- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A not too kind assessment of the F-35 program.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 2:25 pm to Tigeralum2008
Posted on 2/24/21 at 2:25 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:No, per plane an F-22 is several times more expensive than an F-35. Overall program cost for the F-35 might be more, but there have been 3x as many F-35s produced to date.
I also thought the F-35 was supposed to be cheaper than a f-22 but turned out being more expensive
1
Posted on 2/24/21 at 2:28 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:<<<<<<<< Boeing
Lockheed
Posted on 2/24/21 at 2:30 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
thought the F-35 was supposed to be cheaper than a f-22 but turned out being more expensive
Nah, and the F-35 is also an export product, the cost per plane will continue to fall.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 2:33 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
I know what you're getting at but the F-4 had major deficiencies in the fighter category
Absolutely. However I believe it was the only airframe that was in large quantities between AF, Navy, and USMC.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 2:36 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
what's not to love? had an opportunity to be an instructor on it last year(civilian job with LM,) but couldn't take it because of some family issues(job was abroad,) if the offer is still open in about a year I'll take it
What did you fly in the military?
And do you fly a 777 with the PW4000?
Posted on 2/24/21 at 2:39 pm to jcaz
quote:
Absolutely. However I believe it was the only airframe that was in large quantities between AF, Navy, and USMC.
That's correct.
However, as a counter point, it was a very good airframe. They continued to be in use up into the 1990's as a Wild Weasel and electronic warfare roles. That's almost 40 years in service.
Technically, they are still in service today as aerial drone targets designated as the FQ-4 (I think that's right)
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 3:27 pm to jcaz
quote:
What did you fly in the military?
and have RR engines
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 3:28 pm to UndercoverBryologist
the f35 is not an airplane.
it's a welfare program
it's a welfare program
Posted on 2/24/21 at 3:32 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
they are still in service today as aerial drone targets designated as the FQ-4 (I think that's right)
that's right, and there a few civilian operators still flying it for weapons test et al
Posted on 2/24/21 at 3:37 pm to UndercoverBryologist
I was involved in a project to build STOVL vertical landing pads for the F-35 at Eglin Air Force Base. I had to clue the F-35 had so many issues.
$23 Million dollar contract. The cyber security controls on this job were ridiculous....and China still ended up stealing the design plans for it haha.
$23 Million dollar contract. The cyber security controls on this job were ridiculous....and China still ended up stealing the design plans for it haha.
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 3:50 pm to Lonnie Utah
Iran still flies the as well as Turkey. Japan just recently finished as well as the Greeks and ROKAF. They later messed around with the J79 engine combustion cans and fuel nozzles and made them almost smokeless compared to the older J79 which would only quit smoking in afterburner.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:09 pm to bbrownso
quote:
The Pentagon Wars.
Love this movie. Very accurate in many ways
Anytime you attempt to hybridize a warplane for multiple missions capability you wind up with the ol "Jack of all trades, master of none".
The F-4, F-111 and F-35 all fall into this mold.
I'm sure the tech makes the F-35 makes it the better of these, but only if the tech works as advertised.
It usually is far better to design a bird for a distinct purpose and then make alterations to it to make it more suitable for other roles. The F-15 is a perfect example. Air Superiority fighter without equal for the time. Added conformal fuel tanks, electronics updates, etc and it became a fantastic long range tactical fighter-bomber. The A-10 excels at tank-killing but Stan and Iraq forced a change to tactics more conducive to CSA for ground troops trying to root out jihadees.
I'm sure the F-35 has special areas where it can provide tactical bombing support in various arenas. But reports like this make one question it's true ability to complete it's designated mission.
I don't know enough about it's true capabilities and it's mission readiness figures to judge if it's a boondoggle on par with the F-111 (McNamara's Folly).
But just as the 111 eventually found a place in the arsenal where it worked magnificently (when not leaking hydraulic fluid :) ) I'm sure the F-35 will eventually find it's perfect role in time.
(If the Chinese made circuit boards in it don't fry on command from Xi's military tech/IT comrades.)
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:14 pm to Floating Change Up
quote:
only thing Al Gore did right when he was president
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:17 pm to Shaken not Stirred
Eurofighter is superior in every way to the F-35, except for stealth.
I have a feeling stealthiness will be passe shortly anyway.
I have a feeling stealthiness will be passe shortly anyway.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:21 pm to UndercoverBryologist
F-111, Part 2
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:22 pm to IAmNERD
Logistics
Posted on 2/24/21 at 5:14 pm to jcaz
Fighter planes are the coolest thing ever
Posted on 2/24/21 at 5:17 pm to UndercoverBryologist
The F35 is less than 100 million per jet, so it’s actually pretty cheap.
It can take down multiple f16s, f18s and even f15s without breaking a sweat
It’s got a ton of problems but it’s capability and it’s cost are not worth focusing on
It can take down multiple f16s, f18s and even f15s without breaking a sweat
It’s got a ton of problems but it’s capability and it’s cost are not worth focusing on
Posted on 2/24/21 at 6:26 pm to IAmNERD
quote:
understand the military brass thinking it was better to have one plane be shitty at a bunch of things instead of many planes being great at one thing each.
maintaining and parts.
your staff only needs to know one plane. pilots only need the same training. so training modules less.
saving money on parts inventory, training, equipment. really big savings
and no one really said it would be shitty.
I would like to see the lisr of issues stated in terms of its requirements.
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 6:30 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 6:29 pm to LSUtiger17
Seems pretty obvious that one aircraft would have difficulty filling both roles.
—that’s the way military brass thinks—just do it, regardless of the facts
—that’s the way military brass thinks—just do it, regardless of the facts
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News