After all the cost overruns of the JSF program, I think we can afford 10 or 12 of these small carriers you speak of.
Posted on 05/30/2015 2:16:38 PM PDT by artichokegrower
ping
I always assumed the main reason the Marines wanted an aircraft was to provide CAS to their troops. The F-35 version they are buying doesn’t have a gun because of that big lift fan.
Neat toy. Far too expensive, limited payload, limited range, one engine etc.
Want!!!
The F-4J's I flew in the Marines didn't have a gun, either.
We did have a really big radar, compared with the USAF F-4E's, which did have a gun.
You can't have everything. And if you are the Marine Corps, you not only make-do with what you have; you do it better than anyone could have expected.
I'm sure they'll do just fine.
I'm sure they'll also wish they had a gun. Just like we did.
After all the cost overruns of the JSF program, I think we can afford 10 or 12 of these small carriers you speak of.
I'm no fan of the F35 and have always thought more F15 and F16 platforms with upgraded avionics and weapons were a better choice. And more cost effective.
I believe manned fighters are in their very last generation...and that autonomous drones will be a FAR superior Air Supremacy platform.
That said, do you know of another whole, airborne weapons system from another country that can defeat the F35?
And don't throw me marketing slop from Boeing or Lockheed...they make big bucks from instilling fear. And, the US military gets new toys via the same fear mongering.
The old saw about US F22's going against Indian Migs and losing will not convince.
Have you looked at the weapons, avionics and data link of the F35? Dogfights are extraordinarily rare and usually the result of pilot error.
ANY gen4 fighter can whip it. As one expert said "it can't climb, can't turn, can't run".
It is not intended as an air superiority fighter, and will require escort in any defended airspace.
SU-35, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, and many others will devour it.
Could a F-35 do the same or do it's advocates think it's so fancy it will dodge ground fire and never get hit?
Sure, in a dogfight with guns, it would be toast.
But that's NOT how modern air engagements occur. They are almost always from 20+ miles...and 50+ is not unheard of.
Radar signature, avionics and weapons are the deciding factors...along with tactics.
With US avionics and weapons, even the old F4 Phantom is an adequate platform.
And the other platforms you mention would not stand a chance.
It has a gun pod that can be installed on the CL...
F-16s do not cost $29 million today. The total cost of the latest block 61 F-16s are north of $200 million each.
...
Don’t you think foreign governments are being way overcharged for the F16?
The Block 60/61 F-16 is a far more capable platform than the 1980s F-16 was, plus you have to add in 3 decades worth of inflation. I suppose if foreign governments thought they were being overcharged, they'd be buying Eurofighters or Rafales.
The platforms I mentioned are all operational NOW, the F-35 is years from effective capability. Many export customers now are having major headaches over the delays, cost, and diminishing capabilities.
The Navy designed, built, and launched a new ship especially to carry it. It is now back at the shipyard being redesigned and rebuilt; it seems as though the STOVL exhaust is FAR hotter than predicted and the deck and structure beneath cannot support it.
New VHF radars and IRST systems largely make stealth worthless, expensive, and a huge drain on resources. Several 4-5Gen fighters carry IRST, F-35 & F-22 do not, there is a scramble underway to develop pods for it, but that means weight, drag, and higher radar signature.
There are foreign fighters that are as good or better than F-22 now....and you think they wouldn't beat F-35? Guess again.
In the past, a key US advantage in air-to-air has been pilot skill, learned through seat time. But the monstrous cost of the F-35 program means less money available for active training. Thus we lose that edge.
The Joint Strike Fighter concept was flawed from the start - no airframe can do all three jobs well, so all three are compromised. US military airframe design and acquisition has had many, many marginal or outright failures in it's history, and most have wisely been dropped before much damage was done. LockMart has sourced (on purpose) parts in nearly every congressional district, making it immune to congressional cancellation.
20-30 years from now, China will be ready to fight, and she will likely win. The Joint Strike Fighter will be a nail in our coffin....a very big nail.
Well, I guess it goes to the question: How do you measure relative "good or better".
Airframe and engine performance? The Russians have always been better than us on that front.
How about contested kills?
F-15C is then the only aircraft in existence that can't be beat.
And a damn fine aircraft it is. We need another 600 of them.
Again, I don't measure the performance of the platform. I think the F-35 platform is adequate for the role it's been assigned in the Air Force, an F-16 replacement. It's all about avionics and weapons, not stealth, speed or maneuverability.
And a bunch of new F-15 C and E...PLUS and new STOL vehicle...AND something akin to the role the F-14 used to provide for the CBG.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.