some F35 info

GregP · Jan 18, 2015

I remember those arguments and I also understood the need for both. The price was expensive but nowhere NEAR the escalation of the F-35. We will spend more on this one weapon system than the GNP of many nations, and more than is healthy for the country.

Think of what we could have done to the national debt if we just didn't buy the thing and went with develoments of existing designs or modifications of same just lie ... Russia did with the Su-27 / Su-35 series that are VERY capable.

gumbyk · Jan 18, 2015

GregP said:
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.

It's a matter of the quality of service, and guarantees.
It is the same reason that commercial rates for things like my phone cost 2-3 times as much. A business account comes with a guaranteed level of service.

That, and how much scope creep has gone into this thing?

FLYBOYJ · Jan 19, 2015

GregP said:
I remember those agruments and I also understaood the need for both. The price was expensive butwhere NEAR the escalation of the F-35. We will spend more on this one weapon system than the GNP of many nations, and more thanis healthy for the country.

Think of what we could have done to the national deby if we just didn;t buy the thing and went with develoments of existing designs or modifications of same just lie ... Russia did with the Su-*27 / Su-35 series that are VERY capable.

There is no doubt this program is expensive and has spiraled out of control. There were supposed to be polices in place to hold costs down but the DoD continued(s) to add, change and come up with more and more requirements, and it's not only on this program, there are other DoD programs that piss money away beyond belief. Adding to this dilemma is the state of the US economy, which if it was in better shape the F-35 would be an easier pill to swallow (I don't want to go into a political rant here) so some of the F-35 detractors do have a valid argument and it has nothing to do with the aircraft LMCO or it's performance, it's all about what the priorities are in defending this country. When this aircraft was being developed, there was "money in the bank" and the program seemed affordable, now it's a entirely different story.

With the exception of the A-10, I don't think modification of existing airframes is the answer, if anything it's just prolonging old technology and brining a disservice to our pilots who, IMO should have the best money could buy efficiently. One of the purposes of this aircraft was to standardize parts, procurement, training, etc., so all 3 branches of the military could use this aircraft, hence the cost savings. I think LMCO is trying (they're exisitance depends on it), but when you have your primary customer run by bureaucrats who place their jobs ahead of what best for the country, then you'll have the results seen on the F-35.

This aircraft will be built and it will be a game changer IMO - what pisses me off are the detractors who continually hang their hat on the 2011 Rand report and who continually buys some of the crap the media put out about this aircraft, aviation and the military. Don't fear, there are plans afoot that will not only take the limelight away fro this program, but will usher in new discussions on how and how much we need to spend on modern combat aircraft.

At Whiteman, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel calls for the U.S. to build a replacement for the B-2 bomber | The Kansas City Star

Tracker · Jan 19, 2015

Can we build another NCC-1701?

GregP · Jan 20, 2015

I have read the Rand Corp stuff and some is valid ... some is not.

I've been trying to find out if the scenarios suggested by Riccione are likely, and can't find anything about it, But if they DO go and hang external ordnance on the F-35, then the Su-27 / MiG-29s of the world CAN find it an shoot it down. So I hope they employ it sensibly ... and sensible employment has been a problem for the U.S.A. since about 1968 or so in Viet Nam.

I'd believe in the F-35 if the pilots and squadrons are allowed to plan their fight. If the White House is going to plan the fight, like they did in Viet Nam, we're probably doomed. I think it will be OK if the politicians give the Military a task and then back off and let them plan and exceute the task.

It is probably a political thing, but I think we should avoid the crap out of "police actions." If we are going to fight and die it is war. Declare it and fight it according to Geneva Convention, and then enforce harsh penalties after the war for violations of same on any side. Alternatively, come up with a document that can be signed by everyone, like the Geneva convention, for limited skirmishes.

No particular disrespect for the office of the president, but I have been in 2 military services and would decline to go anywhere I don't have the right to return fire at any time. I don't buy into "rules of engagement." If someone shoots at me, I demand the right to return fire and escalate as required until the threat is eliminated. Otherwise I have no interest in participating in the fight and would decline to serve again. I'd serve the COUNTRY, but not a military service who wants me to get shot at and not respond in kind.

Civilized response work only when both sides are civilized. Otherwise, the only thing understood is a big stick.

syscom3 · Jan 20, 2015

Even if these jets perform better than specified, some are still going to be lost. Slowly through accidents or several through combat losses. And its the expense of them that is unsustainable.

GregP · Jan 20, 2015

One question I have been wondering about concerns the F-22.

The F-35 is about a generation ahead in computers and software and I wonder if any of these wonders we are paying so dearly for could be retrofitted to the F-22 as upgrades. At least THAT should increase the electronics production numbers and result in cost some savings relative to F-22 upgrades developed from scratch.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 20, 2015

syscom3 said:
Even if these jets perform better than specified, some are still going to be lost. Slowly through accidents or several through combat losses. And its the expense of them that is unsustainable.

Really? the same thing was said of the F-15 during the early 80s. Not one was lost in combat but there have been several lost in accidents, this is called "attrition." It is calculated, tracked and computed into the aircraft's operating costs. By the time these aircraft enter service they will have been paid for.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 20, 2015

GregP said:
I have read the Rand Corp stuff and some is valid ... some is not.

I've been trying to find out if the scenarios suggested by Riccione are likely, and can't find anything about it, But if they DO go and hang external ordnance on the F-35, then the Su-27 / MiG-29s of the world CAN find it an shoot it down. So I hope they employ it sensibly ... and sensible employment has been a problem for the U.S.A. since about 1968 or so in Viet Nam.

I'd believe in the F-35 if the pilots and squadrons are allowed to plan their fight. If the White House is going to plan the fight, like they did in Viet Nam, we're probably doomed. I think it will be OK if the politicians give the Military a task and then back off and let them plan and exceute the task.

It is probably a political thing, but I think we should avoid the crap out of "police actions." If we are going to fight and die it is war. Declare it and fight it according to Geneva Convention, and then enforce harsh penalties after the war for violations of same on any side. Alternatively, come up with a document that can be signed by everyone, like the Geneva convention, for limited skirmishes.

No particular disrespect for the office of the president, but I have been in 2 military services and would decline to go anywhere I don't have the right to return fire at any time. I don't buy into "rules of engagement." If someone shoots at me, I demand the right to return fire and escalate as required until the threat is eliminated. Otherwise I have no interest in participating in the fight and would decline to serve again. I'd serve the COUNTRY, but not a military service who wants me to get shot at and not respond in kind.

Civilized response work only when both sides are civilized. Otherwise, the only thing understood is a big stick.

Agree - ALL functions of these aircraft HAVE to be utilized. We limited dogfights over Vietnam (a few years earlier there were think tank folks who said that there will be no more dogfights) and were getting our butts kicked because we had to fight VR. When things changed, we just about wiped out the NVNAF.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 20, 2015

GregP said:
One question I have been wondering about concerns the F-22.

The F-35 is about a generation ahead in computers and software and I wonder if any of these wonders we are paying so dearly for could be retrofitted to the F-22 as upgrades. At least THAT should increase the electronics production numbers and result in cost some savings relative to F-22 upgrades developed from scratch.

Lockheed awarded $68M contract for F-22 work at Hill AFB > U.S. Air Force > Article Display

syscom3 · Jan 21, 2015

FLYBOYJ said:
Really? the same thing was said of the F-15 during the early 80s. Not one was lost in combat but there have been several lost in accidents, this is called "attrition." It is calculated, tracked and computed into the aircraft's operating costs. By the time these aircraft enter service they will have been paid for.

Our economy was in far better shape in the 80's. Loosing several planes was sustainable. Now if we lose a few F35's, we are in billion dollar territory. Unsustainable for any economy.

Glider · Jan 21, 2015

An observation on the cost of the 'cheap' drones. The Pentagon are questioning the cost of the combat ready drones. Each combat ready drone costs approx. $0.5 billion. Test drones about $200m each, Air National Guard drones are about $180m each

These are aircraft that in defended airspace wouldn't last five minutes. They are starting to make the F35 look like good value for money.

Detail as below

Air Force Did Not Justify the Need for MQ-9 Reaper Procurement Quantities

FLYBOYJ · Jan 21, 2015

syscom3 said:
Our economy was in far better shape in the 80's. Loosing several planes was sustainable. Now if we lose a few F35's, we are in billion dollar territory. Unsustainable for any economy.

"Mid" 1980s. We were suffering during the early 80s.

The only thing unsustainable is the loss of the aircraft. You don't seem to understand that these aircraft are already paid for by the time they enter service.

GregP · Jan 21, 2015

I think everyone understands they are paid for when delivered. We question the decision to purchase at the price paid. We can't afford it and should stop it. There are options that don't cost as much.

What I'd REALLY like to see is for the Air Force to design one on its own and then get competitive bids for production. Mandate that congrss doesn't get to add any requirements, only combat requirements from a group of people from combat pilots, threat anayysts, and senior commanders ... ohm yeah, add in senior crew chiefs so maintenance would get considered. In fact, the maintenance guys should have an equal say to the design guys and the end design doesn't go forward without 75% approval (or pick a number).

Too late to do anything about the F-35, but we shoudl damned well do SOMETHING better for the next one, if there IS a next one. We could get off a LOT cheaper by buying Su-35's and modifying them with our own avionics suites ...

FLYBOYJ · Jan 21, 2015

GregP said:
I think everyone understands they are paid for when delivered.

I think there's at least a few folks out there that don't grasp that.

GregP said:
What I'd REALLY like to see is for the Air Force to design one on its own and then get competitive bids for production. Mandate that congrss doesn't get to add any requirements, only combat requirements from a group of people from combat pilots, threat anayysts, and senior commanders ... ohm yeah, add in senior crew chiefs so maintenance would get considered. In fact, the maintenance guys should have an equal say to the design guys and the end design doesn't go forward without 75% approval (or pick a number).

Actually that does happen, the only thing there is members of congress try to ensure that their states get the biggest piece of the production pie. the one who continually add on things are engineers, analysts and yes, senior pilots.

GregP said:
Too late to do anything about the F-35, but we shoudl damned well do SOMETHING better for the next one, if there IS a next one. We could get off a LOT cheaper by buying Su-35's and modifying them with our own avionics suites ...

The Su 35 will be cannon fodder for the F-22, remember the F-35 IS NOT and WAS NEVER MEANT to be a dogfighter.

GregP · Jan 22, 2015

It may not have ever been meant to be a dogfighter, but it SURE AS HELL was SOLD that way. If I recall correctly, it was to have "potent dogfighting capabilities when the ground attack weapons were expended."

I figured at the time it was a load of malarkey, and would have voted to cancel it THEN, but I wasn't in the Senate or the House, so I just stewed about Congress being deluded ... again. And then we bought it.

Hope it all works out. If you go back and look it up, the F-35 most certainly was sold as a fighter after the bomb load was delivered.BGeing VERY into that, I paid close attention.

Since we DID buy it, again I hope it is very successful. If so, then this, too, shall pass.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 22, 2015

GregP said:
It may not have ever been meant to be a dogfighter, but it SURE AS HELL was SOLD that way. If I recall correctly, it was to have "potent dogfighting capabilities when the ground attack weapons were expended."

Yes - drop your bombs, shoot down your enemy BVR and go home. If this aircraft (or for that matter an F-22) is drawn into a close in visual dogfight (with no systems failures or political rules of engagement), you've just pissed away millions if not billions of dollars worth of technology.

GregP said:
I figured at the time it was a load of malarkey, and would have voted to cancel it THEN, but I wasn't in the Senate or the House, so I just stewed about Congress being deluded ... again. And then we bought it.

Actually it wasn't "malarkey" then or now - it does have an air to air capability and can "compete" against other modern fighters. Remember, the specification for this aircraft, INCLUDING it's air-to-air capability was written by the Pentagon, not LMCO...

VIDEO: F-35 test pilot defends JSF's dogfighting capability - The DEW Line

"U.S. military test pilots say the JSF is similar to the Boeing F/A-18C in speed and maneuverability."

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/can-the-f-35-win-a-dogfight-95462ccd6745

GregP · Jan 22, 2015

I fully agree that to get into a close-in dogfight is not a good use of assets designed for BVR lethality. I only hope they make rules of engagement that don't get all our assets shot down by forcing visual identification before engagement. If they don't, then BVR is a load of political crap and needs to be dropped like a hot potato ... and we need to get back to building dogfighters.

We'll have to disagree about the "malarkey" part but that's OK. We'll see in the future. Again, I'm pulling for the F-35 since we will buy it regardless of any like or dislike on anybody's part.

When I read about the Cope India fiasco of a few years ago, I saw the writing on the wall. The US was flying against odds of 3-to-1 minimum or better against us and they removed our BVR capabilities, AWACS, and air refueling. In that situation, you will almost certianly get shot down, even Raptors.

I don't mind the odds, but at least let the players use their available assets as they would in the real world. It looks like the U.S.A. agreed to fight that way so the other side could enjoy a rare taste of victory. Too bad the press claimed it showed our Air Force was inerffective. They should have looked at the ROE, which were stacked rather heavily so we'd have to eat the losses and taste defeat. No wonder the guys came home saying it was a "setup."

Real aerial conflicts usually aren't fought with the pilot's hands tied behind their backs. Usually their hands are only duct taped, like in Korea and Viet Nam. We couldn't attack MiG bases or cross the Yalu in Korea and we were rather heavily constrained in Viet Nam by the White House. Talk about STUPID, it WAS.

I hope we have learned our lesson about stupid constraints once the shooting starts, but I doubt it.

Cheers, Joe.

Glider · Jan 23, 2015

GregP said:
It may not have ever been meant to be a dogfighter, but it SURE AS HELL was SOLD that way. If I recall correctly, it was to have "potent dogfighting capabilities when the ground attack weapons were expended."

.

If it had been sold as a close in fighter then the RAF and a number of other nations wouldn't have bought the Typhoon. The F35 was purchased as a multi role aircraft which by definition isn't going to be able to be best at everything.

The F16 was never the best fighter in the world as the F15 was always around but it was a very effective multi role aircraft, well able of taking care of itself and has done excellent service. I see the F35 more as a replacement for the F16 than the F15.

GregP · Jan 24, 2015

I see it that way, too, but it WAS hyped as having a significant air-to-air capability that we now realize is not really the case.

some F35 info

Major

Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Airman

Major

Pacific Historian

Major

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

Captain

Major

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads