Article

2014-09-03 Science & Technology

Is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter the New F-4?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2014-09-03 10:52|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 My fear is it will be more like the F-105.

Posted by DarthVader 2014-09-03 12:31|| 2014-09-03 12:31|| Front Page Top

#2 allegedly the sukhoi fighters totally outmatch it which is bad news for australia as indonesia is buying shedloads of them

Posted by anon1 2014-09-03 12:32|| 2014-09-03 12:32|| Front Page Top

#3 Said it before, I'll say it again -- kill the F35 program dead, dead, dead.

1) re-open the factory and turn out a couple hundred more F22s.

2) let the Air Force decide between an updated F16 and updated F18E/F as its 'mud-mover' ground-attack aircraft.

3) keep the A10 around a while longer.

4) learn from the Navy X47 program and get working on drone ground-attack aircraft that can go into harm's way.

Posted by Steve White 2014-09-03 12:56|| 2014-09-03 12:56|| Front Page Top

#4 I might agree Doc, but I want to know the variable cost of the next F-35 built. If it is too high cancel. I would also want to know the variable cost of the next Lawn Dart +++ as a comparo. We must also consider the costs in kicking the Royal Navy in the balls. I suspect the loss of the F-35B would lead to the two new fleet carriers being scrapped or repurposed into some sort of LPH.

Posted by Shipman 2014-09-03 18:27|| 2014-09-03 18:27|| Front Page Top

#5 That's the Brits problem. They used to have an aircraft industry -- they can build a plane for their carriers, if those carriers end up being built (and I think they won't and it won't be our fault either).

F16 or F18 upgraded to gen4.5 would be a lot less expensive and work 95% as well. For the money I'd do that and build more F22s.

Posted by Steve White 2014-09-03 18:40|| 2014-09-03 18:40|| Front Page Top

#6 Heresy, Heresy, I say!

Posted by JosephMendiola 2014-09-03 20:03|| 2014-09-03 20:03|| Front Page Top

#7 A new block 50 F-16 (with stuff to keep it flying) costs about $75M (in 2014 dollars) based on FMS to Oman and other Gulf States.

A F-35 (with stuff to keep it flying) costs about $175 (in 2014 dollars) based on FMS to Korea.

The F-35 is VASTLY better than an F-16 block 50. Like 50-1 in air-air combat, and faster, and better avionics, and longer range, and and and.

So, yes we could buy about twice as many F-16s, with the same money we are spending on the F-35, but why bother? Especially, if you guys are worried about fighting newish MIGs and SUs then the F-16 is really a bad place to make a big investment.

Posted by rammer 2014-09-03 21:24|| 2014-09-03 21:24|| Front Page Top

#8 Cause the Germans had better tanks than the Americans and got a much higher kill ratio. How did that play in the end? Sometimes quantity makes up for quality. The problem here is that someone may have tried for one tech too far down the production line. Reminds me of the Germans having the ME262 by '43 but kept screwing with the tech trying to make it do things it wasn't intended to and never getting into production in numbers that were really needed to be effective by '44 and '45.

Posted by Procopius2k 2014-09-03 21:45|| 2014-09-03 21:45|| Front Page Top

#9 The downsides of the F-35 aren't its costs, but its design.

The inclusion of a pilot is a huge burden in weight and performance. This is probably the last fighter plane that will have a pilot.

The single engine decision is going increase losses of pilots by at least a dozen and fail hundreds of additional missions over the life-cycle of the plane.

Also, its range is pretty short for its mission, which again is going to cause some additional pilot deaths and mission failures due to airborne refueling mishaps. This can be mitigated by adding another few thousand pounds of fuel in some sort of disposable take-off tank, which will increase range a lot while not compromising mission stealth. But carrier operations would be more dangerous, and some additional sailors would probably be lost.

So, there are things to critique about the plane, and the program to build it. But is not terrible. And if history is any guide then the ones we build today, will be flying 50 years from now; so, let's take some time and spend the money to get them right and invest in our future.

Posted by rammer 2014-09-03 21:49|| 2014-09-03 21:49|| Front Page Top

#10 We are talking planes not tanks and before the war not during it. Big difference.

Compare the Zero to the P-41 in China (or the underpowered Brewster F2A Buffalo in Indochina) at the beginning of the war. From that example I infer that it is better to start out with a better plane.

Once the war gets going, well then saturating the enemy is a fine strategy, but it is not cheap.

Right now we are not involved in an actual air to air campaign, and any money saved in military procurement can be redirected to buy a lot of Obama-phones. Be thankful that the F-35 program is still funded.

Posted by rammer 2014-09-03 22:07|| 2014-09-03 22:07|| Front Page Top

22:50 swksvolFF
22:42 CrazyFool
22:42 JosephMendiola
22:42 CrazyFool
22:37 JosephMendiola
22:24 Shipman
22:22 CrazyFool
22:21 CrazyFool
22:15 rammer
22:08 CrazyFool
22:08 Frank G
22:07 rammer
21:51 SteveS
21:49 rammer
21:45 Procopius2k
21:39 Procopius2k
21:24 rammer
20:53 Frank G
20:37 SteveS
20:03 JosephMendiola
20:01 JosephMendiola
19:59 Frank G
19:54 JosephMendiola
19:46 Frank G