F-35 makes it's active duty debut at Eglin AFB

[titanII]

This happened a few days ago, but I just saw the article now.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123264068

[mon876]

I see the f-35 as a pointless aircraft as there is the f-22, but the government can waist there money on whatever they want.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I see the f-35 as a pointless aircraft as there is the f-22, but the government can waist there money on whatever they want.

What is that opinion based on?

[lordmonar]

The F-22 can't drop bombs it is designed as an air superiority fighter.
The F-35 is a strike (bomb dropper) platform.

[coudano]

60 tails going to be at Eglin when the program is full (zoinks)
haha



The F35 is (supposed to) replace the A10, AV8B, F16, and F18, and even the prowler.
It is the 5th gen multi-role.
It will not replace the F18 in practice (the navy just bought a crap ton of brand new superhornets)
It will probably not replace the A10 in practice (pretty hard to improve on perfection)


The F22 is only supposed to replace the F15 (and what used to be the F14), it is the 5th gen Air Superiority.
And last I heard they were all grounded anyway...


Completely different missions.
And completely different quantities of each aircraft being ordered.
187 F22's and that's it.
I think they are supposed to be making something like 2000+ F35's

[AngelWings]

The F-22 can't drop bombs it is designed as an air superiority fighter.
The F-35 is a strike (bomb dropper) platform.

Ugh, that'd be incorrect. They use JDAM guided SDBs. The F-35 can hold its own in air superiority (or atleast it is supposed to), but it is mainly a strike aircraft. The F-22 is this generations F-15, has the F-35 is this generations F-16. They are worth it. I hate it when people fail to see the need for advance. 2 F-22s can, while remaining undetected, shoot down a whole flight of F-15s. That has to mean something.

[DC]

Ugh, that'd be incorrect. They use JDAM guided SDBs. The F-35 can hold its own in air superiority (or atleast it is supposed to), but it is mainly a strike aircraft.

The F-22 CAN drop bombs, but I seriously doubt the Air Force would risk putting one in an air-to-mud situation when there are other platforms much more suited to the job.

The F-22 is this generations F-15, has the F-35 is this generations F-16. They are worth it. I hate it when people fail to see the need for advance. 2 F-22s can, while remaining undetected, shoot down a whole flight of F-15s. That has to mean something.

That analogy doesn't really hold. The F-15 and F-22 are comparable in their respective eras, though the F-15 was much more cost effective than the Raptor.

The F-16, however, was designed as a cheap, lightweight, multi-role fighter. The F-35 is neither cheap, nor lightweight, and I'm curious about how well it will perform air to air or air to ground missions.

Its stealth capabilities are much less potent than the F-22's, it lacks thrust vectoring, has high wing loading, a poor thrust to weight ratio and very limited room for air to air ordinance. None of that bodes well for a dogfighter.

In the air to ground arena, its internal payload is very limited, and using wing pylons will cancel out its stealthiness. In that case, why not just use some modern variant of the F-15E or F/A-18E/F? They are proven designs, the support and training infrastructure is there, and they will probably just as, if not more capable than the F-35 in a real world air to ground scenario. Don't even get me started on the idea that the F-35 can replace the A-10 for CAS.

If I were King for a Day I would cancel the F-35, give everyone Super Hornets with upgraded avionics and sensors (the one thing I think the F-35 really has going for it) for the multirole/strike mission, and buy more F-22s for the air supremacy mission.

For comparison, the F-35's 2011 flyaway cost is $122 Million each. The F/A-18E/F is $55 Million. That's 2.21 Super Hornets we could buy for every F-35. Even if that cost goes up somewhat to accommodate better electronics, it's still a deal.

F-22s are currently $150 Million each, but that would go down a little if we bought more of them. Either way, I'd say they're worth it because they can actually do the job they were advertised to do. It is, without question, the most [mess] hot fighter in history.

[/rant]

[PHall]

The Super Hornet is a last generation jet. Cancel the F-35 and use the money to develop a next generation jet.
And this time get it's role defined before you freeze the design, not after...

[DC]

The Super Hornet is a last generation jet. Cancel the F-35 and use the money to develop a next generation jet.
And this time get it's role defined before you freeze the design, not after...

Our current fleet is already 20+ years old. By the time a 6th gen fighter is designed our current force will not be anywhere near adequate.

I agree that we need to make serious efforts to come up with the 6th generation and even start thinking about the 7th. Part of our problem is that after the teen series fighters were designed we sat and patted ourselves on the back for 10 years before a serious effort to develop a replacement was launched.

[Ozzy]

This past weekend I saw an F-35 doing its thing above Ft. Dix. Quite a thing to hear it almost overhead with Mk-19s and Claymores going off.

And wow, way to revive a dead-ish thread...

[simon]

They are both a complete and utter waste of money. As usual, the actual cost was an order of magnitude more than the original projections.

The F-35 program is projected to cost $1 trillion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/

"The F-35 is the most expensive defense program in history, and reveals massive cost overruns, a lack of clear strategic thought, and a culture in Washington that encourages incredible waste."

The F-22 program is now officially dead, with 183 units made. The GAO estimated the cost at $366 million per aircraft.

The only countries that the US might take on that would require something more superior than an F-15,16,18 or A-10 are Russia and China, but at that stage the battle is economic and if that isn't enough, well, they all have nuclear capability anyway.

No, the F-22 and 35 were just designed to feed Lockheed.

[lordmonar]

What then is the alternitive?

Not saying the massive cost over-runs are not terrible.....but the F-15, F-16 and A-10s are all over 20 years old....and getting older.

Someone has to build the new airframes.....and the USAF is the ones who wanted all the bells and whistles and initially ordered so many.....and then had to cut back, which drove up the per unit costs of the air frame.

It is not in any way a "complete and utter waste of money".

Could they have spent less money?  Sure.
Could they have asked for less in the new platforms?  Sure.

But a new platform had to be purchased.......the old airframes were just getting too old.

[coudano]

F15's are quite literally breaking apart and falling out of the sky,
just from being flown.

They are over 30 years old now...

Yeah.


I guess the alternative would be to make some more F-15's.


F18's and F16's are still in production.
Don't know about A-10's???  (nope last one was delivered in 1984)

[PHall]

F15's are quite literally breaking apart and falling out of the sky,
just from being flown.

They are over 30 years old now...

Yeah.


I guess the alternative would be to make some more F-15's.


F18's and F16's are still in production.
Don't know about A-10's???  (nope last one was delivered in 1984)

They're still building F-15's. South Korea just accepted a batch of F-15K's about a year ago.

[coudano]

oh yeah, duh...  i saw one of those departing lambert recently.

[simon]

F15's are quite literally breaking apart and falling out of the sky, just from being flown.

References please?

1,200 F-15's have been built. EXACTLY how many of those have "fallen out of the sky, just from being flown". One? Ten? I call BS.

Actually, I will answer that question for you. ONE. An F-15C in 2007. It was 27 years old and is the ONLY F-15 to have failed structurally. But that doesn't mean you can't build new ones. Oh, and by the way, only 20 of the 1,200 F-15's build have been lost and only 2 have been shot down in combat and that was from ground fire. There has never been a combat loss. How does that compute as a successful aircraft?

God I can't stand misinformed posts.

What then is the alternitive?[sic]

Good question. In my view, the alternative is to continue to manufacture the existing world class, field proven aircraft that we've already paid for, versus the F-22 (Cancelled) or the F-35 (Export forbidden).

So, to summarize:

1. The F-15: "It is considered among the most successful modern fighters with over 100 aerial combat victories with no losses in dogfights." Note: "100 aerial combat victories". This aircraft has been in service for 35 years. It is interesting to me, for all the hype about air to air combat, how infrequently the aircraft have actually been engaged in an air to air superiority challenge. Is that $1 trillion air superior F-35 really worth it?

2. The F-16: Also still in production. Great multi-role fighter.

3. The F-18 Super Hornet. Still in production. Also a superb muti-role aircraft.

And on the question of unit cost:

F-15: $30m
F-16: $20m (1998 $)
F-18: $55m (2011 $)

Okay so some of the designs are not recent, keep in mind that the original request for the F-22 came 3 decades ago and the F-35 15 years ago. It takes that long for (the US at least) an idea for an aircraft to reach production. All these other planes described are very capable aircraft, but even if you only consider the most expensive aircraft, the Super Hornet, it comes in at 15% of what the defunct F-22 cost and goodness knows what low percentage of what the F-35 will actually end up costing, if it ever reaches maturity.

In the end, it's all a wash. UAV's will see more action than any of these aircraft. The real disaster was creating the most expensive fighter of all time that couldn't be sold overseas. For decades the US has built strong relations with foreign governments through arms trading. Now it has nothing to offer. Oh, but wait - Except F-18's! And they are a comparative bargain. Meanwhile the US has crippled itself by designing a plane too costly to build and shunned all its other proven performers.

It is, I am affraid to say, a pork barrel affair. I say this with no pleasure because I have followed the incredible achievements of US military (And civil) aviation in the past, especially during the 50's, and wonder when was it that we finally lost the plot. Thankfully Kelly Johnson did not have to live through this era.

[coudano]

God I can't stand misinformed posts.

Easy there, trigger...
I'm not anti F-15.

Can you tell me /EXACTLY/ how many tails had to have longeron refurb/replace before being returned to flyability, and how many never made it back from those inspections?  Or how many were already down that wouldn't have made it if they were still in service at the time of that grounding?

Any idea what exactly is is that caused the longerons to fail over time?
I'll give you a hint, it has a little something to do with "just being flown" above mach, and at high g

[simon]

Okay coudano, I apologize. That comment was unnecessary.

Back to your relevant question, I will address the service issues of the F-15, but it is late right not and your question warrants a factual response that put the F-15 in perspective with all the others mentioned and the thread in general. Stay tuned.

[PHall]

Any idea what exactly is is that caused the longerons to fail over time?
I'll give you a hint, it has a little something to do with "just being flown" above mach, and at high g

Funny, the Air Force and Boeing both say that there were manufacturing defects in most of the longerons that have failed or have failed inspection.
There may have been a few over G incidents that have damaged longerons. But it's been very few. Stan-Eval takes a very dim view of over G'ing the jet.

[DC]

God I can't stand misinformed posts.

What then is the alternitive?[sic]

Good question. In my view, the alternative is to continue to manufacture the existing world class, field proven aircraft that we've already paid for, versus the F-22 (Cancelled) or the F-35 (Export forbidden).

You should check your facts before you blast someone else for being uniformed. The F-22 was export forbidden due to the technology on board. The F-35 program, however, is RELYING on foreign buyers to keep the program afloat.

At last count the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Austrailia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Israel and Singapore have contributed funds to the program and are considering buying or already have aircraft on order.