some F35 info

syscom3 · Mar 22, 2015

Im actually the sane one here. Asking why something that is neither a great bomber or a great fighter is being allowed to continue as a program. Its useless when engaging modern air defenses. Its an overpriced gilded lawn dart against low tech adversaries. I will accept its a good solution for the Marines who have a unique set of circumstances they have to deal with. But to build thousands for what purpose? At what cost? And knowing the stealth features are going to be vulnerable in a decade or so. This plane will have a short production run. A few hundred or so as the generals and admirals fund secret designs that are true fighters and true bombers. And no more of this multi-role crap that the budget analysts sold to congress.

FLYBOYJ · Mar 22, 2015

syscom3 said:
Im actually tho same one here. Asking why something that is neither a great bomber or a great fighter is being allowed to continue as a program. Its useless when engaging modern air defenses. Its an overpriced gilded lawn dart against low tech adversaries. I will accept its a good solution for the Marines who have a unique set of circumstances they have to deal with. But to build thousands for what purpose? At what cost? And knowing the stealth features are going to be vulnerable in a decade or so. This plane will have a short production run. A few hundred or so as the generals and admirals fund secret designs that are true fighters and true bombers. And no more of this multi-role crap that the budget analysts sold to congress.

Are you done?!?!? Because I've asked you to back up your bull sh1t, so one more time, do so...

pbehn · Mar 22, 2015

FLYBOYJ said:
I don't understand your concern? So they're flying in the same airspace. Aside from the good ole eyeball, there's TCAS and IFF for collision avoidance.

Not really a great concern but both aircraft will have weapons that can strike beyond visual range. Chinese and Russian stealth AC look similar to F35s. I would like to think US and UK pilots use exactly the same systems protocols and habits so they can fight together rather being kept apart in case of an accident. For example a Tornado was downed by a patriot missile when its IFF failed, I presume the US Air Force and Navy has a system to deal with this.

ScreamingLighting · Mar 22, 2015

FLYBOYJ said:
Their initial production costs were cheap when compared in today's dollars. Look what it's costing to sustain them in operating and maintenance costs.

Average cost per flying hour of the F-16C: 25.5K
As compared to the F-35A: About 34K
And the A-10: 17.8K
That doesn't factor in maintaining things such as the stealth in the F-35. I support the F-35, just not the the huge sweeping numbers some advertise.

pbehn · Mar 22, 2015

ScreamingLighting said:
Average cost per flying hour of the F-16C: 25.5K
As compared to the F-35A: About 34K
And the A-10: 17.8K
That doesn't factor in maintaining things such as the stealth in the F-35.

In Libya the UK spent £250,000 a day using tornados to watch people driving Toyota pick ups, the cost of AC and missiles is completely out of proportion to the value of the targets. Pick ups, machine guns and manic fruitcakes can be found on any Libyan street.

FLYBOYJ · Mar 22, 2015

pbehn said:
Not really a great concern but both aircraft will have weapons that can strike beyond visual range. Chinese and Russian stealth AC look similar to F35s. I would like to think US and UK pilots use exactly the same systems protocols and habits so they can fight together rather being kept apart in case of an accident. For example a Tornado was downed by a patriot missile when its IFF failed, I presume the US Air Force and Navy has a system to deal with this.

That was an IFF failure IIRC, the one in a 10,000 chance

ScreamingLighting said:
Average cost per flying hour of the F-16C: 25.5K
As compared to the F-35A: About 34K
And the A-10: 17.8K
That doesn't factor in maintaining things such as the stealth in the F-35. I support the F-35, just not the the huge sweeping numbers some advertise.

That's an hourly operating cost and for the F-35 it will go down. I'm talking about factoring in Depot Level Maintenance. you do that and you'll have the real operating cost of those aircraft

FLYBOYJ · Mar 22, 2015

pbehn said:
In Libya the UK spent £250,000 a day using tornados to watch people driving Toyota pick ups, the cost of AC and missiles is completely out of proportion to the value of the targets. Pick ups, machine guns and manic fruitcakes can be found on any Libyan street.

That's the dilemma the west is up against when using advanced weapons against terrorists. Even using an A-10 is like driving a semi-trucks to deliver one bundle of flowers when you start factoring out costs.

Lucky13 · Mar 22, 2015

I say, bring back the Hawker Typhoon/Tempest and the Skyraider!

syscom3 · Mar 22, 2015

Stealth is not a cloaking device. Eventually your stealth plane will be lit up.

Radar theory 101: If you cant see it, crank up the power till you do see it. And there's all sorts of clever radar systems that will do just that.

The F35 is not invisible. Its low observable. And it can be detected far enough away by using the the concept in radar 101. Just like that F117 that was downed.

If its low observability allows it to remain relatively immune to detection at a long stand off range, why not just purpose build a lower cost bomb truck that does the same thing for a fraction of the cost?

The Russian S400 is good enough to make the attrition of the F35's unsustainable. And that's the whole concept of layered air defenses. Lots of detection technologies with several types of missiles with different capabilities. The F35 will not survive these defenses without a lot of drones going in first and taking the defenses out. Which then begs the question, on why do we need an F35 when a drone can do it better.

Once its in range of opposing fighters, its stealth means nothing. Then its the plane that is purpose built for maneuvering that will down it.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M

FLYBOYJ · Mar 22, 2015

syscom3 said:
Stealth is not a cloaking device. Eventually your stealth plane will be lit up.

That's been known for years

syscom3 said:
Radar theory 101: If you cant see it, crank up the power till you do see it. And there's all sorts of clever radar systems that will do just that.

And there are still all sorts of clever ways to defeat it

syscom3 said:
The F35 is not invisible. Its low observable. And it can be detected far enough away by using the the concept in radar 101. Just like that F117 that was downed.

And the B-2 and all the other fighters being built with LO technology. A -117 was shot down after how many sorties???? NO ONE ever said this aircraft was "invisible" and I think you're pulling that out of thin air.

syscom3 said:
If its low observability allows it to remain relatively immune to detection at a long stand off range, why not just purpose build a lower cost bomb truck that does the same thing for a fraction of the cost?

Because this aircraft does MORE than just a limited strike like the F-117, READ the capabilities and LEARN. Because of the shared airframe it could be built in numbers that will supply 3 armed services. It seems you're perspective on this this is one dimensional.

syscom3 said:
The Russian S400 is good enough to make the attrition of the F35's unsustainable. And that's the whole concept of layered air defenses. Lots of detection technologies with several types of missiles with different capabilities. The F35 will not survive these defenses without a lot of drones going in first and taking the defenses out. Which then begs the question, on why do we need an F35 when a drone can do it better.

The point is a drone CAN NOT do it better and would cost just about as much. Again, rigidity - do you honestly think a F-35 strike on a heavily defended won't happen without other EW aircraft jamming radar?!?!?

syscom3 said:
Once its in range of opposing fighters, its stealth means nothing. Then its the plane that is purpose built for maneuvering that will down it.

Only if they could kill it first. You've given worse case scenarios that could possibly happen but won't. With your points, every F-117 should have been shot down during the Gulf War.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M

YOU'RE STILL QUOTEING THE RAND REPORT!!!!

Here, update your browser, the first RAAF pilot is on his way to the US

Future Fleet: Australia?s F-35 Commitments ? Choices

Lucky13 · Mar 22, 2015

syscom3 said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M

Sukhoi sales video?

Lucky13 · Mar 22, 2015

A lot can happen and a lot will happen in the aviation industry under six to eight years, looking at that website...

FLYBOYJ · Mar 22, 2015

Lucky13 said:
Sukhoi sales video?

It probably is - I think their Australian based marketing rep is now floating in the Volga

FLYBOYJ · Mar 22, 2015

Lucky13 said:
A lot can happen and a lot will happen in the aviation industry under six to eight years, looking at that website...

YUP - from an Australian report condemning the F-35 to their liberal government buying over 50 F-35A!

Lucky13 · Mar 22, 2015

...and the F-35 being outdated!

FLYBOYJ · Mar 22, 2015

Lucky13 said:
...and the F-35 being outdated!

Are you drinking cool aid too!?!

Glider · Mar 22, 2015

One countermeasure development and the S400 is blind and ineffective. Besides you haven't given your reply to the question what would you use to attack the enemy with given that the drones are both more expensive and far more vulnerable than the F35.

Also you keep saying this
If its low observability allows it to remain relatively immune to detection at a long stand off range, why not just purpose build a lower cost bomb truck that does the same thing for a fraction of the cost?
Without giving a reply to the obvious question How close do you think your bomb truck will get in a shooting war?

I am still waiting for any reply to the many questions that have been asked

FLYBOYJ · Mar 22, 2015

The S-400 (an upgrade to the S-300) started to be developed in the early 1990s and deployed around 2000, so I guess it's outdated as well???

ScreamingLighting · Mar 22, 2015

Glider said:
One countermeasure development and the S400 is blind and ineffective. Besides you haven't given your reply to the question what would you use to attack the enemy with given that the drones are both more expensive and far more vulnerable than the F35.

Also you keep saying this
If its low observability allows it to remain relatively immune to detection at a long stand off range, why not just purpose build a lower cost bomb truck that does the same thing for a fraction of the cost?
Without giving a reply to the obvious question How close do you think your bomb truck will get in a shooting war?

I am still waiting for any reply to the many questions that have been asked

Well, I'll say this time and time again. The F-35s, B-2s, F-22s and various drones we don't know about will do their thing. Stealth planes will sweep up the most hostile parts of the environment, but the bomb trucks such as the F-16 will be maintained for their abilities to have a higher sortie rate, being more easy to maintain, and being generally less expensive. The other fact of life is that in 90% of our future engagements, the F-35 won't be necessary as compared to the F-16. You keep some F-35s for the 10%, but not replace the entire fleet.

FLYBOYJ · Mar 22, 2015

ScreamingLighting said:
Well, I'll say this time and time again. The F-35s, B-2s, F-22s and various drones we don't know about will do their thing. Stealth planes will sweep up the most hostile parts of the environment, but the bomb trucks such as the F-16 will be maintained for their abilities to have a higher sortie rate, being more easy to maintain, and being generally less expensive. The other fact of life is that in 90% of our future engagements, the F-35 won't be necessary as compared to the F-16. You keep some F-35s for the 10%, but not replace the entire fleet.

If you're sustaining an aging airframe it will eventually cost more to keep it around, although agree, the later block F-16 aren't going away quite yet.

some F35 info

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Colonel

Airman

Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Forum Mascot

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Forum Mascot

Forum Mascot

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Forum Mascot

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads