F-16.net

Newbie Joined: Feb 10, 2007 Posts: 11 Status: Offline

ok, seriously, is the F-35 really needed? Is it worth the money? Are we getting ahead of ourselves when the US is already the strongest and one of the only superpowers left in the world?

Let me know what you think.

F-16.net Sponsor

Of course we need the F-35. Even thought we are the only superpower we must
continually upgrade aging equipment and development new technology in order to stay that way. If we keep our old technology eventually someone will surpass
us if we're not always on our toes in terms of development. Its clear that no one in the world can take us on. I even dare say if we wanted to we could take over the whole world and no one would be able to stop us ahahahahaha sorry bout that just the rbaab(Red blood all American boy) in me talkin. But seriously
though yes F-35 super cool.

Newbie Joined: Feb 10, 2007 Posts: 11 Status: Offline

I personally think the F-35 is kind of dumb, it doesn't really look that cool and even though we need to upgrade, why get rid of things that are proven to work, it is understandable to get rid of something that is so old it is almost impossible to maintain, but look at the B-52 that has been in service for over 50 years

Only time will tell if the F-35 was worth it. I find it ironic that a small, supposedly nimble fighter was named after the P-38; a large and mainly unmaneuverable bird.

Newbie Joined: Feb 10, 2007 Posts: 11 Status: Offline

True. that is ironic

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 06, 2006 Posts: 65 Status: Offline

I agree with the ironic naming. I never did care for naming it the Lightning II. The only thing those two have in common is the manufacture. I always thought "Thud II" had a better ring to it IMHO. They both are single engine aircraft with an emphasis on ground attack. And if I am not mistaken, wasn't the F-105 the most powerful single engine aircraft of it's time?

As for the topic. We need new fighters. Our legacy aircraft are going to be put in jeopardy every time they go up against a newer SAM system. The SA-2X are becoming deadlier and more of a threat than the older systems (i.e. SA-2, 3, 5...) It was a SA-3 that brought down the F-117 (in conjunction with AAA). So we need a newer strike fighter aircraft capable of beating newer TTRs like the TOMBSTONEs and GRAVESTONEs. And our new "stealth" aircraft are the answer to defeating these systems.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1088 Status: Offline

MSgt wrote:

I personally think the F-35 is kind of dumb, it doesn't really look that cool and even though we need to upgrade, why get rid of things that are proven to work, it is understandable to get rid of something that is so old it is almost impossible to maintain, but look at the B-52 that has been in service for over 50 years

By that rational we should be flying F-4s. Rolling Eyes

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Yeah its needed. Too bad we are pissing away money on Operation: Useless Dirt ( Iraq ) which is taking away money from good projects. The mess in Iraq doesn't do anything to defend us. Making sure we have the best/latest airpower does.

I have been a critic of JSF for sometime in that yes we could probably do first night war stuff any other way and spend less cash. But JSF is going to happen so at least one consolation is that the JSF program is rare indeed. It is extremely well run. I have never seen a big weapon purchase run this well in recent times. That makes me happy.

Really worth it? After seeing a few unclas public release briefings for it I would say: Yes. The sensors on it: Electro-Optical, AESA radar, ESM support, DAS (distributed aperture system) and a few other things are nothing short of incredible. Shocking even and I am pretty jaded.

Gas: ( internal fuel figures ) F-16 is a little over 7 thousand pounds, Harrier almost 8000 pounds, C Hornet around 10,000 pounds, Super Hornet around 14,000 pounds. Where the Hornets have two mouths to feed. All these aircraft are draggy as hell when you hang munitions on them. So their range ain't all that hot. Now .....JSF internal fuel: Conventional Take off JSF, 18400 pounds, STOVL Harrier 14,000pounds ( not bad for this pig ), Carrier version 20,000 pounds. Now where the STOVL may burn a bit more doing austere airfield/ship ops... the other two versions just on internal fuel are nothing short of incredible. You have this clean, single engine, low drag airframe, that can carry internal weapons... carrying that much gas. Wow.

Stealth Operations & Maintenance. While still yet to be seen, this should be impressive. While it may not be stealth on par with F-22, some is better than none. We still have problems with legacy aircraft not getting killed by old generation SAMs that have been upgraded. Where Allied Force 1999 was no picnic for legacy aircraft like F-16s. They got engaged a lot. Yes there will be some super SAMs out there as you mentioned, but I also like the idea of seriously limiting the abilities of the older generation upgraded SAMs. That has a nice comfort to it. Super SAM will still be serious threats but again, stealth reduces that sensor range so it is better than being naked like a legacy jet.
The maintenance for JSF sounds scary good. The program office now makes a bold claim that 99% of maintenance tasks do not upset the stealth profile of the aircraft. That all by itself is impressive. This of course is an issue with older generation stealth like F-117 and B-2 where after certain maintenance, things have to be done to put it's stealth profile back in to shape. Lots of time saved here for JSF.

The engine. If F-22's awesome engine reliability is any indicator, JSF might make me truly believe in one engine combat jets. Around 30% of all F-16s dumped up to about 1992 or so were to engines going bad in flight. My old saw is that if you purchase an equal number of two engine and one engine jets.... you will have more 2 engine jets in your fleet after 30 years of use than one engine jets. This may prove nice cost of ownership for JSF customers if the engine is as hyper reliable as it seems. Hopefully less dumped aiframes due to engine issues and of course less aircrew loss.

I could blah blah about the weapons but there doesn't seem to be any lack of anything here except for a few mentions. The weight saving event for the STOVL design meant it can only carry 2 1000lb class bombs internal vs. the 2 ea 2000lb class for the CTOL/CV versions. Actually those two weapon stations (number 4 and number eight ) in question for the CTOL/CV are rated at 2500 pounds each.

Non stealth mode ops- Even if you didn't carry drop tanks using the internal fuel only still should make a lot of ops that don't require stealth very very interesting for the person that decides what to put on the aircraft for a mission. The first inboard wing stations #3 and #9... Are rated for 5,000 pounds each. Granted you could put your drop tanks here, but some missions may not even need drop tanks. # 10 and # 2 = 2500 pounds each, #1 and #11 300 pounds each.( the only A2A_only stations). It will be interesting to see how weapons are hung on it in future non-stealth ops. Short missions for the Marine STOVL means a lot of bombs both internal and external can be hung. Where a lot of CAS weapons don't have to weigh a lot. (quantity is better over weight )

My opinion is that this aircraft will have no problem winning a war. JSF partners that get this thing should be damn well pleased with what it can do. It is very well thought out and while I will defer to a Gums, Cylon etc. JSF should be everything Gums flying in his trusty A-37, A-7, F-16, could ever dream about in a future Buck Rogers air arm.

A final point: We are kicking a lot of talented people out of the USAF to pay for this. The only silver lining in that dark cloud is I believe JSF will justify that sacrifice.

elp wrote:

Yeah its needed.

I'm speechless...after all this time Wink

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

Pat1 wrote:

elp wrote:

Yeah its needed.

I'm speechless...after all this time Wink

I kept listening for the drum roll before that post! Is that REALLY the same dude????/ ELP, think someone has hijacked your sig`!!!! Laughing

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 10, 2007 Posts: 51 Status: Offline

MarcoPolo wrote:

Only time will tell if the F-35 was worth it. I find it ironic that a small, supposedly nimble fighter was named after the P-38; a large and mainly unmaneuverable bird.

Because it is a joint venture one naming reason was due to both the UK and US having previous aircraft called "Lightning" as in the P38 WW2 prop plane and the F6 Mach 2.3 fighter Jet.

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 10, 2007 Posts: 51 Status: Offline

MSgt wrote:

I personally think the F-35 is kind of dumb, it doesn't really look that cool and even though we need to upgrade, why get rid of things that are proven to work, it is understandable to get rid of something that is so old it is almost impossible to maintain, but look at the B-52 that has been in service for over 50 years

Be interesting to know what a B52 survival probability is against modern SAMS - Im kinda guessing that due to its size it can be fitted with enough ECM to jam them and fly medium height.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

snypa777 wrote:

Pat1 wrote:

elp wrote:

Yeah its needed.

I'm speechless...after all this time Wink

I kept listening for the drum roll before that post! Is that REALLY the same dude????/ ELP, think someone has hijacked your sig`!!!! Laughing

Well it is all conditional. OUD is sucking up a lot of cash for no gain. After we leave that disaster we are going to need upgraded weapons systems in place to destroy all the enemies we created in OUD.

In my opinion the question should really be broken into two parts. Do we need it in 10-15 years? Is there a less expensive alternative?

We certainly do not need it now. In fact if we need anything we need more Raptors and we need to upgrade our existing fleet of F-15s. For the US I do think the cheaper more effective alternative is to continue to develop and build more Raptors. Upgrade (or new build F-15s with all the latest goodies), and continue to develop both the Rhino and UCAVs for the Navy. The Marines should also be buying both the Rhino and an upgraded version of the Harrier. Even in 20 years time this combination would be more than enough to deal with any threats likely to develop.

The real reason why JSF needs to be fielded can be found in this forum and others. Not a month goes by without a post saying the JSF beat out (fill in the alternative of the day) in (country of choice) fighter competition. We need to provide our allies with an unbeatable AC at a competitive price. If we do not we will not have a fighter for export that will dominate the market as the F-15, 16, and 18 has done in the past.

SpeaktheTruth, paging SpeakTheTruth... Sad

Firefox137, paging Firefox137.... Sad

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Is the F-35 REALLY worth it?