navyreco
Senior Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
What do you mean?
making great use of the apostrophe
What do you mean?
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Many Air Force pilots reportedly still prefer the F-15 to the F-22, in spite of the F-22's many virtues and real world Air Superiority. The F-15 has always been regarded as a pilot's airplane, straightforward and honest, designed by and for pilots. To this add speed, the ability to engage and equally, maybe more importantly to disengage from an encouter, and agility, the F-15 will TURN! The ability of the F-35 in these two departments is being questioned by people who probably know, its not fast, and at about half the design AOA is exhibiting buffeting significant enough to warrant mentioning in the QLR, these things concern pilots, but not politicians. Having said those things the US committment to JSF is locked in concrete, because lots of our friends are depending on us to keep our promises and we will! The most intelligent solution is to overturn the Obey amendment and fire up the F-22 line, allowing our friends who will take the necessary steps to protect that fifth gen tech, the opportunity to defend themselves and to help us do the same as we bring the F-35 up to speed.
Many Air Force pilots reportedly still prefer the F-15 to the F-22, in spite of the F-22's many virtues and real world Air Superiority. The F-15 has always been regarded as a pilot's airplane, straightforward and honest, designed by and for pilots. To this add speed, the ability to engage and equally, maybe more importantly to disengage from an encouter, and agility, the F-15 will TURN! The ability of the F-35 in these two departments is being questioned by people who probably know, its not fast, and at about half the design AOA is exhibiting buffeting significant enough to warrant mentioning in the QLR, these things concern pilots, but not politicians. Having said those things the US committment to JSF is locked in concrete, because lots of our friends are depending on us to keep our promises and we will! The most intelligent solution is to overturn the Obey amendment and fire up the F-22 line, allowing our friends who will take the necessary steps to protect that fifth gen tech, the opportunity to defend themselves and to help us do the same as we bring the F-35 up to speed.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Well, does the pentagon not already have plenty of bean counters going over the sums to try and find where to cut all those billions the US military needs to cut? It seems that these are the kinds of questions they should be asking, yet none of them are.
The partners may not like it, but then they probably do not like the exisiting price rises either, but they are still committed to the F35 because it is the only option any of them realistically have, and have all collectively sunk too much cash into this project for many of them to have a realisitic option of pulling out now, never mind in the future when they would be even more committed.
If you increase the unit price by something that isn't ridiculous, it is almost certain that they will all just take the knock and cough up the cash even if they don't like it.
Besides, since when has anyone compromised their own national security over concerns about what allies might like or not?
You may not like the idea of Eagles flying in 2040-50, but then how long has the B52s been soldiering on? And would you rather give up some pride to gain some operational capacity, or save face at the expense of cutting real operational capacity and numbers?
The F35 may be well and truly too big to fail, but that does not mean you cannot, or should not, reduce your exposure to the inevitable costs of sticking with it for the duration.
Well, does the pentagon not already have plenty of bean counters going over the sums to try and find where to cut all those billions the US military needs to cut? It seems that these are the kinds of questions they should be asking, yet none of them are.
The partners may not like it, but then they probably do not like the exisiting price rises either, but they are still committed to the F35 because it is the only option any of them realistically have, and have all collectively sunk too much cash into this project for many of them to have a realisitic option of pulling out now, never mind in the future when they would be even more committed.
If you increase the unit price by something that isn't ridiculous, it is almost certain that they will all just take the knock and cough up the cash even if they don't like it.
Besides, since when has anyone compromised their own national security over concerns about what allies might like or not?
You may not like the idea of Eagles flying in 2040-50, but then how long has the B52s been soldiering on? And would you rather give up some pride to gain some operational capacity, or save face at the expense of cutting real operational capacity and numbers?
The F35 may be well and truly too big to fail, but that does not mean you cannot, or should not, reduce your exposure to the inevitable costs of sticking with it for the duration.
escobar
Brigadier
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Sometimes US military is irrationnal
the f-35 program is a bad project
they should have produce more f-22, FB-22 (for a total of around 500) and extend the operationnal life or produce f-16 and F-15 for the next 2 decades; then save money for the 6th generation fighter.
they should have been frugal like PLA. it seems to me that their big military budget caused them to lose touch with reality
Sometimes US military is irrationnal
the f-35 program is a bad project
they should have produce more f-22, FB-22 (for a total of around 500) and extend the operationnal life or produce f-16 and F-15 for the next 2 decades; then save money for the 6th generation fighter.
they should have been frugal like PLA. it seems to me that their big military budget caused them to lose touch with reality
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
how the B-52s remains relevant is a different case, apples and oranges wolfie
the partner nations are already taking the knocked up price, and they are following through, but we are hearing moans and groans here and there once in a while
there is also this heavily political nuanced consideration in following the 'US club'
what i meant about the bean counting (and the buy more F-15s idea) is we don't know for sure how such plan will pan out, but i agree it is one viable way of cost saving (and probably project saving) measure one can take for the F-35
they already bought more Super Hornets, cause the F-35 is late
before we see them axing production number, we will see them axing variant first, IMO, and that will the B
@escobar
the US military is bloated and there many other excess incurring unneeded cost and problems
how the B-52s remains relevant is a different case, apples and oranges wolfie
the partner nations are already taking the knocked up price, and they are following through, but we are hearing moans and groans here and there once in a while
there is also this heavily political nuanced consideration in following the 'US club'
what i meant about the bean counting (and the buy more F-15s idea) is we don't know for sure how such plan will pan out, but i agree it is one viable way of cost saving (and probably project saving) measure one can take for the F-35
they already bought more Super Hornets, cause the F-35 is late
before we see them axing production number, we will see them axing variant first, IMO, and that will the B
@escobar
the US military is bloated and there many other excess incurring unneeded cost and problems
Last edited:
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
I think having latest Blk60 Vipers or Silent Strike Eagles fill up the ranks looks like a good idea now. They are proven, rather cheap, well refined and all that.
But then again, at some point you have to make the generation change. If you cut the F-35 line after a limeted buy as well and wait for the 6th gen, you still have a lot of legacy planes to replace. This time with the latest 6 gen planes wich won't be cheap either. So you have to cut those back as well, can't fall back on 5th gen planes since those were cut, and then you're again looking at prolonging the service life of 4th gen planes.
The F-35 are already the lower end assets to fill up the ranks with numbers. And they therefore take the role of the F-16, the relatively simpler planes, having only one engine and all that.
An idea might perhaps be to replace only half the fleet with 5th gen and then keep the latest 4th gen in service. And later replace the 4th gen with 6th gen and modernize the 5th gen to now form the lower half end of the fleet.
A positive example for such a situation is, IMO, the Virginia class SSN progamm. Originally the Seawolfs introduced all the new capabilities & became top notch assets at a high price. Then things were scaled back just a little and the very capable Virginia's can now be produced affordably (with proven capabilites updated over time) and in numbers to fill up the force.
I wonder if there wasn't a way to scale back Raptor capabilities a little to make it more affordable as the "tier 2 asset" at the high end. For example, the silhouette is already stealthy, a little less complex stealth painting could be used. A radar that is not the best, but a good AESA for mass production. And so on. It could then replace the remaining Eagles. And another would have to be developed to replace Strike Eagles at some point.
Something similar could perhaps be done with Lightning IIs. Buy a somewhat limited full up speerhead force, and then continue producing that airframe with reduced capabilities.
With that, one has the advantages of the new frame, forming the basis of that asset, across the board. Building that in big numbers will add experiance and lower production cost over time. The latest developments can then always be implemented in the "tier 1" part of the force, while the then mature and more affordable (sub)systems can migrate down to the larger "tier 2" force of that baseline airframe.
I think having latest Blk60 Vipers or Silent Strike Eagles fill up the ranks looks like a good idea now. They are proven, rather cheap, well refined and all that.
But then again, at some point you have to make the generation change. If you cut the F-35 line after a limeted buy as well and wait for the 6th gen, you still have a lot of legacy planes to replace. This time with the latest 6 gen planes wich won't be cheap either. So you have to cut those back as well, can't fall back on 5th gen planes since those were cut, and then you're again looking at prolonging the service life of 4th gen planes.
The F-35 are already the lower end assets to fill up the ranks with numbers. And they therefore take the role of the F-16, the relatively simpler planes, having only one engine and all that.
An idea might perhaps be to replace only half the fleet with 5th gen and then keep the latest 4th gen in service. And later replace the 4th gen with 6th gen and modernize the 5th gen to now form the lower half end of the fleet.
A positive example for such a situation is, IMO, the Virginia class SSN progamm. Originally the Seawolfs introduced all the new capabilities & became top notch assets at a high price. Then things were scaled back just a little and the very capable Virginia's can now be produced affordably (with proven capabilites updated over time) and in numbers to fill up the force.
I wonder if there wasn't a way to scale back Raptor capabilities a little to make it more affordable as the "tier 2 asset" at the high end. For example, the silhouette is already stealthy, a little less complex stealth painting could be used. A radar that is not the best, but a good AESA for mass production. And so on. It could then replace the remaining Eagles. And another would have to be developed to replace Strike Eagles at some point.
Something similar could perhaps be done with Lightning IIs. Buy a somewhat limited full up speerhead force, and then continue producing that airframe with reduced capabilities.
With that, one has the advantages of the new frame, forming the basis of that asset, across the board. Building that in big numbers will add experiance and lower production cost over time. The latest developments can then always be implemented in the "tier 1" part of the force, while the then mature and more affordable (sub)systems can migrate down to the larger "tier 2" force of that baseline airframe.
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Well escobar we certainly agree on one point, and that is the F-35 only makes sense in the context of more F-22s, and while we can all agree that it seems that the US military is irrational at times, its only fair to point out that the US military is lead by the President of the United States, one Barack Hussein Obama, our Commander in Chief. He is advised by many, but ultimately, he and he alone is in Command of all US forces, subject to the laws and statutes of the Medes and Persians. (Thats a bit of Sardonic Humor) As we are all well aware our military is subject to Civilian leadership and this has worked relatively well for over 200 years. It does depend on men and women in the militarty and government to act in good faith, balanceing our self interest in the interest of we the people, we have historically been a Christian nation. The F-35 is not a bad airplane or a bad project, but it is being asked to do immensely more than it was ever designed to do.