Discussion on canning the F-35 for the US Air Force

[edyvw]

I vote our tax dollars go for the F35... in my learned opinion its the right stuff and a trick design...
View attachment 48098

It is very dangerous proposition. MRAP project showed how dangerous this game of keeping lines in important congressional district was. When MRAP became absolute priority for soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, congressman from FL did everything to slow down project bcs. Humvee line was in his district.
With something like F35 stakes are much higher, and you cannot just develop new airplane if there is urgent need like MRAP.

 

[Dave Hess]

edyvw,

Just wondering if you are a pilot ?

 

[edyvw]

edyvw,

Just wondering if you are a pilot ?

No.

 

[wpod]

That article is all over the map with little substance. The F35 are entering active service now, and already branded as unreliable by the author.
I sense an agenda driven article.

Almost every thing seems to be agenda driven Why do we need fancy jets when we war with the nations we war with . I think developing new tech is wonderful but,,,

 

[Astro14]

Almost every thing seems to be agenda driven Why do we need fancy jets when we war with the nations we war with . I think developing new tech is wonderful but,,,

We don’t just buy stuff for the war we are in now.

We plan for future wars. Which might include a near peer.

High end airplanes, stealth airplanes, like the F-22 and F-35 or B-2, are planned, procured, and absolutely needed for that type of conflict.

In our current conflicts, we don’t need them.

Just like you don’t need insurance until you actually have a disaster strike.

Because airplanes, and in fact, lots of weapons systems, now take years, or even decades to develop, you can’t wait for the conflict to begin to buy the stuff you need for that conflict. That’s like waiting for the hurricane to hit before you get insurance or buy supplies. Waiting to prepare is a sure recipe for failure.

 

[wpod]

Would 1 F22 be better than 10 F18 in a war situation? Or a selection of both depending what would work best? Astro I understand the time it takes to develop a new platform and there is a need for new and improved. It seems to take lots of time and money to develop swoopy doopy and not a long time and less money to develop something to shoot down the swoopy doopy thing.

 

[simple_gifts]

Never liked how the A-10s gun smoke would threaten to flame out the engines...
View attachment 48103

FYI: there was an attempt to post engineer a fix for that issue; the business side of the gun was fitted with a hunk of metal called "the diverter clamp" to try to force the smoke under the plane. Problem was it was too much stress and the barrels warped (at least I think that was the problem) so they were removed

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/151/151394-fb655f0306586e2962964303426a07de.jpg

 

[wpod]

The A10 seems to do a great job in the middle east but then there isn't an aggressive foreign enemy air force with fancy fighter jets shooting them down. The A10 is a crop duster [ I love watching the crop dusters here ] that goes 400 miles per hour and a fighter jet goes 800 + mph and can out maneuver the A10. Death from above type of thing.

 

[y_p_w]

The A10 seems to do a great job in the middle east but then there isn't an aggressive foreign enemy air force with fancy fighter jets shooting them down. The A10 is a crop duster [ I love watching the crop dusters here ] that goes 400 miles per hour and a fighter jet goes 800 + mph and can out maneuver the A10. Death from above type of thing.

You didn't see this nugget? It was wrong on so many different levels. Also there's this talk about the "armor", although it's just about 1200 lbs of titanium to protect the pilot.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...underbolt-ii-tank-buster.338612/#post-5703863​

An A10 pilot is not going to mix it up with a few fighters at 30,000', they are going to get them to come down to 30' and dodging hills and terrain. Slow that fast fighter down to 150 knots and it is utterly useless, and has to accelerate and start to climb. The A10 turns and points the nose up and shoots down said fighter with ' THE GUN' as its known as.​

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

You are not paying attention. A modern fighter doesn't have to slow down with an A-10 to shoot him down. One look down shoot down missile and he's gone.
I did observe a funny exercise engagement in the past though with an F-5 Aggressor against 4 A-10s at Crow Valley Electronic Combat Range in the PI. The F-5 (gun and rear aspect heat seeking missiles only) engaged a flight of A-10s. The A-10s went into a protective wheel. Everytime the F-5 put his nose on an A-10, the A-10 behind him pulled his nose up onto the F-5. The F-5 had to come off. After a number of attempts, the Aggressor gave up and flew off.
The A-10s then engaged ground targets. When that was completed, they came off the range straight ahead. The F-5 reappeared going twice the speed (or more) of the A-10s. He "shot" #4, #3, #2, then #1 in seconds before they could react and get back into their wheel.
The A-10 is a great aircraft in the right environment. Out of that environment it's a target. Anyone who believes helos or A-10s can survive around modern hostile fighters is ill informed.

 

[y_p_w]

You are not paying attention. A modern fighter doesn't have to slow down with an A-10 to shoot him down. One look down shoot down missile and he's gone.
I did observe a funny exercise engagement in the past though with an F-5 Aggressor against 4 A-10s at Crow Valley Electronic Combat Range in the PI. The F-5 (gun and rear aspect heat seeking missiles only) engaged a flight of A-10s. The A-10s went into a protective wheel. Everytime the F-5 put his nose on an A-10, the A-10 behind him pulled his nose up onto the F-5. The F-5 had to come off. After a number of attempts, the Aggressor gave up and flew off.
The A-10s then engaged ground targets. When that was completed, they came off the range straight ahead. The F-5 reappeared going twice the speed (or more) of the A-10s. He "shot" #4, #3, #2, then #1 in seconds before they could react and get back into their wheel.
The A-10 is a great aircraft in the right environment. Out of that environment it's a target. Anyone who believes helos or A-10s can survive around modern hostile fighters is ill informed.

How long ago was this? A former coworker of mine was a safety officer who was on the team that closed down Clark Air Base.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

That would have been around '86. I was TDY to Clark AB from the Wolfpack at Kunsan AB ROK at the time.

 

[y_p_w]

That would have been around '86. I was TDY to Clark AB from the Wolfpack at Kunsan AB ROK at the time.

OK. He told stories of being based all over, including Alaska, Korea, and the Philippines.

But Pinatubo certainly created one heck of a mess. I guess it could be cleaned up, but the weight of ash just caused roofs to collapse.

 

[Jetronic]

We don’t just buy stuff for the war we are in now.

We plan for future wars. Which might include a near peer.

High end airplanes, stealth airplanes, like the F-22 and F-35 or B-2, are planned, procured, and absolutely needed for that type of conflict.

In our current conflicts, we don’t need them.

Just like you don’t need insurance until you actually have a disaster strike.

Because airplanes, and in fact, lots of weapons systems, now take years, or even decades to develop, you can’t wait for the conflict to begin to buy the stuff you need for that conflict. That’s like waiting for the hurricane to hit before you get insurance or buy supplies. Waiting to prepare is a sure recipe for failure.

Even if the production capacity still existed, how fast could F-22s be built in case a near peer war broke out? 1 a month? in a high intensity conflict, losses will occur at a much higher rate than production of replacements. And the higher the level of technology involved, the slower production goes.

That makes careful planning and design even more important.

 

[y_p_w]

Even if the production capacity still existed, how fast could F-22s be built in case a near peer war broke out? 1 a month? in a high intensity conflict, losses will occur at a much higher rate than production of replacements. And the higher the level of technology involved, the slower production goes.

That makes careful planning and design even more important.

A lot of people might be thinking that a WWII style manufacturing effort could occur. However, that was a time when it was reasonably possible for normal industries to be recruited into making tanks, jeeps, and aircraft. Shipbuilding was different though. These days I don't believe that one could just hurry up the production of electronics. Still - larger, more powerful FPGAs have made it possible to speed things up as long as there's a stockpile.

As far as I understand, the PW F119 is no longer in production but the tooling is stored for possible restart or when they need to make spare parts.

 

[Jetronic]

Well, the same would apply to f35 production, how much faster could that go, and what would suffer if it was done.

I'm convinced it all doesn't matter though. In a near peer war if one side feels it's going to lose (existential threat) it will always end in nuclear war and everybody loses. But if for some miracle neither side users nukes, attrition will mean certain (sub)systems of airplanes and other equipment will be in short supply. Not to mention smart and precision munitions.

 

[y_p_w]

Well, the same would apply to f35 production, how much faster could that go, and what would suffer if it was done.

I'm convinced it all doesn't matter though. In a near peer war if one side feels it's going to lose (existential threat) it will always end in nuclear war and everybody loses. But if for some miracle neither side users nukes, attrition will mean certain (sub)systems of airplanes and other equipment will be in short supply. Not to mention smart and precision munitions.

We're already seeing that with a shortage of the electronics needed to make modern passenger vehicles.

Way back when, there used to be custom electronics for defense applications, even in small numbers. It was almost a cost no object model. However, these days it's often going to be programmable devices. In most industries using chips, it takes hundreds of thousands or even millions to justify all the costs of getting one custom chip into production. Programmable devices may not be as fast or as energy efficient, but they're good enough and one can justify using them when the production run will be in the hundreds or thousands.

It's kind of ironic though. They're actually buying up tons of old parts just as spares because they're no longer being made.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/c...-keep-f35s-and-other-military-aircraft-flying​

PATUXENT RIVER NAS, Md. – The U.S. Navy is buying more than $40 million worth of obsolescent field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) to ensure the long-term operation and maintenance of the F-35 joint strike fighter and other military aircraft for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps., and allied military forces.​

​

Officials of the Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md., announced a $41.5 million order Monday to the Lockheed Martin Corp. Aeronautics segment in Fort Worth, Texas, to procure Xilinx and Intel-Altera Diminishing Manufacturing Sources (DMS) parts that have reached end-of-life.​

 

[Averroes]

SCOPE CREEP! Everyone wanted their hand in the project and wanted a new jet to do everything. Look how it turned out...

Jack of all trades. Master of none.

 

[Averroes]

A relative of mine is an F-22 pilot and I'd heard some, we'll just say less than positive things about the F-35 from him. That said, I try not to let that color my opinion too much as I don't have any experience in the matter. I was disappointed when they axed production of the F-22.. it's such an awesome airplane.

Double post. B as him what brand of oil they use on that thing. Maybe if we are lucky he can run a VOA AND UOA. Post it and then we can all argue for months on why it has x amount of something and not x amount of something else. Jokes aside, this is cool.

 

[Tikka]

What concerns me about the F35 is this. Should the Russians or Chinese suddenly develop a tracking system that makes stealth redundant, what are we left with? In the case of the F22 it would still be the premier air defence fighter in the world. I am not really sure what the F35 would do any better than the latest fourth generation aircraft.