The F-35 Lightning II Thread

[Warren Dew]

One of the real problems with drawing up specs for technological equipment is that the technology advances during the development and production cycle, leading equipment to sometimes be near-obsolete by the time it becomes available. The answer to this is massive flexibility - but the over-arching desire to keep the F-35 airframe as stealthy as possible (despite indicators that stealth advantages are a thing of the past in the fighter world) has made flexibility a low-level concern.

The F-35 is not at all "as stealthy as possible"; one of its criticisms is that the F-35 has only forward quarter stealth, as compared to the F-22 which had all angle stealth.

Apparently the F-35's stealth capabilities are designed only for penetration ground attack missions, and not for any of its other missions. I guess the Air Force still wants planes that will operate in the absence of the other service arms.

[Weaver]

Good point, and good correction.

[dochmbi]

I just read this quote from the article: “Because in five years when the USAF [US Air Force] comes to Lockheed Martin and says we absolutely need an upgraded EOTS with an infrared pointer and [video down-link], Lockheed Martin says... OK no sweat, that’ll be $5 million per jet,” the Air Force official said. “Thus lies the problem in the U.S. military industrial complex. They purposefully build products that require mass amounts of money to ‘upgrade’ when in fact, they could have planned ahead and built an easily upgradable ship / aircraft / radio / weapon system.”

Weaver, do you think that because of the military indusrial complex, the US military is the least cost effective one in the world?

[Weaver]

I think it is impossible to class us as the "least cost effective" - we do things that no other military in the world can do, and comparing cost effectiveness ends up comparing apples to oranges.

We certainly have significant waste, and the games the defense industry companies play are a big part of it - it seems that they are so intent on selling us the latest whiz-bang self-licking ice cream cone that we'll be asking Soldiers to buy their own bullets to be able to afford it. But this isn't simply military-industrial - a huge part of the problem is the Congress, making decisions based on campaign donations and desire to bring pork to their individual districts, regardless of whether the military really needs the equipment we're being forced to buy. This is exactly why Eisenhower's original warning was about the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex - the last only omitted due to political sensibilities.

But despite the inefficiency, we're still the most powerful and effective fighting force the planet has ever seen, capable of both deterrence and warfighting in ways nobody else, past or present, could match - and, along with that, the ability to provide humanitarian assistance or rapid response globally in timelines which other nations - those few with global force projection capabilities - couldn't dream of meeting.

[Warren Dew]

I just read this quote from the article: “Because in five years when the USAF [US Air Force] comes to Lockheed Martin and says we absolutely need an upgraded EOTS with an infrared pointer and [video down-link], Lockheed Martin says... OK no sweat, that’ll be $5 million per jet,” the Air Force official said. “Thus lies the problem in the U.S. military industrial complex. They purposefully build products that require mass amounts of money to ‘upgrade’ when in fact, they could have planned ahead and built an easily upgradable ship / aircraft / radio / weapon system.”

Typically you cannot predict exactly what upgrades will be desirable over the decades long life of a weapons platform. Allowing for a lot of different upgrades, some of which will never be made, can result in a noticeable decrement to the platform capabilities - speed, maneuverability, etc.

One could argue that upgrade potential should weigh more heavily than it usually does, and current capability less heavily, but in the planning process it's hard to say, "okay, lets make this system slower and less performant in order to allow for upgrades that may never happen".

It's also not true that the system ignores upgrade capabilities entirely. The Ford class aircraft carrier, for example, has several times the electrical generating capacity that it initially needs, because while the specific upgrades that will be required over the next 50 years may not be predictable, it's fairly predictable that many of them will require more electrical power. I don't know about the Air Force, but the Navy tends to be fairly good about making this kind of tradeoff, because all the decision makes tend to have served on decades old ships that have had a lot of modifications.

[Rome Existed]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -2019.html

The gun fires 3300rpm and they're giving it just 180 rounds. You'll have the thing dry firing before you can release the trigger button.

[Weaver]

And yet they claim that it will be able to adopt the current ground support strafing role of the A-10.

Oh, and one little issue - the software to run the gun won't be ready until 2019.

Nah, no chance it will be needed before then - safe to kill the A-10 now.

Idiots.

[Rome Existed]

And yet they claim that it will be able to adopt the current ground support strafing role of the A-10.

Oh, and one little issue - the software to run the gun won't be ready until 2019.

Nah, no chance it will be needed before then - safe to kill the A-10 now.

Idiots.

Don't worry, with it armed with 2 missiles those 180 rounds will be more than enough to protect the plane in a dog fight.

[Made of Stars]

And yet they claim that it will be able to adopt the current ground support strafing role of the A-10.

Oh, and one little issue - the software to run the gun won't be ready until 2019.

Nah, no chance it will be needed before then - safe to kill the A-10 now.

Idiots.

Don't worry, with it armed with 2 missiles those 180 rounds will be more than enough to protect the plane in a dog fight.

Only for long-range 'dogfights', the F-35 doesn't have missiles for short range combat.

[Made of Stars]

So, if the F-35 isn't for air superiority, and can't do CAS, what is it for?

[Rome Existed]

So, if the F-35 isn't for air superiority, and can't do CAS, what is it for?

It has been designed to be a jack of all (master of none) fighter.

[Rome Existed]

And yet they claim that it will be able to adopt the current ground support strafing role of the A-10.

Oh, and one little issue - the software to run the gun won't be ready until 2019.

Nah, no chance it will be needed before then - safe to kill the A-10 now.

Idiots.

Don't worry, with it armed with 2 missiles those 180 rounds will be more than enough to protect the plane in a dog fight.

Only for long-range 'dogfights', the F-35 doesn't have missiles for short range combat.

I thought it could either fit 2 x Aim-9 or 2 x Aim-120?

[Warren Dew]

So, if the F-35 isn't for air superiority, and can't do CAS, what is it for?

Penetration attacks. You know, the kind that cruise missiles are perfect for.

[Weaver]

It is a heavy, under-powered plane with a wide turning radius and limited loadout, and without a gun initially then a couple of weak work-arounds, designed to be a one-plane-fits-all solution for all services but in actual fact meeting no set of requirements particularly well.

It is the F-4 Phantom in a stealth skin.

[Made of Stars]

And yet they claim that it will be able to adopt the current ground support strafing role of the A-10.

Oh, and one little issue - the software to run the gun won't be ready until 2019.

Nah, no chance it will be needed before then - safe to kill the A-10 now.

Idiots.

Don't worry, with it armed with 2 missiles those 180 rounds will be more than enough to protect the plane in a dog fight.

Only for long-range 'dogfights', the F-35 doesn't have missiles for short range combat.

I thought it could either fit 2 x Aim-9 or 2 x Aim-120?

In the Daily Beast article above, they write:

That means the F-35 will be almost entirely reliant on long-range air-to-air missiles. It doesn’t carry any short-range, dogfighting missiles like the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder when it’s in a stealthy configuration.

So if this is accurate, it can presumably carry AIM-9s, but has to forego stealth. I guess this is less of an issue for the USAF with its F-22s, but for the rest of us...

[Griz_]

I guess this is less of an issue for the USAF with its F-22s, but for the rest of us...

I'm interested in "the rest of us". Australia and Canada have somewhat similar needs; long range due to large land mass and distance between bases, primary role being an interceptor aircraft for domestic purposes, lack of resources for support aircraft such as the F-22, cold weather in the case of Canada, and a desire to fulfill a NATO commitment when required. I've been following this thread and I'm interested in the opinion of Weaver and others regarding the suitability of the F-35 for a nation like Canada or Australia.

[Calilasseia]

It is a heavy, under-powered plane with a wide turning radius and limited loadout, and without a gun initially then a couple of weak work-arounds, designed to be a one-plane-fits-all solution for all services but in actual fact meeting no set of requirements particularly well.

It is the F-4 Phantom in a stealth skin.

I'd say it's not even that.

Apart from the stupid decision not to fit a gun to the F-4, that aircraft was handicapped in some circumstances, because it was originally intended to be a fighter-bomber, but was called upon to do a dedicated fighter's job with the extra weight.

It eventually redeemed itself because [1] you could bolt a lot of bits to it, and [2] navy operators in particular learned to play to its strengths.

I remember one of its nicknames. "The triumph of brute force over aerodynamics".

[Rome Existed]

I guess this is less of an issue for the USAF with its F-22s, but for the rest of us...

I'm interested in "the rest of us". Australia and Canada have somewhat similar needs; long range due to large land mass and distance between bases, primary role being an interceptor aircraft for domestic purposes, lack of resources for support aircraft such as the F-22, cold weather in the case of Canada, and a desire to fulfill a NATO commitment when required. I've been following this thread and I'm interested in the opinion of Weaver and others regarding the suitability of the F-35 for a nation like Canada or Australia.

There's been buzz in Australia that we might again request that the US Congress approve the F-22 for foreign sale.

[Griz_]

Interesting. There was a push to get them a few years ago. Seemed like the perfect fit for us.

[Warren Dew]

I guess this is less of an issue for the USAF with its F-22s, but for the rest of us...

I'm interested in "the rest of us". Australia and Canada have somewhat similar needs; long range due to large land mass and distance between bases, primary role being an interceptor aircraft for domestic purposes, lack of resources for support aircraft such as the F-22, cold weather in the case of Canada, and a desire to fulfill a NATO commitment when required. I've been following this thread and I'm interested in the opinion of Weaver and others regarding the suitability of the F-35 for a nation like Canada or Australia.

There's been buzz in Australia that we might again request that the US Congress approve the F-22 for foreign sale.

Out of curiousity, do you guys want it so much that you're willing to pay your share of the development costs? That would at least double the cost per plane.