Report: The F-35 Can't Beat The Plane It's Replacing In A Dogfight

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Jul 1, 2015.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    The F-16 was flying with all it's external tanks and ordnance, while the F-35 was 'clean' and it still sucked. Granted, the F-35--development began in 2001--was designed mainly as a ground attack aircraft but guess what? So was the F-16.

    When it's all said and done, the F-35 will have cost the U.S. taxpayer over $2 trillion. That's two...trillion...dollars (imagine a Dr. Evil voice.)

    Eisenhower could not have imagined how awful it would get. :mad:

    https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875

    During WWII, new fighters went from blueprint to combat in an average of nine months.
     
  2. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #2
    well I can understand why it was hot out and they could not fuel it. then the software would not let it get out of old lady mode.
     
  3. obeygiant, Jul 1, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2015

    obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #3
    [​IMG]

    350 Billion..Jesus Christ! And I'm like just scraping by on 72k a year.
     
  4. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #4
    F-35 is Sergeant York (DIVAD) with zero accountability.
     
  5. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #5
    Hmm, F-35 against a SU27 I don't think so you'd be a loser which ever way you look at it.That's not to mention the SU30 or the SU35.
     
  6. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #6
    Who cares if the plane sucks? It made a whole bunch of money for some already super rich republicans!
     
  7. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #7
    Remember all those Democrats trying to cancel this outrageous program in the name of fiscal responsibility?

    Neither do I.
     
  8. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #8
    Yeah, because only Republicans invest in defense industries.:rolleyes:
     
  9. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #9
    billion not million
     
  10. A.Goldberg, Jul 1, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2015

    A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #10
    I'm sure being like most government funded jobs, there was a monumental amount of wasteful spending.

    That said, considering how modern warfare operates, I don't think a dogfight is a practical situation a stealth fighter jet would find itself in. First, we don't find ourselves battling nations of equal firepower, though that could change at any moment I suppose. Modern day "dogfighting" typically occurs with distances beyond visible site due to the weapons technology. I guess it's a good thing that it's radar signature is smaller than any other fighter jet (but yes, China/Russia are also advancing their radar,).

    This was built to satisfy the needs of 3 completely different branches of military in a multitude of different applications. Hodgepodge in, hodgepodge out. I suppose that's to be expected when the ultimate goal of this project was to be one big compromise. Despite a $350B price tag (said to be over $1 Trillion when it's all said and done with), I'm sure this is a far cheaper option than developing 3 independent aircraft. The F-22 project cost more and that was just the AF's.

    I believe in maintaining a military advantage, I'm not here to debate that, it's simply my opinion. It's probable the government doesn't reveal all their best technology and specifications to the media. I think only time will tell whether this plane was worth the cost. Part of that will probably have to include advancing it as our "enemies" (competitors) make their advancements.
     
  11. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #11

    This is a boondoggle of the highest magnitude but your comparison is ridiculous. WWII fighters had fewer electronics than my car key fob.
     
  12. Sym0 macrumors 6502

    Sym0

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2013
    #12
    That's why you send the F-22, the F-35 is a multi-role more like the F-18 SuperHornet, not air superiority like the F-15 and F-22.

    Its designed to to utility airstrikes and patrols, not dominate an airspace in a war zone.

    But still, they could have done better.
     
  13. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #13
    In the same respect CAS aircraft don't and shouldn't be complex and this is supposed to be a CAS aircraft along with other things. This plane on paper sounded good but no one thought to talk to SME's before it left paper. It's ok though I'm sure many stars were given for it.
     
  14. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #14
    This is serious. We cannot expect F-15, F-16, and F-18 airframes to last forever. We and our allies are building aircraft carriers for the F-35, but it seems like a totally failed programme. Meanwhile, Russia is buzzing European airspace and the PRC are building bases in the middle of the 'South China' Sea. Not to mention North Korea and Iran....

    The F-35 should be scrapped, the people who were responsible for this fiasco should be punished (and told they'll be drafted for combat infantry if war breaks out), and the R&D from the project should be used for planes dedicated to the needs of the USAF, Marines & Navy. The F-35 is a stupid idea even if they get it to work as planned.
     
  15. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #15
    Why is it ridiculous? I think it's interesting.

    Kaiser Shipyards could launch a completed Liberty ship one week after laying the keel.

    The Ford plant at Willow Run rolled out a new B-24 every 63 minutes.

    I'm not suggesting we can approach WWII production times, but 15+ years seems excessive.
     
  16. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #16
    Look I think you're all being too hard on the project. Let's at least be happy that the Right People were able to line their pockets with public money. A functional war machine would just be a delightful bonus.
     
  17. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #17
    Have you read Ben Rich's Skunk Works? Very interesting, and it addresses some of these issues.
     
  18. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #18
    If an F-35 pilot ever found himself dogfighting in visual range of an enemy aircraft - he'd know either he, or his mission commanders, had made some very serious mistakes.

    The raison d'être of the JSF is that it is supposed to be all but invisible to most enemy radar and other detection systems. It is designed to operate in the dark and out of visual range of any potential adversaries.

    Don't make the mistake of confusing the US experience in Vietnam, where our air-to-air missile technology was strictly first-generation stuff that quickly required the readopting of dogfighting tactics. The F-35 is designed to destroy enemy assets, on the ground or in the air, long before the enemy is aware that a threat exists - let alone given enough time to send a third-generation air-superiority aircraft up to loiter around till a dopey Lightning pilot lumbers into visual range.

    The reality is that, given a good enough pilot - a WWI era Fokker D.VII could probably shoot down - and certainly out dogfight - most any Predator UAV that happened to fly into visual range. But that doesn't mean we ought to trash the Predator. Does it now?
     
  19. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #19
    I've seen it but not read. I should have, since Kelly Johnson grew-up about ten miles from my hometown. Thanks, I shall add it to my queue.
     
  20. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
  21. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #21
    They're somewhere with Windows 9.
     
  22. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #22
    "F23" prototype (actually YF23) lost to F22. The X32 project lost to F35. They don't follow a very logical order.
     
  23. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #23

    The problem is that the F35 is entirly betting it's success on stealth technolgy while sacrificing other flight capabilities at a high cost.
    The whole tactical idea is currently sound but is entirely dependant on the other side not developing improved avionics-sensor systems. Much of what you said above was also said about the F-117 in 1990 and look how long that thign was actually in service.

    The F-22 is different because it has way superior flight performance in every way and didn't have a kraken like development process (VSTOLfor the F-35 was a big mistake, especially since they ended up with 3 different airframes).

    If military aviation history tells us something is that a plane which at it's introduction has the superior flight characteristic but weaker avionics will easily outlast the more gimmicky expensive planes "with a silver bullet".
     
  24. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #24


    The reality is that current "fourth generation" aircraft sorties would not be survivable against a modern integrated air-defense system. Our F-16s, F-15s, and F-18s might be very good airplanes, but they would require massive amounts of supporting aircraft sorties to sufficiently suppress enemy air defenses before they could operate inside the battlespace.

    Its also important to recognize that fifth-generation aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 rely on more than just stealth. They also contain highly effective anti-radar jamming modules, as well as extensive networking capabilities and sensors that further enhance our ability to confuse, blind, and destroy an opponents' entire air defense system.

    There are legitimate concerns about both the cost of the F-35 program, and the numerous delays it has suffered. But I think it important to remember that many - if not all - of the aircraft's truly significant achievements in combat effectiveness are likely to remain closely-guarded secrets.
     
  25. Huntn Suspended

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #25
    There is a trade off between old fashioned dog fighting and technical superiority. We experienced it in the Vietnam era when facing large numbers of low cost fighters. Ideally you are not even getting into one of those fashioned dog fights. However, this is not my statement of support for the F-35. I've lost track regarding the details other than its very expensive. :)
     

Share This Page