Should we buy the F-35?

[TwoHedWlf]

The F-35 will become the 2nd operational ST/VOV/L fighter in the world. It has better avionics, better stealth, better control systems and so on. It will be the next great fighter after the F 22

2nd in the world would be the Yak-38. F-35 is the third. Actually, could be possibly argued that the AV-8B Harrier II is redesigned enough to give it the 3rd slot meaning the F-35 is the fourth if you dislike the F-35 enough to want it bumped down another slot.

[Van Disaster]

Better than what, too.

As far as I can see the entire thing is a giant compromise -especially the B model - which is not usually something that leads to greatness.

[drakesdoom]

That compromise issue is my main complaint. The US continues to retire airframes and move towards one super expensive can almost do anything but not really anything fighter.

For example the F/A-18E/F replaced the F-14 as the navy's main interceptor. Now the F/A-18E/F is a great fighter don't get me wrong, however at twice the cost it carries less missiles, is slower, and has a smaller combat range. Yes it does have newer electronics and does fill a multi-role function, but so would having multiple airframes.

[Seret]

For example the F/A-18E/F replaced the F-14 as the navy's main interceptor. Now the F/A-18E/F is a great fighter don't get me wrong, however at twice the cost it carries less missiles, is slower, and has a smaller combat range. Yes it does have newer electronics and does fill a multi-role function, but so would having multiple airframes.

Sure, but continuing to fly the F-14s wasn't an option. Carrier ops are hard, the airframes were old. They had to be replaced by something, and the F/A-18 was already in service and highly successful. It should be noted that the lack of threats in the air superiority role meant that towards the end of their life the F-14s were actually pressed into the ground attack role, for which they were less capable than the F/A-18. The Tomcat was a beautiful plane, but replacing it with the Hornet made sense whichever way you looked at it.

[drakesdoom]

I don't see how building new F/A-18E/Fs for double the cost of an F-14 for sir superiority and as an attack aircraft to replace the F-4 at 20 times the cost, Harriers at 2.5 times the cost, and Intruders at twice the cost. A super hornet may be able to do any role but you could load 2 or 3 carriers with a variety of aircraft that only fill one role but do it better. Yes existing airframes were aging and needed replacing but I have seen no practical reason to develop a multi-role air frame. Dedicated role aircraft are cheaper to design, make, and maintain while being better at what they do. Please give me one advantage of the super hornet over say making a super tomcat or super phantom?

[Seret]

Please give me one advantage of the super hornet over say making a super tomcat or super phantom?

Well, anything would be better than a Phantom, that thing was a dog. You're right though that a multi-role aircraft is a jack-of-all trades (and therefore master of none). The obvious advantage is flexibility. Having dedicated types is great if you always know the nature of the threat. During the Cold War it was sensible to always sail with a couple of squadrons of hardcore naval air superiority aircraft on board, but what happens if the air threat disappears (as it largely has). All of a sudden you'll want more strike aircraft. A multi-role aircraft is useful in lots of different wars, single role ones are often designed to fight the last war. As I noted above, the decidedly single-role F-14 was shoehorned into a ground attack role at the end of it's life. Hell, the Iranians even tried using them as AEWs. So just because an aircraft is designed for a single role, that doesn't mean it won't have to try it's hand at multi-roling it once it gets off the drawing board and into the real world.

I'm not saying that all aircraft should be multi-role, far from it. But I don't think it's true that they're less cost-effective than dedicated types. With a multi-role aircraft you'll simply be able to get away with having less of them, which means less expensive air and ground crew, a simpler logistics system, and overall large cost savings. That's why they're so popular with airforces and navies.

[rowns]

What about the Saab gripen NG?

[camulus777]

I don't see how the F-35 is the worst fighter ever. It's fast, light, has the best composite radar system ever designed and put into a fighter craft, longer range, stealth, VTOL, and has a omnidirectional firing system that allows a pilot to lock onto targets he is simply looking at without the craft being pointed that direction.

The question is is it worth the price? Seeing as one can take out 8 targets at once before that even know whats happening, and its the most sophisticated jet ever designed. It just depends if you have a threat that you want dealt with.

[Seret]

It just depends if you have a threat that you want dealt with.

I think that's the issue. A lot of folks look at it and see a ton of money spent developing a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

[Canopus]

I don't see how the F-35 is the worst fighter ever. It's fast, light, has the best composite radar system ever designed and put into a fighter craft, longer range, stealth, VTOL, and has a omnidirectional firing system that allows a pilot to lock onto targets he is simply looking at without the craft being pointed that direction.

The question is is it worth the price? Seeing as one can take out 8 targets at once before that even know whats happening, and its the most sophisticated jet ever designed. It just depends if you have a threat that you want dealt with.

Fast? Maybe on short sprints but it doesn't even has Supercruise. It also doesn't have a long range and even less if you choose the VTOL version (and i know it can carry drop tanks but they would just ruin its only advantage) and about the HUD targeting system, many fighters today use such a system.

Its not the worst aircraft but it can't compete with other fighters on the market simply for the fact that its not giving you the best for all the money you spend on it. Other modern fighters are overall better aircraft for less money.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Canopus

[Tech Support]

The Gripen is a great aircraft, unfortunately SAAB does not have the lobbying power to sell it other nations, especially when the competition is Lockheed, Dassult and Eurofighter.

[736]

to you guys saying the F-35 worse than the f-22, and more expensive: you are not seeing the big picture, only part of it.

The F-35 is adaptable to many roles and not mainly air superiority, meaning that it must sacrifice some attributes to make up for others suitable for it's missions. It has a more diverse range of missiles and bombs to choose from than the F-22, helping fulfill its role as a multirole fighter. You also need to count in the strategic advantages and conviniece of being able to take-off in such a small area, and the Vtol variant. And its called a "strike" fighter for a reason; most of its missions will be close air support or attacking ground targets. The high-tech radar equipment costs an awful lot as well, and it has one of the best out there.

[NKL]

I don't see how the F-35 is the worst fighter ever. It's fast, light, has the best composite radar system ever designed and put into a fighter craft, longer range, stealth, VTOL, and has a omnidirectional firing system that allows a pilot to lock onto targets he is simply looking at without the craft being pointed that direction.

The question is is it worth the price? Seeing as one can take out 8 targets at once before that even know whats happening, and its the most sophisticated jet ever designed. It just depends if you have a threat that you want dealt with.

He has NO range. No Supercruise. mach 1.4 for VTOL version. Mach 1.6 for the other. Bad instantaneous turn, and bad sustain turn. In a duel in shot distance, F-16 will take it without a problem. Rafale has got the omnishot too. and TESTED. 'overtheshoulder shot' google. It's NOT a air superiority fighter. Absolutely NOT. JSF Joint STRIKE fighter. Going deeply in enemy lane, pop out radar site, going the **** out fast as it can. because of the short takeoff capabilities, can be based on close enemy lane base for ultra fast surprise attack.

And NO. it CANT shot 8 people without them knowing what's happening. Please. 8 shot = 8 missile. This F35 isnt the F22 with 6 AIM 120 inboard while stealth is preserved. When you have 8 missile on a F35, you are no longer stealth, even from front. Also, modern northern country. Don't belive F-35 IS A CHEAPER F-22 pls. This is not the case.

F-35 is a MARVELOUS aircraft made by the USA with their way of engaging fights. Many planes together, shooting sequentially in order to guarantee the kill. That's when they got 8 kills without the enemy been able to respond. When outnumbering. This plane assure no loss. Versatility, future compatibility with modern army. But don't say F-35 is great for the wrong reason !

They are no need for ultra fast and agile aircraft, because we are of course limitated by our body in the end. We only need a good way to carry radar and missile without being killed. We only need to improve Missile speed, agility, range. To improve detection. Go check meteor.

For other people talking about F-14, Yeah, Its radar is obsolete, the all system is, range isnt efficient enough nowadays, also, have you see topgun? this plane is well know for flatspin of death...

[PPR]

A lot of the criticisms on the forum about the F-35 are not new. Over the years, I've seen the same criticisms about other weapon systems the US has developed, such as the M-1 Tank, the F-15, the B-1, the B-2, the M-2, V-22, F-22 etc.... All of these systems turned out to superb weapon systems, giving the US a capability that no other country has.

The bottom line is this, modern weapon system are necessarily complicated. Complicated systems take a lot of time and money to develop, and include a long process of working out the bugs. People look at the unit cost of an F-35A at $114 million and their eyes bug out from sticker shock. But compare that to a unit cost of a Boeing 787, at $232 million. Jet aircraft are simply expensive.

Can it do things that other aircraft can't do? Yes. In most of the recent real-world conflicts, enemy targets were disproportionately destroyed by stealth aircraft despite being few in number. It's much easier to hit a target when nobody is shooting back because they don't even know you're there. For what it is, the cost is reasonable. For what it will do, it'll be a bargain.

[Bill Phil]

The F-35 has been in development since the 90s. It's also an air superiority fighter, and as technology advances, the enemy advances too. So it's what came out.

Its not a bad fighter, it's just not a replacement, either. Or shouldn't be, anyhow.

Also, drones are limited in what they can do. Automated ones, not the remote piloted ones.

[FishInferno]

And as people are saying that we don't need a new fighter (seen a few posts about that), The US may want new systems due to tensions with Russia at the moment due to the Ukrainian crisis.

DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to say there will be a war or anything of the like. I am just stating the facts.

[CptRichardson]

The F-35 is fine. it needs to have an ACCELERATED production rate, not buying less of it. Compared to the development of the F-16 (Fighters were literally falling out of the skies for close to a decade from engine and fuel system teething issues), the F-14 (oh god, the wing), and the others of the 'Teen' series, the F-35 has lost no pilots in tests, nor any planes in flight. Even the one that had the engine fire landed safely and was salvaged (though was then dissected to see how well it held up to the fire). In short, it costs so much because we're being so damn timid with it and triple-checking all the checkboxes.

It's not built for the same missions the teen fighters were. Why? Because those missions don't exist anymore. The world has changed, and the F-35 is a stupidly ambitious plane, yes. But that's because the US doesn't want to have to put out another 5 planes to fit every single circumstance. It can do things that would leave any other plane in our inventory crying, and it can do them today. (-B variant operational now, -A variant expected operational next year, -C the year after that) Missiles laugh at dogfights now. Manuverability doesn't save you, only getting the first shot off, or barring that having buddies the enemy can't see waiting for them to shoot at you. It can get shot at by SAM sites and still complete it's mission because it doesn't have to drop its munitions to escape like a current fighter does. It can semi-supercruise while carrying a warload (F-22 can barely/sorta). It's future-proofed. Current planes literally have no more space left on them for more junk. They budgeted a stupidly massive amount of space for more sensors/avionics/fancy fun items the F-35 might need in the future. And, more importantly, they've already got a spot laid out for an Air to Air laser array, thanks to the 'worthless' -B variant. The whole fan compartment (which is there, but dedicated to a fuel tank on all variants) is designed to be removed and replaced with a generator powered by the main engine and two FEL's. So, it'll be able to actually defend itself against incoming missiles offensively.

Sure, it's not pretty, but we need the capabilities it has, it will actually save us money in the long run (having a common fleet saves us something like 500 billion over the next 40 years compared to the crazy-different spare parts we need now), and more importantly: All the old fighters can't handle half the things coming off the line in other countries, no matter how much you tool them up. The F-35 is literally born to handle this new crap.

[DiamondBack973]

We shouldn't buy the F-35. As was previously stated, it has a small weapons bay and a very short fuel fraction (external stores would screw up the RADAR cross-section), and additionally, it has only 1 engine (not as redundant as it should be) and has an airframe built to accommodate a bulky lifter fan, making it worse in general.

[Ogcorp Squirrel]

[quote name='sodopro']You know, the F-35. In my opinion, the worst fighter ever made.

So, should we (any country buying the F-35) buy it?

Any other choices out there?[/QUOTE]

The F-35 is an overhyped, billion dollar waste of taxpayer money and research, in my opinion, build something LESS COMPLEX YOU STUPID IDIOTS AT LOCKHEED MARTIN, YOUR STUPID F-35 IS GONNA HAVE TO DO DOGFIGHTING, BUT CANT EVEN BEAT AN F-16, ARGGGGGGGGGGGGG! I really hate the f-35's poor everything capability.


p.s. the F-35 is broken from the VTOL Fan to the stupid lights not meeting FAA standards at one point, cancel it!

DONT BUY IT

- some American dude

[Wanderfound]

Anybody linked to Brecher's take yet?

[url]https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/cheap-drones/[/url]

[Sanic]

[URL="https://imgflip.com/i/uotau"][IMG]https://i.imgflip.com/uotau.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

[pTrevTrevs]

The F-35, if it's bought, will replace the A-10, which is something it shouldn't do. Because it's a stealth aircraft, it needs to carry its weapons internally, which seriously limits its capability to provide Close Air Support (CAS). The A-10, on the other hand, it perfectly suited for CAS with its 37mm cannon and high payload capacity, as well as its reputation for being able to take a lot of damage. The F-35, on the other hand, can be completely and utterly ruined if lightning strikes nearby (according to my cousin, who is an Air Force mechanic). It's stealth ability is inadequate as well, I remember hearing about a radar that can detect the F-35.

So basically, it's a fragile, detectable aircraft that underperforms in its intended role, so no, we should not buy it. The A-10 is tougher, cheaper, and more capable.

[Dfthu]

[quote name='pTrevTrevs']The F-35, on the other hand, can be completely and utterly ruined if lightning strikes nearby (according to my cousin, who is an Air Force mechanic).[/QUOTE]

Does the lighting take out the computers or something like that because that sounds horrible.

[LordFerret]

[quote name='pTrevTrevs']The F-35, if it's bought, will replace the A-10, which is something it shouldn't do. Because it's a stealth aircraft, it needs to carry its weapons internally, which seriously limits its capability to provide Close Air Support (CAS). The A-10, on the other hand, it perfectly suited for CAS with its 37mm cannon and high payload capacity, as well as its reputation for being able to take a lot of damage. The F-35, on the other hand, can be completely and utterly ruined if lightning strikes nearby (according to my cousin, who is an Air Force mechanic). It's stealth ability is inadequate as well, I remember hearing about a radar that can detect the F-35.

So basically, it's a fragile, detectable aircraft that underperforms in its intended role, so no, we should not buy it. The A-10 is tougher, cheaper, and more capable.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Dfthu']Does the lighting take out the computers or something like that because that sounds horrible.[/QUOTE]

No, not ruined ... it's merely a maintenance issue.

[quote]The F-35B did not maintain "residual inerting after flight for the required interval of 12 hours, which is a lightning protection requirement." In other words, the plane would be vulnerable to lightning strike if it were forced to fly twice in a 12-hour span, unless the fuel tanks were frequently "purged" with "external nitrogen."
That's apparently an unacceptable additional layer of maintenance. If a solution is not found, F-35Bs will require the development of alternate lightning protection methods.

[/quote]
[URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-all-the-problems-with-the-f-35-that-the-pentagon-found-in-a-2014-report-2015-3[/URL]

[pTrevTrevs]

[quote name='Dfthu']Does the lighting take out the computers or something like that because that sounds horrible.[/QUOTE]
Well, I imagine it would fry the computers, and since the F-35 relies on electronics so much, one well placed lightning strike (or EMP) would render the instruments useless, and the fly-by-wire probably messed up too. The A-10 and F-15 still use analog instruments, and therefore are not affected by lightning as much.

Funny, the F-35 is named the lightning...