F-16.net

Enthusiast Joined: Aug 07, 2008 Posts: 71 Status: Offline

THe F-35 is lokheeds biggest ongoing project but the pentagon seeks to cancel. does any one have any deeper info on this subject

F-16.net Sponsor

hobojet wrote:

THe F-35 is lokheeds biggest ongoing project but the pentagon seeks to cancel. does any one have any deeper info on this subject

Neither the Pentagon, the US Government nor anyone else in any sort of position of authority has suggested the F-35 program is going to be cancelled.

Period.

It is in fact consistently amongst THE top acquisition priorities for the USAF, US Navy and USMC as well as the US Defence Department as a WHOLE.

I agree with Conan...

The USAF is banking on the F-35. If it slips too far or gets canceled, the USAF will be hurting bad for new fighter aircraft. Much like the Tanker deal today...

F-16s can't and won't last forever.

Look at the P-38 of WWII; At first it was a kick-@$$ fighter, by the time it reached the "L model" it had become a ground attack platform. (Much like the F-16) The last P-38Ls came off the lines in 1945.

Now if F-16s are used until the F-35s are fully fielded, some of the Vipers will be 30-35 years old. Some Block 30/32s are already 23 years old.

Think of using P-38Ls in attacks against Mig-23s or Mig-25s of the late 1970s; would a P-38L be able to stop a Tornado GR1 or Mirage III attack!?!

By the time ALL the Vipers are gone there may be Gen6 aircraft trolling the skies looking for targets.

We need to press with new aircraft and new aircraft technologies to keep us ahead in this death match, but we must also not neglect our existing airframes maintenance or upgrades to keep the viable until they are retired.

Without proper maintenance and upgrade funding Vipers will be a liability by 2025 not an asset.

Two Cents

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 03, 2008 Posts: 44 Status: Offline

Not only are the block 30/32s 23 years old the average hours on the airframe is from 5000 to 6000 hours, I know each time AEF comes up our block 30s that go lose a year of life of the airframe. so the sooner the next gen fighter will get fielded the better.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

I don't think there is a chance in hell the F-35 will be cancelled -- regardless of who moves into the white house or if it falls behind schedule.

The reason is simple. There is no alternative to the F-35 at this time for replacing the US fighter fleet. The F-22 is not an alternative because its recurring unit costs are 2~2.5 x higher ($100~133M vs ~$4 Cool

, it does not meet USMC/USN requirements, it does not have the F-35's range and it won't have the multi-role sensor/targeting capabilities of the F-35 unless significant R&D time & money are invested to incorporate them -- time & money which would be similar to completing F-35 development. Basically, if the US wants to recapitalize its fighter stables, the F-35 is the only game in town, and not recapitalizing is not an option in the long run.

Elite 2K Joined: Oct 20, 2005 Posts: 2103 Status: Offline

hobojet wrote:

THe F-35 is lokheeds biggest ongoing project but the pentagon seeks to cancel. does any one have any deeper info on this subject

Sorry, hobojet! Some friendly people already replied to your question. But please tell us what was the real intention of your post?

Enthusiast Joined: Aug 07, 2008 Posts: 71 Status: Offline

the real intention of my post was not that america would cancel the whole production, but wouldn't buy the F-35. I got it from a website which I am trying to locate. But I geuss you can't always trust the world wide web.
thank you you've all been helpful.

P.S. please exscuse my stupidity.

hobojet wrote:

the real intention of my post was not that america would cancel the whole production, but wouldn't buy the F-35. I got it from a website which I am trying to locate. But I geuss you can't always trust the world wide web.
thank you you've all been helpful.

P.S. please exscuse my stupidity.

If it was Air Power Australia, I'd give them a miss if I were you. You would otherwise, very shortly believe the end of the world is in sight, unless we rely upon F-22's and F-111's to save us from the Chinese Hordes coming for us...

Just like Eric Palmer.

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

Conan wrote:

hobojet wrote:

the real intention of my post was not that america would cancel the whole production, but wouldn't buy the F-35. I got it from a website which I am trying to locate. But I geuss you can't always trust the world wide web.
thank you you've all been helpful.

P.S. please exscuse my stupidity.

If it was Air Power Australia, I'd give them a miss if I were you. You would otherwise, very shortly believe the end of the world is in sight, unless we rely upon F-22's and F-111's to save us from the Chinese Hordes coming for us...

Just like Eric Palmer.

elp wrote:

Conan wrote:

hobojet wrote:

the real intention of my post was not that america would cancel the whole production, but wouldn't buy the F-35. I got it from a website which I am trying to locate. But I geuss you can't always trust the world wide web.
thank you you've all been helpful.

P.S. please exscuse my stupidity.

If it was Air Power Australia, I'd give them a miss if I were you. You would otherwise, very shortly believe the end of the world is in sight, unless we rely upon F-22's and F-111's to save us from the Chinese Hordes coming for us...

Just like Eric Palmer.

Hey Eric,

Nice to see you around.

I liked your (or rather Carlo's) comparison of the F-35 to the F-105.

You guys missed out one little fact however.

The F-105 had more air to air victories in Vietnam than any other US tactical aircraft, beside the F-4...

Interesting piece of history isn't it?

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

Yeah... I knew one of them that later was the commander of the 17RW at Alconbury (TR-1 (U-2)... he was zipping off a target and the MiG-17 pretty much flashed in front of him and he gunned it down. Laughing

Since you like Vietnam comparisons, you might want to take a deeper look at some of the F-105 risks in Vietnam.

I think it is a cool airplane. And I like all the history behind the 105. I was stationed at the 301st (Carswell AFB, Ft Worth when they had them) The tail code was "TH".... in small letters after the TH on each ship was "ud" Laughing

elp wrote:

Yeah... I knew one of them that later was the commander of the 17RW at Alconbury (TR-1 (U-2)... he was zipping off a target and the MiG-17 pretty much flashed in front of him and he gunned it down. Laughing

Since you like Vietnam comparisons, you might want to take a deeper look at some of the F-105 risks in Vietnam.

I think it is a cool airplane. And I like all the history behind the 105. I was stationed at the 301st (Carswell AFB, Ft Worth when they had them) The tail code was "TH".... in small letters after the TH on each ship was "ud" Laughing

Over 25 air to air victories is nothing to disregard lightly my friend.

Especially when persons with a similar attitude to yourself were going around telling all and sundry how "outclassed" they were...

Obviously I am a bit of a fan of the Thud and have read quite a bit about them and their performance in combat as opposed to their performance on paper...

Their capability was quite outstanding despite being forced into a role they weren't really designed for.

Cheers.

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

The fact is they didn't go out doing air domination missions with a Thud... most of those kills were as I described as function of convenience not as part of a prime mission i.e. "... todays mission for the squadron as briefed is to do a fighter sweep south of Hanoi... Laughing

....

elp wrote:

The fact is they didn't go out doing air domination missions with a Thud... most of those kills were as I described as function of convenience not as part of a prime mission i.e. "... todays mission for the squadron as briefed is to do a fighter sweep south of Hanoi... Laughing

....

Agreed. They had F-4's to do that mission.

However the IMPORTANT fact is, that naysayers such as you argued that these combat aircraft were every bit as "outclassed" as you argue that the Super Hornet and the Joint Strike Fighter are now, but in actual FACT, when it came to the crunch, these so-called "strike" aircraft proved significantly superior to the enemy, despite being employed in a role for which they were not designed for.

The situation is IDENTICAL today, but you don't wish to see it, for reasons best known to yourself.

The fact that you use strawman arguments to attempt to support your case, should show this, without further research being necessary.

Last edited by outlaw162 on Aug 29, 2008 - 04:20 PM; edited 3 times in total

The Thud was “outclassed” air-to-air. It was a terrible air-to-air aircraft. MiG’s got a bunch. Having flown both the Thud and the F-4, and against the Thud with the F-4, I can assure you I would much rather be in an F-4 A2A. Minor speed disadvantage, MAJOR turn advantage. Actually, if I had my choice, I would probably rather have been in the MiG-21.

The reason the Thud got the reputation it did was not it’s capabilities, but the capabilities & skill of the fighter pilots driving them.. These guys were the best around at the time. These guys took an aerodynamically limited aircraft (except for speed), essentially a bomber, and did a number on what had to be considered superior A2A aircraft, primarily the MiG-17 but also the MiG-21, with the GUN.

I’m sure a number of their kills were on aircraft that never saw them, but this detracts in no way from what they accomplished with guts & skill.

But I really don't see the F-35 as being "outclassed" by anything.

regards, OL

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 might not be for america