Should we buy the F-35?

[Leonov]

The Air force by no means thinks the A-10 is "Slow and easy to shoot down", read many of the after action reports, They are flying tanks.

The Specters have always been cool as hell, but i dont think they are in the same class as AH-64 and the A-10.

The A-10 seems to fill a niche within the array of planes, its a unique plane.

I can see the F-35 replacing the F-18. But replacing the A-10 is a very big strech of the imaginations for the armchair generals in this thread.

[Kryten]

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.

So why does it need stealth or supercruise, or even a pilot? You can just do that with a predator.

[Leonov]

So why does it need stealth or supercruise, or even a pilot? You can just do that with a predator.

A preadtor has a top speed of 135mph, anda service ceiling of 7,600m. Talk about low and slow, even has to skimp on the weaponry, it can barely carry the two hellfires on it.

[Kryten]

A reaper then. Why does it matter how low or slow it is? Considering the roles people are suggesting, it just needs to stay out of range of small arms fire.

[Leonov]

The scenerios a craft that we are suggesting here is so multifaceted that it becomes difficult to produce something modular enough to be a true multi-role.

[Nibb31]

So why does it need stealth or supercruise, or even a pilot? You can just do that with a predator.

Because it's a multi-role fighter. In a ground strike role, it comes in fast and stealthy and can fire a whole range of weapons (including nukes), and it can fight back and defend itself if attacked. In an interceptor role, it flies high and fast. It also needs to be capable of flying slow to land on short runways, and indeed, carriers.

It's a compromised jack of all trades, but the whole point of a standardized multi-role aircraft is to streamline support logistics. This is particularly important for countries who don't want to spend 30% of their budget on military spending like the US does, or when you have limited supply lines like on a deployed aircraft carrier. You only need to stock one type of tyre, one type of spare engine, and so on...

Current drones are limited to certain roles. You can only use them when you already have air superiority, because they are a easy targets. They can't break enemy defense lines and they have limited defense capabilities. You still need to gain that air superiority with conventional fighters.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Nibb31

[Astronut25]

F-35 is surely one of most expensive US military programs ever, cost of F-35 is so unreasonable high, that (even) NASA could put man (not only one) on Mars easily with such funding... and we taking about weapon system that aren't superior over F-22 and could be never deployed during their service... not really understand US reasoning .

"Germany will militarize herself out of existence, England will expand herself out of existence, and America will spend herself out of existence."

Lenin, 1917

So very accurate.

Sorry about the necro, I thought I had the "New Posts" search selected.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Astronut25

[Rage097]

Why did you Necro this? we have a thread specifically for military/airforce discussion here.

[satcharna]

Necroing threads to quote Lenin is always appropriate, Rage.

Besides, that thread is about very old planes, Korean War and earlier. This is a more modern thread. Makes sense, no?

[NASAFanboy]

The F-35 is an overbloated piece of crap. For such a high cost, it does not have as good qualities. Yes, it looks epic on Blender and PowerPoint, but Blender does not fight wars.

It seemed promising at first, but I lost all hope in it as progress went on. Overall, it is a disappointment.

[runboy398]

Lets say that we are talking about the F-35C.One of those costs 199.4 (Lets round and say 200) million USD.The performance of the F-35 is by far not worth the 200 million price tag that it has.Let me show you just what I am talking about when is say "It isnt worth it".

~A list of all Currently-detected problems with the aircraft~

Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.

Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.

Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touch screen controls.

The radar performs poorly or not at all.

Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.

Maintenance tools do not work

Afterburner Damages the aircraft

Now is an aircraft with problems such as those worth the 200 million USD price tag?I think not.I think that the better option is just buying 6 (Yes,you heard me.SIX!) perfectly working and fully developed AV-8B Harriers for the price of one F-35C.

[Xeldrak]

"Germany will militarize herself out of existence, England will expand herself out of existence, and America will spend herself out of existence."

Lenin, 1917

So very accurate.

Actually, we germans have realized by now, that militarizing ourself is to expensive. So we now militarize other countries!

Therefore: No, don't but the F-35 - buy the Eurofighter Typhoon! It's incredibly awesome and incredibly expensive - just what American should like. Also, get rid of your Abrahms Tank - get a Leopard! We also sell incredibly quiet, fuel cell powered submarines! And of course, Heckler&Koch sell everything you need in the realm of small arms.

[Galacticruler]

The F-35 is just another drain for cash to flow through.

all other fighters work just fine.

[Seret]

I think what we need to do is focus more on a urban warfare type jet.

There's a word for that: helicopter.

[Wesreidau]

Necroing threads to quote Lenin is always appropriate, Rage.

In your country, Lenin necros you.

In Soviet Russia, you necro Lenin! Why do think he's still in glass box?

And Germany, keep your weapons systems to yourselves. The last thing the US wants is a third dustup with an "unspecified European aggressor nation" that happens to hold patents on our guns. It was embarrassing enough with the Springfield / Mauser debacle.

There are no 'urban warfare' jets possible. Helicopters are the best air support you can ask for in those situations because of their loiter time and precision, but they're also extremely vulnerable if the enemy has MANPADS or even WWII-era AAA. Drones have even longer loiter times and even if they get shot down, nobody cares. If we assume 'urban warfare' to mean counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism in a city, then drones are ideal because anti-drone systems are currently nonexistent on this battlefield. But if we are talking about conventional conflict in a city, it will be helicopters and jets. There really isn't much to improve on.

[SargeRho]

Not even the US Airforce should be buying the F-35. Or any Lockheed Martin products for that matter.

[flyin_ruski]

Lets say that we are talking about the F-35C.One of those costs 199.4 (Lets round and say 200) million USD.The performance of the F-35 is by far not worth the 200 million price tag that it has.Let me show you just what I am talking about when is say "It isnt worth it".

~A list of all Currently-detected problems with the aircraft~

Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.

Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.

Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touch screen controls.

The radar performs poorly or not at all.

Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.

Maintenance tools do not work

Afterburner Damages the aircraft

Now is an aircraft with problems such as those worth the 200 million USD price tag?I think not.I think that the better option is just buying 6 (Yes,you heard me.SIX!) perfectly working and fully developed AV-8B Harriers for the price of one F-35C.

Where are you getting your info about the aircrafts problems?

[King Arthur]

@flyin_ruski: I can at least verify that the F-35 is in fact seeing significant delays and/or problems in development of its software, it's mentioned everywhere (Aviation Week, for example). I can't say one way or the other on the other problems mentioned by runboy398, but I'm going to assume the worst (it is the F-35 we're talking about here!) and assume the others are correct as well.

[flyin_ruski]

Seems to be working out for the Marine Corps.

[IndieDev3D]

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

Actually the only V-22 deaths were caused during development, where as the Harrier was called as a "complete" fighter, I suggest you get your facts straight you stupid Brit.

[Ace_Of_Spades]

why don't we just use the f-4 its a little old but the enemy would besurprised if we switched airplanes now and again

[Canopus]

why don't we just use the f-4 its a little old but the enemy would besurprised if we switched airplanes now and again

Because its outdated.

[drakesdoom]

Because its outdated.

Though the electronics and weapons system is outdated the airframe itself still holds several performance records above any other combat craft most notably speed at sea level and acceleration. If the same design was rebuilt from the ground up with all gear you would have the best fast ground attack plane in the world.

[Nibb31]

I love the F-4, the sexiest fighter in History IMO, but if you were to design a new one "from the ground up" with modern technology, requirements, and materials, you would probably end up with something looking like the F-35 in the end. The same would be true for any antiquated design: the SLS is what you get if you try to build a Saturn V with modern components.

[Comrade Jenkens]

I think that Britain needs to use the F-35 as we were stupid enough to get rid of our harriers. It would probrably be better to develop a naval version of the Eurofighter as that is by far the better aircraft.

We're not going to see any 6th generation aircraft for at least 30 years so no need to worry about them in comparison just yet. There are only 3 or so 5th generation aircraft in service.