Should we buy the F-35?

[astropapi1]

I'm no hippie, but... What are you going to use fighter jets for? We're like a big family now, and I'm not talking about the KSP community, I'm talking about humanity. I may live round the corner, or I may live on the moon. There's no real difference now.

[Nibb31]

In recent months, fighter aircraft have been deployed in active combat in several countries over the World, so yes, they are still useful. Even when you're going through peaceful negociations, military capability is part of a country's persuasion power and credibility. Humanity is far from being a whole big family, unfortunately.

On the topic of drones, aircraft like the Global Hawk can only be deployed when you have air superiority. They don't stand a chance in areas where the enemy has basic air defense or old Migs. In 2002, a Predator was shot down by an Iraqi Mig.

Global Hawks can sort of replace ground attack aircraft, equivalent to an A-10, but there are still no dogfight-capable air superiority drones equivalent to an F-22. That's what the X-47 is for, but I think it will be a while before an operational air superiority drone is deployed.

[flyin_ruski]

It was my understanding that the CH-46 was on its way out in favor of the SH-60. I guess they will have both.

I have flown in a Blackhawk and they are spectacular. I can only imagine its variant is just as good as the army based version.

Lets keep this thread on-topic.

Yes for the navy, but the sh-60 is not a Marine Corps aircraft. The v-22 is replacing the 46 for us just as the f-35 is supposedly replacing our aging f-18s. I like comparing this new aircraft the v-22 because there was a lot of discontent amongst the airwing community when the v-22 came to the fleet. The v-22 is a great aircraft. Flying in one was probably one of the most fun things I've done so far.

So much is different with the f-35. The way we will be performing maintenance on it is going to be wayyy different than how we do f-18s.

In any case the transition has already started. A squadron I used to be part of recently moved elsewhere and was turned into an f-35 squadron.

Edited May 7, 2013 by flyin_ruski

[Leonov]

In recent months, fighter aircraft have been deployed in active combat in several countries over the World, so yes, they are still useful. Even when you're going through peaceful negociations, military capability is part of a country's persuasion power and credibility. Humanity is far from being a whole big family, unfortunately.

On the topic of drones, aircraft like the Global Hawk can only be deployed when you have air superiority. They don't stand a chance in areas where the enemy has basic air defense or old Migs. In 2002, a Predator was shot down by an Iraqi Mig.

Global Hawks can sort of replace ground attack aircraft, equivalent to an A-10, but there are still no dogfight-capable air superiority drones equivalent to an F-22. That's what the X-47 is for, but I think it will be a while before an operational air superiority drone is deployed.

Indeed, A global hawk will never be an air superiority craft, That is what X-47s are for. I dont think we need an Air superiroity UCAV until after the F-22 becomes obsolete.

The global hawk is very similar to the U-2 in many aspects.

[Jones-250]

Finland is currently upgrading its F/A-18:s, as it´s quite about time for an MLU (Mid-Life Update). Future purchases are being planned. That process has only just begun - details are under classified status, naturally- so there´s no goal in guessing.

However, I do agree on the point that the bang-for-the-buck- ratio for the F-35 is below the level acceptable for a much smaller nation than the US or an equal of the beforementioned, especially as the FAF was not able to buy more than 62 F/A-18:s last time the decision of purchase was made...

So, in conclusion I state:

F-35, would you be so kind and...

[Peder]

I saw a documentary the other day about Australia that had bought the f35, and now they actual regret it for various reasons..

One reason is the price, another is that the fighter pilots where not satisfied with the performance since many other jets could actual easy outperform the f35.

But one reason that some nations still consider the f-35 are due to political reasons, and the fact that if the airplane do not sell enough it will litterly be a bomb unde the economy, as well as the huge companys

that developed the airplane will have some serious trouble.

So in the end i think that some nations including Denmark unfortunatly choose the f-35 becourse of the above, and to secure a few industry contracts pr. delivered plane.

Personal I hope that Denmark will NOT buy the F-35 but instead buy the F-18 that have proven it self. There will so to speak be no unforseen costs, and we know what it cost to operatet it and what it can and cannot do.

But I also like the Swedish Griben next generation fighter.. It is also rather good and alot cheaper but also very new and in development.

Anyway a small country with a limited budget should go for the reliable product rather than something brand new.

Other than that, I belive Denmark and other small countries do actual not need an F-35 or stealth that much... It is nice to have in an attack war, but to be honest modern countries do actual these days have radars that in some cases can detect stealth airplanes, but ofcourse it make it harder for missiles to lockon to their target..

And finaly, I belive fighter jets are about to be obsolet during the next 50 years... We will in the future only need a few manned jets to inspect airliners and other stuff. And in like 20 years from now defence would be long range lasers that can take out airplanes in a few secounds. Attack will and defence will be a combination of lasers and energy weapons, or maybe even energy weapons from orbit.

I belive many nations have som rather serious weapons already that we will first in use in "Real" superpower wars.

[astropapi1]

Well, Obviously the Qahar 313 is the best fighter jet in the world.

[redwolfy]

Yes, what Nibb31 just said, but I was to lazy to type all that.

On a side note the Harrier is one of the most dangerous aircraft to fly, as it's so unstable.

It's crash rate alone, I think, is a good enough reason to replace it.

http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6722

From the article written in 2003:

HOW DARE YOU INSULT THE MAJESTY OF THE HARRIER, POOR PILOTS BLAME THEIR PLANES

and as for your "Ospreys" they have been in service for a 5th of the time harriers have been in service and already 35 deaths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey might as well scrap all of them for their faults alone

[flyin_ruski]

All aircraft go through a phase of problems and some end up killing pilots. It took damn near 20 years to get the osprey fleet ready and now it's starting to fill its intended role perfectly.

[karolus10]

Drones can be very helpful as bomb/missile carrier, in some cases more successful, because it's more expendable, and are smaller (also more dispersed, when used in larger quantity) target.

Drones also could bee good infantry support weapon that could be faster more often dispatched than larger and more complicated jet fighter.

Also fairly small and fast quad-copter with mounted gun turret could be very scary in urban areas :<.

Edited May 7, 2013 by karolus10

[LeonG17]

One of the main points of the F-35 is that it is stealth but there is something called a Quantum radar that is proposed and being devolved which would make stealth systems like the F-35 redundant.

[LeathalMeatball]

It isn't close to being the worst, it's not bad it's just not great considering its price. It does however give our LHD's the capability of carrying a 4.5 generation fighter.

[LeathalMeatball]

The harrier has been outdated by some time now (existing models), and the only reason to continue using it is so the British could continue to use their carriers which aren't capable of launching anything but helicopters now.

[Tommygun]

HOW DARE YOU INSULT THE MAJESTY OF THE HARRIER, POOR PILOTS BLAME THEIR PLANES

and as for your "Ospreys" they have been in service for a 5th of the time harriers have been in service and already 35 deaths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey might as well scrap all of them for their faults alone

The Osprey is a transport aircraft, so when it does crash it will be carrying more people. It's inevitable that it will have a higher death total than a (normally) single seat fighter.

The Harrier has been in service a very long time and it continues to crash at a very high rate. Briton has also lost a large percentage of their Harriers.

I have read more than once it is consider the worlds most difficult military aircraft to fly. The F-35, if it lives up to the clams, may be one of the easiest with it's computer assisted flight.

The redesigned Ospreys has been in service a short time, but it is very different than the earlier aircraft. The majority of those deaths where with the older version.

Time will tell if the changes will work in military service or not. If it continues to have a high crash rate, then it also needs to be replaced.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Tommygun

[ZedNova]

The harrier has been outdated by some time now (existing models), and the only reason to continue using it is so the British could continue to use their carriers which aren't capable of launching anything but helicopters now.

We should make some Super-carriers for them. Then they can launch anything from a RC plane to a Bomber.

[Kryten]

Because what we need to be focusing on in the current economic climate is is definitely warships. Or any economic climate, frankly.

[Polecat Industries]

Nope. We should NOT buy the F-35.

Comparatively speaking, it's a slower jet with just one engine. No chance of recovery if an engine goes down. The ability to short-land isn't very useful when the rest of our aircraft need carriers anyway.

[9911MU51C]

I think what we need to do is focus more on a urban warfare type jet. People are all about stealth and payloads and air-to-air, yet we're fighting street to street house to house against guerrilla warfare. We don't need stealth, we need precision and speed. After this war, we can focus on upgrading the already existing fighters. The F-35 is too expensive, anyway.

[Carthaginian]

I think what we need to do is focus more on a urban warfare type jet. People are all about stealth and payloads and air-to-air, yet we're fighting street to street house to house against guerrilla warfare. We don't need stealth, we need precision and speed. After this war, we can focus on upgrading the already existing fighters. The F-35 is too expensive, anyway.

'Urban warfare jet'?

No such animal.

Aircraft are not an urban warfare tool.

Aircraft are a multi-mission tool. Any light, maneuverable aircraft can fulfill the requirements of carrying munitions against an enemy in an urban environment; not all aircraft can fulfill the mission requirements of the F-35. So, you can buy TWO AIRCRAFT- a cheaper, less capable you need immediately, and an expensive, more capable one on down the road- or you can buy ONE AIRCRAFT that does both jobs to begin with.

Additionally, having the hover/loiter capability makes the F-35 excellent in the close air support category... it can land and be fueled/armed near the front, drop light loads in support of troops for multiple sorties, then return to its base for maintenance. Also, unlike your cheap 'urban warfare' jet, the F-35 can perform a variety of CAP and OAB missions- less capable aircraft cannot.

Additionally, these days, precision is largely a function of the munitions package itself rather than the aircraft dropping them.

[Tommygun]

Lockheed's AC-130 might be a good choice for urban combat.

[sodopro]

Urban Warfare is pretty much covered by bombers and planes like the A10.

Stealth is not needed.

[Randox]

Don't worry, they are going to replace the A-10 with the F-35, and maybe someone can explain to me how that makes any sense, since the F-35 is substantially more expensive, and seemingly lacking pretty much every feature that makes the A-10 ideal for CAS.

[LeonG17]

Because the air force head thinks that "as its stealth then it will be invulnerable but the A-10 is slow and easy to shoot down". This is the entire line of thought.

[Tommygun]

In the past, every time the Air Force tried to retire the A-10, the Army has tried to take over it's operation.

This caused the Air Force to withdraw the idea.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out once they have the F-35.

[Nibb31]

The A-10 was designed during the cold war for shooting up close range hardened ground targets with a big machine gun. Nowadays, you don't need to go up close and personal with a depleted uranium rounds to kill a tank. Most modern conflicts involve assymetrical attacks against soft targets.

An F-35 wouldn't need to go up as close as an A-10. It would fire it's Hellfires from several miles away based on intelligence provided by ground troops or AWACs. Other aircraft that are in a similar role to the A-10 for ground attack are the AC-130 or AH-64.