View Full Version : The F-35 fiasco
Back in the 1960's, Robert McNamara and the Dream Team came up with the idea of one shoe that fits all airplane. It was called the F-111. It was supposed to be everything, a long range nuclear bomber, a fighter interceptor, a close air support attack and the Navy's all around airplane. Actually it was a great airplane but just like a shoe it just didn't fit every role the Dream Team imagined.
Now we have another shoe that is supposed to fit every foot and every mission... Air Force, Navy, and USMC, and it is called the F-35. It is supposed to do everything from VTOL, close air support, turn and burn dog fights, beyond the merge intercepts, and carrier operations.
AS an old Naval Flight Officer, I can tell you this ain't gonna work. 1. No shoe fits every foot. 2. Two engines are better than one. 3. Two sets of eyes and two brains working together is better than one set of each.
https://spectator.org/the-f-35-fighter-jet-fiasco/
Because of this fiasco the Air Force is going to keep the F16, still the most numerous fighter aircraft in the U.S. inventory, and a plane that's been in service for over 40 years in service, indefinitely. The F16 was supposed to be retired and taken out of service in place of the F35 within five years. So much for that. They have also shelved plans to replace the F15 another aircraft that's been in service with the USAF for 40+ years. The Navy is going to keep the F/A 18 because, among other issues, to stay "stealthy" the F35 cannot carry external stores which greatly compromises its usefulness as a strike fighter, especially in the STOVL versions.
The people really shafted by this are the Brits who built two big deck carriers that can only operate the STOVL very short range version of the F35. I bet they wish they had those Harriers back now.
The bulk of our aircraft, it appears, will be the functional equivalent of the Russian MiG 29 and the Su 27 series of fighters for the forseeable future.
Ugh.....
Gun Smoke
01-23-2020, 06:46
I wonder if the F-35 helmet technology could be adapted to other planes. I realize the adaptation would have to go beyond just the helmet.
I wonder if the F-35 helmet technology could be adapted to other planes. I realize the adaptation would have to go beyond just the helmet.
Yes, the first aircraft to use similar helmet technology was the MiG 29 over 30 years ago. We didn't know the extent of its possibilities until the West German Air Force took over the East German MiGs which unlike the "29" export versions we were familiar with had the first line capabilities including the helmet technology. Of course the systems have been upgraded a lot since then. So yeah, not only can it be done but advanced helmet technology was first made available for the F16 and A10 almost 20 years ago. I'm sure its a lot better now.
Trust me, Russian technology is probably superior to us in things like variable thrust, turning and burning, But their advanced technology aircraft are produced by tens, ours are produced by the hundreds.
Trust me, Russian technology is probably superior to us in things like variable thrust, turning and burning, But their advanced technology aircraft are produced by tens, ours are produced by the hundreds.
Correct on all counts from what I've read. The Russian Air Force deploys 137 MiG31 and 35, 230 Su 34 & 35 4th generation ++++ fighters with more on order which are completely upgraded versions of the MiG 29 & Su 27. They are so heavily upgraded they are functionally new aircraft. These aircraft would be the equivalent of the current models of the U.S. F16 and F15. Their new Su 57 stealth fighter has just entered production and they have a total of 11 (10 prototypes they have put in active service and 1 serial production) with another 75 on order but they won't have all of them on line for at least 10 years. They also have 17 Tu 160 bombers. Everything else they have in service is inferior, sometimes very inferior to our best equipment though they are useful in limited roles.
We (USAF) have 453 F15s, and 761 F16s. Today it was announced that We're putting the F15 back into production. In stealth aircraft we have 178 F22s and 199 F35s as of today with more F35s on order. We also deploy 66 B1 and 20 (stealth) B2 bombers.
This does not count Naval Aviation and all of the front line aircraft of NATO nations.
Our numerical superiority is overwhelming.
USAF got the F-15 Eagle as an air superiority fighter, and the F-16 as a ground support fighter. Hmmmm...then the hung bombs off of the F-15 (Strike Eagle) and made it "multi-role" mission. 1:1 test F-16 vs F-15 resulted in 1:1 loss ratio, air to air.
Did the same with the P-47 in WW II; took ground support tank and rolling stock killer and made it into a heavily armored "air superiority" fighter, which did quite well, actually.
Do we have any acft with "vectored thrust" like the Russians?
That is a game changer; closest thing to having an acft turn on a dime I've ever seen. Saw a Sukoy do a nearly vertical swap ends to reverse direction.
What does this have to do with guns? Airborne guns / cannons are firearms too....
Gun Smoke
01-30-2020, 04:20
What does this have to do with guns? Airborne guns / cannons are firearms too....
"Gun Talk" is the "catch-all" for things of interest here since there is no Misc. section or Airplane, Dogs, Cars, conflicts with my Mother-In-law etc sections. People have posted pictures of insect eggs here wanting to know what kind of bug to expect. There was a recent thread on postal service here and sometimes topics just drift to other things as the thread starts to burn out.
A lot of things come up here that aren't gun or gun related--just no where else to write about them.
jon_norstog
02-09-2020, 09:58
Art you are dead-on right. The US should have moved forward with the F-22 and if we needed specialized aircraft, designed and built them. The F-35 is just a repeat of the f-one-murphy's law-eleven IMHO.
jn
I'm going to wait on giving opinions until I see some reports on actual combat efficacy and to hear reports from those that actually fly the F35 in combat instead of listening to keyboard commandos.
Our Secretary o Defense (Shanahan) suffers from massive conflicts of interest (35 yr with Boeing) as he pushes fourth generation planes that the AF doesn't want. He ought to confine himself to fixing the refueling camera on the new tanker and explain why he can't deliver on a modification of a 40 yr old design (B767) for the new tanker.
Most of the flak on the supposed superiority of the F16 vs the F35 emanates from Pierre Sprey who hasn't been relevant since his glory days with the fighter mafia. He was full of venom concerning the F15, then, and refuses to relinquish his supposed title of aircraft designer with constant babbling about complex radar systems on modern lighters.
Well, I might not be a jet jockey but I can count. I do know that the F35 flew for the first time in 2006 and did not reach initial operational capability with U.S. forces until last year by that time the cost of the program, was almost a half trillion dollars before a single using unit had a combat ready aircraft. it is the definition of "too big to fail." Now the Israelis did get the F35s we sent them, which they modified extensively and had up and running a full two years before we did and have used them in combat effectively but all of their aircraft have been effective against their third and fourth rate opposition.
The simple fact is that the F35 can not do what the specification called for which was to replace the F117, F16, F/A 18 and A10 strike fighters. The U.S. military has conceded as much. The F117 was taken out of service years ago and as I said above the F16 and F/A 18 aren't going anywhere. Even the A10 seems destined to soldier on indefinitely.
As far as combat efficiency goes, it's actually a little hard to tell. It is important to remember that the last time the United States faced a competitive enemy in an air war was 1973, the last time the United States faced an enemy with comparable aircraft and pilot skill was 1953. While we do have to be prepared for the extremely unlikely possibility of an air war with the Russians, the fact is that aside from that remote possibility, the air forces of the U.S. and its allies have become services without real competition.
Vern Humphrey
02-11-2020, 11:21
The simple fact is that the F35 can not do what the specification called for which was to replace the F117, F16, F/A 18 and A10 strike fighters. The U.S. military has conceded as much. The F117 was taken out of service years ago and as I said above the F16 and F/A 18 aren't going anywhere. Even the A10 seems destined to soldier on indefinitely.
The A10 will definitely "soldier on" -- every time the Air Force tries to get rid of it, the Army steps up and says, "We'll take it." And the Air Force isn't about to let the Army get into the jet aircraft business.
S.A. Boggs
02-11-2020, 12:04
With the retro uniforms the AAC is just about due.
Sam
Humphrey, you are so full of crap that it is unbelievable.
1. Where would the Army get the funds to support the infrastructure for the A10? The plane is only a small part of the cost of the program (maintenance, maintainer training, flight training and crew costs, parts and supply pipeline etc.)
2. The only faction of the AF after the A10 was the group led by General David Deptula who undervalued close air support. He has subsequently retired. By the way, the AF pried money out of congress to rewing approximately 240 A10's. Incidentally the A10 is always a sacrificial lamb during budgeting as it is a known congressional favorite and will be funded.
3. A large faction of the AF loves close air support. Not everyone who flies in the AF is part of the white scarf brigade.
Vern Humphrey
02-11-2020, 02:59
With the retro uniforms the AAC is just about due.
Sam
I would think so -- we always envied the Marine Corps, with their own Air Arm.
I'm going to wait on giving opinions until I see some reports on actual combat efficacy and to hear reports from those that actually fly the F35 in combat instead of listening to keyboard commandos.
You are going to have to wait a while... The F-35 may have been used as an attack aircraft by the Israelis but never by the US and never in a air to air combat situation.
No shoe, no hat, no glove has fit every foot, head, or hand.
BTW, how many times have you flown over Mach 1? 2?
Do we have any acft with "vectored thrust" like the Russians?
That is a game changer; closest thing to having an acft turn on a dime I've ever seen. Saw a Sukoy do a nearly vertical swap ends to reverse direction.
What does this have to do with guns? Airborne guns / cannons are firearms too....
The problem is that ever since Vietnam, in air to air combat, speed is life. Small little turns and maneuvers are slow and some guy 10 miles away is going to smoke your ass while you are making your little 90 degree turn at 100 MPH.
Vectored thrust is fun to do and fun to watch but it is simply not something you want to do when a AAM is on the way.
Red- not all engagements are at stand-off distance with missles. We learned that in VN; that's why the gun pod was developed for the F4. I saw, I believe, a MIG-29 do a vertical swap ends, at speed, in what looked like less than a footbal field. Like a tank doing a vertical neutral steer.
It wasn't the showoff vertical dance as shown on the I'net.
jon_norstog
02-15-2020, 10:55
Back in the 1960's, Robert McNamara and the Dream Team came up with the idea of one shoe that fits all airplane. It was called the F-111. It was supposed to be everything
Or as I like to think of it, the F-one-Murphy' law-eleven. Thank god we have plenty of F-15s and F-16s. Damn things fly over my house every 15 minutes! I guess we got enough.
jn
But damn.. it was a beautiful bird. Good on the outside and lookin' good on the inside. The F-111 kind of gets it for me. I spit on the Vulcan. It's a 4 X 8 piece of plywood. Ahh, the Brits,
Griff Murphey
02-16-2020, 09:31
Britain, Australia, Japan, Belgium, Norway, and even Poland are buying and operating the F-35. If it’s as bad a plane as some of the comments, with over 500 built so far... how does that make sense? I do agree that it seems a poor choice for any fighter mission other than air to air with missiles. If I am not mistaken there have only been a couple lost in accidents plus one that burned on the ground.
I agree the naval version of the F-111 was a failure but the type did well in US service (hello, Moamar...) and soldiered on 40 years with the RAAF.
Vern Humphrey
02-16-2020, 12:37
Or as I like to think of it, the F-one-Murphy' law-eleven. Thank god we have plenty of F-15s and F-16s. Damn things fly over my house every 15 minutes! I guess we got enough.
jn
Army Times published a cartoon on the F111, showing the fighter version, the bomber version, the helicopter version, the balloon version and the submarine version.
Griff Murphey
02-16-2020, 02:58
My bad I left out Israel, South Korea, Singapore, and the Netherlands - Turkey was on it but I am not sure I think we have cut them off.
But damn.. it was a beautiful bird. Good on the outside and lookin' good on the inside. The F-111 kind of gets it for me. I spit on the Vulcan. It's a 4 X 8 piece of plywood. Ahh, the Brits,
1965 I eas on the Travis AFB Combat Control Team and went TDY to El Centro Joint Parachute Test Facility. Our equipment shared a hanger with a F-111 escape pod. They were doing drop tests. I remember I only had 7 jumps, but the pod had 10 or 12. I remember hearing they were having trouble getting it yo land upright and not turn over. Important because cockpit access was thru gull-wing "doors". Years later, I heard we lost a crew on AL or FL when their escape pod landed upside down in a swamp and they drowned.
Vern Humphrey
02-17-2020, 06:59
When they sent the F111 into combat during the Viet Nam War, they kept disappearing. No one knew why.
Then they round the wreckage of one, and told Westmorland they needed the black box from that aircraft. Westmoreland said, "It would take an idiot to go in there to get that box! I know just the man."
Anybody ever meet Bo Gritz?:evil6:
Griff Murphey
02-19-2020, 01:08
The Aussies had a lot of F-111 maintainers who developed mesotheliomas due to the asbestos linings in the engine nacelles. A couple were saved for museums but the rest, they scrapped the wings and tail planes but buried the fuselages deep in land fills.
When they sent the F111 into combat during the Viet Nam War, they kept disappearing. No one knew why.
Then they round the wreckage of one, and told Westmorland they needed the black box from that aircraft. Westmoreland said, "It would take an idiot to go in there to get that box! I know just the man.":evil6:
I would have recommended McNamara with an M-16
Vern Humphrey
02-19-2020, 06:09
I would have recommended McNamara with an M-16
He might hurt himself with a gun. Just give him a sharp pocket knife.
He played his last dirty trick on us when he had himself cremated, with a relative keeping the ashes -- there were a lot of us pledged to piss on his grave.
Six F 111’s were initially deployed from Nellis AFB in April of 1968, followed by another three planes. Disaster struck as an F 111 was lost on the initial strike into North Vietnam. Thus, the trial period encompassed 40 sorties and three plane losses. The planes were then redeployed back to the US as these planes were only supposed to be preproduction models. The planes were found to have insufficient horizontal stabilized operation but were deployed at the behest of guess who was anxious to validate his concept of a universal plane for the AF and USN.
Four years later 60 to 80 F 111’s, having undergone extensive modifications prior to a manufacturing run, were sent back to perform during both Linebacker I and II. The plane was involved in over 400 sorties with the loss of three planes in the very dangerous nighttime missions of both airfield and SAM suppression.
The plane was, later on, quite effective during Desert Storm destroying the greatest number of tanks of any aircraft plus carrying the large bunker buster bombs.
The problem was that the F 111 was not a fighter in any way and should have been given an attack designation (A 111). It failed miserably as a USN fighter and deserves all of the criticism in that attempted role (thank you McNamera). The AF was only after a successor to the F 105. It was arguably the finest all weather attack plane to come out of the Vietnam era. The AF admitted that it needed to use both the F 15E and the B1 to assume the same missions .when the F 111 was sent to the boneyard in the 1990’s
jon_norstog
02-21-2020, 11:36
He might hurt himself with a gun. Just give him a sharp pocket knife.
He played his last dirty trick on us when he had himself cremated, with a relative keeping the ashes -- there were a lot of us pledged to piss on his grave.
I would have been one of those pissers. take a number! There was a guy ran into him on the ferry to Martha's Vineyard, at night. Caught him on deck and did his damndest to throw the bastard over the side. He couldn't get the job done, unfortunately. Wish I'd been there to assist.
jn
Vern Humphrey
02-22-2020, 08:34
I had a five gallon can filled up, and didn't get to use it.:evil6:
Red- not all engagements are at stand-off distance with missles. We learned that in VN; that's why the gun pod was developed for the F4. I saw, I believe, a MIG-29 do a vertical swap ends, at speed, in what looked like less than a footbal field. Like a tank doing a vertical neutral steer.
It wasn't the showoff vertical dance as shown on the I'net.
Neither the USN or the USMC F-4B/J Phantoms ever ever killed a MIG with a gun pod. Maybe the USAF did but they weren't maintaining them on a pitching carrier deck at night. Our squadron had two Hughes gun pods for 14 aircraft and we only trained with them as a ground support tactic. The Navy Phantoms never had a lead computing gunsight and the ammunition load was something like 275 rounds or about one three second burst
US Navy F-4 Versions in Vietnam
F-4B (F4H-1) – Second F-4 version but first major production version of the F-4.
F-4J - Improved F-4B
Major Differences compared to the USAF
Air to Air Refueling with Drogue and Basket
Use of AIM-9B/D/G/H versions of Sidewinder only as Short Range Missile.
Never fitted Guns, not even pods (outside of a brief trial with the GAU-4)
Internal ECM equipment.
Different Radars (AN/APQ-72, -59 & AWG-10 Pulse Doppler)
Had no flight controls in the back seat
In 1972 preferred used of AIM-9G/H Sidewinder over AIM-7E-2 Sparrow
Used more flexible Loose Deuce A-A formation tactics
Carrier and land based (Marines)
Vern Humphrey
02-22-2020, 09:35
Neither the USN or the USMC F-4B/J Phantoms ever ever killed a MIG with a gun pod. Maybe the USAF did but they weren't maintaining them on a pitching carrier deck at night. Our squadron had two Hughes gun pods for 14 aircraft and we only trained with them as a ground support tactic. The Navy Phantoms never had a lead computing gunsight and the ammunition load was something like 275 rounds or about one three second burst
That's correct. I always liked to hear the FAC tell us his planes had Nape and 20 mike mike -- the pods were attached and we could expect a little extra from that particular flight.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.