U.S. waived laws to keep F-35 on track with China-made parts

[AirRodgers]

Everything Sprey talked about has been addressed. If you want to debate the many points he brought up, bring them ONE AT A TIME and I will debate that ONE point with you. By the way, I was on two aircrafts: F-111 and F-16, for 10 yrs in the USAF. Then later as a civilian, I designed and conducted radar field tests for 'low altitude subsonic penetration unmanned autonomous' aircrafts. And finally, while Sprey is not wrong about low freq long wavelength radars, he is wrong about their combat effectiveness.

Let me know if you are ready to begin.

grats on your expertise

non expert here, how good is a bomber that can only carried two bombs.
how good is a support aircraft that has a limited loiter ability over the battlefield because its a gas hog and can only carried 2 bombs.
small wing, fatness do to the lift fan plus its internal storage, it lack climbing, turning or running ability in a combat environment...ie it can't run, can't climb or turn.

Yes its got avionic, but wouldn't that avionic be better put in a better aircraft.. I bet if you put that avionic package in say a stealth eagle it would rape that useless F35 and would cost a lot less. I'm an American and with 17 trillion in debt we can't afford this garbage, that lockheed martin is trying to ram down our throat.

 

[Superboy]

Why would China steal tech from F-35 when Israel gives technology to China for free all the time? J-10B, which has DSI and AESA, the most advanced single engine fighter jet in the world, is in serial production and achieves IOC this year.

 

[untitled]

Thread should be merged

 

[Obambam]

Everything Sprey talked about has been addressed. If you want to debate the many points he brought up, bring them ONE AT A TIME and I will debate that ONE point with you. By the way, I was on two aircrafts: F-111 and F-16, for 10 yrs in the USAF. Then later as a civilian, I designed and conducted radar field tests for 'low altitude subsonic penetration unmanned autonomous' aircrafts. And finally, while Sprey is not wrong about low freq long wavelength radars, he is wrong about their combat effectiveness.

Let me know if you are ready to begin.

It is too early to discuss about F-35's combat effectiveness, as they are not yet combat ready, nor were they combat tested.

 

[gambit]

grats on your expertise

non expert here,

Yer welcome...And thanks for your no experience in this issue.

how good is a bomber that can only carried two bombs.

By that simplistic argument, one hundred bombs delivered is better than six, correct?

Back in WW II, it would have required dozens of missions with dozens of bombers each to render this airfield inoperable for at least 24 hrs. But for US today, it is one bomber, one pass, and six bombs. And with 'stealth', the enemy would not see it coming until it is too late.

how good is a support aircraft that has a limited loiter ability over the battlefield because its a gas hog and can only carried 2 bombs.
small wing, fatness do to the lift fan plus its internal storage, it lack climbing, turning or running ability in a combat environment...ie it can't run, can't climb or turn.

Close Air Support (CAS) is the only legitimate criticism Sprey leveled at the F-35.

Yes its got avionic, but wouldn't that avionic be better put in a better aircraft.. I bet if you put that avionic package in say a stealth eagle it would rape that useless F35 and would cost a lot less.

And based upon what would you base that bet? Your opinion?

I'm an American and with 17 trillion in debt we can't afford this garbage, that lockheed martin is trying to ram down our throat.

Lockheed is not 'ramming' anything down anyone's throat. Lockheed is a supplier who responded to a customer's request.

But if you want to talk about financials...

Top is the old carrier complement. Bottom is today.

Count how many aircrafts for each, as in TYPE. Now try to imagine the logistical demands for the old versus the new. Then put yourself into the shoes of a Human Resources manager, as in training and certifications for your company. Six different platforms versus 3. Not counting helos. Go talk to a professional accountant and HR specialist for yourself.

You bitch and moan about a single aircraft while ignoring the diversity of platforms the three aviation branches have been fielding for years and how much they cost over those decades. The Soviets are gone, and while China is building, NOW is no better time to target downsize the US military to make US more lethal for the same overall budget window we have been operating.

Your ignorance, and I say that kindly, is understandable, and unfortunately that ignorance tainted or even negated your critical thinking. Sprey seemingly criticized the 'high-low' philosophy the USAF adopted for the F-22 and F-35 mix. But oddly enough, if you even bothered to research Sprey, Boyd, the F-16, and the rest of the 'Fighter Mafia' back in the days, you would have found that with the F-16, that maverick group inside the Pentagon was advocating EXACTLY that high-low mix.

In fact, they wanted the F-16 to have either a minimum or literally no radar at all. The fighter was to be a pure aircraft killer. They wanted the -16 to be a pure within-visual-range fighter. Sorry, but if my son/daughter was up there, I want him/her to kill the enemy from as far away as possible. Dogfighting romanticism be damned. The Fighter Mafia wanted a flight of -16s to be literally guided to the enemy by a shepherd, like an AWACS or a couple of F-15 like aircrafts, fight the enemy, then the shepherd would lead the survivors back to home base.

Boyd, Sprey, and the group had legitimate ideas and many of them truly visionary and adopted. But they were also wrong in many areas, notably the technology front.

It is too early to discuss about F-35's combat effectiveness, as they are not yet combat ready, nor were they combat tested.

I was talking about Sprey's comments about long wavelength radar systems versus 'stealth'. I explained how tactically limiting such systems are many times here already. Just because the Russians designed and built such, that does not mean such systems would be effective. The Russians do have a history of not using technology to best advantage. But I do encourage China and others to follow their lead.

 

[Oldman1]

grats on your expertise

non expert here, how good is a bomber that can only carried two bombs.
how good is a support aircraft that has a limited loiter ability over the battlefield because its a gas hog and can only carried 2 bombs.
small wing, fatness do to the lift fan plus its internal storage, it lack climbing, turning or running ability in a combat environment...ie it can't run, can't climb or turn.

Yes its got avionic, but wouldn't that avionic be better put in a better aircraft.. I bet if you put that avionic package in say a stealth eagle it would rape that useless F35 and would cost a lot less. I'm an American and with 17 trillion in debt we can't afford this garbage, that lockheed martin is trying to ram down our throat.

The F35 can carry 8 Small Diameter Bombs in its internal bays total. In this video you can see how dangerous the bomb is already. And granted this video shows the bomb bay of the F22 instead of F35. But you get the picture.

And thats the internal bays only.

 

[janon]

@gambit : Is the USAF's plan to use the f-22 and f-35 in a hi-lo mix, similar to the f-15/f-16 combo? If so, doesn't the small number of f-22s preclude that? I mean, the ratio of f-15 to f-16s in the fleet and the ratio of f-22 to f-35s is so different. Also, would the f-35 be useful to other air forces who will not get the f-22?

As an example, the israeli air force had an f-15/f-16 combo like the USAF. But in future, they will have only f-35s, no f-22. Would f-35s alone be able to take on all spectrum of aerial warfare, like the 15/16 combo could until now?

And what about the USN - presently they have a twin engined, heavy f-18/f-18SH mix. They will not have F-22s in future, only f-35. Is it wise to go for only the jack of all trades aircraft?

Once stealth fighters proliferate, wouldn't air combat capabilities still matter, since neither the f-35 nor the PAKFA can see each other from a distance? I mean, as of now the f-35 can rely on stealth and the ability to see and shoot first. But once that advantage is negated, wouldn't PAKFAs and similar aircrafts with much more load and missile carrying ability, and much better aerodynamic performance, have an upper hand?

The strategy would have been fine if the USAF had as many F-22s as they had F-15s. As for foreign allies, they will not get the F-22s at all, so...

 

[UKBengali]

4th gen avionics did the job quite well.

Against 3rd generation aircraft and small number of 4th generation downgraded Mig-29s that had no AWACs support.

.

And who is?

Lots of countries have avionics technology very similar to what the US has - UK and France as examples.

Neither can design an F-22 now though as they do not have the technology - maybe the UK is the closest as it has engine techology second only to the US in the world.

They do not need to pray when they have the superior avionics.

Question is how superior and whether it would make any difference?

I would not want to be a Japanese F-35 pilot against a Chinese J-20. The Japanese wanted 100 F-35s and were willing to pay 30 billion dollars but the US refused the request.


Personally, I am happy that the US is wasting so much treasure on making F-35s as it is making the end of the US as a superpower come even quicker.

 

[AirRodgers]

Yer welcome...And thanks for your no experience in this issue.


By that simplistic argument, one hundred bombs delivered is better than six, correct?

Close Air Support (CAS) is the only legitimate criticism Sprey leveled at the F-35.


And based upon what would you base that bet? Your opinion?


Lockheed is not 'ramming' anything down anyone's throat. Lockheed is a supplier who responded to a customer's request.

But if you want to talk about financials...

Top is the old carrier complement. Bottom is today.

Count how many aircrafts for each, as in TYPE. Now try to imagine the logistical demands for the old versus the new. Then put yourself into the shoes of a Human Resources manager, as in training and certifications for your company. Six different platforms versus 3. Not counting helos. Go talk to a professional accountant and HR specialist for yourself.

You bitch and moan about a single aircraft while ignoring the diversity of platforms the three aviation branches have been fielding for years and how much they cost over those decades. The Soviets are gone, and while China is building, NOW is no better time to target downsize the US military to make US more lethal for the same overall budget window we have been operating.

Your ignorance, and I say that kindly, is understandable, and unfortunately that ignorance tainted or even negated your critical thinking. Sprey seemingly criticized the 'high-low' philosophy the USAF adopted for the F-22 and F-35 mix. But oddly enough, if you even bothered to research Sprey, Boyd, the F-16, and the rest of the 'Fighter Mafia' back in the days, you would have found that with the F-16, that maverick group inside the Pentagon was advocating EXACTLY that high-low mix.

In fact, they wanted the F-16 to have either a minimum or literally no radar at all. The fighter was to be a pure aircraft killer. They wanted the -16 to be a pure within-visual-range fighter. Sorry, but if my son/daughter was up there, I want him/her to kill the enemy from as far away as possible. Dogfighting romanticism be damned. The Fighter Mafia wanted a flight of -16s to be literally guided to the enemy by a shepherd, like an AWACS or a couple of F-15 like aircrafts, fight the enemy, then the shepherd would lead the survivors back to home base.

Boyd, Sprey, and the group had legitimate ideas and many of them truly visionary and adopted. But they were also wrong in many areas, notably the technology front.


I was talking about Sprey's comments about long wavelength radar systems versus 'stealth'. I explained how tactically limiting such systems are many times here already. Just because the Russians designed and built such, that does not mean such systems would be effective. The Russians do have a history of not using technology to best advantage. But I do encourage China and others to follow their lead.

I have no experience that why I'm going with Pierre Sprey opinion over you on the F 35. Your experience with the f111 or the f16 could have been as a radar tech on those plane, since you didn't went into detail. So I will be sticking with Pierre Sprey opinion over someone who use to work in the USAF. Remember I'm from the US and we don't worship at the feet of someone that work with the military. Let just say for the most part the US arm forces doesn't get the brightness HR from the population at large.

The B2 drop 6 jdam and have range that the F35 could never have... 6 bombs > 2 bombs, B2 ranges> F35 ranges

You fail to notice how the F35 component are source to state with key senator who can support such a big project. If you are saying that Lockheed is just a supplier to the US military, you a quite naïve at the working of a trillion dollar project.

As regard to the hi/low mix I agree with that concept. With short range, small weapon load, and lack overall maneuverability the F35 is just a bad plane to be put into the mix. My vision of a HI/low mix is f22 flying cap for stealth drone/drone... IMO they kill the wrong plane, they should have kept the f22 line and drop the F35.. Our only hope now is to sucker in as many foreign customer as we can get to lower the until cost of the F35. Even if we are able to do this, it will only solve our cost issue, the problem with the F35 being a bad concept and design won't go away. Critical thinking as much as you want, but at the end of the day the F 35 is still a plane that can only carried two bombs, lack super cruise, lack range, can't climb, and can't turn worth a dam.




"Go talk to a professional accountant and HR specialist"
Whoa, so a HR specialist should decide what weapon platform we should use

 

[AirRodgers]

The F35 can carry 8 Small Diameter Bombs in its internal bays total. In this video you can see how dangerous the bomb is already. And granted this video shows the bomb bay of the F22 instead of F35. But you get the picture.

And thats the internal bays only.

I bet the A 10 warthog would carried more than 3,900 depleted uranium round if it replace its 30mm GAU-8/A Gatling gun, with a BB gun

 

[UKBengali]

A navalised F-22 will be ready around the middle of next decade as there is no way that the US would want F-35s to face J-31s flying off Chinese carriers. Just imagine that complete obliteration of F-35s by J-31s!

I think that only a few hundred F-35s will be built for the US, with another few hundred being sold to US lackeys and then the production line will cease.

 

[jhungary]

As regard to the hi/low mix I agree with that concept. With short range, small weapon load, and lack overall maneuverability the F35 is just a bad plane to be put into the mix. My vision of a HI/low mix is f22 flying cap for stealth drone/drone... IMO they kill the wrong plane, they should have kept the f22 line and drop the F35.. Our only hope now is to sucker in as many foreign customer as we can get to lower the until cost of the F35. Even if we are able to do this, it will only solve our cost issue, the problem with the F35 being a bad concept and design won't go away. Critical thinking as much as you want, but at the end of the day the F 35 is still a plane that can only carried two bombs, lack super cruise, lack range, can't climb, and can't turn worth a dam.

No, the aspect of F-22 is and ALWAYS will be CAP (Combat Air Patrol) in ground level, we need planes that can drop bombs where required and when required.

First let's talk about why Prolonging the production of F-22 is not right. F-22 is an Air dominance fighter, they are to take care of enemy air threat, yet you don't go drop bombs with F-22. You may think, yeah well, we got F-16 and A-10 for that role.

F-16 is a legacy fighter, not sure how many years they can stay on without costing us too much to maintain them. Prospect is, even F-16 was bar from entering an AO if there are preceived AA/SAM threat, so even if we are talking about insurgent, if there are SAM Alert, then bye bye fast air.

A-10 is a close air support platform that match the ground support with fire power. HOWEVER, there are one major draw back with A-10 - It's speed. Well, they pack a punch, they are durable, they can hold in your sector for longer time, they are slow so they can strafe again and again with enemy position. But what good it does when you need them now and the AFO tell you they are 20 mike away??

Personally called several A-10 Strike on target myself, the waiting is the hardest part. It flew twice as slow as -15 and -16. If they were on the edge of your AO, it will take them 10 mike + more to come in and save you. If you are lucky enough to have one above your head, yeah, then this will be a good thing, but if you don't, then good luck holding the line before the strike came thru.

The Military need aircraft like F-35. Beside, F-35 are not any worse than F-16 (Maybe a bit far off than F-15E, but how many 15E we have in the AF??) When you compare the Stats between F-35 and F-16

Key Figure

Maximum speed (At ALT) - 2 Mach (F-16) 1.6 Mach (F-35)
Combat Radius - 340 nmi (F-16) 540 nmi (F-35)
Wing Loading - 88.3 lb/ft²(F-16) 107.7 lb/ft² (F-35)
Thrust/weight - 1.07 (F-16), 0.87 F-35

And how do you know how F-35 Turn and Climb, they are classified information, do you have access to those??

You know what, my brother was an Engine Engineer with Boeing, but after seeing F-35A demo he too wowed at it. So. I don't know where you get the F-35 is a big mistake from.

 

[jhungary]

Yer welcome...And thanks for your no experience in this issue.


By that simplistic argument, one hundred bombs delivered is better than six, correct?

Back in WW II, it would have required dozens of missions with dozens of bombers each to render this airfield inoperable for at least 24 hrs. But for US today, it is one bomber, one pass, and six bombs. And with 'stealth', the enemy would not see it coming until it is too late.


Close Air Support (CAS) is the only legitimate criticism Sprey leveled at the F-35.


And based upon what would you base that bet? Your opinion?


Lockheed is not 'ramming' anything down anyone's throat. Lockheed is a supplier who responded to a customer's request.

But if you want to talk about financials...

Top is the old carrier complement. Bottom is today.

Count how many aircrafts for each, as in TYPE. Now try to imagine the logistical demands for the old versus the new. Then put yourself into the shoes of a Human Resources manager, as in training and certifications for your company. Six different platforms versus 3. Not counting helos. Go talk to a professional accountant and HR specialist for yourself.

You bitch and moan about a single aircraft while ignoring the diversity of platforms the three aviation branches have been fielding for years and how much they cost over those decades. The Soviets are gone, and while China is building, NOW is no better time to target downsize the US military to make US more lethal for the same overall budget window we have been operating.

Your ignorance, and I say that kindly, is understandable, and unfortunately that ignorance tainted or even negated your critical thinking. Sprey seemingly criticized the 'high-low' philosophy the USAF adopted for the F-22 and F-35 mix. But oddly enough, if you even bothered to research Sprey, Boyd, the F-16, and the rest of the 'Fighter Mafia' back in the days, you would have found that with the F-16, that maverick group inside the Pentagon was advocating EXACTLY that high-low mix.

In fact, they wanted the F-16 to have either a minimum or literally no radar at all. The fighter was to be a pure aircraft killer. They wanted the -16 to be a pure within-visual-range fighter. Sorry, but if my son/daughter was up there, I want him/her to kill the enemy from as far away as possible. Dogfighting romanticism be damned. The Fighter Mafia wanted a flight of -16s to be literally guided to the enemy by a shepherd, like an AWACS or a couple of F-15 like aircrafts, fight the enemy, then the shepherd would lead the survivors back to home base.

Boyd, Sprey, and the group had legitimate ideas and many of them truly visionary and adopted. But they were also wrong in many areas, notably the technology front.


I was talking about Sprey's comments about long wavelength radar systems versus 'stealth'. I explained how tactically limiting such systems are many times here already. Just because the Russians designed and built such, that does not mean such systems would be effective. The Russians do have a history of not using technology to best advantage. But I do encourage China and others to follow their lead.

In the old days, they designed F-16 for a Fighter-Bomber Role of the like with F-105. The problem is the top brass think, now that we have something to take care of BVR, we need something that excel in other stuff. These kind of mindset have been proven wrong time and again and yet the Top Brass really like to think that way.

By comparing F-35 to the like of Air superiority fighter is like compare a F-16 to a F-15 or in our own Army term, you trying to use M2 Bradley as a MBT and go over enemy MBT....

Indeed Bradley have ways and know how to defeat any MBT in the world but does that mean M2 Bradley would go look for a fight with other MBT directly without the support from Abrams?? No. The role is different, but people see that yeah they have TOW and Hell Fire missile and they go compare a M2 with any servcing MBT, which is insane. I can defend myself from any MBT if i see one is different than my job is to go after enemy MBT lol. I think this is easy enough to understand

I don't know why people keep doing this, be that Bradley or F-35 lol

 

[500]

The F-35 was borne out of US arrogance that Russia(somewhat true as the PAK-FA does not have VLO) and China would not be able to develop 5th generation fighters till at least 2030.

It suffers from both poor stealth, low high-speed/no super-cruise and poor manoeuvrability.

Whatever F-35 fan-boys say, it will be a sitting duck in front of J-20s and J-31s and may not even be as capable as PAK-FA.

LOL. Thats especially funny when J-31 is almost exact copy of F-35.

 

[Jayanta]

The F-35 was borne out of US arrogance that Russia(somewhat true as the PAK-FA does not have VLO) and China would not be able to develop 5th generation fighters till at least 2030.

It suffers from both poor stealth, low high-speed/no super-cruise and poor manoeuvrability.

Whatever F-35 fan-boys say, it will be a sitting duck in front of J-20s and J-31s and may not even be as capable as PAK-FA.

Do you mean to say that in terms of capabilities J-20 and J-31 are superior to PAK-FA.