Jump to content

The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed


Jason

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

The real goal of the F-35 mission was to enrich Lockheed Martin, and the mission succeeded. Now, LM will be able to bid on the replacement of their own failed fighter and make even more money.

 

Is it too late for D1P to become a defense contractor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are buying a truck it makes sense to get something that's good at a bunch of things. Maybe you compromise on bed size to have a bigger cab, or maybe you get a smaller engine to save on gas. But for military projects, it seems to me you'd want to hyper-specialize what you have in order to have the absolute best for whatever situation you need. I know in theory that costs more since you duplicate equipment to some extent...but as we've seen, trying to make a "pretty good at many things" fighter/bomber just isn't a good idea.

 

Also I saw a video recently where they had A-10s going up against either F-16s or F-18s in dogfights (in the actual air), and the A-10 got the kill shot all of the time. What, is that real? I guess it's stipulated on having already closed the distance? The actual fighters' only real tactic was to come in really fast, hope for a shot, and then scream away. If they didn't manage to get away before the A-10 turned, they were "dead" each time since the A-10 is so maneuverable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

If you are buying a truck it makes sense to get something that's good at a bunch of things. Maybe you compromise on bed size to have a bigger cab, or maybe you get a smaller engine to save on gas. But for military projects, it seems to me you'd want to hyper-specialize what you have in order to have the absolute best for whatever situation you need. I know in theory that costs more since you duplicate equipment to some extent...but as we've seen, trying to make a "pretty good at many things" fighter/bomber just isn't a good idea.

 

Also I saw a video recently where they had A-10s going up against either F-16s or F-18s in dogfights (in the actual air), and the A-10 got the kill shot all of the time. What, is that real? I guess it's stipulated on having already closed the distance? The actual fighters' only real tactic was to come in really fast, hope for a shot, and then scream away. If they didn't manage to get away before the A-10 turned, they were "dead" each time since the A-10 is so maneuverable. 


the thing about the military is they want something that has $10b worth of tech, functionality, and reliability for $1b. They end up having to settle. The F-35’s whole purpose was to be an inexpensive platform that could cheaply be made into a variant that would suit every branch of the military. 
 

It’s like they wanted a pickup truck that haul a tractor trailer at highway speed, that is also a high performance race car, that could traverse any off-road terrain in any weather, could turn aquatic, could fly, and cost $250k. Because they didn’t want to buy half a dozen different specialized vehicles for $100k-$1m

 

Problem they’re running into right now is they’re spending so much to get the F-35 platform working at all that even for the Air Force it’s hardly a cheaper alternative to the F-22 at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

If you are buying a truck it makes sense to get something that's good at a bunch of things. Maybe you compromise on bed size to have a bigger cab, or maybe you get a smaller engine to save on gas. But for military projects, it seems to me you'd want to hyper-specialize what you have in order to have the absolute best for whatever situation you need. I know in theory that costs more since you duplicate equipment to some extent...but as we've seen, trying to make a "pretty good at many things" fighter/bomber just isn't a good idea.

 

Also I saw a video recently where they had A-10s going up against either F-16s or F-18s in dogfights (in the actual air), and the A-10 got the kill shot all of the time. What, is that real? I guess it's stipulated on having already closed the distance? The actual fighters' only real tactic was to come in really fast, hope for a shot, and then scream away. If they didn't manage to get away before the A-10 turned, they were "dead" each time since the A-10 is so maneuverable. 

 

If an F-16 is in a dog fight with an A-10 then the F-16 pilot forgot where the throttle is. 

 

The F-35s problem is it's a nightmare to upgrade or integrate new weapons. Lockheed proprietary'ed the shit out of everything, including the software, which makes changing anything a disaster. The contract gave Lockheed way too much control. The current 4th generation fighters (F-16s, Super Hornets) are all excellent multirole aircraft, so it is possible.

 

Supposedly the Air Force has already flown it's 6th generation NGAD fighter (no one really knows what 6th gen means) that's open architecture and the Navy is moving on it's 6th gen Hornet replacement (both seem to be heavy fighters to get F-14/F-15 ranges and weapons capacity) . Another issue is the requirement that the Air Force treat the Air Guard as equals, meaning they get F-35s too. My guess is this new 5th/4th gen light fighter is for the Air Guard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Jason said:

Maybe next time we should let the Navy and Marines just design their own fighter instead of insisting on making one platform do everything.

 

Marines absolutely, that said there isn't really an reason why the Navy and Air Force can't get together and have a carrier variant and a stripped down Air Force variant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 2/25/2021 at 9:45 AM, CayceG said:

No it hasn't. That article fucking sucks. 

 

Let's listen to someone who covers the F-35 for a real defense news outlet, and knows more than Forbes. 

 

 

 

 

So, according to that reporter the F-35 was portrayed as the solution to every problem. That is obviously not the case, and we're now looking to buy new planes whose roles were to be filled by the 35.

 

If I bought a miracle cure all that turned out to be an effective anti-histamine, I'd call that cure-all a failure.

 

We spent a trillion dollars on a plane that was supposed to be great at everything. Just because it's not useless doesn't preclude it from being a failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

So, according to that reporter the F-35 was portrayed as the solution to every problem. That is obviously not the case, and we're now looking to buy new planes whose roles were to be filled by the 35.

 

If I bought a miracle cure all that turned out to be an effective anti-histamine, I'd call that cure-all a failure.

 

We spent a trillion dollars on a plane that was supposed to be great at everything. Just because it's not useless doesn't preclude it from being a failure.

 

We're not looking to replace planes that the F-35 is replacing. That's a dumb wishlist item by some in the Air Force. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, CayceG said:

 

We're not looking to replace planes that the F-35 is replacing. That's a dumb wishlist item by some in the Air Force. 

 

Unless the Air Force can pull a rabbit out of its hat with the Digital Century Series, I give it 3 years before Lockheed gets in on Boeing's F-15EX game with a new F-16 block. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just more of an upgrade than replacing total platforms. Even if they are new airframes, it's generally the same platform and there aren't many new systems that maintenance and upkeep have to consider. It wouldn't be unreasonable. 

 

In fact, I think an F-15EX and F-35 mixed force would probably be the best thing for the future effectiveness and efficiency of our dumb imperial air force which I find incredibly cool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...