The F-35 thread

garyc said:
This is what happened when the F-117 was shot down by Yugoslav forces in the Balkans war. It was coming in for an attack run, opened the bay and got targeted.
Click to expand...

Actually, it got targeted because the Yugoslavians were able to guess the bomber's attack path, partly due to sloppy procedures by NATO (reusing the same flight path, really?). Thus they stationed their SAM sites along that path, but because of NATO SEAD they had to keep them powered down. They used a human spotter to visually confirm the F-117's presence, then powered up their SAMs up at the same time the bomber was above them and had opened its bay doors, got a lock and fired 2 missiles, then powered down again. Even then, only one of those missiles hit.

It's a very shrewd approach by the Yugoslavians, but at the end of the day it was down to split-second timing and a lot of luck, which is something you really shouldn't rely on in a combat situation. If the NATO bombers had been taking randomised routes as they should've, the Yugoslavians would never have had the chance.
 
As an aside: Do you seriously think the Israelis would be so keen on the F-35 if it was even halfway as bad the detractors make out? It's hard to think of any defence force more focused than the Israelis on acquiring and using weapons that actually deliver the punch they need. For them it's about survival, so they make damn sure their stuff works, and works better than anything else. Even with US assistance (which Egypt also gets), the last thing the Israelis can afford or would even consider is an overpriced and underperforming platform. Yet they nearly doubled their initial order, and are considering doubling it again. Curious, eh. Maybe they know a thing or two about the F-35 that the haters just don't get.

(There's talk about them adding some of their own tech into it, but that's because they feared the Obama administration might sell the F-35 to Saudi Arabia. Under Trump that risk goes away somewhat.)
 
garyc said:
The cannon does make some sense. When the F-35 opens the bay doors to launch a missile all stealth disappears and the enemy air defence system starts to take notice. This is what happened when the F-117 was shot down by Yugoslav forces in the Balkans war. It was coming in for an attack run, opened the bay and got targeted. Having the option of using the gun will increase the tactical flexibility in hostile environments. It is notable that this gun has been enhanced to also allow for more effectiveness in the ground attack role.

Another scenario may be when the enemy aircraft gets close, as could happen if it is also using stealth technology. The F-35 pilot will have to open the bay to fire a missile. If the aircraft is maneuvering then the aerodynamic change will provide a disturbance that needs to be accounted for, delaying the response to the threat. This will give an advantage to the opposing aircraft.
Click to expand...

The cannon on the F-35A is still a problem. Software for it is not complete and is expected in 2018.

Also to fire it, the F-35 has to open the gun door. Because the gun is off the centreline, this results in a yaw (increased drag/ air resistance on one side of the plane). This reduces the stealth aspect and also affects the boresight/ accuracy of the gun.
 
The_Assimilator said:
Actually, it got targeted because the Yugoslavians were able to guess the bomber's attack path, partly due to sloppy procedures by NATO (reusing the same flight path, really?). Thus they stationed their SAM sites along that path, but because of NATO SEAD they had to keep them powered down. They used a human spotter to visually confirm the F-117's presence, then powered up their SAMs up at the same time the bomber was above them and had opened its bay doors, got a lock and fired 2 missiles, then powered down again. Even then, only one of those missiles hit.

It's a very shrewd approach by the Yugoslavians, but at the end of the day it was down to split-second timing and a lot of luck, which is something you really shouldn't rely on in a combat situation. If the NATO bombers had been taking randomised routes as they should've, the Yugoslavians would never have had the chance.
Click to expand...

The Yugoslav's also hit a second F-117, it was damaged and managed to return to Aviano, but never flew again.
 
... and since Snoopdoggydog (the OP) is a great fan of Putin and a self-admitted foe of the United States, one can't help wondering why he delights in starting threads on how unimpressive the F-35 is. Could there be an agenda that happens to intersect with the his own geopolitical views?

The organisation (POGO - Project on Government Oversight) that published his quoted report in the OP also strenuously opposed the F-22 in 2001 and 2006, claiming it didn't meet basic testing criteria and was too expensive. How wrong they were.

I'm not holding my breath for an RT article headed "F-35: What a Great Plane! US and Allies Should Order More." If the USA's adversaries really believed the F-35 was such a dog they'd do everything they could to encourage the USA to waste its money on more, while they laugh their way to cheaper superiority. They're not. That's how the game really works.
 
Last edited:
My current feeling is that the F35 is turning into a jack of all trades master of none aircraft which will severely hamper its life span. The air frame will not survive as long as the F15, F16, F18 and A10's that were built with specific roles in mind. The B-52 will probably still be flying when the F-35 get replaced with something shinier.
 
Blu82 said:
The B-52 will probably still be flying when the F-35 get replaced with something shinier.
Click to expand...
Of course. That's the way it's meant to be. Always. No-one has ever said they're gonna stop developing new stuff.

Operational and program lifespan does not mean stopping new stuff. It just means you project funding and resource to ensure spares, serviceability and upgrades. All customers want to know that. Most programs are designed with a program lifespan of 30-35 years, and the newer stuff slots in seamlessly. And we'll always have that. We can be pretty much 100% confident there are Papers and not just PowerPoints on F-36 all the way to F-40...
 
Last edited:
Blu82 said:
My current feeling is that the F35 is turning into a jack of all trades master of none aircraft which will severely hamper its life span. The air frame will not survive as long as the F15, F16, F18 and A10's that were built with specific roles in mind. The B-52 will probably still be flying when the F-35 get replaced with something shinier.
Click to expand...

This and pretty much everything else you have said in regards to the F-35.

A fellow reader of Tyler Rogoway perhaps?
 
Arthur said:
... and since Snoopdoggydog (the OP) is a great fan of Putin and a self-admitted foe of the United States, one can't help wondering why he delights in starting threads on how unimpressive the F-35 is. Could there be an agenda that happens to intersect with the his own geopolitical views?

The organisation (POGO - Project on Government Oversight) that published his quoted report in the OP also strenuously opposed the F-22 in 2001 and 2006, claiming it didn't meet basic testing criteria and was too expensive. How wrong they were.

I'm not holding my breath for an RT article headed "F-35: What a Great Plane! US and Allies Should Order More." If the USA's adversaries really believed the F-35 was such a dog they'd do everything they could to encourage the USA to waste its money on more, while they laugh their way to cheaper superiority. They're not. That's how the game really works.
Click to expand...

Threads like this are not bad, the type of people that would approve of it are exactly the type of people we would prefer to be in Russian hardware :D Let them believe their mud, imagine if Russian hardware supporters got a clue and got decent hardware. In reality theres only 2 reasons people would choose Russian hardware over US hardware.

1) They cant afford US hardware
2) The US wont sell them the hardware.
 
Arthur said:
... and since Snoopdoggydog (the OP) is a great fan of Putin and a self-admitted foe of the United States, one can't help wondering why he delights in starting threads on how unimpressive the F-35 is. Could there be an agenda that happens to intersect with the his own geopolitical views?
Click to expand...
He hasn't posted anything since July last year by the looks of it, this thread is outlasting him :)

Arthur said:
I'm not holding my breath for an RT article headed "F-35: What a Great Plane! US and Allies Should Order More." If the USA's adversaries really believed the F-35 was such a dog they'd do everything they could to encourage the USA to waste its money on more, while they laugh their way to cheaper superiority. They're not. That's how the game really works.
Click to expand...
That goes both ways, every bit of US media that discusses T-50/PAK FA or the J-20 also just criticizes instead of encouraging "the enemy" to build more of their flawed fighter jets.
 
ghoti said:
Threads like this are not bad, the type of people that would approve of it are exactly the type of people we would prefer to be in Russian hardware :D Let them believe their mud, imagine if Russian hardware supporters got a clue and got decent hardware. In reality theres only 2 reasons people would choose Russian hardware over US hardware.

1) They cant afford US hardware
2) The US wont sell them the hardware.
Click to expand...

You should go have a long insightful conversation with every astronaut that ever died in a US space shuttle and explain to them how US technology is superior to the Russian Soyuz that is still operational and has killed far fewer people despite flying far more missions. They should appreciate just how privileged they were to have the funding and the access to die on "superior" hardware.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
You should go have a long insightful conversation with every astronaut that ever died in a US space shuttle and explain to them how US technology is superior to the Russian Soyuz that is still operational and has killed far fewer people despite flying far more missions. They should appreciate just how privileged they were to have the funding and the access to die on "superior" hardware.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we having two different conversations. Mine is about military hardware. Yours depends on how you want to deflect.

The NASA budget is not the US military budget.
 
ghoti said:
Yeah, we having two different conversations. Mine is about military hardware. Yours depends on how you want to deflect.
Click to expand...

You said "hardware", don't backpedal now that you've started the generalization game and happen to be losing it. I'm still waiting for your answer w.r.t. who has downed more planes of the other in US vs Russia conflicts btw.

Not that it matters, but space travel tech = military tech btw, do you think all those ICBM's and jets just rely on their own military rocket engine research? Do spy sattelites fly in the atmosphere only? :D
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
That goes both ways, every bit of US media that discusses T-50/PAK FA or the J-20 also just criticizes instead of encouraging "the enemy" to build more of their flawed fighter jets.
Click to expand...
:D Good point. Not that I have a very high regard for the general US media - their idealogical alignments are more parochially partisan.
 
If we are talking about space hardware, what is Russia's version of the Saturn V or the curiosity rover and how did they fare?
 
Unhappy438 said:
If we are talking about space hardware, what is Russia's version of the Saturn V or the curiosity rover and how did they fare?
Click to expand...

That would be the N1 that was never really completed, after which Russia has never prioritized landing on the moon or mars so it's not surprising that they haven't developed anything for such a mission.

As awesome as the Apollo program was, it was clearly too expensive given that NASA also went for cheaper, lighter, more reusable designs afterwards.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
That would be the N1 that was never really completed, after which Russia has never prioritized landing on the moon or mars so it's not surprising that they haven't developed anything for such a mission.

As awesome as the Apollo program was, it was clearly too expensive given that NASA also went for cheaper, lighter, more reusable designs afterwards.
Click to expand...

You can't really compare though as non of the re-usable designs ever put men on the moon, completely different missions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X