[GunGeek]

Good Lawd someone ought to go to jail!!

F-35: Is America's Most Expensive Weapon of War the Ultimate Failure? | The National Interest Blog

Then read this: https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar..._f-35s_will_not_be_combat_capable_112477.html
The first 108 F-35's will NEVER be combat operational. They are $200 million dollar jet flight trainers. And that number is optimistic, it could be closer to 200 that will never be combat capable.

18 years, over 400 billion dollars, and we don't have a single aircraft that is truly capable of doing the full job the F35 was supposed to do.

 

[TommyGunn]

Really? I seem to recall seeing some F-35s in operation off our carriers......:-?

I realize that the F-35 program has been trouble plagued .... with changes, alterations and what not.
I hope the program works. Just for the sake of 400 billion dollars.

IIRC, the first four F-14 Tomcats shot themselves down with their own then unperfected Phoenix Missiles ... but the Tomcat went on to be a great interceptor and a fine air superiority fighter.
OTOH, the TFX (if I recollect the term right) sorta augered in on its own ....
You'd think after seven decades of designing jets...the USA would be able to do better....

 

[GunGeek]

Really? I seem to recall seeing some F-35s in operation off our carriers......:-?

I realize that the F-35 program has been trouble plagued .... with changes, alterations and what not.
I hope the program works. Just for the sake of 400 billion dollars.

IIRC, the first four F-14 Tomcats shot themselves down with their own then unperfected Phoenix Missiles ... but the Tomcat went on to be a great interceptor and a fine air superiority fighter.
OTOH, the TFX (if I recollect the term right) sorta augered in on its own ....
You'd think after seven decades of designing jets...the USA would be able to do better....

Navy and Marines have declared a few F35's "Operational", but they are severely hampered by tons of things that don't work.

My bet is, if WW III were to happen tomorrow, not one F-35 would fight. You should read the National Interest report...it's absolutely astounding that the program has gone so incredibly awry.

And I totally understand about bleeding edge technology...it really bleeds. But the F-22 is significantly more capable than the F-35 and didn't have 10% the issues the F35 is having.

 

[TommyGunn]

Well, I've always thought the F-22 was a much better aircraft anyway.
The current Navy F-18s --- even the so called "Superhornet" --- is a @30+ year old design and while still a very able fighter, the pesky Russians have some new Sukhois and MiGs that are better.
The navy seriously needs a new air superiority fighter.
I hope they get the F-35 program RUNNING!
If not then scrap everything while it's only 400 billion in the hole! :headbonk::argh::argh: :cluebat:

 

[GunGeek]

It's scary really...They are hopelessly committed to the F-35 because it's the ONLY fighter they're interested in, and the only fighter being developed in the US. There is pretty much zero chance the F-22 will ever go back into production, so we're very much stuck with the F-35 like it or not. I think the best thing that could happen to the program is to send a good dozen or so to jail, then pick up where they left off...you know, re-set expectations.

But we don't jail corporate execs anymore (Thanks Obama).

 

[Skeptic49]

The F-22 cannot be built again. Some tech is old, allegedly some of the production equipment has "disappeared" and I suspect it is making planes in Red China.

Putting all your eggs in one basket is foolish, especially when that basket is actually THREE mutually exclusive aircraft. Last word I heard the services have effectively split the program with only a nodding relationship between groups.

Geoff
Who notes the USN and USAF better start developing Air Inferiority tactical doctrines ASAP!

 

[TommyGunn]

Do you suppose that, if America tried --- really tried EXTRA HARD --- we could develop a usable DR.1, or Sopwith Camel? :twisted:

This garbage has GOT to stop. During the Cold War we designed and built some of the best military jets in the world. Of course back then we had Convair, Grumman Aerospace, McDonnell Douglas, and maybe a couple others I cannot recall.
Now everything seems to have been bought up into one or a couple of megacorporations.
We need a tad more competition!

 

[GunGeek]

Do you suppose that, if America tried --- really tried EXTRA HARD --- we could develop a usable DR.1, or Sopwith Camel? :twisted:

This garbage has GOT to stop. During the Cold War we designed and built some of the best military jets in the world. Of course back then we had Convair, Grumman Aerospace, McDonnell Douglas, and maybe a couple others I cannot recall.
Now everything seems to have been bought up into one or a couple of megacorporations.
We need a tad more competition!

Every way you slice it, mega-corporations are really bad for America and capitalism in general.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Hmm...in the last forty-three years the United States has lost exactly one air-to-air engagement: an F/A-18 killed by a Foxbat during the first minutes of Desert Storm (just as the Foxbat jock entered the last 30 seconds of his life).

Despite the hand-wringing of armchair reporters flying the latest in office technology, my money's on the first Raptor or Lightning II that gets challenged by some dead man flying.

 

[TommyGunn]

A MiG 25 Foxbat downed a Hornet?! Wow.....the Foxbat reportedly couldn't out dogfight the old F-4 Phantom. Could go faster than a Hornet or Phantom .... but not much else.
The Foxbat was designed to intercept the old B-70 Valkyrie, which was a program we nixed when I was a kid. The Russkies just kept on and fielded the MiG-25.

 

[CaptainGyro]

A MiG 25 Foxbat downed a Hornet?!

The F/A-18 was in one of the lead flights of the strike package on the opening night of Desert Storm. The Foxbat was tooling around Baghdad in burner, lighting up the whole sky. The F-15's were reportedly begging AWACs to release weapons so that they could kill the idiot, but the controllers were reluctant to give up the element of surprise before a single bomb had fallen.

Suddenly, without warning, the Foxbat turned toward the strike package and fired a missile which hit the Hornet. Seconds later, with the gloves now off, the F-15's killed the Foxbat. Sad story.

 

[GunGeek]

Hmm...in the last forty-three years the United States has lost exactly one air-to-air engagement: an F/A-18 killed by a Foxbat during the first minutes of Desert Storm (just as the Foxbat jock entered the last 30 seconds of his life).

Despite the hand-wringing of armchair reporters flying the latest in office technology, my money's on the first Raptor or Lightning II that gets challenged by some dead man flying.

I have no doubt that once in service, they won't rest until they make it a good fighting machine. That's what happened with the Phantom. They will fix it, and they'll learn how to fight with it...that's what they do. So in the end, I have every confidence it will be a superior aircraft. What I don't have confidence in is how much pain, lives, and money it will take to get there.

This whole notion that the 3 services can share a common aircraft is the biggest bucket full of horse manure ever sold to Congress...TWICE now!

What was that thing about those who fail to study the past?

 

[GunGeek]

The F/A-18 was in one of the lead flights of the strike package on the opening night of Desert Storm. The Foxbat was tooling around Baghdad in burner, lighting up the whole sky. The F-15's were reportedly begging AWACs to release weapons so that they could kill the idiot, but the controllers were reluctant to give up the element of surprise before a single bomb had fallen.

Suddenly, without warning, the Foxbat turned toward the strike package and fired a missile which hit the Hornet. Seconds later, with the gloves now off, the F-15's killed the Foxbat. Sad story.

What I really worry about is the competence and quality of the Russian Air Force. We have a really bad habit of continuously under-estimating how smart those Ruskies are.

Our last air to air victory was enough to put a serious shiver down your spine. FA-18C vs. SU-22 Fitter. Our absolutely "awesome" all aspect seeking, just released the latest block verison, AIM-9X flew off the rack and was instantly spoofed by a $5.00 flare from a 40 year old aircraft. I read our NATO customers were NOT happy about that at all!

The FA-18C was close, and right behind the SU-22, and an AIM-9X couldn't pull it off! So instead of shooting down a 40 year old aircraft with a $600k missile from close range directly behind the target, the pilot had to switch to his $1.7 million dollar AIM-120D.

Back in the '80's the Afghans recovered a couple of flare dispensers from an SU-25 Frogfoot. We tested it against the AIM-9 and found something rather clever about the Russian flare dispenser. Every flare in the launcher was a different type, giving off a different heat signature for every flare. And sure enough, we found the AIM-9 was a sucker for 2 of the flares EVERY TIME.

Seems the Russians are still making some clever flares.

Aggressor squadron SU-27 pilots will tell you the Sukhoi is a better aircraft than either the F-15/16/28 will wax any US 4th generation US fighter in anything approaching a fair fight (which is incentive to NOT fight fair). And the 27 we operate is very much out-dated, the Russians are flying the 35. Fortunately for us, the 27/35 doesn't have snowball's chance against the F-22 (and hopefully someday the F-35).

Russian SAM technology comfortably out-strips US SAM systems. About 20 years ago the Russians smartly realized they can't win an aircraft quality war with the US on their budget, so they diverted much of the funds into SAM technology and now have the best SAM systems in the world. The F-22's and 35's CAN be tracked with these systems...but it's unknown if they can be shot down...I'm betting they most certainly can (under the right circumstances). The F-35 has a software system to help it's stealth technology by evaluating radar coverage, and suggesting the safest route through radar coverage. That type of system wouldn't exist unless the threat wasn't significant.

Back in 2006 we borrowed a Swedish diesel electric submarine to test against a US Carrier group. After it had "sunk" ever darned ship in the carrier group multiple times, the US Navy knew they had a big problem. They ended up "borrowing" that Swedish sub for two whole years developing counter-measures against these super quiet DE subs. Now here's the catch...Russian DE subs are TWO generations ahead of that Swedish sub!

Now I'm not even remotely saying I'd bet against the US in a shooting war against the Russians...that's just foolish. But what I am saying is, they are WAY more clever than we give them credit for. And that cleverness WILL cost US lives someday.

So when I see programs like this turn into such a cluster of fudge...I can't help but remember the age old military axiom. "The enemy gets a say"

 

[CaptainGyro]

This whole notion that the 3 services can share a common aircraft is the biggest bucket full of horse manure ever sold to Congress...TWICE now!

No argument there.

Russian SAM technology comfortably out-strips US SAM systems.

No argument there...they have targets. When Russians (or anyone else) are fighting the US Army, they are threatened from above. There are US Air Force and US Navy aircraft raining down destruction from every direction, day and night.

Conversely, the US Army has very rarely had to look up when fighting. The skies above American soldiers are owned by America.

Russians have good SAM's because they need them. Badly. Their Air Force isn't going to clear the skies for them.

 

[William R. Moore]

And in related, but other topic news, the service life of the B52 has been extended to 2050. No, that's not a joke. OK, I kinda wonder just how many original parts are left on the ones in service, but holding on to a heavy bomber for nigh onto a century seems to be short sighted.

On the other hand, various cubical critters have maintained (off and on) that manned bombers are obsolete/should be scrapped. I guess if we hang onto the Buff long enough, they might be right.

 

[CaptainGyro]

...but holding on to a heavy bomber for nigh onto a century seems to be short sighted.

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the performance limits that we're living with today for jet-powered aircraft were first reached in the 50's. Because the speed of sound exacts such hefty penalties in terms of fuel consumption and environmental impact, we're pretty much stuck with long range aircraft that cruise at 82%-85% of the speed of sound, or in other words, pretty much the performance of the 707.

Since the 50's almost all of the gains in jet performance have been achieved in the areas of higher-efficiency engines, lighter and stronger materials, and lower-drag designs. So, if you started from scratch to build a subsonic bomber today, you'd end up with a lower weight, lower drag B-52 (engines are relatively easy to replace).

Or, you could just keep upgrading the existing B-52's.

 

[Diamondback]

So, if you started from scratch to build a subsonic bomber today, you'd end up with a lower weight, lower drag B-52 (engines are relatively easy to replace).

Or, you could just keep upgrading the existing B-52's.

Guess what an old Sixdriver prof and I wrote a position-paper proposing as a B-52 replacement... Other than some tinkering around the edges for powerplants, payloads and other technology, those old Heritage Boeing guys like Wells and Schairer knew what they were doing and basically Got It Right.

 

[CaptainGyro]

...those old Heritage Boeing guys like Wells and Schairer knew what they were doing and basically Got It Right.

Until about the turn of the century there was a longstanding joke in the aviation industry that Boeing hadn't really designed a new aircraft since the B-47. The B-52 and all of the 7x7 airliners were basically just exercises in rearranging components and up- or down-sizing.

With the advent of the 787 and the elimination of the hydraulic system most people acknowledged that they'd finally tried something new, even though it took them a while to work out the kinks. One of the comments you'd hear when the Dreamliner started appearing in service was, "Looks like a 787, but I don't see any smoke."

 

[Diamondback]

It's interesting to note that the original design was basically a swept-wing, turboprop B-29, almost exactly the same thing as Stalin's guys were drawing at the same time that we now know as the Bear.

Then Pete Warden at Wright-Pat got involved, on the Friday that they dropped off the formal proposal told Wells and Schairer "keep the fuselage, but give it a faster wing and jet engines, make it more like a big B-47 and bring me a revised proposal Monday morning."

They went back to the now-long-demolished Hotel Cleveland, sat down in the hotel dining room, started drawing on napkins, threw some balsa from a neighborhood hobby shop together into a model, and the rest is history...

 

[GunGeek]

The Buff is only relevant where we 100% own the sky. And where we do, the Buff is a great hauler of ordinance, and does so cheaper than the B1 & B2.