F-16.net

Newbie Joined: Dec 15, 2006 Posts: 15 Status: Offline

This might be hard to answer as it is very subjective... but I would like to see with one word... Yes or no...

Do you think the F-35 will be a success?

F-16.net Sponsor

Enthusiast Joined: May 08, 2005 Posts: 69 Status: Offline

Enthusiast Joined: Mar 13, 2007 Posts: 98 Status: Offline

A success at what? Consider the F-111: it was a failure as a USN and USAF fighter. Turned out the powers that were at the time were able to turn it into a decent bomber, though even that may be disputed.

Consider the F-35A and Lockheed: it was designed to be as light as possible and at rollout of AA1, it was still too heavy. It was too heavy when the CATIA models were still being released for tooling. Despite the thin skins and heavy use of composites and titanium, it was too damned heavy. Now they got to go back and put the damned thing on a Jenny Craig diet plan...
Which means even less structural durability than it already has, and you MUST remember that its big turofan runs hotter than any other fighter ever operated by the USA. Heat and thin skins are not mutual friends.

Will the F-35 be able to precision drop its bombs? Sure, why not. After all it is the most complicated (electrically) fighter ever flown and it damned well better be able to hit a bulls eye otherwise its a case of another airplane program which is cancelled.

Will the F-35 be able to be the worlds best fighter/attack/bomber and still be able to to fly CAP missions as well as the F-22? The F-15? Will it have the ability to reach out and touch the other guy at distance, and be able to out turn the other guy? Doubtful.

Will the F-35 be as rugged as the A-10. That's a BIG 'negative' there. Will it have the standoff ground attack ability as the F-22? Nope. That damned thing packs a lot of electrical power in a very densa package and has one damned hot engine too. Will it be less visible to IR than the F-22? Nope.

By what measuring stick do you want to define success? Hell, even the F-104 was a success in that it was exported around the world, make a lot of money in sales, and saw service for decades... Was it a good fighter? Nope. Was it a good bomber? Nope. One of my old collegues was a F-104 driver on the X-15 program and he can tell you what a dismal warplane it truly was. It was fine for launching a couple of aams and thats about all... Oh, and it was invaluable on the X-15 program as a chase plane.

So what is success and the F-35? I see a lot hurdles and a lot of flaws with what the JSF turned out to be and I see very few positives.

Look at the F-4 Phantom. Everyone loves to pick holes in that plane. Yet, it was a hell of a bomber, fighter, and recon platform. Poor visibility aside and lack of a 20mm cannon... All that plane was short of. It flew for the USMC, the USN, and USAF as well as other nations AirForces. It could absorb a close call with a sam and still fly back to base. What the Phantom lacked was the thrust of the F-15 and a better missile/radar combo. The plane that everyone loves to hate was a work horse and once we learned how to fly actual engagements with other airplanes it turned out to be quite the capable performer.

I remember simulated missions against the new sparkling new F-15 and it was still essentially pilot vs pilot. The F-15 had some advantage due to wing loading and thrust, but those issues were able to be corrected. Had Jimmy Carter not been in office in the late 1970's when oil was worth more than gold, then the gas sipping econo-box F-16 would have never been built and we'd probably have kept building advanced versions of Phantoms for a while longer.

Lockheed may have a success in the F-35 by having a product which makes it billions of dollars in profit. Will the US's armed forces have a success with the F-35? I don't believe so.

The measuring stick is the CPD (used to be called the ORD) that says what it must do. That is what it was designed to. Since that document is classified, I can't reproduce it here.

That said, will it meet the necessary requirements? You betcha. Will it meet the expectations of everyone on this board? Frankly, I doubt it, but then again, that's not a factor so...

Simple answer yes. Crew Chief answer: ^#@* yes! Reasons why. I'll say later but I got to get back to ALS. Can't wait to hear Raptorkeeper's infinite knowledge and God-like wisdom on the subject Very Happy

If you are going to use F-35 as a multirole plane, the answer is no.
If you are going to use it in just A2G missions, the answer is yes.

Enthusiast Joined: Mar 13, 2007 Posts: 98 Status: Offline

Roscoe wrote:

The measuring stick is the CPD (used to be called the ORD) that says what it must do. That is what it was designed to. Since that document is classified, I can't reproduce it here.

That said, will it meet the necessary requirements? You betcha. Will it meet the expectations of everyone on this board? Frankly, I doubt it, but then again, that's not a factor so...

No, what any one individual believes and writes on this board does not matter. But mass public opinion does matter as well as the mass public opinion of our congress. I honestly do not remember an airplane that was so well disliked by the public as is the F-35. Not even the F-111 had generated such negative opinions in the general population. All in all, most of out aircraft were greated with respect. Not this time however.

As a counter point, then if the F-35 will meet what "it is designed to do" then why or why does Lockheed have to go back to the drawing boards for the 3rd time on this beast?

Round 1 was the JSF competition
Round 2 is the AA1
Round 3 is currently in the works

Sorry, but Lockheed is at bat with strikes against them and its the 8th or 9th inning with 2 outs.

And no one human being, no matter what his status is, no matter what his status was, no matter how much respected by his peers, no matter his rank nor his previous rank ... Not one individual can come onto this board and tell the tale for a fact that the F-35 will meet its "what is supposed to do's" since much of "what its supposed to do's" are classified.

Not one of you guests on this board who knows anything for a fact can come here and tell the tale as you'll be visited by some men in black cars and taken off to jail and then to trial.

So, "what its supposed to do" statements are really quite empty statements when not backed up by facts, which is illegal to do so. Oh sure, maybe you can say its met its roll rates or something trivial, but all else is just empty words.

I don't know what all of its "what its supposed to do's" are, but I do know that to date, Lockheed has yet to get it right despite the duration of this program now being more than a decade old. That is a fact, or else the AA1 would be the final production version of the F-35A (which it ain't). Not even the twin engined, stealthy and supercruising, ground breaking (pioneering) F-22 took so long to get it right and the F-35 ain't nothing more than a smaller single engined lesser performing version of the Raptor, and its from the same design team.

Does anyone remember the Army's Commanche? It had no following of "non-believers" as does the F-35, and yet it was canceled despite the fact that there is nothing else out there to replace the aging and worn out fleet of Apaches and obsolete Kiowa airframes.

With production lines of the F-22, F-15, F-16, and F-18 still pumping out product, then I see no reason why the F-35 cannot be canceled and it have any ill effect on the USA's "national security". With that fact taken into account, its probability of being canceled is more than 50/50. Where's the logic in pouring billions into a new airframe and production line for a product that will not perform as well as what is already being produced? All its little passive arrays and CCD cameras can just as easily be installed onto other airframes, and that's the only + that the F-35 has; its passive sensors.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1089 Status: Offline

fox100 wrote:

Where's the logic in pouring billions into a new airframe and production line for a product that will not perform as well as what is already being produced?

I must be missing something. Other than the F-35 which fighter is going to give the US Navy stealth capability? Which fighter were you going to replace Harriers with on amphibious assault ships with? Which other stealth aircraft are you going to be able to purchase in similar numbers?

Newbie Joined: Jul 16, 2007 Posts: 8 Status: Offline

"As a counter point, then if the F-35 will meet what "it is designed to do" then why or why does Lockheed have to go back to the drawing boards for the 3rd time on this beast?

Round 1 was the JSF competition
Round 2 is the AA1
Round 3 is currently in the works

Sorry, but Lockheed is at bat with strikes against them and its the 8th or 9th inning with 2 outs."

Your comment about going back to the drawing board three times is absolutely false. Admittedly, AA-1 was FUBAR'd the program for a bit and was very costly. The design used for the competition was never intended to be the final design. It didn't have several stringent requirements levied upon it and I know that a majority of the mission systems (spooky stuff) was never installed.

Second point. Of course the F-35 will be better! There is at least 10-15 years between design cycles in the aerospace industry. The plane will be better, not because it is a better engineering design, but that the technology is that much better than what legacy aircraft had during their design cycles. The range on the STOVL variant already smokes the harrier hands down and it has stealth.

Enthusiast Joined: Mar 13, 2007 Posts: 98 Status: Offline

sferrin wrote:

fox100 wrote:

Where's the logic in pouring billions into a new airframe and production line for a product that will not perform as well as what is already being produced?

I must be missing something. Other than the F-35 which fighter is going to give the US Navy stealth capability? Which fighter were you going to replace Harriers with on amphibious assault ships with? Which other stealth aircraft are you going to be able to purchase in similar numbers?

Who says the USN F-35 will be stealthy enough for it to matter? I have never been on a carrier, but I do know what kind of abuse the Navy birds take, and its doubtful that its RCS on day 1 of deployment #1 for the first Navy F-35 squadron will be the same as its RCS on day 90 of its first deployment. Let alone over years and years of service. Last time I looked, the F-35 was built out of tried and true aluminum, titanium, composites... An no, and I mean absolutely no kryptonite. Have you seen the wing geometry of that thing? There ain't no way in hell that big winged plane is going to be worth a damned as a fighter unless its going after pelicans and seaguls as I hear the engine is able to digest crap w/o ill effect.

And oh man, you're talking about amphibious assult ships!? When was the last amphibious assult? Over 50 years ago and in Korea. Will there ever be another amphibious assault? No way in hell. Oh my god, is it ridiculous to believe we're ever ever ever going to storm the beaches again; and if we did, what does it matter that we got planes to jump off the decks of this little carriers? I thought the one of the whole entire points of the F-35 was increased range.... And now you want to put them 80-100nm off of some enemies coast? Huh? What has that got to do with protecting the boots that are allegedly going to be going to shore in landing craft? It don't matter if the plane comes from the same boat or a different and bigger boat further out to sea and hence more well protected against this phantom enemy which we need to be ready to go at them with an amphibious assault.

So just because we f*cked up and bought the Harrier does that mean we need to repeat the cycle of failure? The Marines did just fine with Phantoms and they are doing fine with their Hornets.

Does anyone know how damned slow amphibious assaults are? How very extremely well they telegraph to the enemy where you're at and what you're about to do? It aint hard to spot ships at sea anymore, not when every Tom, Dick, and Harry has access to near realtime satellite imagery... not too mention every other way you can detect ships at sea.

And if you have payed attention to the trendline, the US has been retiring "classes" of airplanes without replacements. So we now have this great urgent need to have another jump jet... and the need is so great that we have to dump hundreds of billions of dollars into the program? No way Jose'.

The F-35 ain't stealthy where it will count. It ain't going to be a black cold hole in the sky where nothing can see it to shoot at it. As everyone knows, and knows well, the F-35's engine is H O T... coupled with all of the heat from its electronics, and you gotta hot tamale to shoot at which ain't going to be that hard given that A) the F-35A is not going to be fast enough to count as being *fast* and B) the USN F-35 with its bigger wings and higher weight is going to be even slower. And you can only pour so much thermal energy into fuel tanks that are losing fuel by the boat load as this thing moves its fat a$$ through the sky.

Stealth aint magic... its goverend by very well known laws of physics and there are no magical materials on the F-35 to make it a ghostly phantom to the bad guys.

We need the F-35 because of amphibious assaults!? Oh come on... And to give the USN a stealthy airplane? Sorry, but it ain't stealthy when its pouring all that god damned thermal energy into the atmosphere... not too mention the overall geometry of the airframe and its angles of reflection type stuff...

Some British guy said this on some tv show... "A plane designed to do nothing other than to carry advanced technology is destined to fail." Maybe Sprey said that too (but about the F-22), and that statement is 100% true in the case of the F-35. Its a jack of all and a master at nothing; and they still need to trim the fat off of it and reduce its airframes 'toughness'.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1089 Status: Offline

fox100 wrote:

Who says the USN F-35 will be stealthy enough for it to matter?

Well the USN, USAF, USMC, Lockheed and the contractual agreements. Who are you to claim you know better than they?

fox100 wrote:

I have never been on a carrier, but I do know what kind of abuse the Navy birds take, and its doubtful that its RCS on day 1 of deployment #1 for the first Navy F-35 squadron will be the same as its RCS on day 90 of its first deployment.

Why, don't they do maintanence in the Navy? Rolling Eyes

fox100 wrote:

Last time I looked, the F-35 was built out of tried and true aluminum, titanium, composites... An no, and I mean absolutely no kryptonite.

Well I wouldn't think so since kryptonite only exists in comic books. (Not that I've ever noticed it having any superior mechanical properties- must have missed that issue of Superman.)

fox100 wrote:

Have you seen the wing geometry of that thing? There ain't no way in hell that big winged plane is going to be worth a damned as a fighter unless its going after pelicans and seaguls as I hear the engine is able to digest crap w/o ill effect.

ROFL!!!! Because of course any fighter worth it's salt has a wing the size of an F-104 Rolling Eyes

Hate to burst your bubble but you might want to compare the wing sizes of the F-4, F-15, and F-22 and rank them according to wing size and effectiveness. The rankings will be the same. (Of course I suppose you might be one of those idiots that thinks we should still be flying F-4s because they were good enough to handle the Mig-21)

fox100 wrote:

And oh man, you're talking about amphibious assult ships!? When was the last amphibious assult? Over 50 years ago and in Korea. Will there ever be another amphibious assault? No way in hell. Oh my god, is it ridiculous to believe we're ever ever ever going to storm the beaches again; and if we did, what does it matter that we got planes to jump off the decks of this little carriers? I thought the one of the whole entire points of the F-35 was increased range.... And now you want to put them 80-100nm off of some enemies coast? Huh? What has that got to do with protecting the boots that are allegedly going to be going to shore in landing craft? It don't matter if the plane comes from the same boat or a different and bigger boat further out to sea and hence more well protected against this phantom enemy which we need to be ready to go at them with an amphibious assault.

That paragraph speaks volumes. I'd say you're lacking upstairs but you do a far better job of telling the story than I do.

fox100 wrote:

So just because we f*cked up and bought the Harrier does that mean we need to repeat the cycle of failure? The Marines did just fine with Phantoms and they are doing fine with their Hornets.

Sounds like you're in desperate need of a clue. You wanna explain how they're going to fly those aircraft off a ship with no arresting gear or catapults? Oops.

fox100 wrote:

Does anyone know how damned slow amphibious assaults are? How very extremely well they telegraph to the enemy where you're at and what you're about to do? It aint hard to spot ships at sea anymore, not when every Tom, Dick, and Harry has access to near realtime satellite imagery... not too mention every other way you can detect ships at sea.

Well at least Hollywood has you convinced.

fox100 wrote:

And if you have payed attention to the trendline, the US has been retiring "classes" of airplanes without replacements. So we now have this great urgent need to have another jump jet... and the need is so great that we have to dump hundreds of billions of dollars into the program? No way Jose'.

Because airframes have infinite hours right? (Judas, I can't believe I've waste this much time replying to this imbecil.)

YES

"Plans call for the F-35 to be the world's premier strike aircraft through 2040. It will provide air- to-air capability second only to the F-22 air superiority fighter. The plane will allow the Air Force forces to field an almost all-stealth fighter force by 2025. The Navy and Marine variants will be the first deployment of an "all-aspect" stealth airplane."

Any AC that can do all that for under 80 million a pop is going to be real successful.

There has been no indication yet that LM is going to come up short so again, yes.

Seem to remember an amphibious landing in Somalia Feb. 27th 1995, but that touch of reality will be lost on fox100. I believe that his all seeing wisdom would also prove that the Martin B-18 Bolo was the best bomber of WW2.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb1995 ... 27som.html

As for kryptonite, it does exist on this planet

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6584229.stm

I reject your fiction and substitute reality.

Do you want fries with this

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -bomb.html

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1089 Status: Offline

asiatrails wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6584229.stm

I reject your fiction and substitute reality.

And here I was banking on being the only nerd here that knew of that bit of trivia. Razz

Senior member Joined: Jul 01, 2007 Posts: 368

The F-35 will be successful because the pilots flying it (former Viper drivers, of course) will make it successful. It is our tactics, not our machines, that make us superior to everyone else. The Lightening II will pull 9Gs and will be able to at least dash supersonically by the time it goes operational, that I guarantee. But the sensors and situational awareness aids will enable us to develop our tactics so that we don't have to pull 9Gs and run away.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Yes or no question