Butters and you continue your rant. Bottom line I think the aircraft is going to be built and its going to be one of the most advanced combat aircraft to date. In the mean time if I was you i'd write your PM and start getting DND to put together a purchase proposal.
     
  5. red admiral

    red admiral Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Lockheed Martin says it is very maneuverable, that isn't the same as actually being very maneuverable. You've got to bear in mind the massive marketing campaign currently going on (with Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale etc. as well) and manufacturers statements with a pinch of salt. The F-35 has a comparatively high wing loading and a comparatively low thrust/weight ratio combined with a fairly draggy stealth airframe (stealth features add a lot of drag and weight). It's not going to be as manoeuverable as contemporary aircraft unless Lockheed Martin has used some magic pixie dust.

    How much manoeuverability actually matters for the F-35 is another matter. Plenty of capability to stop the combat before it gets within visual range.
     
  6. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,207
    Likes Received:
    790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    And did you read the rest of my post???

    "But I doubt you're going to call it a dedicated air superiority fighter."

    I've seen it fly - it is VERY maneuverable. With that said, I would hope ANY potential F-35 customer takes
    Steve O'Bryan's comments with a grain of salt and determine their own needs.

    As a former Lockheed employee and having worked with marketing folks they will tell you anything and it doesn't matter what company they work for. The fact remains the F-35 will be a record beater and it seems Lockheed has already put their money where their mouth is
     
  7. comiso90

    comiso90 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,672
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Video and multi-media communications expert
    Location:
    FL
    I agree but similar thinking had the USAF eliminating guns from aircraft in the 60s-70s which proved to be a terrible mistake.

    I personally believe vector thrust maneuvering will only be seen in airshows and rarely in combat.

    .
     
  8. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,207
    Likes Received:
    790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Right On!
    Not when it happens automatically! ;)
     
  9. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,207
    Likes Received:
    790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
  10. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    If you ask us nicely, we promise to sell you some Typhoons to replace the F15 in the air to air role just in case the F22 doesn't want to get dirty.
     
  11. twoeagles

    twoeagles Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Aeronautical engineer and Navy Dad
    Location:
    Chambersburg
    My Lockheed retirement is safe - no worries! The F-35 will be everything it is promised to be. As for highly maneuverable, how maneuverable would it need to be if it shot you down before you detected it?
     
  12. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,207
    Likes Received:
    790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    :lol:

    Right on!!!!

    BTW - I check the status of my retirement about once a year, thanks for reminding me!
     
  13. Waynos

    Waynos Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,309
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    And not even then with the F-35. It doesn't have it
     
  14. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,207
    Likes Received:
    790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    It doesn't mean it hasn't been considered - HOWEVER "if" it was installed, it would affect over all performance.
     
  15. Butters

    Butters Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    carpenter
    Location:
    South Shore of Nova Scotia
    I'm going to address Joe's criticisms of my various 5th Gen-related posts as soon as I get the time, but until then here's something for the believers in the gospel of the holy trinity of stealth, BVR doctrine, and the do it all JSF.

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

    Just to clarify: The Rand Corp is neither left-wing nor an affiliate of CDI / APA. And whether you agree with their conclusions, or not, their study is worth the read.

    JL
     
  16. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,207
    Likes Received:
    790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Its a good read Butter, in fact its and excellent read but it was put out 2 years ago and there are a few things assumed and not addressed...

    No MC numbers for the Chinese during this fictional conflict

    This scenario assumes the Flanker works as advertised.

    It gives info about WW2 and Korea with no relevance in today's world.

    In the end it give an argument to build MORE F-22s and F-35s.

    And I see other "facts" in that report that aren't true, but again have nothing to do with the report....
     
  17. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    The same propaganda General Dynamics and the Pentagon gave us about the F-111 in the 1960's sounds quite similar to what were hearing about the F-35.

    "Multi-role" = good at nothing, mediocre at best.
     
  18. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,207
    Likes Received:
    790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    I remember the same things said about the F-15 and F-16 during the mid 70s.
    Tell that to F/A-18 drivers who, during GW1 shot down MiGs with bombs on their stores, and then went on to bomb targets inside Iraq. in today's world, the F/A-18 and F-15E can be truly called "multi role" and these aircraft do "everything" well and have proven it in combat....
     
  19. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Nope. They were both designed from the onset as fighters, both with some influence on what went wrong with the F-111. Being a fighter also meant they could be used as an interceptor or fighter-bomber. But neither were designed to be a true bomber.

    And yet it sacrificed something to get both. Its a great fighter, but its also not a true great bomber either.

    The A6, A7 and A10 all performed well because they were designed from the outset to drop bombs as a primary mission.
     
  20. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,207
    Likes Received:
    790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    I was talking about the bad press during the Carter administration where there were some that wanted to scrap the F-15 for being too costly and criticized the F-16 when it got airborne during high speed taxi tests.

    BUT.......

    Show us some documented negative evidence that the F-16, F-15E and F/A-18 suffered in their "multi role mode" operationaly during the past 15 or 20 years!!!!!


    F-15E drives consider themselves bomber pilots that could "knife fight" as well (I work with a few of them).

    One of the guys I work with who flew the F-15E said the roles were transparent with he exception with a little sacrifice in load out (depending on the mission) and range.
     
Loading...

Share This Page