Thoughts on F-35??

[Mr.B-17]

Hey guys I was just curious on your thoughts. I hear a lot of people bad mouthing the F-35 and the F-22 for that matter and I just don't know why Also Bonus question what do you think the 6th gen us jets are gonna look like? Thanks guys

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

Uuuuuummmm....

This is a more GA oriented board.

You'll probably have better luck on a military aviation fan site.

 

[dukeblue219]

Hey guys I was just curious on your thoughts. I hear a lot of people bad mouthing the F-35 and the F-22 for that matter and I just don't know why Also Bonus question what do you think the 6th gen us jets are gonna look like? Thanks guys

The short answer is: too expensive, too unreliable, and unnecessary given realistic adversaries we might face. There a lot of logic that we don't need F-22's when the F-15 is still top dog, and a modernized version could be purchased instead. Same with trying to use the F-35 to replace the F-16, A-10, and some of the F/A-18s. The only reasonable use I've seen is to replace the Harrier's for the Marines.

Your second question is somewhat related -- I don't necessarily think there will be a 6th generation. With the advances in drones which can grossly outmaneuver a human manned plane while loitering longer at a tenth of the price of a manned aircraft, I don't know what will come next. I get that having a pilot in the cockpit is something computers can't match, but we'll still have the F-22s out there when that's necessary. It's a big question for the defense department to think about, because the era of unlimited money for fancy military projects is closing for now, I think, and there won't simply be a F-22 successor purchased just for the sake of upgrading.

 

[sdflyer]

There is only one problem with drones... They can be hijacked so we will need 6th generation to escort them

 

[mrreddick]

Uuuuuummmm....

This is a more GA oriented board.

You'll probably have better luck on a military aviation fan site.

I totally agree! This is supposed to be a GA oriented forum. Ask a question like that and you'll hear opinions from experts that at one point in their life, may have seen an F35 or F22 fly but more than likely, they believe everything they hear or read in their local papers or on the Internet.

Now, if you want to know about Van's Aircraft, fire away! :wink2:

 

[flyingmoose]

Uuuuuummmm....

This is a more GA oriented board.

You'll probably have better luck on a military aviation fan site.

UUUuuummmm

Ask whatever questions you want. Oh have you seen some of the things they talk about on here? Not even aviation related???

To the OP: First off welcome to the POA board. Feel free to ask what you want or talk about what you want.

I totally agree! This is supposed to be a GA oriented forum. Ask a question like that and you'll hear opinions from experts that at one point in their life, may have seen an F35 or F22 fly but more than likely, they believe everything they hear or read in their local papers or on the Internet.

Now, if you want to know about Van's Aircraft, fire away! :wink2:

This is not "supposed" to be anything but a pilots forum. In this forum we have airline pilots, military pilots, helo pilots, GA pilots, experimental builders and operators.

There may very well have been people here that have been involved in the program at some point. I personally have worked on the JSF engine program for F-35.

Anywho, I think the F-35 is not really going to be anything than an expensive experiment. I hope I am wrong, but at the price point that they are, with the problems that have been worked out, I just don't think its a viable alternative right now.

 

[ChrisK]

Uuuuuummmm....

This is a more GA oriented board.

You'll probably have better luck on a military aviation fan site.

Fortunately for the OP:

1. Pilots have opinions on EVERYTHING
2. There are quite a few current or ex-military pilots on this board with specific military hardware opinions
3. N/A traffic on this board is pretty popular

Don't listen to the deniers!

 

[Sac Arrow]

The F35 is a "do everything with one plane" airplane and it doesn't do any one single operation better than the plane it displaces. I just don't see vertical takeoff capability in a supersonic fighter jet as being a huge advantage.

 

[steingar]

Marines ruined it.

 

[Mr.B-17]

Thanks moose

 

[Henning]

I totally agree! This is supposed to be a GA oriented forum. Ask a question like that and you'll hear opinions from experts that at one point in their life, may have seen an F35 or F22 fly but more than likely, they believe everything they hear or read in their local papers or on the Internet.

Now, if you want to know about Van's Aircraft, fire away! :wink2:

Actually it's just a fine question here, we have drivers of various military aircraft here including the F-35 who are more capable of accurately discussing this topic including the merits and shortcomings of each platform than on a military aviation 'fan site'.

 

[John Baker]

When people build contraptions meant to do the job of many contraptions, it is rare when the new contraption will outperform the individual contraptions it was meant to replace. It is also worthy to note that the money spent on designing, building, and fielding the new contraption, usually would have been enough to field many more of the original contraptions.

-John

 

[Henning]

When people build contraptions meant to do the job of many contraptions, it is rare when the new contraption will outperform the individual contraptions it was meant to replace. It is also worthy to note that the money spent on designing, building, and fielding the new contraption, usually would have been enough to field many more of the original contraptions.

-John

The game changer with the F-35 and F-22 in these regards is stealth. Even our most unsophisticated enemies have radar guided munitions systems and these craft can minimize if not completely negate their effectiveness. This means one needs not have as large of a fleet to assure mission success. Smaller fleet means lower ongoing costs. You just can't retrofit stealth on aging designs.

 

[jesse]

Drop the F35, run with the F22, and take the jets away from the marines. The marines don't need a damn jet.

 

[Henning]

Drop the F35, run with the F22, and take the jets away from the marines. The marines don't need a damn jet.

Sure they do, question is can you operate an A-10 off a jump carrier? A-10 would integrate well into the USMC arsenal.

 

[jesse]

Sure they do, question is can you operate an A-10 off a jump carrier? A-10 would integrate well into the USMC arsenal.

With the level of integration you can have between forces now I just don't see them really needing a jet given the cost. I don't think they would be a significantly worse off force without them.

 

[Henning]

With the level of integration you can have between forces now I just don't see them really needing a jet given the cost. I don't think they would be a significantly worse off force without them.

The problem the USMC seem to deal with according to reports is the AF drivers hitting them. Helicopters are both time on station and load limited in what munitions they can bring to bear in a CAS role. The A-10 fills in for that and is not as vulnerable while carrying 1/3rd the operational crew.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Sure they do, question is can you operate an A-10 off a jump carrier? A-10 would integrate well into the USMC arsenal.

They need a close support aircraft, not a fighter jet. Something like... an Apache.

 

[Henning]

They need a close support aircraft, not a fighter jet. Something like... an Apache.

Apache is vulnerable, slow, and load limited. The A-10 is about the ultimate CAS platform as it can liquefy tanks and demolish hardened bunker positions. They need both.

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

With the level of integration you can have between forces now I just don't see them really needing a jet given the cost. I don't think they would be a significantly worse off force without them.

As Henning already said, AF pilots have a tendency to hit friendly forces. Marine pilots routinely drop bombs within 50 feet of friendly forces. You need specific training to do that. Marine pilots also train with the grunts that they support. You need to be in the same branch of service to get air and ground forces to work that well together.

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

question is can you operate an A-10 off a jump carrier?

AFAIK the Tarawa Class carriers can't handle fixed wing besides the Harrier.

The V/Stol F-35 is a good idea but it will probalby be too expensive.

 

[3393RP]

The F-35B is an incredible waste of money and its mission can be performed by several cheaper platforms. IIRC the Marines have used the Harrier one time in combat, sorties into Kuwait and Iraq that were performed just to give Marine aviation a participation ribbon. However, the Harrier is good at making noise and burning fuel at airshows.

As for the F-35 program overall, it's ridiculous to spend over $220M per copy on a single aircraft. An Airbus A380 costs about $235M...although that obviously isn't a meaningful comparison, it just shows how much nonsense is packed into the aircraft.

Given the degree to which the JPO prices continue to vary compared to the total value of the various LRIP lots, and to determine whether the source of the discrepancy could be identified, we analyzed all of the Lot 5 contracts that have been made public by the Department of Defense.

According to this research, Lockheed has been awarded ten contracts for LRIP Lot 5, for a total value of $5,876 million (see Table 1). When this is divided by the number of aircraft (32), the cost of each airplane averages $183.6 million, or double the JPO prices detailed above.

Furthermore, once the cost of the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine is added, the cost of a complete Lot 5 aircraft increases to $223.03 million. (As the final cost of LRIP 5 engines has not been finalized, we have used the $39.4 million cost of LRIP 4 engines).

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/141238/**f_35-lot-5-unit-costs-exceed-$223m.html

I doubt very seriously if any pilot can be trained to operate the F-35 to the limit of its capabilities. It does too much. It's just silly to expect that the pilot will be able to use all of its shiny bells and whistles in a threat environment.

It's not just the F-35, either. The Typhoon's unit cost is estimated at $202M by the UK's equivalent of the US Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ).

These expensive single seaters turn the fighter concept on its head...a front line force is intended to overwhelm opponent's airpower. These aircraft are so expensive we can't field more than a few hundred, and in a large scale war scenario operational and combat losses could quickly reduce the fleet to numbers below that required for an effective offensive force.

Of course the possibility of that large scale war happening is miniscule...which brings up another issue. Why do we need these programs? Why do we need a dozen nuclear carriers and almost 100 nuclear submarines? The US Navy is larger than the 13 next largest navies of the world combined.

The military spending is out of control...the latest news about individual armor pretty much proves that:

The US Army is working to develop "revolutionary" smart armour that would give its troops "superhuman strength".

It is calling on the technology industry, government labs and academia to help build the Iron Man-style suit.

Other exoskeletons that allow soldiers to carry large loads much further have already been tested by the army.

The Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit (Talos) would have such a frame but would also have layers of smart materials fitted with sensors.

The suit would also need to have wide-area networking and a wearable computer similar to Google Glass, the US Army said.

It should be made of smart material fitted with sensors to monitor body temperature, heart rate and hydration levels.

The exoskeleton, which could be attached to arms and legs, would be likely to use hydraulics to greatly increase strength.

"The requirement is a comprehensive family of systems in a combat armour suit where we bring together an exoskeleton with innovative armour, displays for power monitoring, health monitoring, and integrating a weapon into that," said Lt Col Karl Borjes, a science adviser at the US Army's research, development and engineering command.

"It's advanced armour. It's communications, antennas. It's cognitive performance. It's sensors, miniature-type circuits. That's all going to fit in here, too," he added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24474336

This is more nonsense. While it's unpleasant to consider, the individual soldier is an expendable unit. It is crazy to spend billions to develop this sort of thing, and outfitting a soldier in battle with such devices goes against all doctrine of movement and fire which the armed forces have adopted since WWII.

BTW I am politically in favor of a strong military...but not this kind of military.

Sorry if this post is too political...it's meant to be a criticism of military spending, not political policy.

 

[3393RP]

As Henning already said, AF pilots have a tendency to hit friendly forces. Marine pilots routinely drop bombs within 50 feet of friendly forces. You need specific training to do that. Marine pilots also train with the grunts that they support. You need to be in the same branch of service to get air and ground forces to work that well together.

I'm not aware of any modern FF incidents involving the Air Force and ground troops other than the 2002 Tarnak Farm incident and the 2003 Blues and Royals incident. These two incidents resulted in the deaths of nine friendly troops, and considering the number of air combat sorties in Iraq and Afghanistan this doesn't seem excessive at all. I found reference to a FF bombing in Afghanistan on 5 Dec 2001 which caused five deaths but no other details.

We would have to go back to Normandy in July 1944 and Operation Cobra to find a significant FF incident. Although roughly 1,800 heavy bombers were involved less than 150 friendlies were killed, and this happened when interservice actions and radio communications were primitive.

As for Marine pilots "routinely" dropping bombs within 50 feet of ground troops, I am extremely skeptical of your assertion. The generally accepted accuracy attainable by a Mark 82 JDAM is thirty meters, or 98 feet. I doubt aircraft are "routinely" dropping bombs on troop positions within half of the demonstrated accuracy radius of the weapon.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Marines ruined it.

That depends on your perspective.

The F-35 would have been cut along time ago if it weren't for the Marines.

 

[JOhnH]

Uuuuuummmm....

This is a more GA oriented board.

You'll probably have better luck on a military aviation fan site.

I sure have read a lot of stuff on this board that is much less aviation related than this. And I thought it was an interesting question, although perhaps more suitable for "Hangar Talk".

I was hoping to hear some good comments on this because my brother is is a senior controls engineer with Pratt Whitney. I am pretty sure he is working on the F35 but every time I walk in on him and his friends from work they stop talking and tell me they would have to kill me if I overheard them.

 

[steingar]

That depends on your perspective.

The F-35 would have been cut along time ago if it weren't for the Marines.

Navy and Air Force were requesting new Jet fighter platforms. Makes sense, their current are quite vintage. Congress said make one and pass it around. Maybe if the Marines didn't need their stupid jump jet they would have scrapped the whole thing and purchased decent jets for the armed services...

...but the Jarheads screeched loudly that they had to have their useless jump jet that had never seen the kind of combat it was designed for and didn't do worth poo. So in went the ducted fan, but they had to widen the fuselage to shoehorn the damn thing in. Well, same platform for everyone so the Navy and Air Force get a wider jet as well. Problem is wider doesn't equal faster if you're a little behind on basic physics.

I've read that the Chinese actually stole the plans for the thing and are making a knock-off, except they can't make the ducted fan. They therefore made the fuselage thinner, so their knock off will be faster than the original. Yes, I read a lot of things.

 

[Shepherd]

When they surplus the F-22 and F-35, you will be able to buy one, and then they will be GA plane.

I'm waiting for mine.

 

[Fearless Tower]

...but the Jarheads screeched loudly that they had to have their useless jump jet that had never seen the kind of combat it was designed for and didn't do worth poo.

As someone who has been directly involved in AV-8 combat ops, I can officially say that you have no clue about what you speak.

I've read that the Chinese actually stole the plans for the thing and are making a knock-off, except they can't make the ducted fan.

Actually, the Chinese cannot make a jet engine.

 

[Fearless Tower]

IIRC the Marines have used the Harrier one time in combat, sorties into Kuwait and Iraq that were performed just to give Marine aviation a participation ribbon. However, the Harrier is good at making noise and burning fuel at airshows.

You do not remember correctly. You too do not know what you speak of. The AV-8s have been used pretty extensively in Afghanistan as well as 'other' parts of CENTCOM.

Here's the thing about the Harrier. It is a pretty useful aircraft when there is no CVN Air Wing around and post OIF, we have had several instances where that was the case. The problem is they are literally falling apart. The only reason we can keep flying them at all is because the Brits stopped flying theirs on expectation of the JSF and fave us all of their spare parts.

 

[AcroGimp]

+1 to both of Fearless Tower's above posts, that's the good gouge right there.

'Gimp

 

[Fearless Tower]

I was hoping to hear some good comments on this because my brother is is a senior controls engineer with Pratt Whitney. I am pretty sure he is working on the F35 but every time I walk in on him and his friends from work they stop talking and tell me they would have to kill me if I overheard them.

Not sure if they are 'good' comments, but here is my two cents on the JSF: For a little background, I am not directly involved in the program, but active duty Navy assigned to the ship that hosted both rounds of Developmental Testing of the F-35B. So I have dealt with several levels of program folks including pilots and right now I am directly involved in the ship modernization aspect of it.

Without going into the technical/classified details, I will say this...the airplane is really pretty bad a$$. It has some amazing capabilities. A 'pilot's airplane' it is not. This is a gateway drug of sorts. The stepping stone between manned combat aircraft and a fully unmanned strike fighter. It is the kind of airplane that geeks would love but stick and rudder folks would hate. As a weapon, it can do some serious stuff. But the real problem is that the thing is so freaking expensive at a time when this country is in the financial hurt locker. Personally, I don't think that it is worth the price tag at the present time. I'm more of the mind that says let's wait until we can actually afford it.....why buy it now when we don't need it. Get our house in order and by then the technology will likely be even better. It is kind of like being the first guy on the block to have a personal computer....when no one else had personal computers. Is it really worth it? I am not so sure.

 

[Banjo33]

That's pretty good gouge except they are NOT falling apart. That's a bit harsh. The British buy was an extraordinary deal for us and will facilitate our continued ops through 2025. As they continue to fly, pieces will wear out or get broken as they do with any aircraft, but the Harrier has stood up well to aging. So well, in fact, it's slated to remain in service long after the last Hornet lands in the boneyard.

For the poster saying it only participated in combat once, etc: with all due respect, you're an idiot, lol.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

As Henning already said, AF pilots have a tendency to hit friendly forces. Marine pilots routinely drop bombs within 50 feet of friendly forces. You need specific training to do that. Marine pilots also train with the grunts that they support. You need to be in the same branch of service to get air and ground forces to work that well together.

A 500lb bomb hitting 50 feet from your position will kill you. A 250lb bomb hitting 50 feet from your position will kill you. A 100lb bomb hitting 50 feet from your position may not kill you but it will certainly ruin you for combat for a few days. You obviously have never been in the vicinity of exploding ordnance. I know from experiences popping beaver dams with 80% ditching sticks that you do not want to be 50ft. from even 1 lb of explosives when they go off.

 

[Banjo33]

Lol, good point. There's so much misinformation in this thread it HAS to be a joke! Another perfect example for why we should stick to GA topics.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Lol, good point. There's so much misinformation in this thread it HAS to be a joke! Another perfect example for why we should stick to GA topics.

Not true...but we SHOULD stick to what we know. I know very little about the F-35 other than the horror stories I've read in AW&ST about the Lockheed contract fumbling. I will withhold any judgement in deference to the guys on here who actually currently fly combat aircraft. I'm just an old retired puddle pirate.

 

[Velocity173]

A 500lb bomb hitting 50 feet from your position will kill you. A 250lb bomb hitting 50 feet from your position will kill you. A 100lb bomb hitting 50 feet from your position may not kill you but it will certainly ruin you for combat for a few days. You obviously have never been in the vicinity of exploding ordnance. I know from experiences popping beaver dams with 80% ditching sticks that you do not want to be 50ft. from even 1 lb of explosives when they go off.

Yeah, no one is dropping anything within 50 ft of friendlies. That would be insanely Danger Close. Can't even shoot a chain gun at that proximity.

 

[Ghery]

Not true...but we SHOULD stick to what we know. I know very little about the F-35 other than the horror stories I've read in AW&ST about the Lockheed contract fumbling. I will withhold any judgement in deference to the guys on here who actually currently fly combat aircraft. I'm just an old retired puddle pirate.

Aviation Leak and Spy Technology magazine? Man, that's been around for decades.

 

[Velocity173]

I see nothing wrong with military subjects in discussion on this site. If it creates a learning environment (opsec permitting) it's all good. A separate military sub forum would be nice though.

 

[JOhnH]

Lol, good point. There's so much misinformation in this thread it HAS to be a joke! Another perfect example for why we should stick to GA topics.

Yeah. Because nobody here posts any misinformation about GA.

 

[timwinters]

Trillion dollar boondoggle. Might as well make room in the parking lot next to the C-27Js.