View Full Version: F-35, good or bad?

Nsdraftroom > Argument & Debate > F-35, good or bad?


Title: F-35, good or bad?


Minnysota - January 9, 2011 06:19 AM (GMT)
Alright, well as the typical person who just reads NSG and sometimes participates, I got caught up in the whole idea that the F-35 was a total piece of shit. Well, then no Endorse came in and brought the pimp hand down on the people who said that, and it got me all confused. So, I thought I would ask people who are extremely intelligent on the topic. Is the F-35 good or bad at what it was intended to do? What are the good things about it? What are the bad things?

no endorse - January 9, 2011 07:48 AM (GMT)
Well, you already have seen my opinion, but here it is again:

The F-35 program has met or exceeded the vast majority of its design goals. The program has failed to contain costs or stay on timeline, but the end product will be worthy of purchase.



NOW, one concern is that the stealthiness of the F-35 is not all-aspect or ELO a la F-22. It is reduced signature to VLO, I'm not sure, and it varies based on the direction. It is a quantum leap above such humorous investments as Eurofighter Typhoon, however the criticism of the aircraft being "penny-wise and pound foolish" is somewhat valid. This thing won't be cheap, and it isn't in the same league as the F-22 in terms of stealthiness. It is cheaper than the F-22, but the cost effectiveness is somewhat interesting.

Silent Vipers and Silent Eagles are also very interesting investments, and the cost gradient suggests that Vipers, Hornets, and Eagles will be around for a long time yet. We can't afford to operate as many F-35s as the enemy can operate MiGs. (That's in no way to validate Spiz's KEKEKEKEKEKE strategy with aviation) And, as with any stealth aircraft, external stores fuck stealth to the point where you have some interesting tradeoffs going.

Falls - January 9, 2011 08:12 AM (GMT)
user posted image
nigger fuck yo couch.


But seriously, I like the F-35 more then the F-22 as the F-22 just seems like real life wank as far as I am concerned.

United States of PA - January 9, 2011 08:34 AM (GMT)
F-16XL is tha bomb.

Enough so i intend to design a plane based off of it here in the near future.


Seriously though, everyone seems to connotate the F-35s high cost and failure to meet its Cost Goals as evidence of a overall shitty plane.

F-35 is still a plane that tries to do too much on one airframe in my opinion, but is still very good at it however.

Satirius - January 9, 2011 01:29 PM (GMT)
Since when did an American weapon system ever stay in budget ololololololol

United States of PA - January 9, 2011 03:33 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Satirius @ Jan 9 2011, 02:29 PM)
Since when did an American weapon system ever stay in budget ololololololol

Fair point. Was about to say F-15, but i have no information on the program costs of that.

Minnysota - January 9, 2011 03:41 PM (GMT)
Alright, so you guys have pretty much convinced me that it is not a bad aircraft (I feel safer trusting your opinions to this subject). However, does anyone think it will succeed in filling the role of the A-10 in CAS? I'm pretty sure I read on Wikipedia that it is to replace the A-10, but I will check better sources.

Crookfur - January 9, 2011 04:03 PM (GMT)
No reason why it shouldn't, sure it wont do the job in exactly the same way but it will be at least equal to an F-16/Tornado Gr.4/Rafale or any of the other current strike fighters being used for CAS purposes and it will have a extra degree of survivability when used to carry out CAS in conflcits with operating enviroments that ar emuch less permissive than the current afghanistan turkey shoot.


Falls - January 9, 2011 04:53 PM (GMT)
I agree with Crook. I mean, the F-35 is no Frogfoot, but itll get the job done.

Praetonia - January 9, 2011 04:59 PM (GMT)
CAS is moving towards being done at stand-off with guided weapons. In those circumstances F35 has a strong advantage because of its superior avionics and low-observability.

United States of PA - January 9, 2011 05:10 PM (GMT)
What the last three have said.


Wont do the job in the same fashion as A-10, but anymore CAS is done with Hellfires or Mavericks and Glide Bombs, not Strafing runs, unless you are a A-10.

no endorse - January 9, 2011 06:06 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Minnysota @ Jan 9 2011, 11:41 AM)
Alright, so you guys have pretty much convinced me that it is not a bad aircraft (I feel safer trusting your opinions to this subject). However, does anyone think it will succeed in filling the role of the A-10 in CAS? I'm pretty sure I read on Wikipedia that it is to replace the A-10, but I will check better sources.

Is there any reason why they couldn't complement each other? (Cost I guess) Part of the reason CAS is changing is cost savings. When you consolidate on a few multirole aircraft, rather than using a dozen dedicated designs, you do save a fair piece.

You're looking at two different approaches for CAS.



QUOTE
Since when did an American weapon system ever stay in budget ololololololol

Back in the day (oh, say, 60s and earlier), budgets were handled differently, so they sort of all stayed in budget by definition. Since the advent of pseudo cost control and this sham-privatization thing, the teen series didn't do too poorly (aside from the debacle that was the F-18)

The biggest problem with modern programs is that they take so long that requirement creep is insaaaaane.

Andorianus\Dystopianus - January 9, 2011 07:46 PM (GMT)
Worst thing of all is, the requirements for the F-35 were for a cheap, versatile, yet stealthy multirole. They changed it into a flying radar van with missiles and everything on it you ever heard of and that may be vagely useful (maybe some NS designers helped working on it?), and now all the other NATO countries who do NOT have huge budgets need to purchase it too. Believe me, from a political point of view, that really sucks.

But from an NSD designer point of view, F-35 in NS isn't that bad. Even though it doesn't quite complement my ideas and tactics.

QUOTE
I'm pretty sure I read on Wikipedia that it is to replace the A-10, but I will check better sources.
True. By 2018 they hope to replace it. I say it is a bad choice of course, but as munchie said, two different types of CAS... F-35 takes a more "precision bomber" approach, the A-10 is more of a "gunship".

In NS both would be the most effective. If the A10 was more stealthy they would complement eachother fairly well IMHO, with the F-35's hitting the main targets and the A-10's mopping up the rest.

Praetonia - January 9, 2011 08:08 PM (GMT)
F35 was never going to have a last gen radar or be as cheap as legacy planes. That is the huge advantage.

Kyiv - January 9, 2011 08:09 PM (GMT)
F-35 seems k.

As a Mig-27 for the modern battlefield it's as good as they come.

If the A-10 is going to be made survivable these days it will need to be cocooned in state of the art radar/infrared countermeasures along with the associated RWR/ESM/LWR/MAW situational awareness systems. To extend it's capability beyond clear weather conditions it will need a modern multi-mode radar.

You can do it and arguments can be made for an ordnance laden low speed CAS aircraft. But you won't save any money compared with using a fast jet. RL militaries of course don't have infinite money and massively overhauling the A-10 likely isn't seen as worth the money.


VTC - January 9, 2011 09:21 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Andorianus\Dystopianus @ Jan 9 2011, 08:46 PM)
Worst thing of all is, the requirements for the F-35 were for a cheap, versatile, yet stealthy multirole.

"Cheap" was never really a part of it other than in self-advertising prospects. JSF has always been developed to be as good as it can be. Just with different criteria than ATF, because of its different role. Cost control has been touted around more loudly with JSF after the cost of ATF started causing resistance, as well as because JSF doesn't have as much X-factor going for it.

Forza - January 9, 2011 09:36 PM (GMT)
Cost control for the F-35 has always been aimed at reducing operating costings rather than lowering the entry price. Based on patterns with previous gen US fighters I would anticipate that the F-35 would be appreciably cheaper to run than the F-22 which would add up to hundreds of millions, possibly billions, in savings over the lifetime of the aircraft.

Hurtful Thoughts - January 10, 2011 07:16 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Kyiv @ Jan 9 2011, 03:09 PM)
To extend it's capability beyond clear weather conditions it will need a modern multi-mode radar.

SEPECAT Jag sez otherwise.

Canadai - January 10, 2011 08:50 AM (GMT)
Quick question, which is more important: Not being hit by cheap-as-dirt first-gen launchers, or shrugging off a hit like a man? Because that's what F35 vs. A10 comes down to. And hint, one is a lot cheaper.

tyrandis - January 10, 2011 04:07 PM (GMT)
tbqh they tried to shove too many roles into one airframe

the VTOL marine corps version is largely responsible for all of the budget mishaps

Kyiv - January 10, 2011 06:43 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Hurtful Thoughts @ Jan 10 2011, 02:16 AM)
QUOTE (Kyiv @ Jan 9 2011, 03:09 PM)
To extend it's capability beyond clear weather conditions it will need a modern multi-mode radar.

SEPECAT Jag sez otherwise.

It's fast, yo.

Most SHORADs lose a lot of capability with increasing target speed. Also it has ECM according to the wiki.

no endorse - January 10, 2011 11:25 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Canadai @ Jan 10 2011, 04:50 AM)
Quick question, which is more important: Not being hit by cheap-as-dirt first-gen launchers, or shrugging off a hit like a man? Because that's what F35 vs. A10 comes down to. And hint, one is a lot cheaper.

Hint, the A-10 suffers from the problem of strafing and dive-bombing SHORAD.

That argument doesn't quite work out when you have the airframe attrition likely in a full on battlefield environment (what we're planning to fight)

Hurtful Thoughts - January 10, 2011 11:29 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Kyiv @ Jan 10 2011, 01:43 PM)
QUOTE (Hurtful Thoughts @ Jan 10 2011, 02:16 AM)
QUOTE (Kyiv @ Jan 9 2011, 03:09 PM)
To extend it's capability beyond clear weather conditions it will need a modern multi-mode radar.

SEPECAT Jag sez otherwise.

It's fast, yo.

Most SHORADs lose a lot of capability with increasing target speed. Also it has ECM according to the wiki.

TBH, the Jag apparently could have outlasted its British swing-wing replacement once they both saw combat-conditions (RAF deployed 12 of eah, Jag lost none [615 sorties], Tronado lost 6 [1147 sorties]. RAF-brass declared that this was due to the more difficult missions).

Kyiv - January 10, 2011 11:57 PM (GMT)
The Jaguar flew 650 Sorties in the gulf, compared to over 1,700 RAF Tornado ground attack sorties and 665 RSAF GR-1 sorties. There were also 451 Saudi Tornado ADV sorties.

That more Tornadoes were lost is not surprising. The Saudis flew as many GR-1 sorties as the RAF flew Jaguar sorties and lost no Tornadoes to enemy fire.

Crookfur - January 11, 2011 12:14 AM (GMT)
IIRC most of the tornado loses were a result of JP223 missions which were about the most high risk sorties carried out during GW1.

Tornado was not a jaguar repalcement. They were actually designed to complement each other with the tornado using its longer range and larger warload to hit targets deeper into enemy territory whilst the Jaguars carried out shorter range battlefeild interdiction missions and supported the Harriers on CAS duties.

Saddly when the money disappeared the RAF had to choose between them and for better or for worse they kept the plane that brought the most options i.e. Tornado could do all the Jaguar missions but Jaguar couldn't do all the Tornado missions.






* Hosted for free by zIFBoards