OT: F35 can't replace F16/F15 despite its raison d'existence

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: fcooke

And then when you keep it simple and reliable it will last a long time. We still have the C-47/DC-3 from the 30's - almost 100 years old. B-52s and C-130s designed in the 50s, with the current B-52s built in the 60s and expected to serve until 2050, While the C-130s have been been continually improved I believe they are STILL being built.

B52s are not viable in today's environment. During the fascists' war against Yugoslavia a tad over 20 years ago they couldn't enter Yugo airspace. Hell, even the Stealth was vulnerable to the 2nd rate Yugo AD.

I did not know of any fascists' war against Yugoslavia a little over 20 years ago. Can you provide some information on this, please?

Hagel um Harry![:(]

[fcooke]

61 - There was no Yugoslavia 20 years ago - the country had already broken up. Your comment tangentially supports my comments. One plane does not generally work well in all missions. The 52s punished Iraqi forces in the first Gulf war and IIRC none were lost in action. And it could be argued the Iraqi air defenses then were better than the Bosnian ones later on. But a different type of conflict. No concentrated targets in Bosnia, which IMO was the more likely reason the 52s were not used. Not much point in dropping 70,000 pounds of bombs on 5 guys (Bosnia), vs dropping the same on a brigade dug-in in the desert (Iraq) where it really hurts. In any event I am not sure what you think the solution is. IIRC an F-16 was lost in Bosnia, I'm not convinced an F-35 would have done any better. But when the generals who like shiny new toys and want to get rid of the B-1 and B-2 and keep the 52? They are either thinking critically or idiots. We can debate that over a drink.

[BBfanboy]

The F-117 lost in the Balkans was a fluke - the enemy knew an attack was happening and sprayed AAA into the air randomly, and got lucky. Not much you can do against that kind of luck.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

The F-117 lost in the Balkans was a fluke - the enemy knew an attack was happening and sprayed AAA into the air randomly, and got lucky. Not much you can do against that kind of luck.

The Golden BB . . .

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

A fairly written article by a credible News Organization.

In essence the F35 suffered "scope / mission creep" and promised too much to too many interested buyers.

Certainly not the first time in western defense contracting.

Much the very same debate ( I am old ) as I recall between the MD F4 Phantom and the Vought F8 Crusader during Vietnam. The F4 was deemed to be the 'universal' air superiority jet but the Navy made a strong case with the F8 for Carriers and A7 Corsair for fighter bomber attacks.

The F4 was promoted - latter demonized - reputation rehabilitated.... etc

I am far from certain whether the F35 will eventually be judged a 'dud' or a 'success'. History will tell us in 10 + years. Canada for example has walked away - but that is far from any sort of concrete indication as our Military spending is highly politicized.


What is clearly missing from the 'scope of this discussion' is F35 verses "what" ??

Russian tech has proved incredibly suspect for the last 20 plus years; since the so called end of the cold war with somewhat better access to the truth - we find that despite American shortcomings - Russian shortcomings were larger.

I would argue in the closed system that is China the very same is more than likely true.

Considering Russia's difficulties with SU-57 and minimal military orders...I think their problems are bigger.

22 SU-57s by 2024...that is miniscule compared to F-35s produced so far in even limited initial production program.

That is how Ivan does things. They don't shoot their wad on a 1000+ planes that are hanger queens for decades.

WAD

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

A fairly written article by a credible News Organization.

In essence the F35 suffered "scope / mission creep" and promised too much to too many interested buyers.

Certainly not the first time in western defense contracting.

Much the very same debate ( I am old ) as I recall between the MD F4 Phantom and the Vought F8 Crusader during Vietnam. The F4 was deemed to be the 'universal' air superiority jet but the Navy made a strong case with the F8 for Carriers and A7 Corsair for fighter bomber attacks.

The F4 was promoted - latter demonized - reputation rehabilitated.... etc

I am far from certain whether the F35 will eventually be judged a 'dud' or a 'success'. History will tell us in 10 + years. Canada for example has walked away - but that is far from any sort of concrete indication as our Military spending is highly politicized.


What is clearly missing from the 'scope of this discussion' is F35 verses "what" ??

Russian tech has proved incredibly suspect for the last 20 plus years; since the so called end of the cold war with somewhat better access to the truth - we find that despite American shortcomings - Russian shortcomings were larger.

I would argue in the closed system that is China the very same is more than likely true.

Considering Russia's difficulties with SU-57 and minimal military orders...I think their problems are bigger.

22 SU-57s by 2024...that is miniscule compared to F-35s produced so far in even limited initial production program.

That is how Ivan does things. They don't shoot their wad on a 1000+ planes that are hanger queens for decades.

WAD

So says the voice from personal knowledge.



Hagel zum Harry

[Sardaukar]

Russian AF and planes are widely known about their reliability and easy maintenance...NOT.

Ask from any of export customers of Sukhoi. [8D]

[Q-Ball]

Why do we need a pilot in the plane? Once you lose the pilot that's a ton of weight you can work with

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Why do we need a pilot in the plane? Once you lose the pilot that's a ton of weight you can work with

Cylons is the way to go.

Or maybe Skynet.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Why do we need a pilot in the plane? Once you lose the pilot that's a ton of weight you can work with

Cylons is the way to go.

Or maybe Skynet.

Cylons looked quite heavy though.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Why do we need a pilot in the plane? Once you lose the pilot that's a ton of weight you can work with

Cylons is the way to go.

Or maybe Skynet.

Cylons looked quite heavy though.

A couple of them looked real nice.[:'(]

[tolsdorff]

Here is a good resource from someone that knows a lot more about it than any of us : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eUDF6ICE0s

[RangerJoe]

That is about a roller coaster? I just watched a little of it and I can't understand why a person would want to give a murderer pleasure while he is killed. Better they fear what is coming and not enjoy it.

[tolsdorff]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

That is about a roller coaster? I just watched a little of it and I can't understand why a person would want to give a murderer pleasure while he is killed. Better they fear what is coming and not enjoy it.

hahaha. just watched that as well. [:D][:D][:D]

Somewhere on his channel there is the video where he, an actual F-35 pilot that flew the F-16 for 6 years, talks about the negative attention the F-35 is getting. Corrected the link, thank you

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Why do we need a pilot in the plane? Once you lose the pilot that's a ton of weight you can work with

Easy answer: MIC makes a TON of more profit on manned planes which are obsolete than unmanned planes.

[fcooke]

61 - I am guessing you have not spent a lot of time with computer programs. They have bugs. We will see manned aircraft for the rest of our lifetimes because a human can react whereas code can only 'follow the code'. And the pilot plus gear is likely only around 300 lbs. I guess if you add in ejection seat and supporting systems it comes closer to 1000 lbs.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Why do we need a pilot in the plane? Once you lose the pilot that's a ton of weight you can work with

Easy answer: MIC makes a TON of more profit on manned planes which are obsolete than unmanned planes.

Who is MIC?

Would you rather be flown in a plane with no pilot with unknown and possibly known bugs in the guidance system or a plane with a pilot? One of these supposedly safe driverless cars ran down a pedestrian even though the system detected the pedestrian and had more than enough time to stop.

Hagel zum Harry!

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I continue not to understand Rusty's rabid obsession with the F-35 being bad (allegedly).

My understanding of it was... it was never going to replace the F-16? Like, they fill entirely different roles.

The F-15 (or F-18) would be another matter, as air superiority craft. But I still think it's fairly obvious that this obsession is off point.

I think that I understand. Anything that the US does is bad, anything that the opponents of the US does is good.

Y'know, I think you might be onto something.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Why do we need a pilot in the plane? Once you lose the pilot that's a ton of weight you can work with

Easy answer: MIC makes a TON of more profit on manned planes which are obsolete than unmanned planes.

Who is MIC?

Would you rather be flown in a plane with no pilot with unknown and possibly known bugs in the guidance system or a plane with a pilot? One of these supposedly safe driverless cars ran down a pedestrian even though the system detected the pedestrian and had more than enough time to stop.

Hagel zum Harry!

MIC is something-speak for Military Industrial Complex. Get with the cult lingo, man!

[Rusty1961]

Hagel zum Harry!
[/quote]

MIC is something-speak for Military Industrial Complex. Get with the cult lingo, man!
[/quote]

Gen. Eisenhower was a cultist? Wow...thanks for sharing and denigrating an American war hero.