Posted on 04/05/2017 12:36:10 PM PDT by LS
There are a lot not to like about the procurement process and the plane itself, that much is true.
But there are so many examples of weapons systems that have been introduced, had teething problems, have been the subjects of scorn and ridicule, but with time, became superior weapons. Your point about the Osprey is well taken. I was an early defender of the Osprey, and that was not an easy position to be in, as over budget as it was, with all the deadlines being missed over decades. But I felt that once it got into the hands of the people who would use it, that it would turn out fine.
I remember when the Abrams tank was introduced, there were a lot of people both in and out of the military who said the tank was too complicated, heavy, prone to breakdown, difficult to maintain, guzzled too much fuel, and most of all, with its gas turbine engine, would never be able to function in a desert environment. It has, hands down, been the finest and most battle tested main battle tanks for one of the longest periods of time.
The F-111 was justifiably criticized out of the gate, but with time, became a fine and extremely capable platform.
The B-29 was a horror show when the Army Air Force began flying it in combat. It wasn’t ready, but due to wartime considerations, had been rushed into production. The engines were completely unreliable and prone to catching fire.
And so on.
We have already sunk a lot of time and money into the F-35, but I have faith, if given appropriate funding to train, operate, maintain, and upgrade them over time, they will turn out fine.
The F-35 is not an A-10 or an F-22. It is something different, and a lot of people overlook some of its key strengths and potential which, in my opinion, lie not in the ability to outturn or outrun another plane, but to to function together in an environment that may provide an unprecedented tactical situational awareness by being able to integrate seamlessly into a much larger networked battlefield environment, and provide shared support and data. The software being used in the platform, both to fly it and become a integral component in a larger networked entity, is still immature. But I think they will get it right eventually.
A lot of people miss the point that an A-10 cannot function without air superiority. It is the perfect plane for its job, but if we have to fight a foe who isn’t a stupid, ill-trained Islamic country who has weapons they actually know how to maintain and use, we are going to need air superiority. The F-22 is a superlative air superiority platform, but stupidly, that ship has sailed. It isn’t going to come back, either.
I had an acquaintance who flew every fighter plane in the US inventory since the early Seventies, from the A-4 all the way up to the F-15. He started out as a Marine pilot flying the A-4, eventually went the Air Force and spent most of his time in the F-16.
In talking to him, I asked him if he had ever flown the F-22. He said that he had not, but that he had flown against it in exercises. When I asked him how the F-16 had fared against the F-22, he said:
“It was like being a baby seal.”
See my post at #62!
Lol
Plenty of bullets there!
Hopefully the F15, F16, and A10 will still be around until the F35 proves itself in action.
My point still stands, the Sparrow missile and other radar guided missiles had to be guided to the target by the radar reflection from its aircrafts radar reflecting off the target aircraft thus during Vietnam pilots were barely able to maneuver while the missile was in flight because they had to keep the target on their nose within a small envelope to keeps it radar bouncing off the target so the missile could home in on it and not lose lock. Just as an FYI I have spent many years working on combat systems for the Navy for 30 years, and part of my job has been learning about and troubleshooting missile systems so before you try such arrogance in dismissing what I say you should think about that. The fact is with early A2A radar missile technology the pilot of the firing aircraft had to keep the target on his nose or very close, the envelope was very small. Todays missiles by contrast are fire and forget, much better tech.
Here are some publicly reported combat radiuses:
Of course, the F-15 is not carrying bombs and that would make a difference for the others listed here.
Very sobering, even depressing.
Let us just hope this truly is the "worst case scenario" and the practical reality is somewhat better.
Some people hate it. A lot of people think ot changes the air battle in gemetric proportions. I don’t hear fighter pilots complaining much.
<a href= "http://www.defencetalk.com/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program-continues-to-stumble-69627/">F 35 Continues to Stumble </a>
renders this clickable link.
Anyone who buys into the F-35's strengths is not going to speak publicly about its weaknesses, though they will, of course, work to mitigate them -- hence the years and $billions of added development.
I think all that is fine, they should fix whatever they can before sending the F-35 into real combat.
But ultimately, in the past, present and future of warfare, "perfect" is not the standard.
"Good enough" is truly good enough if it wins battles.
So the question becomes: is today's F-35 at the 95% of its intended potential, or only 65%.
Of course there's no way for you or I to know, nor should we know, but that's what tells the program managers if, ultimately, they have a winner here or and un-mitigatable fail.
Nor will you. Those of us who’ve flown tactical jets in combat know one thing: F-35 is a death ray. It has unbelievably game-changing abilities.
I don’t want to engage in argumentative discussions with laymen - quite content to let the jet prove itself, of which I’m afraid it soon will.
Love it. A “Death Ray.”
One of many such write-ups. Bear in mind that this occurred even before the full operational suite of software is available. Death ray.
Thank you. I’m tending to side with you guys that the plane is indeed remarkable. Now, a little cost control and we’re good.
It's been said that a lot of the subcontracting was handed out to Nato general types (I'm sure it wasn't done obviously) as an inducement to provide air support in Libya. Love to know if that's true. I'm thinking the boss knew something was up, when he went right after the cost as one of the first things.
Maybe somebody could ask Comey about his time at Lockheed.
Dear fatman,
You say, you have 30 years naval avionics experience.
From the choice of language, you define yourself as an “engineer”.
I *could* be flippant, and expound on such, but that old quote about ‘pearls’ comes to mind.
Good night.
Dear Enlightened,
re: “He’s thinking of the Wild Weasels aircraft in Vietnam.”
I was the Asst. NCOIC, Calibration Docks, 35th AMS, 35th TFWg, George AFB, CA.
The former home of the F-105G (WW) squadrons, as they transitioned into the F-4G WW’s.
(That was some crazy R and D I was involved with, in that process.) Think of a Standard ARM missile mounted under the wings of a F-4 ...
You missed the point - all the other planes are not “stealth” so carrying an external tank is not going to make that much difference in radar cross section. The F35 on the other hand takes a major hit even with a conformal tank.
The 35 can only approach or loiter near enemy territory without the tank and there in lies the limitation, so it needs a tanker ... often.
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.