Posted on 04/05/2017 12:36:10 PM PDT by LS
Yesterday there was a thread discussing, somewhat critically, the F-35. I have heard good things about the plane from the fighter jock community, but these guys were older pilots, none of whom flew the F-35. I personally know almost nothing about it, and I asked them for info. They sent the following comments and links which seem pretty positive:
http://whythef35.blogspot.com/2012/05/comparing-f-16s-development-with-f-35.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/03/28/solid-progress-f-35-fighter-pentagons-biggest-program-is-moving-forward-fast/#1d07166d4b57
From a pilot, who has not flown the F-35:
The F-35 is very complicated—3 different variants (USAF, USN, USMC), millions of lines of code, stealth, new technology, etc.;
Building a new fighter is ALWAYS difficult, but given the notes above this one is probably even more so than most; There are many detractors of this program, and they will speak poorly of it no matter what;
As of 30 Jan 2017 there have been 80,000 flight hours logged, without any major crisis that I can recall;
I have no doubt that all of the versions flying now will be vastly improved a year, two years, 10 years from now.
Thanks for posting. BUMP!
“The Pentagon believes that dog fights in the future will not be the case.”
The Pentagon made that mistake before when they refused to put a gun on the F-4 Phantom. They thought it could avoid a dogfight by standing off and firing missiles. Too bad that practical reality intruded on their lofty theories.
The plan for the F-35 is that it’s supposed to standoff from an enemy and launch missiles at it at long range.
So they forgot that “No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy.”
Let’s hope that the next version of the F-22 is equipped with the weapons systems from the F-35 so our fighter pilots have the absolute best all-around fighter possible.
I was at the Nellis Air show early in 2017.I saw the F35 on the ground close up and saw it flying. Its internal area for carrying armaments looked to be about the length and depth of an eight foot pickup bed. When it flew it only took off and landed while the F22, F16, and F15 put on an acrobatic spectacle.
The final air act of the day featured the F22, F35, and the Korean War vintage F86 flying in formation. I asked a active Air Force pilot why the F22 and F35 didn’t fly with the WWII P51 Mustangs that were part of the show. He said the F35 can’t fly that slow.
I talked to all the active pilots that flew the other aircraft about the F35 and all were mum about the F35 with none praising it or critizing it. The F35 pilots liked their plane but I did note lesser enthusiasm with them than the other pilots and their planes.
I was left me with the impression that the F35 might indeed be an excellent air superiority fighter due to its stealth, missles and electronics but I believe it just doesn’t have the payload capacity and flying characteristics to serve effectively as a fighter bomber or ground support aircraft.
It could be a disastrous decision for the military to put all their eggs in a F35 basket.
Just saying, none of the pilots I talk to share your views. Again, I only talk w F-16 jocks
Wow.
The F-22 is an amazing platform, well beyond its competitors. Having flown against it at Red Flag, I have been on the receiving end of its total dominance of the air battle.
I think the F-35 will achieve the same dominance in the strike arena, not through aerodynamic superiority, but through information dominance. The fused sensor picture of the F-35 will far surpass any other previous platform. The data collected by the aircraft on every mission will give war fighters the most accurate picture we have ever had of the battle space.
Here are some of the links I recorded:
Pentagon: Here are all the problems with the F-35 - Business Insider - Software Issue
The Pentagon's official F-35 bug list is terrifying - ExtremeTech
Pentagon Report: The F-35 Is Still a Mess | Fortune.com
F-35 'Deficiencies' Decreasing, But Hundreds Remain: Program Manager | Military.com
Remember it is not how nice the plane flies (the pilot view), it is how well it can preforms its mission.
He’s thinking of the Wild Weasels aircraft in Vietnam.
In brief, the task of a Wild Weasel aircraft is to bait enemy anti-aircraft defenses into targeting it with their radars, whereupon the radar waves are traced back to their source allowing the Weasel or its teammates to precisely target it for destruction.
It was an insane mission for a pilot to grab the attention and attack Surface to Air Missile Sites (aka SAMS). NUTS!
Trying to make one airframe do all three roles equally well makes as much sense as having an NFL defensive tackle routinely run wide receiver routes and kick field goals.
Get the best person for the job and the best airframe for that particular job.
I used to work with a bunch of wild weasels in the 80s. Get them into a bar and you hear some crazy stories.
My VP’s F-105 was actually hit by a missile. He got the engine restarted at night over mountains.
That’s insane! Thank goodness he was able to do it.
Sorry, Bandit, but the F-35 is wayyyy more expensive than F-22.
I am about 40% into that article and i’m already feeling sick to my stomach.
ugh
And it only outlines the current and some future problems. Add in it’s history and you’d have no stomach left.
The fly away costs for the last F-22s (no R&D costs) was $167 million. Not fair to the F-22 to count R&D on such a short run. That is well above current fly away for F-35.
That is what you need for CAS in a totally permissive environment.
The F-35 is being built under "concurrent development" procedures, meaning the aircraft built and flying ALL have to have massive rebuilds before they are at final status. Some of the capabilities planned have never been built, never been tested, and nobody is certain they can EVER WORK AS ENVISIONED.
I urge you to read the POGO article. It is written from a neutral perspective by a very good organization.
just a note: the F-22 and F-35 are both concieved and manufactured by the same company Lockheed Martin. The same group that made the SR-71. Jusy sayin...
The new Russian Verba 9K333 is advertised as effective on targets below 15k feet and Mach 1.5
'Taint much that is "totally permissive" anymore!
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.