Who threw in the monkey wrench? Are things that bad?
Posted on 08/18/2015 1:23:33 PM PDT by lbryce
The F-35 Lightning II passed a major milestone last month when the Marine Corps declared it operational, but the accomplishment has not silenced critics. A Washington think tank released a report Tuesday that found the 5th-generation jet – billed as the world's most advanced fighter – will be outmaneuvered in dogfights with current Russian and Chinese jets as well as the U.S. aircraft it is slated to replace. The report comes after details were leaked last month on a test flight where the F-35 was bested in most aerial maneuvering by an F-16. "The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors," according to Bill French, a policy analyst with the National Security Network, a progressive think tank that claims to challenge overly militarized conservative defense policies. "Staying the present course [on the aircraft program] may needlessly gamble away a sizable margin of American airpower at great expense and unnecessary risk to American lives." The think tank has an advisory board that includes Sandy Berger, the national security advisor to President Bill Clinton, and Richard Clarke, a senior White House advisor to several administrations. A call and email request for comment were not immediately answered.
After 14 years and over $390 billion invested, the first F-35s entered service just two weeks ago when the Marines completed a battery of tests on a squadron of Harrier variants in Yuma, Ariz., and declared it ready for deployment around the world. Navy and Air Force variants are still being developed, and U.S. weapons contractor Lockheed Martin is working to overcome software and engine difficulties. The Defense Department says the joint strike fighter will bring cutting-edge technology to the battlefield and become the backbone of United States air power over the next five decades.
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
Who threw in the monkey wrench? Are things that bad?
Doesn’t sound like it would be cutting edge for the last five decades.
Apparently they forgot McNamera’s screwed up programs during the Vietnam era.
Who threw in the monkey wrench? Are that bad?
No.
sure glad we scrapped the F-22 Raptor program so we could buy MRAPs.
The F-35 will do what it was designed to do. It was not designed to be a premier world class dogfighter. That was the F-22's job, but the number requested by the Air Force was never funded.
Why wasn't the F-22 fully funded? Because it too was an over-budget, under-performing dog during development. Yet today it is the premier air dominance fighter.
When you hear “F-35”, just think, “Solyndra, with a canopy.”
What could have been
The canopy alone about a million bucks.
So what if a F16 can out dog fight it. A WWI biplane can out dogfight an F16, but I don't want to go back to biplanes. (On a side note, our current targeting systems would have a really hard time locking on a WWI biplane, because those planes had very little metal- mostly wood and cloth.) Almost every thing is a compromise.
Additionally, I think we need to focus on drones. They are the future. The planes can take more G forces than the pilots. Manned aircraft, is sort of like the ships that had steam engines and sails. I was talking to a Marine General about ten years ago and his opinion was that the F-35 is the last manned aircraft. It takes too long to train a pilot, too much resources and no one likes to lose people.
The hard part is to reduce the lag time between the controller and the drone, due to signal distance. But I think they'll program the drones to act on their own, just like they are trying to do with cars. Also think of the weight you can save by not having systems for the pilot (hand controls, oxygen systems, evacuation seats, etc...).
I am waiting for comments from the pilots. Remember, these words are from “National Security Network, a progressive think tank.”
...
Cronies perhaps, who would like to replace the F35 with another trillion dollar aircraft that will make them richer.
Not funny.Sunny, but not funny.
I think you’re probably right.
We’re not the only ones who can have them, and I don’t see this as a golden age item.
These could be very hard to defend against.
There is an attempt to make one airframe conform to WAY too many different (and contradictory) assigned duties, in a wrong-headed attempt to be “economical” (definitely a very misplaced thriftiness), and “universal”, serving highly disparate functions.
Literally HUNDREDS of different conformations for airplanes had been tried before and during the Second World War, but only a few of them became outstanding, and that was because each of them performed only a few well-defined functions, and were not fitted to some other role for which they were woefully inadequate.
You want close-order support of ground troops? Look no further than the truly amazing record of the A-10 Warthog, proven over and over to be one of the best strafing and ground support weapons systems ever designed, able to operate from very primitive forward airstrips, with remarkable abilities to return the pilot to base even in the presence of extreme damage to the airframe, capability to take out even relatively heavy armor with its nose cannon (the plane is virtually a flying cannon), and with its capability to carry air-to-surface missiles, it can sneak in at virtually treetop level, and come up on a target long before the defenses can be cranked down to even take aim. Literally, it can rain down hell on the enemy.
You want vertical take-off and landing? Helicopters have evolved a long way in the past 75 years or so, and even a Vietnam-era UH-1 Huey gunship was able to insert, take deadly aim, and clear or halt an assault by enemy infantry.
You want dogfight capability? The F-22, from what little I know of it, was superior in many ways to the F-35, but in current air war scenarios, this is of limited value, with air-to-air missiles using heat-seeking capabilities being of much greater utility than mounted cannon.
Much of what is claimed for the F-35 has been done already, and done better, by equipment that has been declared “obsolete”.
RE: “Sure glad we scrapped the F-22 Raptor program so we could buy MRAPs.”
Of course!
Everyone knows 2000+ MRAPs are far more useful in the upcoming US homeland street warfare OPs, than 200 F-22s could ever be.
When I hear F35, all I can think about is they wanted an F22 with only one engine which they could export.
They want it to replace the A10. It can’t do what the A10 does. They want it to replace aging F15’s, F16’s, F18’s. Each of those planes, still are better. (The F18 I am not sure of. Was AF not Navy)
The AF should have bought 350 F22’s and sold 50 to Israel, 50 to Australia, and 50 to South Korea. That would have turned the world on its head.
I would sell 50 to Taiwan, but I much prefer giving them two fully loaded Ohio Class subs.
What crap.
Note that Sandy Burglar is on the committee handing this out.
Yes, the F-16 could out dog fight the F-35. That’s because the F-35 is not a dog fighter.
I can’t remember who said this is like saying “my archer has no armor and no sword and lost in hand to hand fighting with a guy in armor with a sword” but it’s correct.
It’s a shoot-from-afar fighter.
Rename it the F-Obama. It fits.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3323972/posts
About the National Security Network:
Before founding the National Security Network, Rand Beers served as the National Security Adviser to the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign
NSN’s convening power promotes progressive national security solutions through advocacy and communications efforts. Weaving together policy, politics, messaging, and Hill engagement and education, we work with experts and activists, candidates and elected officials to connect decision-makers and opinion leaders with pragmatic and principled foreign policy options.
It's a liberal think tank. Reference some of the favorite liberal code words (my underlining) for weakening defense. These guys are who is in charge right now.
The mistake is doing away with the old “A” designation. If it’s designed as an attack bomber then it should be the “A-12” or something. Calling it an “F” when it was never designed to be an air superiority fighter is just asking for trouble.
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.