F-35

[carlfense]

So, the problems they are having with the "b" and "c" versions, are they some extreme upgrade in technology that we really don't need? Or, are they in the basic structure and function of the plane?

 

Meaning, are they simply trying to figure out how to get the plane to fly? OR, are they trying to figure out something like some special radar system amunition system that is way above what we currently have but what we do have would work?

I think it's a high tech version of "jack of all trades, master of none."

 

The Air Force wants a cheap air to air, and air to ground, alternative to the F-22. (To replace existing F16s and A10s).

The Navy wants a replacement for the carrier based F/A-18, for air to air, and air to ground. (Different requirements than a ground based fighter, including, but not limited to structural changes, arrestor hooks, etc.)

The Marines want a replacement for their Harriers, for air to air, and air to ground. (Adding a whole different set of complexities, the marine version has to be vertical take off and landing, or, at the very least short take off and landing. Almost entirely different from the Air Force and Naval versions.)

 

It's a stupid idea. The idea, vigorously sold by Lockheed, is that one airframe can do all of these tasks cheaper/more effectively than specialized aircraft.

 

My guess? Those F16s, A10s, F/A18s, and Harriers are still flying two decades from now because this monumental cluster@#$% will never produce.

[rawhide]

So, the problems they are having with the "b" and "c" versions, are they some extreme upgrade in technology that we really don't need? Or, are they in the basic structure and function of the plane?

 

Meaning, are they simply trying to figure out how to get the plane to fly? OR, are they trying to figure out something like some special radar system amunition system that is way above what we currently have but what we do have would work?

I think it's a high tech version of "jack of all trades, master of none."

 

The Air Force wants a cheap air to air, and air to ground, alternative to the F-22. (To replace existing F16s and A10s).

The Navy wants a replacement for the carrier based F/A-18, for air to air, and air to ground. (Different requirements than a ground based fighter, including, but not limited to structural changes, arrestor hooks, etc.)

The Marines want a replacement for their Harriers, for air to air, and air to ground. (Adding a whole different set of complexities, the marine version has to be vertical take off and landing, or, at the very least short take off and landing. Almost entirely different from the Air Force and Naval versions.)

 

It's a stupid idea. The idea, vigorously sold by Lockheed, is that one airframe can do all of these tasks cheaper/more effectively than specialized aircraft.

 

My guess? Those F16s, A10s, F/A18s, and Harriers are still flying two decades from now because this monumental cluster@#$% will never produce.

eloquent as ever. Now I don't have to repeat it.

 

Seeing as the F35 doesn't have a gun and can't carry near the payload of an A10 there are some dum dums that bought a load. If battlefield survivability is all with some gee whiz helmet then ok but if it can't do the job of the A10 or F18???

[BigRedBuster]

The other uses are precisely the reason for the 'B' and 'C' versions. The F35C is a carrier capable version of the F35, with the varying size/etc modifications necessary (carriers also have shorter runways). It's the F35B that has either the short or vertical take off and landing (SVTOL) requirements, and that's for I believe the even smaller ships used by the Marine Corps, as well as the smaller carriers of our foreign partners. The F35 is meant to replace a very wide range of aircraft, after all, and not just in the United States; it includes the British STVOL Harriers.

 

 

I suppose it would be too much for the British to help pay for this?

[carlfense]

The other uses are precisely the reason for the 'B' and 'C' versions. The F35C is a carrier capable version of the F35, with the varying size/etc modifications necessary (carriers also have shorter runways). It's the F35B that has either the short or vertical take off and landing (SVTOL) requirements, and that's for I believe the even smaller ships used by the Marine Corps, as well as the smaller carriers of our foreign partners. The F35 is meant to replace a very wide range of aircraft, after all, and not just in the United States; it includes the British STVOL Harriers.

I suppose it would be too much for the British to help pay for this?

They are.

[BigRedBuster]

The other uses are precisely the reason for the 'B' and 'C' versions. The F35C is a carrier capable version of the F35, with the varying size/etc modifications necessary (carriers also have shorter runways). It's the F35B that has either the short or vertical take off and landing (SVTOL) requirements, and that's for I believe the even smaller ships used by the Marine Corps, as well as the smaller carriers of our foreign partners. The F35 is meant to replace a very wide range of aircraft, after all, and not just in the United States; it includes the British STVOL Harriers.

I suppose it would be too much for the British to help pay for this?

They are.

 

 

Good

[rawhide]

TOP GUN BABY:

 

http://theaviationist.com/2013/09/19/f-22-f-4-intercept/#.Uj0V-xDfc5s

[walksalone]

I guess what I don't get is why not overhaul the F-14's, 16's, & 18's? You could probably do it at the fraction of the cost to make, test fly, and unf*ck the F35's.

 

There are B-52's that are still in service longer than most of us have been alive...

[zoogs]

The F-18E/F program is fairly recent (90s, right?)...and the F-14 is by now retired from service. F-16s are still going strong (??? I think) but they're really old airframes and none of them provide stealth functionality.

 

There are B-52s still in service but thank goodness the US also has B-2 capability. rawhide, that story sounds awesome

[Mavric]

TOP GUN BABY:

 

http://theaviationis...t/#.Uj0V-xDfc5s

[ZRod]

I guess what I don't get is why not overhaul the F-14's, 16's, & 18's? You could probably do it at the fraction of the cost to make, test fly, and unf*ck the F35's.

 

There are B-52's that are still in service longer than most of us have been alive...

All those fighter airframes are over 30 years old and essentially from the same generation. At some point were going to need the complete capabilities a new fighter has that these others can't provide to keep pace with our friends across the pond.

[carlfense]

There are B-52s still in service but thank goodness the US also has B-2 capability.

Plus ~3x as many B-1s as B-2s. (They seem to always get lost in the conversation . . .)

[beanman]

There are B-52s still in service but thank goodness the US also has B-2 capability.

Plus ~3x as many B-1s as B-2s. (They seem to always get lost in the conversation . . .)

Probably my favorite. Love seeing these in person. A thing of beauty.

[rawhide]

Da Bone can be equipped with a/a capabilities. Rotary launcher in the weapons bay can carry ARAAM 120 or AIM 9. And still have room for JDSSM airmunitions.

 

I think there is or was a member that used to fly the B1 or was a maintainer.

 

My bad; I think I read about a program for the B2 that would have given it A/A capabilites not the B1.

 

B1 just carries precision munitions. No neato cool a/a missiles

[ZRod]

Probably my favorite. Love seeing these in person. A thing of beauty.

Didn't one do a fly over in the not to distance past? I remember seeing one and I can't remember where, I just know it was LOUD!

[TGHusker]

F-35 = Military Industrial Complex remember Ike's prophetic words from the 1950s. My uncle flew B-52s in Vietnam - he was the senior officer and did the anti-missle defense stuff on the plain. He (and crew) had to bail out of one 200 miles from Guam in 1972. He said the B-52s had their issues then but it is amazing how long they have lasted and continue to be a long range threat to our enemies.