# The F-35: Biopsy



## Tranhuviya (Dec 12, 2016)

With the recent tweets by President Elect Trump on the subject, and the recent declaration that the first F-35 squadron is combat-ready, let's take a look at one of the most controversial subjects amongst military circles in recent memory.






The F-35 Lightning II is on the right, with the air superiority fighter it was meant to supplement, the F-22 Raptor, on the left.  The F-22 was a pure air-to-air design, meant to take on other fighters and assert it's dominance over enemy airspace. The F-35, on the other hand, can carry out a wider variety of missions. So, obviously, to the big men in the five-sided asylum, the F-35 looked like a good option that could replace a good number of designs currently in the inventory.

However, the project is overcosted - and at the low, low, low cost of 98 to 116 million per - it's not exactly cheap now that it's gotten into production. 

So, what exactly went wrong, and what went right? What lessons can we learn from this?


----------



## AN/ALR56 (Dec 12, 2016)

That making a single airframe for a 3 different branches with different needs and requiremnts for ''cost reduction'' is a very bad idea.
and that buying a plane from the same company who graced us with the f-104 is not very smart,especially one with a history of large bribes to guarantee contracts.


----------



## millais (Dec 12, 2016)

trying to replace A-10 : wrong
only having one engine : wrong
inferior stealth profile: wrong
shitty VTOL system : wrong
limited payload : wrong
avionics already stolen by Chinese : wrong


----------



## AN/ALR56 (Dec 12, 2016)

millais said:


> trying to replace A-10 : wrong
> only having one engine : wrong
> inferior stealth profile: wrong
> shitty VTOL system : wrong
> ...



Inferior performance to planes it was supposed to replace on dogfights (Too slow, low acceleration, cant turn nor climb,etc.)
Only stealthy at the frontal aspect
Cant use unprepared runways or strips for VTOL like the marines corps promised it would
Engines are too heavy for transport to aircraft carriers, skin damage forces the plane to be repaired at the lockheed plant.
Easily hackeable online maintenance system which without it the plane cant take off.
Only 2 AMRAAMs
Inferior range.


----------



## RJ MacReady (Dec 12, 2016)

I think after the F-35 the general public has woken up to the reality that the defence industry is just an agreement between elected officials and defence firms to make money. None of this hardware is ever worth anywhere close to its price tag.

You cannot condense military strategy into proper use of a few high-powered toys, contrary to what Lockheed and company would tell you. Nationalistic appeals to military and economic inferiority are what keep the public on board with these programs.


----------



## Tranhuviya (Dec 12, 2016)

The modern Flankers (Su-35s and Su-30MKM) possess supermaneuverability, limited supercruise capabilities and thrust vectoring. They cost either 40 to 65 million or 35 to 53 million per unit. Obviously, far cheaper than Lockmart's problem child. 

If the Russians can develop modern fighters for far cheaper than we can, what's wrong with our military-industrial complex that prevents us from following suit?


----------



## AN/ALR56 (Dec 12, 2016)

Tranhuviya said:


> The modern Flankers (Su-35s and Su-30MKM) possess supermaneuverability, limited supercruise capabilities and thrust vectoring. They cost either 40 to 65 million or 35 to 53 million per unit. Obviously, far cheaper than Lockmart's problem child.
> 
> If the Russians can develop modern fighters for far cheaper than we can, what's wrong with our military-industrial complex that prevents us from following suit?


they are state owned companies who closely work with the russian air force and if they dont deliver on their promises they are fucked.
In stalin's times bad aircraft designers were simply shot or sent to gulags, after that their bureaus were just closed.


----------



## millais (Dec 12, 2016)

Tranhuviya said:


> The modern Flankers (Su-35s and Su-30MKM) possess supermaneuverability, limited supercruise capabilities and thrust vectoring. They cost either 40 to 65 million or 35 to 53 million per unit. Obviously, far cheaper than Lockmart's problem child.
> 
> If the Russians can develop modern fighters for far cheaper than we can, what's wrong with our military-industrial complex that prevents us from following suit?


In the US, it seems that in general, the more expensive and cost-ineffective the project, the more likely it is to be approved by the Congressional defense budgeting committees. To get the Congressmen sitting on those committees to give the greenlight, projects have to be spread out and subcontracted such that they create jobs in as many of the committee members' constituencies as possible. So although it may be cheaper and more efficient to concentrate all the production and assembly plants and associated jobs in one state, that will leave most of the Congressmen in the dust with reduced prospects for reelection. Analogously, key design elements are approved based on how much local investment and jobs they will create, not whether they will actually serve a useful purpose in the finalized design. And of course, the more expensive the contract, the happier the corporate lobbyists and their paymasters will be.

From the perspective of the design specifications issued by the Pentagon, it seems that they really fall hard for the stupid "multi-role", "jack of all trades", "Swiss army knife" trap. Just watch "Pentagon Wars", very similar story behind the Bradley IFV as the F-35.


----------



## Techpriest (Dec 13, 2016)

I'm getting a lot of use out of this: 







I guess I'm going to play devils advocate here - the F-35 is a good plane that has kinematics equal to the F/A-18 if not better along with a good range, incredible sensor integration and communication, the design and niche it fills is exactly what's needed for the Navy and Air Force to both replace old frames and provide a stop gap for the F/A-XX that will eventually replace the Hornet. It outdoes the Harrier in every way possible and provides the Marines with a supersonic multi-role fighter that can operate off of LHD's and LHA's and SVTOL runways while carrying more than the Harrier. It's the F-16 of this generation, with a serious upgrade potential and huge export market it'll fill. Am I 100% happy with it? No, it had serious development problems and cost overruns related to the B variant and rightfully should be considered a prime example of what happens when more requirements are added to a program already underway and the effect that has on costs.

At roughly 90 to 100 million per unit, the price is actually very competitive with planes like the Rafale (At $80.7 million flyaway, so really closer to 90 with all the maintenance equipment not factoring in stuff like R&D costs,), and the Eurofighter (At $95 million flyaway, with a whopping $150 million factoring in development costs) and is capable of far more than either platform in both long term upgrades, electronics, and mission capability. The other thing that the F-35 provides that both the Eurofighter and Rafale do not, (And especially not the Flanker variants who have an RCS roughly approaching that of a flying bus) is the ability to enter airspace that to other platforms would be unable to risk and hunt down SAMs to clear the way for the big ass bombers and cruise missile strikes.

The other thing to note is that what the F-35 really delivers is a large scale "stealth" threat. It might not be as good at air to air combat as the Raptor (which was designed as again, an air superiority platform without a pound for air to ground) but we're also going to have something in the range of 1000+ in the US inventory alone. Hell, it's also finally going to kill the A-10, a plane that really should have been retired around 2005 but has stuck around because it's cheap and can carry a lot of ordinance in low risk airspace. Low and Slow CAS was pretty much proven dead in 1991 with Desert Storm where despite having an impressive performance the A-10 was only let loose AFTER pretty much every SAM site was neutralized and still suffered a lot of write offs in airframes due to damage from SPAAG's and MANPAD systems to the point where they were drawn back. PGM's have sort of made the A-10 a bit redundant at this point as you don't need to fly low and slow to kill targets in CAS, you can fly at 30 to 40 thousand feet and drop a bomb through a window now.


----------



## IwegalBadnik (Dec 15, 2016)

AN/ALR56 said:


> That making a single airframe for a 3 different branches with different needs and requiremnts for ''cost reduction'' is a very bad idea.



I am not so sure that it can be definitely labelled that all the time--but there are certain rules that you must observe if you want the Navy and, to a lesser extent, the Marines involved. Rule #1 is that the Navy must be the branch for which the aircraft is originally designed. The F-4 and A-7 were each success stories of a multi-service aircraft, and each started with the Navy.* If you want a cow, try putting a USAF aircraft into Navy service, a la the F-111B.

It's far easier to strip down a heavy Navy aircraft for land service than sturdy up a lightweight land plane for Navy service.

*Admittedly, the changes between USAF, USMC and USN variants on those two types were rather modest. Still, I think the principle holds true.



AN/ALR56 said:


> and that buying a plane from the same company who graced us with the f-104 is not very smart



Lockheed was also the company that produced the SR-71, which remains an exceptionally impressive aircraft even 50 years later--only a little over 20 years after making the P-38 too. It was quite a leap and, during the 1960s, Lockheed was probably _the_ company with the most advanced aircraft coming out of it--in the US anyway.

As far as the bribery went, there was no excuse for it. Not something they should have ever been doing.

I personally ascribe Lockheed's mistakes in recent years as having resulted from their deviations from Kelly Johnson's rules. Rule #6 has been a particular problem--and the US government has exacerbated it by sending them blank checks. If you want results on these sorts of things, send *nothing*. You'll see those problems get ironed out pretty fuckin' quick once that starts happening.



Spoiler: Regarding the F-104



The F-104's record was problematic for a number of reasons--it is important to note a fair number of them were not the aircraft's fault. The Starfighter, for all the bad press it gets, did do rather well as far as sheer performance went in the conditions it was designed for in the US and in accommodating new roles despite its almost complete lack of developmental potential (which was essentially designed into it). Its record in Germany most likely is at least partially attributable to pilot quality versus aircraft performance in the postwar years and weather and visibility limitations. Canada's utter vastness was no friend to the engine with a chair on it either.





RJ MacReady said:


> I think after the F-35 the general public has woken up to the reality that the defence industry is just an agreement between elected officials and defence firms to make money. None of this hardware is ever worth anywhere close to its price tag.
> 
> You cannot condense military strategy into proper use of a few high-powered toys, contrary to what Lockheed and company would tell you. Nationalistic appeals to military and economic inferiority are what keep the public on board with these programs.



If you look back at the history books, there was once a time when military aircraft were designed and built by the United States for the United States--no private companies involved. Of course, the Naval Aircraft Factory was immediately killed off after WW2 once the market for naval aircraft was realized. Apparently that free market just couldn't tolerate even one more competitor in the ring.



AN/ALR56 said:


> they are state owned companies who closely work with the russian air force and if they dont deliver on their promises they are fucked.
> In stalin's times bad aircraft designers were simply shot or sent to gulags, after that their bureaus were just closed.



Tupolev was probably happy when the Tu-2 proved itself to be a good bomber; it was his ticket _out_ of the gulag.



Tranhuviya said:


> If the Russians can develop modern fighters for far cheaper than we can, what's wrong with our military-industrial complex that prevents us from following suit?



The Russians have, for the bigger part of 75 years, had a tendency to let their aircraft evolve. (See Yak-1 to -7 to -9 to -3 to -15 to -17; LaGG-3 to La-5 to La-7; La-9 to La-11; MiG-15 to -17). The Ruskies have tended to pursue incrementalism and that strategy has its merits.

Even their newest aircraft tend to have familial ties that stretch back many years--or nowadays, decades.


----------



## Tranhuviya (Dec 15, 2016)

AN/ALR56 said:


> they are state owned companies who closely work with the russian air force and if they dont deliver on their promises they are fucked.
> In stalin's times bad aircraft designers were simply shot or sent to gulags, after that their bureaus were just closed.



What's to stop the federal government from just buying up stocks in Boeing, Lockmart, Mcdonnell-Douglas, et al? We had a 60% stake in General Motors during the bailout. Is there any law against doing so, or is it a conflict of interest thing?


----------



## TiggerNits (Dec 15, 2016)

The F-35A is actually pretty competent as a first wave aircraft. Minor stealth characteristics, internalized JDAM racks make it a good choice for taking out logistical supports early on, but to be honest that job had already been done incredibly well with the F-117 and there wasn't a good reason to replace it. As a fighter at best it will be on par with the A model F-16s, but as an interceptor it's got a lot of really good features when used in conjunction with other platforms utilizing datalinks, since all it has to be is a platform carrying AMRAAMs for others to aim. For CAS, assuming the enemy has any SAM assets or long range interceptors, it's a much safer choice than the A-10, since that thing is a flying coffin if we ever fight someone with actual air defenses or even MANPADs that are less than 25 years old.

The F35B is the reason the F-35 program is a mess, as someone with (not too much)time in Harriers, I can say STOVL/VTOL is a waste and the US has far too many super carriers and long range fighters to need a jetfighter coming off a helicopter carrier. Sad fact is nothing out there is as an effective CAS platform in uncontested airspace as an attack helicopter.

The C honestly might be okay if all it does is supplant the super hornet as a contested airspace interdiction platform and then become a buddy tanker and JDAM launcher after air dominance is established

As for the A-10, it's a PR machine that makes the Army not want to hate fuck the Air Force as bad. It's loiter time is good, but nowhere near as good as the Predator's. It's precision is no better than an F/A-18s, but it's far more vulnerable when it's in the pipe and transit due to the IR signature coming from nearly dead center on the aircraft due to engine placement and a super low speed for a jet. The airframe is aging poorly and it's become a hangar queen, which is to be expected. The 30mm GAU-10 is a novelty at this point, because it needs to hit the T-72 at nearly exact angles to even penetrate the armor, but the modernized models of the T-72, the T-80 and up are all up-armored enough to just deflect a 30mm gun run without too much issue. So in reality everything the A-10 does is already done much better and cheaper by another platform, be it an Apache, a Super Hornet, a Predator or an AC-130


----------



## IwegalBadnik (Dec 15, 2016)

Tranhuviya said:


> What's to stop the federal government from just buying up stocks in Boeing, Lockmart, Mcdonnell-Douglas, et al? We had a 60% stake in General Motors during the bailout. Is there any law against doing so, or is it a conflict of interest thing?



I don't think there's anything besides the kicking and screaming you'd hear accusing the US of "socialism" if it tried to effectively nationalize the aerospace industry.

Part of the problem with the US aerospace industry is that there are only about 3 flavors of ice cream in town: Boeing; Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. (You mentioned McDonnell Douglas; they folded into Boeing in the late 1990s). For the most part, these three tend to go their own ways and only work on the sorts of projects they specialize in:


If it's an airliner or vaguely shaped like one, Boeing will likely get the nod.
A fighter or strike plane? LM is probably who will win out.
Flying wings are for the most part a NG specialty.
A drone? Everyone is getting into this business and the Big 3 are joined by other players like General Atomics on this.
Competition outside their specialty ties is uncommon for the US aerospace industry. This is what has diminished its competitiveness with itself. Too many companies have too much sway and not enough competition.


----------



## Sanshain (Dec 15, 2016)

What I don't understand is why you'd *want* a jack-of-all-trades in a modern airspace. Wouldn't it be saner to design several planes that all do one job extremely well, then pair them up for a more flexible setup? Wars are won and lost depending on who has air superiority. Wouldn't establishing that as quickly as possible - like the F-22 is designed to do - make more sense than relying on aircraft that can't provide better ground support than the A-10 and can't provide the same level of air superiority as the F-22?


----------



## TiggerNits (Dec 15, 2016)

Forever Sunrise said:


> What I don't understand is why you'd *want* a jack-of-all-trades in a modern airspace. Wouldn't it be saner to design several planes that all do one job extremely well, then pair them up for a more flexible setup? Wars are won and lost depending on who has air superiority. Wouldn't establishing that as quickly as possible - like the F-22 is designed to do - make more sense than relying on aircraft that can't provide better ground support than the A-10 and can't provide the same level of air superiority as the F-22?




Because war has phases and planes are expensive. Hyper-specialized aircraft made sense when the GNP could support a 70,000 aircraft fleet and WW2 wasn't fought in a multi-phase manner. You hit the target with bombs, waited for it to hurt enemy troops with lack of supplies, fuel and reinforcements, then attacked those troops with your troops and moved forward to do it again. Which worked great when the goal of the war was to completely annihilate an enemy's economy and ability to function. But then the Cold War happened

You couldn't fight wars like that anymore because the enemy had a big brother with a nuclear deterrent and mutually assured destruction kinda sucks. So instead of fighting to wipe an enemy off the map and destroy his ability and will to fight, it became about stymieing internal political groups in a region to reach a balance of power that favored you, but not so much that the other side would go home and get his gun. Wars became about controlled destruction, acceptable losses on both sides and reaching a political goal instead of a military one.

Now we're in a political climate where war can't be fought as a war, but as a punitive action where you stop whent he other guy says sorry. And if you hit him too hard, you become the bad guy.

So instead of being able to have specialized aircraft that can turn a nation in to a parking lot in a few days, it's about having them provide different abilities in different phases. So the pre-war phase they show up and look scary, violate enemy airspace and enforce no-fly zones with impunity, Then when the war does start, the first few missions flown are taking out power plants, SAM sites, Radar, Airfields and fuel depots. Then you move to the CAS in contested airspace phase while air dominance is still being created (mostly by F-22s and F-15s) so helicopters and slow movers are vulnerable to any hidden SAMs and MANPADs in the area of operations, so the ability to quickly get in saves lives of ground troops while the ability to get out fast lets the pilot do their job before they can be engaged. After that they move to a CAS phase where air dominance has been provided, so it's more about how long you can stay on station and drop smaller and more precise payloads exactly when they're needed.

You need a plane that can do all of that because otherwise you've got airfields loaded with planes that are now worthless in the current environment but might be needed again (like say if Iran had launched a counter attack in to Iraq to assist them like so many feared in 04) so you can't mothball them because if they do become necessary, it will be in a very serious way in a very aggressive timeframe. You need to have a fleet that can do multiple things so you can keep costs low, planes available for tasking and the ability for them to survive rapid changing tactical environments.


----------



## Techpriest (Dec 15, 2016)

Forever Sunrise said:


> What I don't understand is why you'd *want* a jack-of-all-trades in a modern airspace. Wouldn't it be saner to design several planes that all do one job extremely well, then pair them up for a more flexible setup? Wars are won and lost depending on who has air superiority. Wouldn't establishing that as quickly as possible - like the F-22 is designed to do - make more sense than relying on aircraft that can't provide better ground support than the A-10 and can't provide the same level of air superiority as the F-22?


Cost, redundancy, and mission spread. Let me put it like this: a height of the cold war CAG had the following planes. 

2 Squadrons of F-4 Phantoms or F-14 Tomcats, 12 planes each.
2 Squadrons of attack planes, A-7 Corsairs, 12 planes each
10 to 12 A-6E Intruders, along with 4 or so tanker variants (KA-6D's), also for attack
An early warning detachment of two to four E-2C's
An electronic warfare detachment of 4 EA-6B Prowlers
10 S-3A Vikings for anti-submarine warfare and maritime surveillance 
6 Sea King helos for ASW
Some RA-4's or RA-8's, (the recon variants of the Phantom and Crusader respectively) for recon and BDA
A few EA-3B ELINT aircraft
While the Phantoms could carry bomb loads if needed, that wasn't their primary role, and Tomcats weren't equipped for that and wouldn't have been put out in that role anyway as they were interceptors for taking out the Backfires, Blinders, Blackjacks, and Bears the Soviets would equip with AShM's to spam at a CBG. The Prowlers could do bombing as well, but not a lot of it (Besides their job was to jam sensors and kill SAMs), and the Vikings, Corsairs and Intruders all lacked much if any Air to Air capability (They could carry a pair of sidewinders on the Corsairs which was something, but the aircraft was subsonic). So that's a load of different airframes with different jobs that require their own specialized maintenance crews and spare parts, most of which will be useless for a while. 

The Hornet changed a lot - it replaced an entire airframe with another one capable of helping the Tomcats deal with the bombers and provide cover, while also adding loads to strike capability because they were supersonic even when you added a bomb load to them. It allowed the phasing out of the A-7 Corsair and A-6 Intruder over time as it could do both the roles the previous aircraft had while also providing more in the way of flexibility in what they could carry. The A-6 was still a good bombtruck up until its last days of service (And I have to give loads of credit to the designers for making an aircraft that survived through the entire Cold War and was the bomb truck of choice for the Navy from Vietnam to the Gulf) with an excellent range and load unmatched by the Hornet, but once again, the Hornet just offered more.

By the early 2000's, this was the standard US CAG

1 Dedicated Fighter Squadron of 12 F-14 A/B/C variant Tomcats, but this was usually being taken up by F/A-18F Super Hornets in a strike fighter squadron instead
1 Strike Fighter Squadron of 12 F/A-18C  Hornets or F/A-18E Super Hornets
2 Strike Fighter Squadrons of 12 F/A-18C Hornets
AEW squad of 4 E-2C's 
4 EA-6B Prowlers in an electronic warfare role
8 SA-3 Vikings in a tanker and patrol role
8 ASW Helos
The Tomcat was retired not soon after this too, with it's role taken up by the Hornet - same with the SA-3's as the Hornet proved to be a great buddy tanker. And a Hornet based platform currently serves as the EA-18 Growler, replacing the Prowler in the EW role. That reduced the cost of each airwing considerably and streamlined maintenance and spare parts allowing  more airframes to be capable at any given time of doing whatever role was required of them. Once the Hornets win air superiority, you can kit them out to strike land targets - something you couldn't do with the Tomcat, and you never had enough Tomcats for that anyway. You double the amount of fighters you have without diminishing your strike capability at all.


----------



## TiggerNits (Dec 15, 2016)

Techpriest said:


> Cost, redundancy, and mission spread. Let me put it like this: a height of the cold war CAG had the following planes.



Hell, now it's literally just Super Hornets 2 squadrons F model, 2-3 squadrons E model, maybe some legacy Hornets IF the Marines are deploying to carriers to help with any shortages. 1 or 2 rotor squadrons for ASW, fleet resupply and SAR, 2 Hawkeyes for AWAC, 1 detachment of Growler hornets. 1 Air Frame is now doing 90% of the workload and it's so much easier for shipboard logistics because it means a lot of parts and maintenance equipment is shared across the board, making it much easier to keep units supplied and properly maintained


----------



## IwegalBadnik (Dec 15, 2016)

Techpriest said:


> Cost, redundancy, and mission spread. Let me put it like this: a height of the cold war CAG had the following planes.
> 
> 2 Squadrons of F-4 Phantoms or F-14 Tomcats, 12 planes each.
> 2 Squadrons of attack planes, A-7 Corsairs, 12 planes each
> ...



It is a dicey thing to try choosing between slightly better niches in performance and streamlined maintenance and operation. (As you mentioned, the F-18 did succeed the A-6 and F-14, at the cost of being a slight compromise between each in capability.)

The thing with the F-18 and other widely proliferated aircraft (like the F-35) is that with such commonality, a weakness in one design could be as widespread as the aircraft is. That risk is the cost of drawing down the number of types involved.


----------



## Tranhuviya (Dec 15, 2016)

I would have rather preferred a multirole/light fighter design with _stealth_ _features_, not necessarily a _stealth fighter _to supplement the F-22.


----------



## Brandobaris (Dec 15, 2016)

So realistically, ignoring costs and bribes and production overtime etc etc... How does it actually match up against other foreign fighters?  Do we have any Data for that?  Because you'd want to hope after all this crap, its going to be bloody amazing.


----------



## IwegalBadnik (Dec 15, 2016)

Brandobaris said:


> So realistically, ignoring costs and bribes and production overtime etc etc... How does it actually match up against other foreign fighters?  Do we have any Data for that?  Because you'd want to hope after all this crap, its going to be bloody amazing.



I don't delve much into the matters with the electronics, but one aspect it will likely be able to claim is its own is the VTOL capability. Beyond the Harriers, there aren't any production aircraft around with similar capability--and even the Harriers' parallels are limited.

For nations that aren't planning on getting involved with the big leagues, the F-35 is a fairly tough sale to make because of what its capabilities are for the price tag it presents. F-16s are around and, for states that aren't as prosperous, enticingly cheaper to operate. This sort of monetary limitation is why aircraft like the F-5 made it during the F-4's heyday. While it's nice to be very advanced, not everyone can afford to be so.


----------



## TiggerNits (Dec 15, 2016)

Brandobaris said:


> So realistically, ignoring costs and bribes and production overtime etc etc... How does it actually match up against other foreign fighters?  Do we have any Data for that?  Because you'd want to hope after all this crap, its going to be bloody amazing.




Realistically you can't really tell until pilots have enough hours in the airframe to figure out tactics that take advantage of what it can do.  My guess will be that with the AIM9X being able to fire off bore it will be fairly decent,  at least on par with the F16, which is to say better than anything other than the F15 and F22. Nothing else in the works can really fight either of those 2 platforms and hope to achieve anything closelse to a favorable kill ratio.

My guess is the F35 will be better than anything coming out of Russia or China in a dog fight but not as good as the Eurofighter


----------



## Techpriest (Dec 16, 2016)

Brandobaris said:


> So realistically, ignoring costs and bribes and production overtime etc etc... How does it actually match up against other foreign fighters?  Do we have any Data for that?  Because you'd want to hope after all this crap, its going to be bloody amazing.


It's better than the current crop of Russian Flanker derivatives, and certainly offers more than the Eurofighter in terms of lifespan and upgrade potential. Honestly the only real possible competitors on the international market are the Rafale and the still in development J-31.

I don't have enough info on the J-31, but judging by the usual Chinese plane quality, it'll be serviceable at best. The Rafale is really the only reasonable competator then, and it's a damn good plane. The problem with it is it's French which basically means it comes with the price tag of armament incompatible with everyone else's. The F-35 also offers a lot with its B varient to nations like Japan, Italy, and any nation with a helo carrier in that it it can turn those platforms into discount CVL's without too much pain. 

The Rafale I believe is the better platform for a smaller nation at the moment who needs a modern and multirole fighter with no real strings attached or stealth capability. I would say that it's excellent for that, and its electronic warfare package is possibly the best in the world right now in my opinion. Its why India finally bought it instead of waiting for their indigenous F-16 knock off with worse performance or the Russians to finish the PAK FA or ship them more MiG-29's.


----------



## Tranhuviya (Dec 16, 2016)

I'm not confident in the STOVL capability of the B variant, because it has a tendency to burn up anything it tries to land on. In addition, vertical landing puts stress on the gear.

That's a real loss in comparison to the Harrier, since it won't be able to take off from unimproved airfields.


----------



## IwegalBadnik (Dec 16, 2016)

Tranhuviya said:


> I'm not confident in the STOVL capability of the B variant, because it has a tendency to burn up anything it tries to land on. In addition, vertical landing puts stress on the gear.
> 
> That's a real loss in comparison to the Harrier, since it won't be able to take off from unimproved airfields.



So long as rate of descent is reasonable, I don't think the gear stress will be too much different than it'd be under a standard horizontal landing.

As far as the unimproved airfields bit goes, that doesn't surprise me too much. To my knowledge, the F-35's skin is somewhat similar to the B-2's; that tends to cast doubt on much usage out of non-dedicated fields pressed into service.


----------



## TiggerNits (Dec 16, 2016)

Tranhuviya said:


> I'm not confident in the STOVL capability of the B variant, because it has a tendency to burn up anything it tries to land on. In addition, vertical landing puts stress on the gear.
> 
> That's a real loss in comparison to the Harrier, since it won't be able to take off from unimproved airfields.




The Harrier can't really do that either, FOD will fuck its turbine just as bad as it does the 35 and you can't vertically take off with an actual useful combat load or enough fuel to do a few laps in pattern and land again. It provides no tactical use that cannot be better accomplished by Whiskey/Zulu Cobras or Hornets, and considering that the Cobras live on the same boats as the Harriers and the MEU never really deploys without at least a full CAG in the same operational area, it shouldn't so much be replaced as outright eliminated. 

The reality is the Marines are obsessed with the idea of defending Wake from the IJN to this day and won't let it go that now that jets can fly massive distances pretty quickly without layovers and carriers can steam at incredible speed to defensive stations, the need for that kind of operation is no longer viable


----------



## Tranhuviya (Dec 20, 2016)

Welp.


----------



## Lurkman (Dec 20, 2016)

Do we actually need a new fighter jet? it's not like a whole lot of air combat happens anymore (correct me if I'm wrong on that, i'm not up to date on dogfighting)

The costs and negative sides to this are too much to risk when what we have right now is potentially better.


----------



## TiggerNits (Dec 20, 2016)

Lurkman said:


> Do we actually need a new fighter jet? it's not like a whole lot of air combat happens anymore (correct me if I'm wrong on that, i'm not up to date on dogfighting)
> 
> The costs and negative sides to this are too much to risk when what we have right now is potentially better.




It's not a fighter, it's a passive stealth, high-speed, strike platform that can also perform medium range intercepts with and without using the shared datalink and AWACS. It can perform as a fighter, but it is by no means the primary role and like you said, we don't need a new fighter, between the F-22, F-15 and even the Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter, we have that end of the spectrum covered beyond anything the Russians and Chinese can throw at them.

But the role that is important that we are lacking in is a high speed, high altitude precision strike stealth fighter. To be able to coordinate efforts in breaking the enemy's logistical chain, air defense, command and control and artillery capabilities in the opening days of a conflict against modern AAA and SAM systems. The F-35A and (probably) C seem to be well built to do that while actual fighters and interceptors keep them clear. As the next phase opens up, it then becomes a fast CAS option since it can use external stores and carry larger loads and take advantage of some really outstanding A/G capabilities and also perform recon overflights at the theater level. 

The reality is drones aren't a real option against a well equipped enemy. The Iranians have already jammed down a few of ours and there's really no way to stop that from happening so long as the drone needs to receive signal to perform its duties, and the second it doesn't it can be classified as a possible short range ballistic missile (not kidding) and the higher altitude ones have been kept from usage since their speed and altitude technically put them under the header of ICBM in the eyes of the SALT treaties. Not to mention preds would be eviscerated by anything close to a modern SAM and AAA system.

All that said, the F-117 performed the exact same job very well without having an insane price tag, but Dick Cheney fucked that program (and the SR-71) incredibly hard by forcing them to destroy a lot of plans, parts and tools used for making them under the guise of national security measures, when in reality it was to keep his vested interests and rivalries with a few Lockmart and Rockwell execs.


The F-35 program is a mess, no doubt about that, but it is producing a weapon that is needed to keep other potential 1st world rivals in check. So to speak. Except the B model, fuck that thing


----------



## Tranhuviya (Dec 20, 2016)

TiggerNits said:


> All that said, the F-117 performed the exact same job very well without having an insane price tag, but Dick Cheney fucked that program (and the SR-71) incredibly hard by forcing them to destroy a lot of plans, parts and tools used for making them under the guise of national security measures, when in reality it was to keep his vested interests and rivalries with a few Lockmart and Rockwell execs.


If we need a stealth strike aircraft, then why the hell is it part of the F series? Why even bill this thing as a multirole fighter if you wanted a attack aircraft? Furthermore, we still need a "lo" for the F-22's "hi".


----------



## TiggerNits (Dec 20, 2016)

Tranhuviya said:


> If we need a stealth strike aircraft, then why the hell is it part of the F series? Why even bill this thing as a multirole fighter if you wanted a attack aircraft?




In the eyes of the Air Force, if it can carry AMRAAMs and AIM-9's then it's a fighter. The reason they branded it as an F-series is because it's small, can carry A/A ordnance and has a radar that can engage aerial targets at BVR, but the primary role is as a strike aircraft. The Air Force brass, still being the primary, HATES the F/A designation, if this were a strictly navy project ala the Hornet, it would be listed as an F/A-35. The Air Force tries to avoid the "A" designation at all costs unless the aircraft is subsonic and doesn't carry medium to long range air to air weapons.


----------



## 76LD910 (Dec 20, 2016)

Forever Sunrise said:


> What I don't understand is why you'd *want* a jack-of-all-trades in a modern airspace. Wouldn't it be saner to design several planes that all do one job extremely well, then pair them up for a more flexible setup?



We still have those aircraft, they aren't going anywhere.



Tranhuviya said:


> If we need a stealth strike aircraft, then why the hell is it part of the F series? Why even bill this thing as a multirole fighter if you wanted a attack aircraft? Furthermore, we still need a "lo" for the F-22's "hi".



Classic aircraft designations became obsolete with the advent of GPS guided munitions.


----------



## Tranhuviya (Dec 20, 2016)

TiggerNits said:


> In the eyes of the Air Force, if it can carry AMRAAMs and AIM-9's then it's a fighter.


But that's wrong. Just because a platform can lug around air-to-air missiles, that doesn't make it a fighter. You need maneuverability, light weight, anti-air capability and speed to make a fighter.



76LD910 said:


> Classic aircraft designations became obsolete with the advent of GPS guided munitions.


Wrong. Precision guided munitions have increased the number of aircraft capable of carrying bombs, not the number capable of actually carrying a large payload. See me after class.


----------



## TiggerNits (Dec 20, 2016)

Tranhuviya said:


> But that's wrong. Just because a platform can lug around air-to-air missiles, that doesn't make it a fighter. You need maneuverability, light weight, anti-air capability and speed to make a fighter.



It has all of those, though, just not as much as certain other active platforms. Hell, the F-4 is a fighter and the only thing it has the F-35 beat on is speed. The F-35 is only heavier than the F-16 if we're using active aircraft as the yard stick, and even then it's not by very much (like less than a VW beetle). The whole "F-35 can't dogfight" article was bullshit because the guy flying the aggressor had a shit ton of hours in the F-16, while the F-35 pilot was on his very first hop where he was allowed to engage. There's gun cam footage from Legacy Hornets with the F-22 lined up for a kill, shit,, when I was instructing in the Buckeye I managed to get a simulated shootdown on a T-38 and a Hornet when we were playing over the Gulf and I can assure you both of those planes are much better fighters than the straigh winged T-2C. Chances are once they start getting the amount of hours in needed to figure out how they need to use the aircraft (at least the A model) it might start getting a little dangerous in a knife fight itself. Sure it won't be able to beat the Eagle or the Raptor, but I have a feeling it will match up nicely against F-16s and F-18s due to the off-bore capabilities the AIM-9X will give it with the current integration plan


----------



## PW2002 (Dec 20, 2016)

Letting the Marines insist on a jump jet was a mistake. No one has the balls to tell them that they're basically a backup Army and low-rent Air Force. The days of storming beaches and boarding Barbary corsairs is long gone.


----------



## 76LD910 (Dec 20, 2016)

Tranhuviya said:


> Wrong. Precision guided munitions have increased the number of aircraft capable of carrying bombs, not the number capable of actually carrying a large payload. See me after class.



The F-117 was only able to carry a couple of guided bombs, are you saying it _wasn't_ a mistake to give it a "fighter" designation because it had such a low capacity or would it have been more appropriate to give it an "attack" designation despite not being able to hit moving targets ?


----------



## TiggerNits (Dec 20, 2016)

76LD910 said:


> The F-117 was only able to carry a couple of guided bombs, are you saying it _wasn't_ a mistake to give it a "fighter" designation because it had such a low capacity or would it have been more appropriate to give it an "attack" designation despite not being able to hit moving targets ?




It got the F designation because some AF generals said they wouldn't order it unless it was a fighter. It was an attack aircraft, just like the F-111



PW2002 said:


> Letting the Marines insist on a jump jet was a mistake. No one has the balls to tell them that they're basically a backup Army and low-rent Air Force. The days of storming beaches and boarding Barbary corsairs is long gone.



As a former Marine, yeah, pretty much. That said, we're better at Army shit (that isn't logistics) than the Army, but the little brother syndrome is tiresome as fuck and wearing your hair shorter than it was in WW2 for no fucking reason is gay


----------



## 76LD910 (Dec 20, 2016)

TiggerNits said:


> It got the F designation because some AF generals said they wouldn't order it unless it was a fighter. It was an attack aircraft, just like the F-111



I know _why_ it got the F designation, just like several other "attack" aircraft that got the same treatment.

The fact that military officials don't give a fuck about an aircraft's capability's when choosing a designation kind of proves my point doesn't it ?

The F-35 is the just the next step in a decades long trend of blurred designations brought on by technological advancment.


----------



## TiggerNits (Dec 20, 2016)

76LD910 said:


> I know _why_ it got the F designation, just like several other "attack" aircraft that got the same treatment.
> 
> The fact that military officials don't give a fuck about an aircraft's capability's when choosing a designation kind of proves my point doesn't it ?
> 
> The F-35 is the just the next step in a decades long trend of blurred technical designations.




You're right,  I was just commenting on how petty flag officers are


----------



## Closet Sorcerer (Dec 20, 2016)

Fucking late to the party, I know, but for once that there is a thread somewhere about fighter planes that don't turn into a political cockfight or trying to apply Ace Combat logic to the real world, I'm in.



Techpriest said:


> I don't have enough info on the J-31, but judging by the usual Chinese plane quality, it'll be serviceable at best. The Rafale is really the only reasonable competator then, and it's a damn good plane. The problem with it is it's French which basically means it comes with the price tag of armament incompatible with everyone else's. The F-35 also offers a lot with its B varient to nations like Japan, Italy, and any nation with a helo carrier in that it it can turn those platforms into discount CVL's without too much pain.
> 
> The Rafale I believe is the better platform for a smaller nation at the moment who needs a modern and multirole fighter with no real strings attached or stealth capability. I would say that it's excellent for that, and its electronic warfare package is possibly the best in the world right now in my opinion. Its why India finally bought it instead of waiting for their indigenous F-16 knock off with worse performance or the Russians to finish the PAK FA or ship them more MiG-29's.



The Rafale got a lot of shit at first because it was seen as yet another attempt by France to act like the cool kid due to the insistence about a carrier-based variant of the Typhoon and the inexistant foreign sales. The hardpoints are however MIL-STD compliant, so armament wouldn't be a problem for US allies. France is slowly starting to adapt to NATO rules and drop the "my way" attitude.


----------



## Fulda's Gap (Dec 21, 2016)

lol, the only reason Trumby tweeted about it is because he's about to give Boeing and LockMart a huge tax break, just like with Carrier.

P.S. for as much love as the A-10 gets and deserves, during Desert Storm more were lost than the F-16 during the same missions. It's relevancy lies with COIN in this day and age.


----------



## TiggerNits (Dec 21, 2016)

Closet Sorcerer said:


> The Rafale got a lot of shit at first because it was seen as yet another attempt by France to act like the cool kid due to the insistence about a carrier-based variant of the Typhoon and the inexistant foreign sales. The hardpoints are however MIL-STD compliant, so armament wouldn't be a problem for US allies. France is slowly starting to adapt to NATO rules and drop the "my way" attitude.



In a perfect world the Marines would have replaced their legacy Hornets with Rafales using GE turbofans and Northrop Radars. Would have been an upgrade in every single way


----------



## Closet Sorcerer (Dec 21, 2016)

TiggerNits said:


> In a perfect world the Marines would have replaced their legacy Hornets with Rafales using GE turbofans and Northrop Radars. Would have been an upgrade in every single way



Wasn't it the goal of the Super Hornet to replace the basic ones (at least in the Navy) ?


----------



## TiggerNits (Dec 21, 2016)

Closet Sorcerer said:


> Wasn't it the goal of the Super Hornet to replace the basic ones (at least in the Navy) ?



Yeah, the A and C models were supposed to be (and aside from a few squadrons getting the F35C) replaced with the E model, and a few of those will get replaced with F35s as well, since the E model is considered a stop-gap, not a full lifetime model, the D models and Tomcats were replaced with the F model and will most likely stay with it, since a 2 seat fighter is always a good thing for the Navy, and the EA-6B just got replaced by the G model


----------



## IwegalBadnik (Dec 21, 2016)

TiggerNits said:


> Yeah, the A and C models were supposed to be (and aside from a few squadrons getting the F35C) replaced with the E model, and a few of those will get replaced with F35s as well, since the E model is considered a stop-gap, not a full lifetime model, the D models and Tomcats were replaced with the F model and will most likely stay with it, *since a 2 seat fighter is always a good thing for the Navy*, and the EA-6B just got replaced by the G model



This is another flaw I see with the F-35. With no second seat variant, developmental potential is limited.

The F-15, F-16 and F-18 all benefitted from having that capability integrated early on, with eventual results including the F-15E, F-16XL and E/A-18.


----------



## Tranhuviya (Dec 22, 2016)

Discuss.


----------



## Closet Sorcerer (Dec 22, 2016)

According to Wikipedia, a Super Hornet costs USD 60.9 million ; the F-35 currently rotates between 98 and 116 millions.

I can understand Trump's logic about that ; besides, in the long run, wouldn't it be better to just "modernize" the F/A-18 or, if you really want the stealthy part, at least work to reduce radar signature and implement electronic countermeasures ?


----------



## IwegalBadnik (Dec 22, 2016)

Closet Sorcerer said:


> According to Wikipedia, a Super Hornet costs USD 60.9 million ; the F-35 currently rotates between 98 and 116 millions.
> 
> I can understand Trump's logic about that ; besides, in the long run, wouldn't it be better to just "modernize" the F/A-18 or, if you really want the stealthy part, at least work to reduce radar signature and implement electronic countermeasures ?



There are limits as to how far you can go without requiring fundamental changes.

The Hornets would probably be cheaper in the short term, but it comes at the cost of the design's age and the limits in capability that come with that age.


----------



## Ti-99/4A (Dec 22, 2016)

It's all water under the bridge now, but what they should have done was let Boeing keep developing the X-32 for at least limited production. They used to let companies do that because of the potential for problems that the F-35 has been having.


----------



## TiggerNits (Dec 22, 2016)

Tranhuviya said:


> View attachment 165661
> 
> Discuss.




Boeing and Dassault have been working together a lot lately. Maybe... Maybe we'll get Rafales!?


----------



## Fulda's Gap (Dec 22, 2016)

Yes, because getting politicians involved in procurement is a great idea.


----------



## Closet Sorcerer (Dec 22, 2016)

TiggerNits said:


> Boeing and Dassault have been working together a lot lately. Maybe... Maybe we'll get Rafales!?



If only that didn't risk to trigger a fuckton of people because of "why the US Army/Navy/Air Force/USMC uses cheese-eating white flag-waving made planes".

The gun nuts here had the same reaction when it was confirmed that the FAMAS was phased out in favor of the HK416, but that's a whole other can of worms.


----------



## Techpriest (Dec 23, 2016)

Closet Sorcerer said:


> According to Wikipedia, a Super Hornet costs USD 60.9 million ; the F-35 currently rotates between 98 and 116 millions.
> 
> I can understand Trump's logic about that ; besides, in the long run, wouldn't it be better to just "modernize" the F/A-18 or, if you really want the stealthy part, at least work to reduce radar signature and implement electronic countermeasures ?


No. The F/A - X is the planned successor to both the F-35 and F/A-18, and won't be ready for another decade at least (I think it's still on the drawing boards of various companies right now) and the Super Hornet (while a good plane) is still not going to come near to the stealth of the F-35 and adding those features to the airframe this late in its development cycle would be probably even more expensive than just buying the F-35. This still doesn't solve the issue of sensors and software upgrades, something that basically requires a factory refit for the Super Hornet or external pods, or BOTH.

There is no reason to buy more Super Hornets at the moment except either to replace older legacy Hornets or maintain our current supply of Super Hornet airframes. Trump's basically doing the same god damned thing that every politician does (and especially business people do) when they look at this sort of thing as a matter of pure cost. He's thinking that because I can get 8 of X for the price of 6 Y, X is the natural choice. The problem with this logic is when you need to look further down the road than the next four years. Those 8 X are going to be obsolete or making them modern is going to cost even more than 6 Y would have all together to begin with.



IwegalBadnik said:


> This is another flaw I see with the F-35. With no second seat variant, developmental potential is limited.
> 
> The F-15, F-16 and F-18 all benefitted from having that capability integrated early on, with eventual results including the F-15E, F-16XL and E/A-18.



The F-16XL never entered mass production. The F-15E is merely a varient of the F-15 designed more for the Strike Fighter role (Which is why it's called the Strike Eagle). The F-16 was and has remained a single seat plane from start to finish. The E/A-18 was a natural evolution of a concept already proven a generation earlier with the EA-6B Prowler.


----------



## IwegalBadnik (Dec 23, 2016)

Techpriest said:


> The F-16XL never entered mass production. The F-15E is merely a varient of the F-15 designed more for the Strike Fighter role (Which is why it's called the Strike Eagle). The F-16 was and has remained a single seat plane from start to finish. The E/A-18 was a natural evolution of a concept already proven a generation earlier with the EA-6B Prowler.



My point was that the F-35's potential for evolution is limited versus its predecessors due to its lack of a second seat variant.


----------



## Techpriest (Dec 23, 2016)

IwegalBadnik said:


> My point was that the F-35's potential for evolution is limited versus its predecessors due to its lack of a second seat variant.


Except none of your examples barring the F-16XL were actual design evolutions. The Strike Eagle is again, a varient of the standard F-15 with air to ground capability, and the Growler is the same damn thing as the Prowler but in a supersonic airframe.


----------



## IwegalBadnik (Dec 23, 2016)

Techpriest said:


> Except none of your examples barring the F-16XL were actual design evolutions. The Strike Eagle is again, a varient of the standard F-15 with air to ground capability, and the Growler is the same damn thing as the Prowler but in a supersonic airframe.



Although their similarities with the original models are greater, the F-15E and Growler are still developments. In both cases, they were derivatives of the two seater variants of the type (F-15B, F/A-18F).

As the F-35 lacks such a variant, it will probably not be worked with as the others were.


----------



## TiggerNits (Dec 23, 2016)

Techpriest said:


> Except none of your examples barring the F-16XL were actual design evolutions. The Strike Eagle is again, a varient of the standard F-15 with air to ground capability, and the Growler is the same damn thing as the Prowler but in a supersonic airframe.




Strike Eagles are definitely a design evolution and not a simple variant. Heavier construction, conformal fuel tanks, added and reinforced hardpoints, MUCH better jammers, avionics and comm suites and integrated (ie non-hardpoint dependent) designators and way beefier landing gear are all evolutionary from the F-15C/D and not just some shit stuffed in to make it a bomber, it got redesigned from the inside out just like the Super Hornet had been from the legacy



IwegalBadnik said:


> My point was that the F-35's potential for evolution is limited versus its predecessors due to its lack of a second seat variant.



AWACS, ELINT and Supportive Fire through the ABIT all make it capable of doing 90% of what a back seat does without adding extra fuselage space. the only thing a backseater adds thats important is a 2nd pair of eyes, which are nice, but not a requirement as has been proven by the P-40, P-51, F4U, F86, P38, F4F, F6F, F-9, F-16, F-15, F/A-18s in the A. C and E models and the F-22.

Reality is the major evolution that could some off the design would most likely be integrating more and more automation in to it so the pilot just becomes something thats there incase the enemy starts jamming control signal and it can't fly itself or end up designated as something thats in violation of SALT


----------

