More bad news for F-35

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by kwaigonegin, Nov 18, 2010.

  1. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,073
    Likes Received:
    32,101
    The B is going to fly...and I mean go through. It already is flying. It will get fixed.

    The US Marines are committed to it as are other nations. It's just too good an answer for VSTOL carriers popping up all over the world amongst American allies.

    The Navy is going to push there's through as well, and the Airforce is already almost there.

    There are three VSTOL B aircraft already flying and two Navy C aircraft already flying. A total of 14 F-35s are built and flying (with others being built but undergoing static tests). They are slated to bring 10 more online this year...most of those Airforce birds.

    I am going to be putting up a JSF page on my US NAvy 21st Century Site. For the America and other LHAs and LHDs, and for the Navy, it is too critical a component not to have it there.


    US Marine F-35B Aircraft undergoing Tests
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    US Navy F-35C aircraft being Tested
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    #11 Jeff Head, Jan 15, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2011
  2. johnboy
    Offline

    johnboy New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for reading, but if you read carefully I state exactly that. Gates put the Marine version on probation, but also announced a slow-down in the production schedule for the other versions. The result does amount to everyone experiencing another big delay in getting their hands on the F-35. The Marines are the only people in danger of losing their version, however.

    The F-35's fate is as much a matter of politics as anything else. I've heard grumblings from the Navy that they want more Super Hornets, and see forcing them onto the Marines as a way of getting them. Deficit control and cost-cutting might figure into this business as well. I can't see the entire program on the chopping block -- it is too important to too many people -- but it is easy to see this part getting scrapped and that part getting cut back and so on as part of some Congressional fracas.

     
    #12 johnboy, Jan 15, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2011
  3. airsuperiority
    Offline

    airsuperiority Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,041
    Likes Received:
    85
    actually i just looked back at my post and yea, kinda realized i made a bunch of mistakes here and there, so those are just my opinions. and actually i'll take back my statement regarding it like f-18c. however, i really do, dont believe in an all-rounded fighter that u can put for all walks of the armed forces. every branch has their own requirements, especially when it comes to theater, mission requirements, environments, objectives.

    stating in advance, of course i dont have any qualifications or wtsoever, so if u're gonna say im wrong or disagree with wt i've said, get straight into it and can save the insults. im just a member with some thoughts, and definitely not looking for any arguments as im not as learned as some other members here.

    anyways, an example i'd wanna make is a-10 vs f-35 when it comes to CAS or missions involving high levels of anti-air threats. A-10 is known for its durability and armor, and i'd doubt the f-35 have these same capabilities. however of course the f-35 has wt the a-10 doesnt: stealth. despite that though, while f-35 may have a higher mission success rate from its stealth, i'd think it has a lower survivability than a-10 since it cant absorb the beatings that the a-10 can take. of course we can say, with stealth, armor is less likely to be a matter, and armor is less useful when stealth can ensure a higher mission survival rate. however my point is that a-10 is specifically designed for ground attack role, and its design, natures will orient on wt to expect in those battlefield conditions. in contrast, f-35 may be stealthy, but as in other threads that others have mentioned before, even a stealth aircraft can be more vulnerable in hot zones, therefore stealth only ensures higher elusion rate, but definitely won't guarantee survival after being hit(while a-10 might stand more chance). correct me if im wrong, but i also get the idea that a damaged stealth figher is particularly more vulnerable with a higher radar return due to the damages or loss of certain capabilities. for these reasons, i'd naturally believe the a-10 is more capable for these roles with its design (such as thick armor) as opposed to f-35's design, which is meant to be multirole, and all- roundedness. in such a way, it may be all-rounded, but the airframe and design may not be completely oriented for the mission requirement, thus wont perform as good as those specialized in one area.
    my guesses apply to why i'd think su-33, f-14, would make a better maritime fighter, su-34 for fighter bomber role, f-16/15 for dogfighting. they may not be stealthy like the f-35, but according to wt i've heard(dun ask me for source. i didnt make it up, but i dun remember where i've heard it anymore.), f-35's aerial fighting capabilities aren't all that good at all. also its max speed is <mach 2, whereas all those planes i've mentioned were capable of that.(im not implying speed is anything) f-14 was designed for the carrier, su-33 as well(also with a flanker airframe+canards, we know pretty much where it's at in terms of dogfight capabilities). f-15 was naturally for air superiority(we know where it's at), f-16 is a dogfighter,
    of course if the f-35 is proven to be very capable for dogfights, then i'd take that back too. anyways my whole point is that, an all-rounded fighter is less likely to achieve/tackle the most specific requirements of a certain role, because it was meant more to be all-rounded, than to be specialized. kinda like why there's no such things as all-rounded doctors, but there are brain surgeons. (or why a 18 wheeler cant also be a rally car and for drifting)

    once again, if im wrong, no need to ridicule me. just point it out, save the insults, explain why im wrong, and no need to throw a fit. thanks
     
  4. Ambivalent
    Offline

    Ambivalent Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's cool dude. From the US Navy's perspective a fleet defense fighter has to be able to launch, hit the burner, fly 300 nm in excess of Mach 2 and launch at least six, preferably more, active homing missiles at incoming enemy aircraft and/or missiles. If it can turn and burn too, well that is gravey. If it makes it back to the ship after going 300 nm on full burner that's even better! There have to be tankers up from the get go or pilots go swimming. That is the F/A-18's job. The F does the old A-6 long range all weather heavy attack mission. Finally a replacement for the old Intruder!
    Any aircraft with fixed intake geometry, including the F-16 and F/A-18 A - D will be limited to around M 1.6. Variable geometry inlets cost an awful lot of money, so they only go on aircraft that have to exceed M 2. And now they have to be designed to hide the compressor for stealth, which is why the Navy is coy about showing you details of the F/A-18E/F inlet.
    Being subsonic didn't stop the Harrier from having it's way with Argentine Daggers (Israeli built Mirage III copy). A pilot has to know his airplane and his opponents. The pilot more successful at exploiting their plane's strengths at the expense of the opponent's weaknesses more often than not wins, regardless of what the numbers on Military-Technology.com say. On paper the F-8 Crusader was a complete POS, and the joke was that when you were out of Crusaders you weren't out of much, but it's kill ratio over Vietnam says something else. Better than the F-4 Phantom's.
     
  5. sdleio
    Offline

    sdleio Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    18
    She is beautiful~!But im sure Lockheed Martin really meet technical issues on F-35B,need more fund to test and verify,at least they have kept F-35A & F-35C.
     
Loading...

Share This Page