F-35 is a failure

How can it all the A-10s are going away.

Any chance you can find the actually you tub link and not that garbage website. It went crazy when I clicked on it

 

Norm: the video was put out by RT, the network that has putin a vested interest in the inferiority of any US aircraft (both commercial and military).

The Russians got this story from "National Security Network, a progressive think tank . . . " "challenges misguided, overly militarized conservative approaches foreign policy." (sic) The National Security Network does not like anything that makes the US stronger. if you do not believe me, please read their website: What We Believe - National Security Network Mission

Yes, of course, the F-35 was beaten in initial dogfights between it and more established, more familiar aircraft because "the earlier leaked test documents on the F-16 dogfight in California provided only a partial picture because it involved an F-35 that was not completely operational.

For example, the pilot was not equipped with the F-35's much-heralded advanced helmet, a key feature in dogfights th

Here is the same story, but from a less biased outlet: Report: F-35 Inferior to Older US, Foreign Fighters | Military.comat provides a 360-degree view through the surrounding aircraft."

 

Where's the viper driver on here (Hannbal?)? I'd be interested to hear if he would go up against a -35 in an actual combat scenario.

 

No worries the F-35 will be used to flush out the enemy aircraft and then the F-15 will come in for the kill as a missile truck.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-doubles-f-15c-missile-load-in-2040c-eagle-u-416766/

 

F15's are still up? I thought they were done? And no I'm not confusing them with the '14

 

F-15s are still around and will be for years to come... Some of the older ones are running out of airframe life and are being retired but it will be a long time before they are all gone. New F-15s are being produced for the Saudi Arabian AF and unless any new orders come through the line will shut down but that's still a couple years away if memory serves.

If the F-35 continues to have bad press it will be interesting to see if the F-15SE gets some renewed interest

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-15SE_Silent_Eagle

 

Are we in trouble? This is an aviation forum and here we are talking about things political . . .

 

They go hand in hand when speaking of military aircraft.

 

Not all new military aircraft ever given the green light by the pentagon have been successful. Sometimes they ask for too much. I think the F35 needed too much compromise to meet all the different military objectives and variations.

I don't know but it's my guess.

 

Precisely why I thought Boeing was working on a stealthy FA/18 "Super Hornet".

I think the JSF concept is interesting, but the range is too broad - "jack of all trades, master of none" is not what I think of when I think "air superiority".

 

Historically, "compromise" and "weapons development" go hand in hand.

 

There's a recent link in the A-10 thread.

 

Wanting one thing to do everything for nothing is the problem. Multi-role has become over-expected.

 

After the MacNamarra debacle with the TFX (LBJ) F-111 trying to make it work for all services , one would think that it was a lesson learned but here we see it again. Politician's committees designing an instrument of war as if it was a Leatherman's gimmick.The Air Force version of the airplane was way over weight to be used on a carrier and there were too many things required by the Navy and Marines that the Air Force didn't want and it went on and on. In most new programs they too soon become mired in congressional mud.

 

Decisions made for political purposes rather than the needs of the military.

Choosing contractors based on what districts they are in is always a good one.

Voting for submarine construction because they named the class for your district is one of my favorites too.


Politicians are scum and it doesn't seem to matter what party they represent.

 

The F-18 could have been a good all-service aircraft had not Lockheed (with most political muscle) won the LWF competition. Of course it would have been the F-17 instead of -18, and Northrop (perennial government contractor loser) would have been the prime contractor rather than McDAC.
light weight fighter competition - Ask.com YouTube Search

The best reason for not having a common aircraft for Air Force and Navy is so that we get to see the T'birds and Blues fly different aircraft.

 

I know GD sold off the Falcon to Lockheed, but it was GD that submitted the F-16 to the LWF, right?

Also, didn't the YF-17 eventually become the F/18?

http://www.aerotechnews.com/news/2013/08/31/advanced-super-hornet-demonstrates-significant-stealth-range-improvements/

 

Correct. The political clout of either one was always an order of magnitude greater than Northrop.

Yes, but the government gave McDAC the contract and relegated Northrop to a sub-contractor role.

 

There have been a few Naval aircraft that would have been just as good for the AF. The original prop Corsair and the Bearcat were great airplanes, just as good as the anything that the AAF had, as was the A4 Skyhawk, and as much as it pained the USAF to buy the Phantom, they had to because it was better than anything else they could get at the time. Generally however, the weight needed to make an airplane carrier capable makes it a bit of a dog when compared to a land based variant.

When the try to do too much and end up with a camel when the committee is trying to design a horse (as what happened with the F111 and the F35) is when it gets into trouble. We've all seen airplanes that failed miserably when they tried to make it do something that it wasn't designed to do in the first place, and successful multi-role aircraft are about a common as hen's teeth.

It sounds so good saying that there will be a high level of "commonality" between variants but the reality is that the cost of developing each variant is almost the same as starting from scratch and the camel that they come up with never seems to work nearly as well as the right tool for the job.

Right now we've got a situation where if all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...

 

I am not in the industry. It appears the F-15SE proposal has ended. Of course, it could be re-started.

 

Lockheed did not win the LWF contest, General Dynamics did. L-M inherited the program later when they bought out the aircraft portion of GD. GD said if they had known what USAF was going to do with the YF-16 (replace the F-4), they would have designed a different airplane.

The F-35 is now working fine. The aircraft doing BFM with the F-16 was one of the very early models and a dogfight was not the object of the test. There are now nearly 200 flying and the first Italian assembled F-35 recently flew and will be flying to Luke AFB to help train Italian pilots on the F-35. The Marine Corps recently declared IOC with their first squadron of F-35s.

 

Im not military but enjoy the conversations here about military aircraft. I guess i dont understand how this or any recently developed aircraft in the modern era become a "failure"? With hundreds of millions and in some cases tens of billions of dollars spent on development, computer simulation and 60 years of fighter design, how do we get to the point where an operational aircraft isnt stellar? Is it politics, too many chiefs, not enough ingenuity, lack of new design, etc, that allows us to spend billions to come up with something "new" that isnt light years ahead of 1970s and 1980s technology in terms of performance and airspace dominance? Maybe im simplifying too much, but i dont get it and Id like to hear from those of you that do. Does a new helmet make the aircraft that much better and if so why arent we developing that for existing aircraft and saving BILLIONS in new aircraft that arent dominant in every way?
Nd

 

Terry, haven't seen you post in a while. Welcome back!

 

+1