Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's the point of the F-35??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's the point of the F-35??

    I was reading an article about the F-35 compared to the F-22 and it really has no advantages over the F-22 except that it has a larger payload (2x 1,000 lbs vs 2x 2,000 lbs for F-35).

    What's the point of it? Other than being cheaper?

    Here's a couple of points:

    1) It doesn't have supercruise
    2) It doesn't have thrust-vectoring
    3) It's not as stealthy

    Post your opinions guys :)

    I would say if we had the money, we should stick with the F-22 with some F-35 for attack purposes.

  • #2
    It can be launched and landed on a Carrier.
    it has VTOL and convential takeoff.

    it will replace the older aircraft.

    i think that the F-22 is pure Air-to-air. maybe interceptor?

    and the F-35 all other fighter roles.

    BTW, that avatar is familiar....

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
      I was reading an article about the F-35 compared to the F-22 and it really has no advantages over the F-22 except that it has a larger payload (2x 1,000 lbs vs 2x 2,000 lbs for F-35).

      What's the point of it? Other than being cheaper?

      Here's a couple of points:

      1) It doesn't have supercruise
      2) It doesn't have thrust-vectoring
      3) It's not as stealthy

      Post your opinions guys :)

      I would say if we had the money, we should stick with the F-22 with some F-35 for attack purposes.
      From what I understand the F-22 is to replace the F-15 for air supremacy and the F-35 is replacing the F-16, F-14/some of the F-18s?, Harrier and A-10 for ground attack, close air support and air patrol. Personally I think trying to use the F-35 to replace the A-10 is a huge freakin mistake but thats only my opinion.

      The other aspect was the F-35's were supposed to be dirt cheap, but as with virtually all new Amercian military hardware these days the cost is rising rapidly. If the cost gets to high it will kill alot of export orders for the aircraft as well and just make the situation worse. One of the greatest things about the F-16 was how cheaply it was developed and built especially considering the performance it delivered.

      And the F-22 carrying only internal weapons has a very limit payload, and if you load weapons externally it loses its stealth advantage anyway making that point somewhat mute.

      Comment


      • #4
        +stealth
        +price (although it actually it seems like the F-35 gets more expensive than wanted)
        +cost effectiv
        +avionics

        -few internal fuel
        -range
        -no supercruise
        -payload
        -agility

        In my opinion F-35 isn't able to replace all those aircraft types. For a ground attack aircraft it has a very small range and very small payload.
        For air defense it is also limited because of it's range which doesn't make it possible to use afterbuner too long. A-10 and F-15C will still be needed.
        England and the Netherlands even think about buying a fewer number or even not buying any JSF what would exalt the price per unit.
        >Facit Omnia Voluntas<

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JG73
          +stealth
          +price (although it actually it seems like the F-35 gets more expensive than wanted)
          +cost effectiv
          +avionics

          -few internal fuel
          -range
          -no supercruise
          -payload
          -agility

          In my opinion F-35 isn't able to replace all those aircraft types. For a ground attack aircraft it has a very small range and very small payload.
          For air defense it is also limited because of it's range which doesn't make it possible to use afterbuner too long. A-10 and F-15C will still be needed.
          The Function of the F35 is not to replace the F22 but to act as it's little brother. Like the F16 to the F15. It will run the missions where using a F22 would be overkill and serve services for whom a Air superiority fighter is not as necessary, but still want some of the abilities. ( Why the US Navy does not want a Air Superiority fighter now is beyond me). England and the other countries who are buying it are also looking in to other Air superiority frames.

          Comment


          • #6
            It's certainly no replacement for the F-14. Nothing out there is.
            "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by leibstandarte10
              It's certainly no replacement for the F-14. Nothing out there is.
              Except the navalized variant of the F-22. ;)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
                Except the navalized variant of the F-22. ;)
                Which does not exist except in the wet dreams of navy F14 drivers.
                The reality of Jet building Navy and Air force is that is much easier to turn a navy plane in to a Air force then a air force into navy. as Lochmart and the JSF navy project people are no doubt finding out right now

                Comment


                • #9


                  It's sexy as hell. That's all there is to it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I actually always had a silly question to which I did not get complete and conviencing answer from many people who are experts in aviation - why light aircrafts are needed? I was acutally asking about why MiG-29 is needed if Flanker is much better! or why F-16 is needed if F-15 is much more capable.....

                    The answers which I was geeting were not conviencing, like
                    1. Price is cheaper => new MiG-29 would cost around 25m, while Su-30 MKI around 35m..... in my view this difference is not really conviencing. Same F-15 vs F-16...... Probably in F-22 to F-35 is sounds much more reasonable.

                    2. Operating costs are better for smaller aircraft...... also looks like overstrached argument..... moreover unification of logistics could have earned much larger savings!

                    3. Lighter aircraft is needed somewhere where capabilities of large dominance aircraft are excessive...... this argument I can not understand completelly. Aircraft is not a bomb... where it has just one capacity to explode... if F-15E can carry more load it does not mean it should drop all of it.... no need for it to be overkill.....

                    4. Dogfight capabililites of lighter aircraft are better..... I remember the argument about lighter aircraft requiring less power for sharp turns. Still Su-30 is quite potent in dog fights.

                    5. Lower RCS...... not an argument at all. It might be lower but still many times more than enough to be detected and destroyed.

                    any more? I still can not understand the conceipt. Why those MiG-29/F-16 are needed if Flankers and Eagles could do everything the same?

                    In case with F-22 and F-35 it is actually clear.... F-22 can not do what F-35 is capable.
                    Last edited by Garry; 09 Nov 05,, 08:37.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Terran empire
                      The Function of the F35 is not to replace the F22 but to act as it's little brother.

                      did I say something contrary?
                      >Facit Omnia Voluntas<

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Garry
                        I actually always had a silly question to which I did not get complete and conviencing answer from many people who are experts in aviation - why light aircrafts are needed? I was acutally asking about why MiG-29 is needed if Flanker is much better! or why F-16 is needed if F-15 is much more capable.....

                        The answers which I was geeting were not conviencing, like
                        1. Price is cheaper => new MiG-29 would cost around 25m, while Su-30 MKI around 35m..... in my view this difference is not really conviencing. Same F-15 vs F-16...... Probably in F-22 to F-35 is sounds much more reasonable.

                        2. Operating costs are better for smaller aircraft...... also looks like overstrached argument..... moreover unification of logistics could have earned much larger savings!

                        3. Lighter aircraft is needed somewhere where capabilities of large dominance aircraft are excessive...... this argument I can not understand completelly. Aircraft is not a bomb... where it has just one capacity to explode... if F-15E can carry more load it does not mean it should drop all of it.... no need for it to be overkill.....

                        4. Dogfight capabililites of lighter aircraft are better..... I remember the argument about lighter aircraft requiring less power for sharp turns. Still Su-30 is quite potent in dog fights.

                        5. Lower RCS...... not an argument at all. It might be lower but still many times more than enough to be detected and destroyed.

                        any more? I still can not understand the conceipt. Why those MiG-29/F-16 are needed if Flankers and Eagles could do everything the same?

                        In case with F-22 and F-35 it is actually clear.... F-22 can not do what F-35 is capable.
                        Generally it comes down to price and export sales I think. Most countries are not going to spend the cash to get F-22's (provided they were even forsale) so they settle for something cheaper which in theory should be the F-35's but if the costs keep rising its going to screw any chance of it becoming a major export success.

                        Also as you mentioned, the smaller aircraft are alot cheaper to operate and use less fuel (which is important if your aircraft are in active operations to keep stain on fuel supplies down). Their replacement parts are typically cheaper then their big brothers and they can also land/takeoff on smaller airfields generally.

                        Dogfighting is becoming less and less relevent, electronic hardware and software are constantly getting better and the newer missiles are getting more and more deadly all the time. We're probably not to far off from totally unmanned combat fighters now. The U.S is already testing and have alot of success with unmanned computer controlled bombers, if those work as advertised it could have some profound affects on the future of the airforce. It could raise some major questions about the future of automated warfare as well.

                        *The F-22 is actually capable of mounting a significant amount additional ordinance externally but it trades off its stealth advantage.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Garry
                          I actually always had a silly question to which I did not get complete and conviencing answer from many people who are experts in aviation - why light aircrafts are needed? I was acutally asking about why MiG-29 is needed if Flanker is much better! or why F-16 is needed if F-15 is much more capable.....

                          The answers which I was geeting were not conviencing, like
                          1. Price is cheaper => new MiG-29 would cost around 25m, while Su-30 MKI around 35m..... in my view this difference is not really conviencing. Same F-15 vs F-16...... Probably in F-22 to F-35 is sounds much more reasonable.

                          2. Operating costs are better for smaller aircraft...... also looks like overstrached argument..... moreover unification of logistics could have earned much larger savings!

                          3. Lighter aircraft is needed somewhere where capabilities of large dominance aircraft are excessive...... this argument I can not understand completelly. Aircraft is not a bomb... where it has just one capacity to explode... if F-15E can carry more load it does not mean it should drop all of it.... no need for it to be overkill.....

                          4. Dogfight capabililites of lighter aircraft are better..... I remember the argument about lighter aircraft requiring less power for sharp turns. Still Su-30 is quite potent in dog fights.

                          5. Lower RCS...... not an argument at all. It might be lower but still many times more than enough to be detected and destroyed.

                          any more? I still can not understand the conceipt. Why those MiG-29/F-16 are needed if Flankers and Eagles could do everything the same?

                          In case with F-22 and F-35 it is actually clear.... F-22 can not do what F-35 is capable.
                          You and Canoe did mention many points yet. The MiG-29 for example was designed to be a light front fighter, which can take off and land on the dirtiest, smallest non military airfields right behind the lines to shorten the reaction time. Because of that reason the MiG-29 has these flaps on it's intakes which are closed during the start for not to soak in dust or stones into the engines. During the start the air is aspirated over a lattice on top of the intakes. Only after it the protection flaps open.
                          Today you can see that more and more airforces in the world think like you. Most of them are basing their airforce on one multirole fighter. Germany, Spain, Austria trust on the Typhoon. Britain, Italy trust on the Typhoon and on the F-35 for their Navys. Hungary, Czech Republic, South Africa, Sweden trust on the Gripen. France trusts on the Rafale. Netherlands, Denmark, Norway trust on the F-35. USA trust on F-22 and F-35.
                          >Facit Omnia Voluntas<

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            1. Price is cheaper => new MiG-29 would cost around 25m, while Su-30 MKI around 35m..... in my view this difference is not really conviencing. Same F-15 vs F-16...... Probably in F-22 to F-35 is sounds much more reasonable.
                            The cost difference between the latest F-15 and the latest F-16 is 55 million vs 26 million...that is not so insignificant.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
                              The cost difference between the latest F-15 and the latest F-16 is 55 million vs 26 million...that is not so insignificant.
                              OK. Then for F-15 vs F-16 it is price.... while for MiG-29 vs Flanker it would be airfields.....

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X