F-35 Fighter Too Big To Fail
- Thread starter Rock_Hudstone
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: blupupher
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Isn't the "F" supposed to stand for fighter??
...
F-117 was not a fighter. It was an attach aircraft, so should have been an "A" designation (Like the A-10).
No idea why it or the F-35 has an F prefix.
Same reason the F-18 does.
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Isn't the "F" supposed to stand for fighter??
...
F-117 was not a fighter. It was an attach aircraft, so should have been an "A" designation (Like the A-10).
No idea why it or the F-35 has an F prefix.
Same reason the F-18 does.
Originally Posted By: blupupher
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Isn't the "F" supposed to stand for fighter??
...
F-117 was not a fighter. It was an attach aircraft, so should have been an "A" designation (Like the A-10).
Misdirection to confuse the enemy if he should ever see a reference to it in print.
And taking out the 117 number in the early 80's harking back to the century series of fighters of the 50's was also meant to confuse.
"F-1117? What's that? Sounds like a cancelled fighter program from the early 60's. I wouldn't worry about it."
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Isn't the "F" supposed to stand for fighter??
...
F-117 was not a fighter. It was an attach aircraft, so should have been an "A" designation (Like the A-10).
Misdirection to confuse the enemy if he should ever see a reference to it in print.
And taking out the 117 number in the early 80's harking back to the century series of fighters of the 50's was also meant to confuse.
"F-1117? What's that? Sounds like a cancelled fighter program from the early 60's. I wouldn't worry about it."
Last edited:
And the F-14 that earned the "fighter" designation and finally received the correct engines got cancelled. In inter service exercises other pilots did not want to face the F-14 in its final version with the GE power plants. The F-14 was a stand off capable fighter that could also "dog fight" with the best of them. The F-18 was no match for the F-14 and is proof that lots of factors go into choices that leave what the pilots have to say blowing in the wind.
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: blupupher
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Isn't the "F" supposed to stand for fighter??
...
F-117 was not a fighter. It was an attach aircraft, so should have been an "A" designation (Like the A-10).
No idea why it or the F-35 has an F prefix.
Same reason the F-18 does.
But the official designation for that plane has always been F/A-18. It was designed for dual roles from the start.
Originally Posted By: blupupher
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Isn't the "F" supposed to stand for fighter??
...
F-117 was not a fighter. It was an attach aircraft, so should have been an "A" designation (Like the A-10).
No idea why it or the F-35 has an F prefix.
Same reason the F-18 does.
But the official designation for that plane has always been F/A-18. It was designed for dual roles from the start.
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
Put the F35 against a SU35S...it will fail.
Says the desktop fighter ace.
Put the F35 against a SU35S...it will fail.
Says the desktop fighter ace.
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Sigh... MW usually means Medium Wave. I should have used uW.
Not enough coffee.
Yes you should have. Long Wave radar would ignore small targets as the Brits found when they were using 30 MHZ in their early Chain Home system.
Sigh... MW usually means Medium Wave. I should have used uW.
Not enough coffee.
Yes you should have. Long Wave radar would ignore small targets as the Brits found when they were using 30 MHZ in their early Chain Home system.
I see the F-35s fly nearly everyday. My opinion, budgeting issues aside, they represent a huge shift away from what we traditionally view as air superiority or dominance. Much like AWACS was a huge step forward, the F-35's capabilities takes that even further. New tactics/doctrine mixed with new technology......remains to be seen how it will play out in a real world situation. One we haven't seen yet...........that we know of anyways. Also, I keeping reading around the 'webs all the naysayers saying how they've been grounded forever and they're flying turds, yada yada, I just have to laugh. They are quite operational, and have been for a long time. And, they are impressive to watch. Along with the Raptors, they will leave you questioning all your understanding of the laws of physics and flight.
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: blupupher
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Isn't the "F" supposed to stand for fighter??
...
F-117 was not a fighter. It was an attach aircraft, so should have been an "A" designation (Like the A-10).
No idea why it or the F-35 has an F prefix.
Same reason the F-18 does.
the F/A-18?
Originally Posted By: blupupher
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Isn't the "F" supposed to stand for fighter??
...
F-117 was not a fighter. It was an attach aircraft, so should have been an "A" designation (Like the A-10).
No idea why it or the F-35 has an F prefix.
Same reason the F-18 does.
the F/A-18?
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
Put the F35 against a SU35S...it will fail.
Doubtful. The F35 could put a missile in the Su-35 before its pilot knew there was a threat. No "dogfight" necessary.
And the PAK FA... A plane Russia can only afford to build 12 of. 5th gen, huh?
The Fitzgerald's radar didn't seem to help. Stuff happens beyond tech ,mechanics etc.
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
Put the F35 against a SU35S...it will fail.
Doubtful. The F35 could put a missile in the Su-35 before its pilot knew there was a threat. No "dogfight" necessary.
And the PAK FA... A plane Russia can only afford to build 12 of. 5th gen, huh?
The Fitzgerald's radar didn't seem to help. Stuff happens beyond tech ,mechanics etc.
The USMC with their vertical takeoff requirement (added additional weight and complexity) doomed the F-35 to mediocrity (i.e. never living up to its potential).
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Isn't the "F" supposed to stand for fighter??
Meanwhile, the F35s will be flying again at Luke AFB and they still have no idea why the oxygen supply decreases...
The "F" does stand for "Fighter", but that includes ground attack fighters.
Wouldn't that be F/A...as in F/A-18 and A-6 Growler? But ya..the F35 was supposed to support the USMC so I guess they've dropped the "A" for new aircraft.
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Isn't the "F" supposed to stand for fighter??
Meanwhile, the F35s will be flying again at Luke AFB and they still have no idea why the oxygen supply decreases...
The "F" does stand for "Fighter", but that includes ground attack fighters.
Wouldn't that be F/A...as in F/A-18 and A-6 Growler? But ya..the F35 was supposed to support the USMC so I guess they've dropped the "A" for new aircraft.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
I don't think it's a fighter jet. It's more of a vehicle to provide jobs in a few Congresspeople's and Senators' districts and reward campaign contributors.
Pretty much...add to that leave it to the military to figure the most expensive way to do a job and this thing is the perfect storm.
I don't think it's a fighter jet. It's more of a vehicle to provide jobs in a few Congresspeople's and Senators' districts and reward campaign contributors.
Pretty much...add to that leave it to the military to figure the most expensive way to do a job and this thing is the perfect storm.
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
I don't think it's a fighter jet. It's more of a vehicle to provide jobs in a few Congresspeople's and Senators' districts and reward campaign contributors.
Pretty much...add to that leave it to the military to figure the most expensive way to do a job and this thing is the perfect storm.
That's SOP for the MIC. Spread manufacturing to as many districts as possible because it helps insure that the program chugs along for years or decades.
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
I don't think it's a fighter jet. It's more of a vehicle to provide jobs in a few Congresspeople's and Senators' districts and reward campaign contributors.
Pretty much...add to that leave it to the military to figure the most expensive way to do a job and this thing is the perfect storm.
That's SOP for the MIC. Spread manufacturing to as many districts as possible because it helps insure that the program chugs along for years or decades.
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
The USMC with their vertical takeoff requirement (added additional weight and complexity) doomed the F-35 to mediocrity (i.e. never living up to its potential).
I agree with you 1000000%
The USMC with their vertical takeoff requirement (added additional weight and complexity) doomed the F-35 to mediocrity (i.e. never living up to its potential).
I agree with you 1000000%
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
Put the F35 against a SU35S...it will fail.
I'm no F-35 fan, but you're just plain wrong.
The SU-35 can't see the F-35 until it's too late.
If the F-35s get into BFM, it's because our ROE AND systems have failed, and the F-35 isn't the POS in BFM that this article claims. I wouldn't want to turn with it...
More thoughts on this system later, but the article was a collection of specious garbage.
Put the F35 against a SU35S...it will fail.
I'm no F-35 fan, but you're just plain wrong.
The SU-35 can't see the F-35 until it's too late.
If the F-35s get into BFM, it's because our ROE AND systems have failed, and the F-35 isn't the POS in BFM that this article claims. I wouldn't want to turn with it...
More thoughts on this system later, but the article was a collection of specious garbage.
I think once an F-35 downs a few 4th gen Sukhois that represent the cream of Russian technology, Lockmart will have more orders than it can handle and foreign orders will flood in. Even this Russian expert thinks that the F-35 is a complete game changer:
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
The USMC with their vertical takeoff requirement (added additional weight and complexity) doomed the F-35 to mediocrity (i.e. never living up to its potential).
I agree with you 1000000%
When GE's F-35 adaptive engine is introduced, and F-35s are re-engined with this replacement powerplant, much crow will be eaten. I can't talk too much about the AETD (or ADVENT, however you want to call it) but what you ought to know is that there is a significantly better engine actively being developed for the F-35 that will drastically increase its useful scope: greater performance, faster supercruise, longer range, lower fuel burn. This will compensate for the F-35's airframe being a limiting factor in the platform's performance.
Here's a nugget to chew on: http://www.geaviation.com/military/engines/ge-adaptive-cycle-engine
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
The USMC with their vertical takeoff requirement (added additional weight and complexity) doomed the F-35 to mediocrity (i.e. never living up to its potential).
I agree with you 1000000%
When GE's F-35 adaptive engine is introduced, and F-35s are re-engined with this replacement powerplant, much crow will be eaten. I can't talk too much about the AETD (or ADVENT, however you want to call it) but what you ought to know is that there is a significantly better engine actively being developed for the F-35 that will drastically increase its useful scope: greater performance, faster supercruise, longer range, lower fuel burn. This will compensate for the F-35's airframe being a limiting factor in the platform's performance.
Here's a nugget to chew on: http://www.geaviation.com/military/engines/ge-adaptive-cycle-engine
Whatever the F35 is or isn't, the superiority of the US military global network will ensure that pretty much the entire planet continues to cower at the idea of truly taking us on in a total campaign.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
