F-35, Hero Or Zero ?

It's been billed as the smartest jet fighter on the planet, designed to strike enemies in the air and on the ground without being detected by radar. But after a decade of intensive development, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is over budget, a long way behind schedule and described by one expert as "big, fat and draggy". So is this plane a super fighter or a massive waste of money?



Quite a damning documentary from Australian TV, doom and gloom overall.

The $397 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will not be ready to go into operation until at least 2019, 23 years after the Pentagon signed a contract in 1996 with Lockheed Martin to produce just fewer than 2,500 of the aircraft for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, according to a new report.


www.nextgov.com... /2013/03/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-not-ready-combat-until-least-2019-gao-says/61832/

www.gao.gov...

I don't think you'll find many people that think this plane was worth the money.

Sure it might be great at what it does but the cost simply cannot justify its ability. We could have built something sufficient for todays age for a lot less money.

It is getting to a point where I'm wondering it the F-22, with say 2500 built could have lowered the cost per aircraft to where the F-35 cost per plane is going to be. But the bottom line is that our fighter fleet is at a point to where we need another aircraft in the arsenal. In typical American fashion, we have to have the most advanced aircraft out there. But does of us believe that the F-35 will eventually be canceled at around 500 aircraft or so because of new sixth gen fighters in development. Were already seing evidence of the navy wanting to just upgrade the super hornet for now. Perhaps they know of some black project out there.

The F-35 and the F-22 are our are top of the line aircraft.. And yet, the Chinese have been able to steal the complete blueprints for them, Those "stolen" plans are keeping a major aspect of the Chinese defense industry busy trying to copy and better them. Most importantly, our sales of these craft to friendly nations (and some not so friendly) will support the dwindling US industrial complex as it secretly does more important work..

Don't want to understand that the F-35, F-22, B-2, F-117 are all boondoggles, make-work projects for US industries? Learn about the triangles from common sources, forget about what Jane's says and assume for an instant that Gary Mckinnon is correct in the what he saw on Pentagon computer. We do have a legitimate space force and they have a fleet, and it is not---oooops!...was not....that singular death trap we called the shuttle. Wise up, folks.

The real game is that the US has UFO-like craft that are not true aircraft at all. They float in a massless field that doesn't use air or hot exhaust for propulsion. Since they are the best military weapon ever devised, they will remain top secret for as long as possible in part because they own their heritage to the true UFO. Of course, the only people in the dark about these craft are civilians. Certainly, any world intelligence agency worthy of its name knows about our triangles, do you?

As threads appear to harp on conventional aircraft as being important, I'll be pointing out the obvious falsity of it.

F22 or Super Hornet.
Buy this particular plane and you don't even get the engine!
Ya!,,Its true, you order it separate!

reply to post by mypan


If it is supposed to be such a great fighter why would they approve it for sale to other countries? F22 was blocked for export because it was said to be too great of a plane at that time, you'd think they would do the same thing if they thought it was to be so superior to other aircraft. I think in todays age maneuverability is overrated since dog fighting is a thing of the past, in very, very rare circumstances will it ever be a factor. Stealth, targeting systems, missile technology and flight radius should take precedence over maneuverability.

reply to post by canucks555


That's standard for all aircraft. The base price is for the airframe, and the engine is bought separately.

reply to post by Aliensdoexist


Because the F-35 isn't a straight fighter, it's more of a tactical bomber with fighter abilities, like the F-15E, but with a better fighter ability than the Strike Eagle has. The F-22 is a straight fighter, with a limited ground attack ability. So the Raptor has sensors and other equipment that we aren't willing to export, and taking them out means you end up with an F-35 type aircraft.

I hear something like this and it just makes me think... I think of when the military denied the existance of the stealth aircraft. I think it wasn't until the late 80's or early 90's that the military admitted they did exist. And had existed since the 60's. In other words, what they are showing off as top of the line, most advanced etc. isn't anything near technologically what they really have behind closed doors.
I have nothing but the utmost confidence in the U.S. air superiority.

The F-35 is pretty mediocre. It is stealthy, carries a lot of fuel, has a lot of very advanced sensors, and has very good avionics. Unfortunately it does not have a large payload (particularly air to air) or the best aerodynamic performance. In this regard it is approximately comparable to either a F/A-18 or F-16 in combat configuration, and significantly inferior to aircraft like the Eurofighter and Rafale. In my mind all of the competitors to the F-35 are also medicre, since they lack many of the advantages the F-35 brings.

The mediocre aerodynamic performance is somewhat due to the advantages of the F-35 which I mentioned above, but also perhaps because the STOVL and carrier variants dictated the design somewhat, so perhaps if this were not the case then the conventional takeoff and landing variant would have better aerodynamic performance. So the trade-off between stealth, sensors, internal fuel load, and aerodynamic performance may not have been one that was necessary.

So what happens if a F-35 (or Eurofighter, Super Hornet for that matter) goes up against a 5th generation fighter that is not as compromised in 10-15 years time that has both stealth and with great kinematics, like PAKFA or J-20? The USA has the F-22. Countries like Australia don't (the F-22 isn't as multirole so even if we could get it we likely wouldn't). I guess we can ensure our force is superior in other ways (numbers for example) or we have USAF support if this occurs.

For most air forces considering buying the F-35, a choice needs to be made between having both stealth and amazing sensors, and having fantastic aerodynamic performance. IMO fund 6 internal air-to-air weapons for the F-35 as well as thrust increases to ~50,000 lb to help minimize the disadvantages. I also bet the next allied 5th generation aircraft will be developed earlier than it would have been if F-22 was exportable and production was continued.

Lets not forget guys that I'm willing to bet nobody on this forum knows all the abilities of the F-35 either, and the exported versions are dumbed down a bit to not give away what they are capable of. Even in that video the general in charge of the program says he will put the jet against any other jet in the world and it would hold its own. Not to mention that jet 1's computers can send firing information to jet 4's weapons and fire a missle without the pilot pressing the button. Eventually this plane will be a force to reckon with, especially if we are using them in a swarm flight or something. And the payload significantly increases with the external pylons installed, which is less stealthy, but after the initial bombings in a war, they probably wont need as much stealth to clean up the rest.

Bottom line is, with everything we learned about building a jet like this and all the crap that has happened to it, we will hopefully learn from those mistakes and not let concurrency happen again. I think the next gen fighter will go to Boeing because of their work on the Bird of Prey program, boosting their knowledge of stealth, and the fact that LM is pretty much gonna get screwed in the future because of the management right now. Unless they come up with something incredibly amazing that nobody else can top it (which could happen at Skunkworks, obviously). But I have a hunch that Boeing will be a force to recon with in the future with it's sixth gen fighter (And all the R&D money they stole from the JSF program that they obviously didn't put in the ugly as X-32 )

EDIT: Forgot to mention that most likely the F-35 is gonna take on a Strike Eagle role more than a standard fighter, probably flying close to a pack of F-22's to take care of the A/A fighting while they conduct bombing runs. It's gonna be a sight to see with a four pack of F-35's and a four pack of raptors flying into war. (too bad they can't talk to eachother yet because of the link systems )

Also I thought the documentary was crap. The interviewer kept on asking extremely loaded, stupid, questions and overall it was extremely biased towards those who are against the F-35.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Aliensdoexist

 

Because the F-35 isn't a straight fighter, it's more of a tactical bomber with fighter abilities, like the F-15E, but with a better fighter ability than the Strike Eagle has. The F-22 is a straight fighter, with a limited ground attack ability. So the Raptor has sensors and other equipment that we aren't willing to export, and taking them out means you end up with an F-35 type aircraft.

Besides isn't the F35 a joint effort by several countries?
SOURCE. On a side note, Singepore is supposedly very close to ordering approximately 10 or so of them.

The F35 is not the answer to a maidens prayer for one reason....
It was initially too expansive of Lockhheed to think they could cover all those bases with one aircraft,....and do it better in every category than the competition.....duh?
Personally , as a potential customer national, i think we have bought a pig in a poke that grew to unaffordable proprtions, (for a small airforce of a small population.....) and untimely delivery.as well.....
Like the AVRO Arrow, there could have been opportunity to develop our own aircrafts at home....
If China can access all that technology, it must pretty well be open source.....
Its very possible the US is letting this stuff slip out to keep others busy while they build on a new principal, and makes a kind of sense if there some triangles parked in secret.....
But from what ive heard, these triangles are far far more advanced in other ways as well as flight.....could we be that far ahead?? ummmmmm id have to say NO.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Aliensdoexist

 

Because the F-35 isn't a straight fighter, it's more of a tactical bomber with fighter abilities, like the F-15E, but with a better fighter ability than the Strike Eagle has. The F-22 is a straight fighter, with a limited ground attack ability. So the Raptor has sensors and other equipment that we aren't willing to export, and taking them out means you end up with an F-35 type aircraft.

With more acceleration and range and maneuverability and two engines.

It's a Hero to the corporate elitist that got their millions in bonuses and the Politicians who lined their pockets, campains with donations from the above. The Polititicians children and families were also rewarded with high level jobs in these companies or also given campain donations so for some...yes it is a hero.

It represents Capitilism at it's best. The overruns is what is called milking the cow.

Originally posted by boomer135
EDIT: Forgot to mention that most likely the F-35 is gonna take on a Strike Eagle role more than a standard fighter, probably flying close to a pack of F-22's to take care of the A/A fighting while they conduct bombing runs.

Just adding some fuel to the fire: not all countries will have this option. Those countries that have decided to place the F-35 as their mainline fighter (Canada, I'm looking at you) without a bigger brother may be required to depend on its own A/A capabilities if they wish to undertake operations on their own. Insert flames here.

What troubles me is our Royal Navys new aircraft carriers were designed to have the f-35 on their flight decks now I fear out new carriers will have no aircraft because the way the f-35 is going. Just wish we never scrapped the harriers so soon

Originally posted by ThePeaceMaker
What troubles me is our Royal Navys new aircraft carriers were designed to have the f-35 on their flight decks now I fear out new carriers will have no aircraft because the way the f-35 is going. Just wish we never scrapped the harriers so soon

We never scrapped them. We were coerced into it by the yanks who ripped us off (as ever, when will we learn to stop trusting yanks?), now they are rusting in a #ty desert somewhere in the lands stolen off of Mexico now part of the US.

Personally? I'd have bought Russian or French planes. Russian equipment is battle tested, tough, upgradable to NATO and UN standards and would be with us a hell of a lot sooner than any yank crap.