Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's the military industrial complex for ya. The F-35 is just what happens when large defense contractors "own" politicians and call in favors.
Still, there are plenty of military weapons which had lack-luster debuts but were later improved to become great machines. Almost every plane starts it's career with problems... many famous planes of WW2 started as "questionable investments" such as the B-17 (crash of the prototype model 299), B-29 (magnesium parts used in engines which tended to catch fire), P-38 (wind buffeting problems in dives and unstable until it got frame tweaks and counter-rotating props) and even the P-51 Mustang (inferior performance until it got a decent engine)
I think the F-35 has real potential and will eventually get there too. It's too bad so much money has to be wasted to get it to that point though.
Serious question...but when was the last time a US fighter scored an air-to-air kill using a cannon??
Maybe you are just curious but the analogy that I was trying to draw is between the military's belief that the F-4 wouldn't need guns and the current belief that the F-35 won't need to have the maneuverability contemporary fighter jets, despite the fact that in mock combat the F-35 loses to the F-16. The issue isn't about guns but the plane ability to defeat other air-craft within visual range.
Maybe you are just curious but the analogy that I was trying to draw is between the military's belief that the F-4 wouldn't need guns and the current belief that the F-35 won't need to have the maneuverability contemporary fighter jets, despite the fact that in mock combat the F-35 loses to the F-16. The issue isn't about guns but the plane ability to defeat other air-craft within visual range.
Errrrr.....I know someone that works on F-35's and they said that they've been slaughtering F-16's etc. in "scrimmages".
I think that the dogfight thing is analogous to saying a submarine is inferior to a destroyer once the destroyer is on top of it and knows it's there.
Well it if is slaughtering the F-16's then it is based upon beyond visual range which is the whole premiss behind the F-35's air superiority which also means that the F-35's are being sufficiently backed by AWACS. I would also point out that the two articles that I linked to point to the other premiss being that the if the F-35's are slaughtering the F-16's (again beyond visual range) because of its stealth technology which may not carry it through its service life as long range detection technology advances. If that is the case is it better to have more less expensive aircraft that a hugely expensive fighter with soon to be obsolete technology.
I also hasten to add, that your friends who work on the F-35 may have too much of a stake in the argument to be less than objective.
Hey Sluggo, just repeating what the stick jockey told me. We were Marine Photo Phantoms. I think it was on the way back to CA from Key West? Or maybe during some joint op exercise. Our jets were at every exercise the Marines participated in. Wouldn't surprise me if it was an export nor would it surprise me if the person telling it didn't know what they were talking about. Maybe a bozo was flying that day.
Well it if is slaughtering the F-16's then it is based upon beyond visual range which is the whole premiss behind the F-35's air superiority which also means that the F-35's are being sufficiently backed by AWACS. I would also point out that the two articles that I linked to point to the other premiss being that the if the F-35's are slaughtering the F-16's (again beyond visual range) because of its stealth technology which may not carry it through its service life as long range detection technology advances. If that is the case is it better to have more less expensive aircraft that a hugely expensive fighter with soon to be obsolete technology.
I also hasten to add, that your friends who work on the F-35 may have too much of a stake in the argument to be less than objective.
1. Stealth technology is going to be obsolete?
2. The test negated the F-35's strongest advantages. To doubt the result of more general engagements where it can use it's stealth and strengths to advantage because it didn't do well in the dog fight is poor logic.
3. My friend was communicating results like X planes shot down vs. Y....not emotions like "dude the plane is awesome". Even the biggest Chiefs homer in the world didn't walk into work today claiming that the Broncos lost last night.
This whole thing kinda reminds me of some of the early criticisms of the Bradley armored fighting vehicle including "complaints" like how it's armor couldn't stop a shell from a T-72.
Not to pick nits, but the USAF F-16 never had the J79. Only Pratt and Whitney F-100-200 and later -220E in F-16A and B models, as well as Block 25, 32 and 42 F-16C and D models, and General Electric F-110-100 in Block 30 and 40 F-16Cs and Ds. Later models got upgraded F-100-229 (Block 42 and 52) and F-110-129 (some Block 30s, 40s and the mighty Block 50). The F-16/J79 was an export-only option that never saw service.
It's not nitpicking. How much credibility does someone earn who doesn't even know the difference between a turbojet and a turbofan engine? Even the most casual fan of military aviation would look at that and think something was amiss.
The only problem with the F-35 is uneducated people and politicians only looking only at the pricetag. The F-35 isn't just one aircraft, it is 3 completly different aircraft with 3 different missions. The DOD decided that it makes more sense to design an aircraft family with some interchangeble parts, then to have 3 completely different aircraft. Look at it this way.
Marine version, direct replacement for the AV-8.
Navy, replacement for the first generation FA-18. The Super Hornet really replaced the F-14, S-3, and EA-6.
Airforce, replace the F-16, and eventually the F-15.
The engineering requirements for each contradict what the other's wanted, so there have been MAJOR engineering hurdles to overcome. For example, the Air Force wants their aircraft to be as light as possible. Due to this their aircraft have tiny landing gear. Naval aircraft have to be reinforced and have huge landing gear to survive being crashed into an aircraft carrier every landing. If an F-16 or F-15 tried to land on a carrier it would literally break into pieces. However an FA-18 can survive thousands of carrier landings. The Marine VTOL version needed to have a downward facing fan for stability. This created a large void in the other 2. This aircraft is probably the most advanced piece of engineering ever undertaken in single program.
But then again I'm just a retired Navy air framer so what do I know?
The only problem with the F-35 is uneducated people and politicians only looking only at the pricetag. The F-35 isn't just one aircraft, it is 3 completly different aircraft with 3 different missions. The DOD decided that it makes more sense to design an aircraft family with some interchangeble parts, then to have 3 completely different aircraft. Look at it this way.
Marine version, direct replacement for the AV-8.
Navy, replacement for the first generation FA-18. The Super Hornet really replaced the F-14, S-3, and EA-6.
Airforce, replace the F-16, and eventually the F-15.
The engineering requirements for each contradict what the other's wanted, so there have been MAJOR engineering hurdles to overcome. For example, the Air Force wants their aircraft to be as light as possible. Due to this their aircraft have tiny landing gear. Naval aircraft have to be reinforced and have huge landing gear to survive being crashed into an aircraft carrier every landing. If an F-16 or F-15 tried to land on a carrier it would literally break into pieces. However an FA-18 can survive thousands of carrier landings. The Marine VTOL version needed to have a downward facing fan for stability. This created a large void in the other 2. This aircraft is probably the most advanced piece of engineering ever undertaken in single program.
But then again I'm just a retired Navy air framer so what do I know?
Yeah, that's what the major issue has been. Prior attempts to design one plane for all three services haven't been real successful (I remember talk about trying to make the F16 into a carrier plane back 30 years ago. The talk really went nowhere because of the changes needed in the airframe). There have been unintentional successes, the F4 and A7 being two such.
It does look like some of the early issues they had with traps have been ironed out:
It's not nitpicking. How much credibility does someone earn who doesn't even know the difference between a turbojet and a turbofan engine? Even the most casual fan of military aviation would look at that and think something was amiss.
Are you talking about me? I'm just telling you what was said to me by the people in my squadron. That they both had J-79's. We had the last smokers, actually. Could see them from miles away. And really, the exhaust fins looked the same in both acft. Plus it was just admitted that the F-16 did have the J79 at one point. I'm not a jet-mech. I'm a seat mech. If you want to talk Martin-Baker, just let me know!
You a jet mechanic, Mediocre? Pilot? Military?
btw, I'm not a fan of military aviation. I was just in that field, Marine Aviation where I worked, then taught, and also Air Force aviation where I had 3 aviation AFSC's. About 24yrs aviation then went on to CE.
Last edited by hunterseat; 09-18-2015 at 05:15 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
