Bye Bye ODIN, Welcome Back ALIS

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3270
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post24 Apr 2021, 14:35

Scripted? Yep. ‘Political theater.’

They wanna take dollars away? Yep.

Services have a long history of short-sheeting spares/sustainment when push comes to shove.
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 983
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post24 Apr 2021, 15:12

quicksilver wrote:Services have a long history of short-sheeting spares/sustainment when push comes to shove.


I think this is beyond just the services. Under the BCA caps OCO accounts and UPL's, the Congress too was incentivized to add procurement $$ as opposed to sustainment. I wonder if that will change but I wouldn't mind if they re-balance the portion of funding going to the various elements of the program though I feel that some will just want to take money away and not put it back into sustainment. With 480 F-35A's delivered or on order (USAF), the AF badly needs to buy 60-80 A's a year if it plans to transition to NGAD in the early 2030's wit minimal disruptions.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1290
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post25 Apr 2021, 09:24

mixelflick wrote:It's difficult to imagine a dumber, more damaging decision than Gates' cutting the F-22 numbers. But an F-35 cut could indeed Trump that. The fulcrum of Western air power... cut off at the knees.

You'd think they would have learned with the F-22, but nope...


F-22 was relic of cold war so cutting it down wasn't stupid at all.

F-22 wasn't design with war over longer ranges in mind, it is design to fight Soviet fighters over W.Germany.

Also it isn't design to be multirole fighter either.

If F-23 was selected then things would be quite different and probable NGAD wouldn't be need at all, upgraded F-23 would do fine for example with more fuel, extending tank all the way to tails:
https://yf-23.webs.com/Pics/F-23A/F-23A ... 201415.jpg
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2734
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post25 Apr 2021, 15:03

milosh wrote: upgraded F-23 would do fine for example with more fuel, extending tank all the way to tails:


You can just wave arms and magically add more gas to a design -- as easy as that? Amazing.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4404
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post25 Apr 2021, 15:47

milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:It's difficult to imagine a dumber, more damaging decision than Gates' cutting the F-22 numbers. But an F-35 cut could indeed Trump that. The fulcrum of Western air power... cut off at the knees.

You'd think they would have learned with the F-22, but nope...


F-22 was relic of cold war so cutting it down wasn't stupid at all.

F-22 wasn't design with war over longer ranges in mind, it is design to fight Soviet fighters over W.Germany.

Also it isn't design to be multirole fighter either.

If F-23 was selected then things would be quite different and probable NGAD wouldn't be need at all, upgraded F-23 would do fine for example with more fuel, extending tank all the way to tails:
https://yf-23.webs.com/Pics/F-23A/F-23A ... 201415.jpg


Sorry Milosh, I disagree...

You're right about this: The F-22 was spawned during the cold war, but you're wrong about it being a "relic". In fact, it'd come in handy right now (the new cold war). If you don't believe that, talk to the F-22 units and ask them if they're being stretched too thin. Or if they're in demand much. The answer is "hell yes" to both.

It may not have been designed as a multi-role fighter, but it does have a multi-role capability. Ideal for air to ground work? Probably not. Ironically though, it can fly air to ground missions that no "mult-role" F-15, 16 or 18 could. By virtue of its speed, stealth and sensors - it's the only survivable platform of those I just mentioned (and plenty others). Doesn't have the range everyone wanted? There's a solution to that, it's called tankers. We have lots and lots of them BTW..

Whether the F-23 would have been better is irrelevant. The F-22 was chosen, so that's what was procured. If we were sitting on 500 F-22's right now, we wouldn't be building F-15EX's, talking about a "new build" F-16's or worrying about the possibility we won't secure air superiority in a near peer conflict. And the F-35 would have still been built, albeit probably in smaller numbers or become operational a few years later..
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3270
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post25 Apr 2021, 16:32

Well said mix. Could quibble about the tanker numbers a bit, but at least there’s something new in the pipeline.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2253
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post25 Apr 2021, 18:28

mixelflick wrote:
Whether the F-23 would have been better is irrelevant. The F-22 was chosen, so that's what was procured.


Yes basically both YF-22 and YF-23 met the requirements and the rest is history.
When Obi Wan logged onto Twitter: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious"
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2474
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post25 Apr 2021, 23:39

Salute!

I greatly enjoy the perspective that we have from Milosh!!!

From my own perspective, the F-23 would have been a point design with less overall capability than the LM F-22. Was I dissapointed when the F-22 buy went down, then down again? Yep.

The plane I really wanted to see fielded was the F-16 version of the F-22. Not the F-35, but a A2A design with a bit of A2G capability, but small, low RCS, good legs... AESA dar and internal carriage of Slammers.

Gums sends..
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7384
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Apr 2021, 00:09

Honestly, really very little difference between the F-22 and F-23 overall....Yet, as another member pointed out totally irrelevant as the USAF choose the F-22 Raptor.


As for the F-22 today it's extremely useful and the US is glad to have it. Comparing it to the F-35 is very much Apples and Oranges. That said, if we had to choose only one. The latter would clearly come out on top. Yet, again that is also "irrelevant" as we don't have to choose!
Previous

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests