This is like the story of the military. Spend decades developing something using expensive contractors and by the time it ships out the face of war has changed such that it's no longer useful. We'll be coming out with all sorts of anti-terrorism/guerrilla warfare stuff in the next 20 years but by then it'll all be nanomachine PMCs.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a decade behind the jets it's supposed to replace
- Thread starter neorej
- Start date
- Status
Dreams-Visions
Member
The fleecing of America continues.
Thanks, Military-Industrial Complex.
Yep. There's a reason why Boeing, Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed Martin have scores of employees in damn near every state in the Union. To get those Senators on their side when it's time to pony up, lest they close up operations in their state and cost said senators votes.
What in particular makes the 35-B hilariously bad?
radioactivez0r
Member
I don't really know anything about military spending, fighter capabilities, etc. All I see is $400 billion and 20 years to build a plane that doesn't really do anything extraordinarily well and sort of covers the bases. And that sounds crazy.
Florida_Man_5000
Member
I find it interesting that the F35's prototype 360-degree virtual view helmet suffers the same problems as all VR: lag, disorientation, jitter, etc.
And they each costs $600,000.
And they each costs $600,000.
Well, there's that. There's another lesson too:
Don't ever - EVER - make a fighter aircraft that looks fat enough to have a double chin.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Will it be able to fire its guns before The Last Guardian comes out?
Nikodemos
Member
Mainly the fact that it's crap. It uses a lifting solution that adds a lot of weight and restrictions, it's massively expensive and its performance is noticeably worse than that of the other two versions. And it's the reason why the entire F-35 project turned into the clusterfuck it is today. Without having to accomodate the STOVL version the resulting plane would have been both cheaper and better performing.
It is expensive but barely more so the the C variant, its performance asides from range is identical to the other versions, except for the C which has noticeable worse transonic acceleration. It's range is poorest of the 3 but is still ahead of legacy aircraft especially the harrier which it is replacing. The main limits to the performance of the F-35 were-
Single engine- Decided by cost and maintenance hours over twin versions.
Short design- Decided by carrier operations.
Wide body- Decided by the design requirement for an internal weapons bay.
Design requirements and straying from the whitcomb area rule are the reasons for it's poor performance.. But just to add once Legacy aircraft are carrying an external data pod to match the 35's sensors, external fuel to match the 35's range and external weapons to match the 35's payload, they have worse performance and a radar targets large enough to be tracked from the other side of the world.
The Harrier which is the aircraft being replaced by the 35 is sub sonic, has half the range and a lower equipment carry limit. As well as the natural tendency of planting it's pilot upside down in the ocean.
BearFlexington
Member
It's also retired already for having too many issues.
We never needed anything beyond the Super Hornet.
Prinz Eugn
Member
Name a better "lifting solution"? STOVL is expensive regardless in terms of price and performance (Harriers aren't even supersonic, for example), and this is probably the least bad solution that exists. It was known performance wasn't going to be as good as the other models from inception; it's the nature of having that capability. The lift fan in particular has a relatively low impact on airframe design versus other methods, which is part of what made a tri-service program seem realistic in the first place.
Regardless of the other models, the F-35B is going to be an incredible upgrade in essentially every way from Harriers of all stripes.
Without STOVL, there wouldn't be Marines in the program, and that goes way back to the inception of the whole thing.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
At the start it was worth it but it has turned into a money pitt but they have too much time and money invested to drop it now.
Wyndstryker
Member
Well, there's that. There's another lesson too:
Don't ever - EVER - make a fighter aircraft that looks fat enough to have a double chin.
Well, at least the fighter is happy all the time.
questionmark
Member
Is there really a need for a fighter jet with vtol capabilities? Can't it just take off from the carriers like other fighter jets?
Delta Assault
Member
The F-35 program is like a pig flying through the air, while Homer Simpson is running alongside yelling "It's still good, it's still good!"
Nikodemos
Member
Comparing the F-35 with a Harrier has the problem of comparing anything with a Harrier, which is a pretty awful plane, by just about any measure.
The lifting fan is a bad solution because it adds weight at all times, while contributing to only 25% of a mission's envelope (namely landing). Unlike a Harrier's tilting nozzles, it can't be used to pull combat tricks due to the flaps covering it, which tend to get torn off if deployed at speed. And it did have an impact on airframe design: the body needed to be wide enough to accomodate it and the payload bay needed to be designed around it.
The lifting fan is a bad solution because it adds weight at all times, while contributing to only 25% of a mission's envelope (namely landing). Unlike a Harrier's tilting nozzles, it can't be used to pull combat tricks due to the flaps covering it, which tend to get torn off if deployed at speed. And it did have an impact on airframe design: the body needed to be wide enough to accomodate it and the payload bay needed to be designed around it.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Tomcat for me, pls.
I don't know shit about fighter jets outside of Top Gun, but doing a quick comparison on wiki between the F-22's and these new F-35's, it seems like they're slower, have less range and cost more, amid all the myriad of development issues.
What is the benefit and/or improvement with these new models?
What is the benefit and/or improvement with these new models?
Succinct Verbosity
Member
I understand te need for military spending, but I think it's things like this that show why the US defense budget needs tightening. If the US military had less purchasing power then they'd probably have to make smarter investments instead of flushing $400 billion down the toilet.
Dreams-Visions
Member
even better... are f16's dropping out of the sky and unable to 'win' wars as America has been winning them? Is there much need for us to spend taxes developing one, versus buying the better plane when its for sale (As all nations seem to use older and often upgraded craft, as well as cutting edge projects). The justification doesn't make sense to me. 400b is a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere increasing the quality of life for americans.
When a plane smokes a f16 and drops a nuke on Cali, I'll have nothing but regret. But until then, we don't have money to keep our doors open. Yet we have this.. thing.
Delta Assault
Member
The F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter. F-35s are supposed to be much cheaper and designed as multirole fighters, to cover all the other missions besides air superiority.
Except the F-35 isn't turning out to be that much cheaper, and it's not very good at some missions like CAS.
I just read about A-10's as well, which look like have been in use since the 70's. That's crazy and if they're still effective with upgrades, it makes this project and investment even stupider.
Is the F-16 the most used fighter jet? As I previously mentioned, I really don't know anything about this lol
AstroNut325
Member
Well, there's that. There's another lesson too:
Don't ever - EVER - make a fighter aircraft that looks fat enough to have a double chin.
But... that's a perfect personification of the typical American!
Prinz Eugn
Member
Not small carriers or small air strips. US Marines in particular like things that are "expeditionary".
The Harrier is awful in a lot of ways precisely because it was designed around V/STOL, and viffing is basically a silver lining and not something that is worth designing around. STOVL-ish airplane to STOVL airplane, the F-35B absolutely crushes any Harrier, which is good because that's the aircraft it's replacing for the Marines, UK, and Italy.
You know what also adds weight but contributes nothing to performance in most (or really any) of the flight envelope? Landing gear. You could have seaplanes, but most operators demand the capability to land on runways. It's the same thing with STOVL- some customers want it, and are willing to deal with the sacrifices required to get it.
Delta Assault
Member
The problem with the A-10 is that it's very effective in certain environments, and useless in others.
In a permissive low-tech environment like Afghanistan or Iraq, it's super effective at CAS.
But in any conflict with a near-peer like Russia or China, with modern air defenses, it's going to be shot out of the sky on the first day of the conflict. This is a big unstealthy plane that flies low at about 250 mph for a typical attack run.
In a permissive low-tech environment like Afghanistan or Iraq, it's super effective at CAS.
But in any conflict with a near-peer like Russia or China, with modern air defenses, it's going to be shot out of the sky on the first day of the conflict. This is a big unstealthy plane that flies low at about 250 mph for a typical attack run.
Nikodemos
Member
F-16's main problem is its original 1969 design as a cheapass light fighter. It has an extremely short range on its internal reserve. Adding saddle tanks alleviates this but degrades performance (notably acceleration and maneuvrability). Adding wing tanks degrades both performance and payload.
Sure. And a one-legged guy completely crushes a legless one at hopping. That doesn't make either good at running.
There a fundamental problem with the argumentation, namely the premise. My personal take on the matter is that STOVL is bad, useless and unacceptably degrades the performance envelope of an aircraft design.
Edited.
TacticalFox88
Banned
This is what happens when more than one branch wants the same airframe with three different missions.
Had this originally only been the Air Force and other companies had designed planes for the Marine Corp and Navy, the F-35 would be serving proudly along with the 22s.
What a colossal failure.
This is the one long term thing, besides the repeal of Glass-Steagal, that's a shame on Clinton's administration.
Had this originally only been the Air Force and other companies had designed planes for the Marine Corp and Navy, the F-35 would be serving proudly along with the 22s.
What a colossal failure.
This is the one long term thing, besides the repeal of Glass-Steagal, that's a shame on Clinton's administration.
The problem is that with time those airframes are put out of service because they are old and break apart. Anytime an aircraft is upgraded some aircraft are destroyed and its parts used to replace the upgraded plane parts. So we have less and less workable aircraft. No new planes are made in an upgrade program.
The F-35 is supposed to replace these aircraft that are falling apart on then runways, being scrapped for parts, and decreasing in numbers. Problem is that it is trying too hard and do too much. The F35 is trying to replace multiple aircraft that perform different roles and failing hard.
Nope. That would require every ship being equipped with catapults, which are big, expensive and complicated and the power source to provide the steam or extra power, which are big, expensive and complicated. Forward operation bases would also be limited to helicopters only.
They would certainly make a nice big splash a few hundred feet off the front of the carriers.
Which would establish what this whole project was *trying* to avoid, multiple expensive and resource draining supply and logistics trains. Every type of aircraft comes with it's own immense costs of spares, maintenance and training, getting rid of a dozen old airframes that would require expensive upgrades just to add a few years onto tired airframes should be a saving benefit large enough to cover the cost of developing the F-35 over the course of it's 50 year life... In theory.
The amount of problems with this plane are amazing.
It'll catch on fire if it uses fuel that wasn't stored in white painted fuel trucks.
It's airframe will crack if you turn or climb.
The stealth coating liked to peel off randomly.
Cost overruns of billions of dollars.
And a whole bunch more problems.
But at least the helmet looks cool. (Although I doubt it will work as advertised)
It'll catch on fire if it uses fuel that wasn't stored in white painted fuel trucks.
It's airframe will crack if you turn or climb.
The stealth coating liked to peel off randomly.
Cost overruns of billions of dollars.
And a whole bunch more problems.
But at least the helmet looks cool. (Although I doubt it will work as advertised)
The amount of problems with this plane are amazing.
It'll catch on fire if it uses fuel that wasn't stored in white painted fuel trucks.
It's airframe will crack if you turn or climb.
The stealth coating liked to peel off randomly.
Cost overruns of billions of dollars.
And a whole bunch more problems.
But at least the helmet looks cool. (Although I doubt it will work as advertised)
That hasn't been a single problem with the fuel, the F-35 like other aircraft use the fuel on-board as a heat-sink for the electronics, it can control that temp but only while moving, if the fuel gets too hot it needs to be cooled but as the hottest it gets is sitting on the ground in a truck waiting to be used they needed a quick fix. So the only issue is when using trucks exposed to desert temperatures and sun all day...
The only airframe crack has been on a test bed of a model which had been subjected to a level of strain and fatigue much higher then real life stresses, the material of that component has since been changed.
The stealth coating peeling was an issue with the F-22, the F-35 doesn't have it and as such the F-22 is getting that coating applied to replace it's own.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Vtol capability on B, can carry internal bombs. F22 is pure fighter, F35 is strike fighter. It was supposed to be cheaper than developing 3 separate dedicated designs but may end up being roughly the same or more because of delays.
GameGuru59
Banned
In terms of fighting a conventional war? Probably. Many lives were spent in WWII clearing islands so fighters/bombers of all stripes could land. In more recent wars, alot of work goes into securing airbases for our aircraft. Now we don't have a need to do that if we ever fight another large scale conventional war. That will help the Marines greatly in terms of close air support.
I think drones are going to reduce the need for conventional aircraft greatly in the coming decades, but then again, that's decades from now. Plus, you never want to be reliant on one type of weapon. There will always be a need for VTOL.
Should be cheaper in the long run. Only one system to service. Only one system to update. Only one system to teach people to service and fly.
These Posts were fun, because first I saw a jet having double chin and then I saw it smile!
Anyway I enjoy threads like these. Always informative, and gets me to read interesting Wikipedia articles.
And I don't think any other plane has ever made fuel trucks be repainted because it'll catch on fore if the fuel going in is too hot. Well most of our wars in the future are probably going to be in hot places.
Well the problem is the test models are also built the same as some of the developed models due to the stupid concurrent development.
That one I did mess up but their are a lot of concerns from the pentagon about its stealth capabilities, and if it wants to stay stealthy it can barley carry any weapons due to lack of space which seems to an extremely dumb design choice.
A lot of people thought that VTOL was a waste of time in the middle of the last century but then the harrier and it's versatility proved very useful during the Falklands. Then a lot of people thought that with long range bombers and missiles that VTOL was surplus to requirements. Then as always along came the Harrier operated from basis cleared in a couple of days by a few tractors and providing vital early fast jet support to make people rethink.
It's easy to rule VTOL out by new tech but a single bomb hitting the middle of your runway or operating from terrain that is rough and hard to clear and there is the need again. It also allows for air cover from ships that would normally be no where near the size needed for true carrier operations.
The F-35 WILL NOT AND HAS NOT caught on fire because of fuel temps, it just interferes with electronics as it is used a heat-sink like many other modern jets, those jets weren't all developed during the summer seasons in a desert. Once moving it isn't an issue, in reality it is not an issue as operational fuel isn't stored that way. They could have just put up some shade but considered repainting a quicker fix.
You can easily design a large stealth aircraft that can carry a lot of weapons but it will be much more expensive and will fall away from multi-role to pure bomber requiring the R+D of a new naval stealth fighter and... of hello costs have you just suddenly tripled. Triple launchers are currently being developed that will allow the 35 to carry 6 missiles internally, on top of any external weapons. Legacy aircraft don't have the choice and they fly typical sorties with a similar load, all external with the extra drag and load limits that brings.
It's easy to rule VTOL out by new tech but a single bomb hitting the middle of your runway or operating from terrain that is rough and hard to clear and there is the need again. It also allows for air cover from ships that would normally be no where near the size needed for true carrier operations.
The F-35 WILL NOT AND HAS NOT caught on fire because of fuel temps, it just interferes with electronics as it is used a heat-sink like many other modern jets, those jets weren't all developed during the summer seasons in a desert. Once moving it isn't an issue, in reality it is not an issue as operational fuel isn't stored that way. They could have just put up some shade but considered repainting a quicker fix.
You can easily design a large stealth aircraft that can carry a lot of weapons but it will be much more expensive and will fall away from multi-role to pure bomber requiring the R+D of a new naval stealth fighter and... of hello costs have you just suddenly tripled. Triple launchers are currently being developed that will allow the 35 to carry 6 missiles internally, on top of any external weapons. Legacy aircraft don't have the choice and they fly typical sorties with a similar load, all external with the extra drag and load limits that brings.
Florida_Man_5000
Member
I wonder if the F-35 might be remembered as the last great human piloted fighter jet?
Also, if the F-22 is the superior Air to Air and has the superior intelligence and coordination abilities, why not use drones for strike support? Drones would have better stealth capabilities and the F-22 would provide better support visuals for homebase operators.
Supposedly, an F22 already deterred an Iran pilot from taking out a drone near the border.
Sorry if ignorant question, I'm just a casual fan of fighter planes.
Also, if the F-22 is the superior Air to Air and has the superior intelligence and coordination abilities, why not use drones for strike support? Drones would have better stealth capabilities and the F-22 would provide better support visuals for homebase operators.
Supposedly, an F22 already deterred an Iran pilot from taking out a drone near the border.
Sorry if ignorant question, I'm just a casual fan of fighter planes.
Yup, especially when the Navy is increasing the number of these ships. These ships although small, compared to carriers, and mostly containing helicopters also carry harrier jets. If there is no vtol jet, it would just carry helicopters which would reduce the offensive and defensive capabilities of these ships. Literally, thousands of Marines and sailors would be relying on other ships and only their helicopters to defend them or to support during an assault.
Its supposed to give a common airframe for the air force, navy and marines ands take over the role of most planes for all 3 branches.
But trying to give a common design to 3 different groups that all have different requirements put it in development hell.
Drones are the end plan for most but the technology isn't there yet. Hell Iran was able to hack and land an RQ-170, one of the most advanced at the time without much fuss.
Use the navy's airforce or regular air force?
The marines really seem like they should just be part of the navy and not its own separate entity.
The ships the Marines rely on operate closer to the coast and often on their own (not counting the escort ships). They operate as mini-carriers and some do operate alongside carriers. However, the purpose of the jets on the ships is that if it were alone away from the carriers, it can defend itself. If it doesn't have jets, the only thing it has are Phalanx defense weapons which are not as effective as a jet shooting down missiles and enemy jets/ships.
In a major assault or combat operation, they would use the jets on the Carriers. The USAF jets would be in the US or fighting over land and not sea. But alone, they would have nothing but choppers to defend the thousands of marines on board. Normal carriers have the same problem, if it weren't for jets they would have little to no defense or offensive capabilities and thousands of sailors onboard would be easy targets.
- Status