The F-35 Over Budget and Over Due, will it ever live up to expectations?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DearthnVader, Jul 9, 2016.

  1. DearthnVader macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #1
    I remember reading somewhere that the F-35 has no mounts for hard pods, so no external armaments or fuel tanks. In a air battle when the F-35 is out numbered by a number of aircraft greater than it has air to air missiles to destroy, once the F-35's are out of missiles the enemy aircraft will destroy the aerial refueling tanker and other support aircraft.
     
  2. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #2
    the donald will fix it so don't worry.
     
  3. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #3
    Did you mean expectations in your title?
     
  4. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #4
    It is living by exceptions but not up to expectations.
     
  5. DearthnVader thread starter macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #5
    Spell check got me /embarrassed
     
  6. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #6
    All would compromise stealth and which makes the USAF argument that the F-35 could replace the A-10 totally specious.

    You can edit titles with thread tools. Little gear thingy top right.
     
  7. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #7
    we definitely need to spend 200 million dollars per plane. we need to be prepared to take out the enemies opposing air force. oh wait
     
  8. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #8
    Hmm?

    [​IMG]

    Now, I don't design planes for a living, so maybe I'm missing something.

    There is a stealthier configuration that involves carrying everything in internal bays, but if you expect to be defending the tankers against waves and waves of fighters,you probably wouldn't opt for "low observable mode"
     
  9. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #9
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the controversy surrounding the F35 isn't that it's a bad plane, but rather that we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars on something that ended up only be a slight upgrade to what we already have.

    That about right?
     
  10. DearthnVader thread starter macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #10
    Thanks.
     
  11. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #11
    Close, it's a capable plane but not at all suited for the mission (ground support) that the USAF is selling. Also, it's questionable whether in this age of drones and AI we should be spending over US$1 trillion on another manned weapon system. Despite what the wingnuts in white-scarves want to believe, the era of manned dogfights is nearly over.
     
  12. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #12
    Snoopy will be looking for you shortly. Prepare to retract.
     
  13. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #13
    They have been pretty much over for along time jets are not dog fighters missles pretty much changed that.
     
  14. DearthnVader thread starter macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #14
    The F-35 may never see air to air combat with a foe that is anywhere near it's tactical equal. Seems to me, it's a lot cheaper for nations to invest in radar arrays like the Podsolnukh (Sunflower) radar and Surface to Air Missiles.
     
  15. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #15


    The F-35 will be a 30+ year airframe. And it is true that by many familiar benchmarks - such as roll rate; speed; flight-envelope; etc. - it is not much of an improvement over the aircraft it replaces. But that misses the point. Air forces figured out quite some time ago the simply making planes faster, etc. wasn't the way to win air superiority.

    The F-35 holds significant advantages, not just in terms of stealthiness; but also in terms of being part of an integrated air superiority system. And in this regard the F-35 far outclasses every other aircraft in the sky. The F-35 has the ability to link to not just other F-35s, but also glean targeting and mission data from
    reconnaissance drones; from ground forces; from satellites. It presents this information to the pilot via a cutting edge helmet display system.

    Each variant of the F-35 is designed to outclass, by a significant margin, any potential adversary it is likely to encounter over its lifetime. The F-35 STOVL version is designed to operate off of our Navy's Amphibious Assault Ships (of which we have eight) - rather than the dozen or so Supercarriers. This means that our Marine Expeditionary forces will be able to provide their own air superiority, without relying on vulnerable (and expensive) fleet carriers.

    The A-10 Warthog is a tough and respected close air-support aircraft. But it cannot operate off of a ship. It needs a paved runway. If our Marines needed to assault an island in the Western Pacific a thousand or more miles from our nearest airbase, the Warthog, no matter how beloved, simply doesn't do them any good because it has no practical means of getting there.

    We will know that the F-35 is successful when it wins air superiority of any adversary it faces. We will have to assume that it is successful while its mere presence contributes to the mix of forces that effectively dissuade any present or future adversary from challenging us to a war.
     
  16. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #16
    The conceit of the Military-Industrial Complex. As if in 1971--at the height of the Cold War--we could imagine adversaries like Al Qaeda and hybrid warfare that became our reality on 9/11.

    Exactly. Russia and China already have advanced low-frequency radar, IR and shockwave detection that can defeat stealth and those technologies will continue to advance while the F-35's stealth capabilities will remain static. Bottom-line is that highly trained pilots win battles. Right now our F-35 pilots get far less training than F-15/16 pilots because the F-35 requires 47 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying. And each F-35 flight hour costs $44,922. The F-35 is such a hanger queen that it is lucky to get 12 flying hours per month.
     
  17. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #17
    Both of these statements are false.

    Actually, the statement that F-35 pilots receive less training is also false.

    The F-35 costs roughly 12-14% more than an F-16 to fly, but it fulfils the a mission that two planes previously carried out: air strike and air superiority. It's more efficient overall to have one team supporting a single airframe as opposed to two (or more) teams.

    Where are you getting this stuff? Left wing and/or Russian extremist websites? It's blatantly factually incorrect.

    Every nation that has been given the option to purchase the F-35 has. They've done so because it's currently the most affordable, as well as the best performing option.

    PS: The F-16 is a 42 year-old airframe. The F-15 is a 45 year-old airframe. A 30 year expected lifetime for the F-35 is pretty reasonable in comparison.
     
  18. kapolani macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    #18
    One thing people forget is the that the tech and hardware trickle down throughout the DOD.

    Yeah, it's way over cost, but it all hasn't been in vain.

    In my current line of work we see some useful stuff coming out of the project.
     
  19. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #19
    Sort of. The idea was basically a NATO bird and with it came the massive bureaucracy. The STOVL version had some gear shaft and nozzle problems and the engines burn so hot that it caused concrete failure. It's better than what we have by a large margin, but it's a perfect example of why one should just build the damn thing and if another country wants it they can buy some. As for cost, like the F-22, order dust drove up unit costs exponentially.
     
  20. 5684697 Suspended

    5684697

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    #20
    Raise your hand if you are or were a fighter pilot.

    Almost everything you read in media, including aviation media is superficial and biased. Some of the "experts", like Pierre Sprey are dweeb analysts who can't even fly. Almost no one in media has been exposed to ECM and ECCM because it is highly sensitive. An entire world out there that few understand.

    That said, the F35 is a far better battlefield asset than is being portrayed, and drones are far worse. Both have a place, but the F35 is meant to address future threats, not just the very low air threat environment in the sandbox today.

    The Navy version has a big wing and is maneuverable and solid behind the boat.
     
  21. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #21
    This is true. One reason that the F-35 price is higher than expected is that congress hasn't authorised block purchases. In the past, the Air Force has purchased fighter jets in blocks of 100 or more at a time. For example, the block 15 F-16 purchase was for 475 planes.

    Instead, congress has opted to purchase 20-30 at a time. This more than doubles the cost. It's the same mistake that congress made with the F-22, and the B-2 spirit.

    Keep in mind that our strategic partners want us to purchase a block so that they can benefit from the discount. Without a block purchase, the F-35 is already less expensive than all modern competitors. Imagine how much money we could save if congress pulled their heads out of their arses.
     
  22. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #22
    How much money did you spend fixing F-35's that were already built, excluding software?
     
  23. Ironduke Suspended

    Ironduke

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #23
    hurry up and fix this **** we need the Stovl for our carriers in britain
     
  24. ChrisWB, Jul 11, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2016

    ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #24
    What you're alluding to is called "concurrency", and it's the second major contributing factor to the F-35 program's cost.

    It's an idiotic concept, but c'est la vie.

    To answer your question: $1.2 billion. I forgot to add - plus an additional $320 million in the future.
    The B model is available, but the UK doesn't have the money to purchase them.
     
  25. Ironduke Suspended

    Ironduke

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #25
    actually we already have some but the carriers are still not ready.
     

Share This Page