The F-35 Lightning II Thread

[mrjonno]

We could stick all the foreigners on them and turn it into a prison camp

[Teague]

Being the Navy brat that I am the F/A-18 F/E is the superior aircraft and beats out all the others.

But it needs catapults and a longish flightdeck,, the UK carriers had them removed to save costs (even through it will probably cost more).

Basically we ordered to 2 aircraft carriers but run out of money to actually stick aircraft on them. Don't even think US military procurement is that bad

No we sold all our harriers and the F35 won't be here until 2020...or later and the HMS Queen elizabeth launches this year with errrr.... no aircraft on it.

I guess it could sail around and try to look badass.....

[Teague]

We could stick all the foreigners on them and turn it into a prison camp

And keel haul the really naughty ones?

[Cthulhu's Trilby]

Originally planned to carry 40 aircraft but now it's going to be 12? WTF? 12 fucking aircraft? Where did all the space go?

I believe they can still carry 40 F-35s but a standard loadout would be 12 F-35s and then various roles of helicopters.

Short of all-out WW3 I can't see many situations requiring 40 F-35s.

[mrjonno]

Don't really see a situation that requires a rather expensive aircraft carrier carrying only 12 aircraft either. Would parliament or any admiral really have approved such an aircraft carrier being built in the first place if they had known

[Made of Stars]

Don't really see a situation that requires a rather expensive aircraft carrier carrying only 12 aircraft either. Would parliament or any admiral really have approved such an aircraft carrier being built in the first place if they had known

An aircraft carrier is a fantastic base for humanitarian missions, but that's getting away from the F-35 somewhat.

[Cthulhu's Trilby]

Don't really see a situation that requires a rather expensive aircraft carrier carrying only 12 aircraft either. Would parliament or any admiral really have approved such an aircraft carrier being built in the first place if they had known

12 F-35s. So you'd also have troop carriers and sub-killer helicopters as well.

Bear in mind that operations in Iraq at present are using maximum eight Tornados and that four Typhoons are considered sufficient to keep the Argentine airforce at home. Iirc the old Invincible Class carriers could only carry a maximum of about 20 aircraft.

[Teague]

Don't really see a situation that requires a rather expensive aircraft carrier carrying only 12 aircraft either. Would parliament or any admiral really have approved such an aircraft carrier being built in the first place if they had known

For the cost, 12 aircraft seems somewhat laughable considering some of them are going to be grounded due to maintenance issues and what happens when you lose two of them in a mid air collision.

[Cthulhu's Trilby]

Don't really see a situation that requires a rather expensive aircraft carrier carrying only 12 aircraft either. Would parliament or any admiral really have approved such an aircraft carrier being built in the first place if they had known

For the cost, 12 aircraft seems somewhat laughable considering some of them are going to be grounded due to maintenance issues and what happens when you lose two of them in a mid air collision.

There's plenty to be critical of wrt the carrier fiasco, but this 12 planes thing is a red herring. That's simply how the airwings are set up. In a scenario similar to the Falklands they could do what they did last time and fill the carriers up to the gunwales with aircraft.

It's worth remembering too that there were all sorts of fiascoes surrounding the Invincible Class when it was being built. The fact that it was designed for helicopters and therefore had a bloody great hole in the runway if you were bringing aircraft up from below decks was probably worse than anything they've done this time around. But the Invincibles were still the most important post-war naval vessels the UK built.

[Weaver]

One wonders how it would fare against dedicated air superiority fighters, without the F-22 to cover it's back. That is, how it would fare for all the multinational partners who are chipping in...

It will go down in flames. It has a poor relative turning radius and climb rate. Part of the "do everything" problem.

[Teague]

One wonders how it would fare against dedicated air superiority fighters, without the F-22 to cover it's back. That is, how it would fare for all the multinational partners who are chipping in...

It will go down in flames. It has a poor relative turning radius and climb rate. Part of the "do everything" problem.

The entire point of the system is to coordinate all aircraft together and have a machine that can detect other AC before they detect it. It can link all this data to all other F35's and then they can all take it out.

This is great as long as they can't be detected first. Also, in the event of a WVR engagement they better hope the other guys are shitty pilots. The system it uses looks innovative but the aircraft is not and we all knew when it was first mentioned it was never going to perform correctly. So now we have an aircraft that is "ok" at it's job or worse when it comes to ground attack missions, and probably utter shit for CAS missions where the A10 rules.

Not only that but how much money??? The airframe can't cost that much more than a regular AC - it's still bolted together. I don't get what's costing so much.

[Weaver]

Yeah, that's the bullshit - the F35 isn't expected to fly and fight alone, but part of an overall team - but the A10 is being put on the chopping block because it cannot fly and fight alone.

What is costing so much is advanced materials and avionics.

[Made of Stars]

Yeah, that's the bullshit - the F35 isn't expected to fly and fight alone, but part of an overall team.

Herein lies the problem for partner countries - at least some of them are using F-35s to replace their F-18s, F-16s, and whatnot.

[Warren Dew]

Don't get me wrong, I love the A10 - absolutely love it. But put it in a dogfight

That got a laugh out of me. It illustrates your point well, though.

Now, as for the F35, this is a classic example of what happens when you try to make one universal airframe do everything - air supremacy, air-to-ground strike, STOL and VTOL and carrier and large runway. Lessons should have been learned from the F111 and F4 and other "one size fits all" aircraft - the reality is that it ends up doing nothing well, and costing way, way to much to do it. The program should be killed, we should buy more F22s for the air supremacy mission, and keep the A10s flying for the CAS mission for which it is uniquely capable.

While I agree with your conclusions, to be fair, they think they are learning the lesson from the F/A-18, where the original planning was to have separate fighter and attack models, but where the two models ended up looking so similar they merged them.

I grant that the attack mission for the F/A-18 is a bit different from the one for the A-10.

[Rome Existed]

Yeah, that's the bullshit - the F35 isn't expected to fly and fight alone, but part of an overall team.

Herein lies the problem for partner countries - at least some of them are using F-35s to replace their F-18s, F-16s, and whatnot.

Yeah, it was supposed to be the sole fighter aircraft used by the RAAF.

[Teague]

Yeah, that's the bullshit - the F35 isn't expected to fly and fight alone, but part of an overall team - but the A10 is being put on the chopping block because it cannot fly and fight alone.

What is costing so much is advanced materials and avionics.

The A-10 was never designed to fight other AC, it's role is CAS which it's perfect for. err....

[Weaver]

Yeah, that's the bullshit - the F35 isn't expected to fly and fight alone, but part of an overall team - but the A10 is being put on the chopping block because it cannot fly and fight alone.

What is costing so much is advanced materials and avionics.

The A-10 was never designed to fight other AC, it's role is CAS which it's perfect for. err....

Exactly. The A10 is on the chopping block because its supposedly single role (not true, it can do CAS, FASTFAC and slow-mover escort - missions no other aircraft is particularly suited for, but for which the A10 simply excels), and cannot survive in a non-permissive air environment - but the F35, which is multirole, still needs the F22 partner to give air supremacy to be able to function.

Hypocrisy much? Lying assholes in the AF determined to kill the A10 again? Say it ain't so.

[Cthulhu's Trilby]

Out of interest, how many airforces currently operate fighters that can compete with the F-35 as a fighter?

[Griz_]

Canada is an active Tier 3 partner in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program and it's a real hot-potato issue here. The government continues to put off a final decision and with an election coming in about a year it's widely thought that the current government will continue to avoid it.

Some of the most common criticisms after the ballooning costs is the fact that the F-35 is unsuited for it's primary role of an interceptor aircraft in the high Arctic. Also the the safety concerns of it's single engine design as opposed to the two engine CF-18. The bases up there are few and far between. I understand that the USAF will be using the F-22 as a support aircraft in Alaska and we obviously have no such support aircraft to serve that role.

Many believe that the replacement should be the F-18 Super Hornet which is proven in this role, cheaper and could also be used effectively in fulfilling NATO commitments where support is available through member states if required.

Many seem to be of the opinion that politics is getting in the way of making the best decision for our needs and while still fulfilling our international commitments. I'm curious to hear what others here think as I'm far from an expert but very interested in the topic.

[Weaver]

Out of interest, how many airforces currently operate fighters that can compete with the F-35 as a fighter?

Well, let's see. Total up everyone the US sold F15s to - a pretty large list - then add in Russia and China. Ukraine and a number of folks flying SU27s or MiG 29s could theoretically compete, but I doubt their pilots are up to the task.

Decent sized list, though very unlikely we'd fight any of them.

Edited to correct spelling error typo.