some F35 info

Lucky13 said:

I'm just surprised, that something can be that expensive and have only one engine, makes you wonder, what it would have cost with two!

Click to expand...

Some of the costs have nothing to do with the airframe.

F-35 pilots to wear $400,000 helmets that can see through the plane | Fox News

syscom3 said:

Im here. Just shaking my head in amazement in how you've come under the spell of the schitzo fighter.

Click to expand...

Logic left your argument some time ago, the theories you believe in are just that and evidence to support your theories never made it into print.

FLYBOYJ said:

Some of the costs have nothing to do with the airframe.

F-35 pilots to wear $400,000 helmets that can see through the plane | Fox News

Click to expand...

Well, they're not exactly seeing through the plane now, are they?

There are six cameras in the fighter's 'skin' and, when working correctly, can pick up sensors for when the pilot moves his head...

FLYBOYJ said:

Some of the costs have nothing to do with the airframe.

F-35 pilots to wear $400,000 helmets that can see through the plane | Fox News

Click to expand...

It is very weird thing to see, can hardly describe it. Closest thing I can think of is take a video camera, turn on the black and white filter, and cup it in your hands to where the only view is the screen and enjoy. Pilots have said that at night they would rather fly with DAS than with night vision, as it is almost as clear as day.

Lucky13 said:

Well, they're not exactly seeing through the plane now, are they?

There are six cameras in the fighter's 'skin' and, when working correctly, can pick up sensors for when the pilot moves his head...

Click to expand...

It gives the same effect. The aircraft was critized for not having a bubble canopy thus poor vision from behind, well this system blows that argument out of the water and then some, but then again, if all weapons are used correctly, the pilot won't have to worry about what's on his 6!!!

Im unconvinced by Syscoms argument that unmanned craft make the F-35 obsolete. But one does wonder if all the money spent on the F-35 had been poured into drone programs, and the US had soldiered on with either the updated Eagle or say super Hornets, would the combination of an older less capable Eagle/F-18 on the one hand, with better developed drones and unmanned a/c supporting those aircraft on the other, would we be better off in terms of military capability?

Id would really like to hear the arguments for and against these two basic scenarios....

My position is that im a great believer in the f-35. It looks like a helluva a/c to me. but Ive been out of the loop far too long so I really cant make a balanced assessment on this...are drones the new HMS Dreadnought of the 21st century, or would we risk our lead in aerospace technology if we allow ourselves to slip out of the front runners position?

Who feels they are sufficiently on top of this to attempt a cogent argument, one way or the other?

Syscom's cool aid 'can't turn, can't climb, can't run' The line from Spey, a jealous old man, half brillaint, half BS

Pierre Sprey's Anti-F-35 Diatribe Is Half Brilliant And Half Bullshit

Max speed over 1,200 mph

Climb rate: CLASSIFIED

Can't turn - we showed here on more than one occasion what was said about the F-35s maneuvability.

So Sys, what flavor cool aid to you like, and do you put salt on the BS you swallow from yahoo news?!?!?

parsifal said:

Im unconvinced by Syscoms argument that unmanned craft make the F-35 obsolete. But one does wonder if all the money spent on the F-35 had been poured into drone programs, and the US had soldiered on with either the updated Eagle or say super Hornets, would the combination of an older less capable Eagle/F-18 on the one hand, with better developed drones and unmanned a/c supporting those aircraft on the other, would we be better off in terms of military capability?

Id would really like to hear the arguments for and against these two basic scenarios....

My position is that im a great believer in the f-35. It looks like a helluva a/c to me. but Ive been out of the loop far too long so I really cant make a balanced assessment on this...are drones the new HMS Dreadnought of the 21st century, or would we risk our lead in aerospace technology if we allow ourselves to slip out of the front runners position?

Who feels they are sufficiently on top of this to attempt a cogent argument, one way or the other?

Click to expand...

I think you'll find that any updated F-15 or F-18 will cost almost as much as the F-35. the USN is buying several F-18 growlers. If you do the math they come out to almost 100 million a piece. For the extra money spent on an aircraft that will last another 40 or 50 years and is more capable in lieu of 10 or 20 is well worth it.

BTW, the F-35 should be more compared to the F/A-18 and F-16 in their strike role. As we know BOTH aircraft have an air to air capability, but I guess that makes them schitzo fighters as well!!!

FLYBOYJ said:

It gives the same effect. The aircraft was critized for not having a bubble canopy thus poor vision from behind, well this system blows that argument out of the water and then some, but then again, if all weapons are used correctly, the pilot won't have to worry about what's on his 6!!!

Click to expand...

Well, they way it was written at first, it sounded like the helmet would have x-ray vision....is it a bird, is it Superman...well, you know....

As someone with little knowledge of these things, I ask.

Is the development program particularly long ?

And by the time the F-35 is in full squadron service around the world will it be still ahead of the game ?


No real axe to grind just this thread has sparked an interest for me !

Lucky13 said:

Well, they way it was written at first, it sounded like the helmet would have x-ray vision....is it a bird, is it Superman...well, you know....

Click to expand...

"The ignorant and anti-military press."

rochie said:

As someone with little knowledge of these things, I ask.

Is the development program particularly long ?

And by the time the F-35 is in full squadron service around the world will it be still ahead of the game ?


No real axe to grind just this thread has sparked an interest for me !

Click to expand...

The development of the F-35 was long, slipped almost 2 years in schedule for a number of reasons. For comparison The F-22 won it's competition against the YF-23 in 1991 IIRC, The first production model flew in 1997. Work on the aircraft began in in 1986. Where the US governmet threw LMCO under the bus is they put a budget on some of the cost plus R&D work, of course that got blown out of the water, some of it LMCO's fault, a large portion of it the government's fault.

Thanks Joe.

I suppose it is taken for granted as the technology gets more and more complex so development will take that bit longer.

Development of modern combat aircraft takes decades...literally. Development continues during its front-line service to integrate new weapons, replace obsolete technology etc.

The problem with the "drones can do anything" argument is that they simply haven't been proven yet. Reaper is a great aircraft but it has significant operating limitations and, frankly, is slow. Trying to implement RPA capabilities in a fast jet is fraught with problems due to comms latency (ye cannae break the laws o' physics!) which impacts the pilot's ability to respond to situations that are changing very rapidly ('cos everything changes fast when you're flying at 1,000 mph). Modern aircraft like F-35 are providing technologies, like the "see-through the aircraft" capability that would be readily applicable to UCAVs but the development cycle would still apply so wouldn't gain anything in terms of earlier or cheaper deployment. Then there's the whole sense-and-avoid issue which is, AFAIK, still at the research and test phase for military-grade UAVs.

It's pretty easy to build a UAV that doesn't have to manoeuvre much and simply stands off to launch missiles at fixed targets. However, that one-trick-pony only works for part of the time. I think we're still some way from having UCAVs that are fully flexible to meet the demands of different mission profiles and changing threat environments. Certainly, F-35 is part of that evolutionary process as demonstrated by its extensive sensor suite and data fusion capabilities...but we're not there yet.

Ok I get the continued development in service.
I just googled F-35.

First flight 2006.
First operational squadron later this year so 9 years now doesn't seem that long really, considering the technology involved.

parsifal said:

Im unconvinced by Syscoms argument that unmanned craft make the F-35 obsolete. But one does wonder if all the money spent on the F-35 had been poured into drone programs, and the US had soldiered on with either the updated Eagle or say super Hornets, would the combination of an older less capable Eagle/F-18 on the one hand, with better developed drones and unmanned a/c supporting those aircraft on the other, would we be better off in terms of military capability?

Id would really like to hear the arguments for and against these two basic scenarios....

My position is that im a great believer in the f-35. It looks like a helluva a/c to me. but Ive been out of the loop far too long so I really cant make a balanced assessment on this...are drones the new HMS Dreadnought of the 21st century, or would we risk our lead in aerospace technology if we allow ourselves to slip out of the front runners position?

Who feels they are sufficiently on top of this to attempt a cogent argument, one way or the other?

Click to expand...

My personal take is that while the F15 and F18 are still very capable aircraft they have reached the end of their development. You can always update them with the latest electronics as they are both big enough to accept changes, but technology moves on and to be left behind carries huge risks. In combat there is no second place, you win or lose, you live or die.
Against technically up to date opponents you need to have the best. Even today there are a number of scenarios such as recent combats in Iraq, Libya etc. where you don't need the sophistication of the F35. However if Russia gave an enemy the latest Russian fighters flown by 'volunteers' then you are in a serious place where the F15 could well be outclassed. This may seem fanciful but aircraft such as the Typhoon are better than the F15 in air to air combat, the Rafael is probably in the same area, the Grippen would give it a good run for its money and it would be foolish to pretend that Russia isn't capable of producing equally effective fighters.
The F15/F18 would be covered by the F22 but you only have 200ish for the whole world and if anything big goes up I feel they will not be enough. To a large degree your attack F15/F18 will be on their own or at least vulnerable.

Drones have a place in the future but there is a long way to go. Had you spent these sorts of numbers on the development of the drone instead of the F35 who knows where we would end up, I don't know. What I do know is that the development would be even more complex than the F35 if only for the command and control problems. The probability of development issues is close to certain and we would be having the same discussion railing at the decision makers on banking the safety of the USA on the development of brand new technology.

To put the end a different way. With the F35 you have a very capable aircraft entering service, it might be later and more expensive than you want but its being delivered. If you had put faith into the drones my guess is that would have nothing to show for the money spent and a of Europeans beating a path to your door proposing license production agreements for the Typhoon, Rafael and Grippen. Together with Lockheed giving you a big number bill for the reopening of the F22 production line plus R+D cost proposal for the GA role.

I think the A and C versions are a good option so of course the UK orders the F35-B, how on earth does a catapult cost $2Bn? The Harrier rarely took off vertically why order the F35 to do the same?

FLYBOYJ said:

"The ignorant and anti-military press."

Click to expand...

Like in the link that I posted earlier, that the Gripen had also been designed for unmanned flight, riiiiight!



LMCO??

pbehn said:

I think the A and C versions are a good option so of course the UK orders the F35-B, how on earth does a catapult cost $2Bn? The Harrier rarely took off vertically why order the F35 to do the same?

Click to expand...

Its not so much taking off, its landing vertically is what counts. They will be operating on the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship which can get in closer to the shore than what the super carriers can. Smaller decks require the aircraft to be able to land without arresting gear.

Lucky13 said:

LMCO??

Click to expand...

Lockheed-Martin Corporation