f-35

[Cujet]

Interestingly, there was an aviation week article that made a good attempt at countering the negative F35 press. It seems the problems are really not that unusual, and that many of them are being resolved systematically.

Time will tell....

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Astro14

There is no drone that can go air to air. They are all built for air to ground. And all except a few are slow, non-stealthy, cheap airplanes. Add range, speed, payload, and they become very expensive to build...you're building a manned airplane without the man, so you don't save much...

What about a cruise missile type drone with an air to air missile or two on it? Then send the missile itself.
It seems the Russians and Indians are already developing these with a reusable version of their BrahMos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos It does Mach 3 and they are working on a dedicated air strike scram jet version that does Mach 7...
I would really hope the Air Force is spending 2 or 3 F35's a year to integrate the basic tech for something similar.


It's a cruise missile. It hits land targets. It doesn't target or threaten airplanes.

There isn't a drone that is a threat to airplanes.

Can you hang a missile on a drone? Sure.

How do you target another airplane with it? How do you cue it? Guide it? Drones don't have air to air radar. Drones don't have the speed to control an intercept.

Unless, as I said, you build a big, fast, heavy, expensive drone...that does all the things that a fighter does...and even then, how do you control it? How do you get the data, including radar, FLIR, and 360 visual, back to the person controlling it? How do you get the visual data into a computer to take the fight to another airplane?

You can't use a drone to defend your country from an air threat. SAMs do a good job, with limited coverage. But drones? Nope...

 

[BusyLittleShop]

Technically speaking I like the F35...

 

[emg]

Originally Posted By: Wingman
Here is the problem with the F-35. Somebody got the bright idea that it would save money and take less time, if they built and acquired the aircraft concurrently with testing the aircraft.


That's probably part of it, but I'd say the fundamental problem was the whole 'we'll save money if we create multiple different versions of the same aircraft for the different services' fantasy. It's been tried before, and usually ends up with you spending more money to build multiple aircraft which are compromised for their role by the requirements of the other services than you would if you built different ones to start with.

 

[Astro14]

The ghost of Robert McNamara and the F-111 joint service airplane....

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: emg
Originally Posted By: Wingman
Here is the problem with the F-35. Somebody got the bright idea that it would save money and take less time, if they built and acquired the aircraft concurrently with testing the aircraft.


That's probably part of it, but I'd say the fundamental problem was the whole 'we'll save money if we create multiple different versions of the same aircraft for the different services' fantasy. It's been tried before, and usually ends up with you spending more money to build multiple aircraft which are compromised for their role by the requirements of the other services than you would if you built different ones to start with.


Kind of what i was getting at. Trying to make one airframe all things to all branches.

Think that was a concept early for the f-14 but it never was accepted by other branches of military.

 

[Astro14]

The F-14 was born of the joint service F-111 failing the Navy's "OPEVAL".

That plane, conceived by Secretary of Defense McNamara and his "whiz kids"' as a joint airplane for the USAF and USN, was too big, too heavy, and too cumbersome to be a fighter. The Navy rejected the F-111B that was intended to be a carrier fighter. The USAF was happy with the airplane as a bomber and kept it.

It took Congressional intervention to kill the SECDEF's pet program. Congress acted on the testimony of VADM Tom Connelly, who famously said, "There isn't enough thrust in all of Christendom to make that thing a fighter".

The Navy went to Grumman, who was the principal subcontractor to General Dynamics for the F-111B, and salvaged the AWG-9 weapon system and variable geometry wings to form the basis of the F-14. Grumman fighters had all been "cats"...Hellcat, Wildcat, Bearcat, Cougar, Panther...The working name for the prototype was, "Tom's Cat". Eventually adopted as "Tomcat"

From the ashes of the F-111 failure rose one of the world' great airplanes.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
The F-14 was born of the joint service F-111 failing the Navy's "OPEVAL".



From the ashes of the F-111 failure rose one of the world' great airplanes.


+1 loved seeing that plane fly at oceana, it looks like a fighter!

 

[BusyLittleShop]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
The F-14 was born of the joint service F-111 failing the Navy's "OPEVAL".

That plane, conceived by Secretary of Defense McNamara and his "whiz kids"' as a joint airplane for the USAF and USN, was too big, too heavy, and too cumbersome to be a fighter. The Navy rejected the F-111B that was intended to be a carrier fighter. The USAF was happy with the airplane as a bomber and kept it.

It took Congressional intervention to kill the SECDEF's pet program. Congress acted on the testimony of VADM Tom Connelly, who famously said, "There isn't enough thrust in all of Christendom to make that thing a fighter".

The Navy went to Grumman, who was the principal subcontractor to General Dynamics for the F-111B, and salvaged the AWG-9 weapon system and variable geometry wings to form the basis of the F-14. Grumman fighters had all been "cats"...Hellcat, Wildcat, Bearcat, Cougar, Panther...The working name for the prototype was, "Tom's Cat". Eventually adopted as "Tomcat"

From the ashes of the F-111 failure rose one of the world' great airplanes.


True...

The US Department of defense headed by McNamara wanted an all purpose
fighter with a long production run to lower cost and decreed that this
new wonder plane should be a front line fighter for both the Navy and
the Air Force. The result four years and a half billion dollars later
was the General Dynamics F111 a 50 ton monster that was promptly
dubbed the Aardvark...

During the congressional hearings for the aircraft, Vice Admiral
Thomas F. Connolly, then Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air
Warfare, responded to a question from Senator John C. Stennis as to
whether a more powerful engine would cure the aircraft's woes, saying,
"There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane
what we want!"

I never like the our mediocre FB111s... while serving in the USAF I'd back into to them to spare my eyes...

 

[edyvw]

Being someone who has experience in shooting at MIG-21, F-35 reminds me of it. Small wing area, so trying to figure out how it will replace A-10?
Oh good old Lockheed-Martin and their scam about aircraft generations.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: emg
Originally Posted By: Wingman
Here is the problem with the F-35. Somebody got the bright idea that it would save money and take less time, if they built and acquired the aircraft concurrently with testing the aircraft.


That's probably part of it, but I'd say the fundamental problem was the whole 'we'll save money if we create multiple different versions of the same aircraft for the different services' fantasy. It's been tried before, and usually ends up with you spending more money to build multiple aircraft which are compromised for their role by the requirements of the other services than you would if you built different ones to start with.

I think fundamental problem is a design!

 

[Shannow]

Quite some time ago (BC, so that's easily 13 years ago), I spent a couple of days with a US Marines instrument technician (not right description) who worked on the Harriers.

He was quite scathing of the F35 concept, and made a point that they should decide what it was supposed to do and make it do that.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Quite some time ago (BC, so that's easily 13 years ago), I spent a couple of days with a US Marines instrument technician (not right description) who worked on the Harriers.

He was quite scathing of the F35 concept, and made a point that they should decide what it was supposed to do and make it do that.


Yep. If you're going to spend wisely, you first determine what it is you need to be able to do (mission requirements and operating environment yield needed capabilities). Then figure out what you can't do now (capability gap), then go figure out the solution set (requirements for funding).

Some solutions come from training, some are material, some are doctrine (methods).

There were incredible capability requirements placed on the design of this airplane. Makes it tough to engineer an airplane that meets all the requirements. The key question in deciding whether or not the airplane is worth it, is: can it do the mission that began this analysis?

 

[AdmdeVilleneuve]

Checked out this post subject tonight because I coincidentally had read two F-35 articles this morning in the Military Times daily newsletter.
www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-not-...rnative-029321/
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/February/Pages/ImportantTestsLoomfor.aspx

Astro, like you say, Canadians asking what do they really need? A little late, but maybe they view themselves as just "engaged" to the F-35, not married. I liked the Boeing military "commercials" with the young boys and the toy fighters; great plug for a Gen 4.5 from St. Louis.