Darkangel
Member
Canada has been involved in the JSF (F-35) project since 1997.
That's a good anology.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
F-35; Is it worth it?
- Thread starter RoninChaos
- Start date
- Status
Canada has been involved in the JSF (F-35) project since 1997.
That's a good anology.
Defenestrated Donut
Neo Member
It's madness that Canada is about to purchase a single-engine fighter for Arctic Patrol duty.
It's not that bad, the CAF do need new gear and although while I don't believe the F35 is the answer it's still good for Canadian firms since they are able to bid on contracts for this JSF.
Not fantastic enough to justify the price tag. The F-22 is a fantastic aircraft for 1988. Not so much in terms of being 21st century proof. The F-35 program is a disaster of a management failure, but the actual plane itself is exactly what is needed, if they can ever get their act together.
The US has never fought a war without air superiority (with the possible exception of WWI, but aircraft in that war were primarily spotters, and the air combat was mostly useless formality and grandstanding). Some of those wars didn't go so well, but they would have been a hell of a lot worse without mastery of the air war. It would be highly inadvisable to lose that advantage in the new century.
luckygodzilla
Member
Actually yes.
Simply put, at this point in time there's no real viable alternative. The F-22 is a nice jet, but with a cost per flight hour of $68k, it's simply not economically viable to field them in large numbers. Besides, it's still a largely unfinished plane, as it is sorely lacking a HMD and IRST, which is nuts considering it's an air superiority fighter.
The Super Hornet is not going to remain viable 20 years out once S-300 and S-400 batteries start seeing widespread adoption, unless they are escorted by growlers. Thing is with that, a fully kitted growler costs north of $200,000, much more than the price of $124,000 for an F-35A right now (keep in mind the price is only going to keep on dropping once the plane enters full rate production)
The Eurofighter, while a good jet has balls for range on internal fuel and is stupidly expensive for what it actually brings to the table. For god's sake a Tranche 3 costs $123 million and it doesn't even have an AESA radar yet.
Until we see a viable alternative, I don't really see any other choice.
Simply put, at this point in time there's no real viable alternative. The F-22 is a nice jet, but with a cost per flight hour of $68k, it's simply not economically viable to field them in large numbers. Besides, it's still a largely unfinished plane, as it is sorely lacking a HMD and IRST, which is nuts considering it's an air superiority fighter.
The Super Hornet is not going to remain viable 20 years out once S-300 and S-400 batteries start seeing widespread adoption, unless they are escorted by growlers. Thing is with that, a fully kitted growler costs north of $200,000, much more than the price of $124,000 for an F-35A right now (keep in mind the price is only going to keep on dropping once the plane enters full rate production)
The Eurofighter, while a good jet has balls for range on internal fuel and is stupidly expensive for what it actually brings to the table. For god's sake a Tranche 3 costs $123 million and it doesn't even have an AESA radar yet.
Until we see a viable alternative, I don't really see any other choice.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
$163 billion over budget? Holy fuck. I'm struggling to deal with that kind of number.
Imagine what kind of shit you could do with that money if you invested it in things like infrastructure. Or Education. Or Health.
Imagine what kind of shit you could do with that money if you invested it in things like infrastructure. Or Education. Or Health.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
well yeah thats what i meant, this project is ...over a decade old at this point. I remember watching shows on this when the competition for the contract was between Lockheed and Boeing. The idea seemed simple enough make a base plane that could be configured for each branches needs. Like you said, cheaper than having separate planes in separate branches of the military all with different parts and replacements and repair methods etc etc. I dont think anyone expected it to be cheap but , cheaper than having a diverse group of planes for different roles. Now im not so sure , i dont know whats causing the delay, incompetence, lackluster performance, or costs that made the whole damn thing a waste of time in hindsight. But yeah my expectation was to see all the branches deploying these planes that shared common parts , configured to their needs and pushing the F16, 15, 18 out the door instead of having to repair / service them. I dont know about the high alt performance of the F-35 but i guess the raptor will be high alt air superiority, the interceptor role seems has been left vacant since the F14 was retired.
In hindsight...maybe we should've had a few back up plans
luckygodzilla
Member
That's actually kind of to be expected however. The F-117 was developed in absolute secrecy to fit a niche role. The F-35 on the other hand was developed right in the open to fulfill the role of no less than four different aircraft for all three branches. The F-35 has to do so much more, and meet so many more requirements than the F-117 it's not even funny.
Valkerionseven
Member
Yeah its supposed to get rid of all the crap we are still using from the late 70's-early 90s.
At first I was like "this is way to over budget" then they mentioned the T-50 fighter and I had an Ace Combat flashback....
We need those planes guys.... trust me... we just do.
seriously the T-50 is like a blue shell on crack in Ace Combat
What. The. Fuck?
That's insane, 6000 engineers? No wonder it is overbudget. Sounds almost like a design-by-committee (though actually committee designed thing probably would be a compromise that's not good at anything, unlike F-35 (edit i'm assuming F-35 works in, at least, some roles it is intended to do)).
I don't say anything about whether F-35 is worth it but this: Don't be fools and try to replace A-10 with F-35.
TheMan
Member
i think the main issue with the f35 is that they're trying to make one plane, with modifications for each military branch, perform the roles that multiple planes fill today. It seems like it would have been much more straightforward to develop 3 planes, each specialized for a specific role.
of course, it's all kind of a moot point because i would wager that the odds of entering an outright war with a nation that has an advanced air force is next to nil. the money should have been dumped into space exploration or something. we'd have sent astronauts to mars by now.
of course, it's all kind of a moot point because i would wager that the odds of entering an outright war with a nation that has an advanced air force is next to nil. the money should have been dumped into space exploration or something. we'd have sent astronauts to mars by now.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
Stealth bomber sounds much cooler than F-35. F-35 sounds like a type of pencil.
This would have been worth it as a recruiting tool for the new Topgun movies alone, RIP F-14 and F-22:
Anyway while the F-35 has been a joke of a project, it's still that rare warbird featuring stealth strike capability: which basically nothing else in the market rivals. The USA and its allies should at least get plenty of mileage from these deals, and unfortunately I think the Pacific is only going to have more saber rattling so they'll have plenty of missions to fly too
Anyway while the F-35 has been a joke of a project, it's still that rare warbird featuring stealth strike capability: which basically nothing else in the market rivals. The USA and its allies should at least get plenty of mileage from these deals, and unfortunately I think the Pacific is only going to have more saber rattling so they'll have plenty of missions to fly too
Elor_Nocudee
Member
As an Army Veteran i completely agree with you, we are both wrong though.
A better use of that money would be spending it on some of us Disabled Vets you heartless dicks!, didn't they vote down a bill recently that would increase the VA's budget? (yes i know there is wasteful spending here too).
I thought the F-22 was shit, plenty of articles on the internet saying so..
Its both. I promise.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
My dad wasn't in the airforce he was navy but i remember him saying the F22 had two big problems, cost per plane was really high at the time, and performance wasn't as high as promised. So unless you shot down 12 or more planes per F22 it was a waste of money. This was years ago though maybe they've ironed out the issues.
Logic and free tax payers money does not love each other.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Per-unit cost is high partially because it never got it's full production run. But 150 million USD per plane is only 1.5x higher than a Eurofighter Typhoon, which doesn't have stealth capabilities. Although it is like 5-6x more than a 70's vintage F15 Eagle, modern planes with modern features are damned expensive. The F35's unit cost is going to be in this range too.
Prinz Eugn
Member
Good post. Per aircraft it will be cheaper than the F-22, but the initial investment is much, much bigger. That however is itself offset against more than ten times as many F-35s planned.
A joint program was also a political shield against cancellation. It's harder for congress to drop the basket when three services all have their eggs in it.
Ragingbegal
Member
I remember when the Joint Strike Fighter was being touted as the way to end the military spending death spiral.
And here we are a decade later.
And here we are a decade later.
luckygodzilla
Member
It's undoubtedly the best airframe (for air to air that is) ever designed, as well as having the lowest radar cross section in the world.
But what it does lack is IRST, which is basically a standard in most fighters nowadays. For those of you who don't know, IRST is effectively a laser pointer planes use to scan the sky with. Essentially its the best means of finding someone if you don't want them to trace your signal, which is a bit of an important feature to have on a stealth fighter.
The other key missing feature is a helmet mounted display (HMD). Modern HMD'S allow pilots to target and launch missiles at other planes without needing to maneuver. To put this in a practical sense, an F-22 pilot has to actually line the nose up with the enemy plane, while someone with an HMD only has to turn their head. Obviously, in a dogfight this is a huge advantage.
The air force is currently looking at HMD integration, but thanks to sequestration I doubt we'll see IRST anytime soon.
Karak
Member
At the end of the article that is suggested to bring out some from retirement and do some upgrades. As for buying all new tech from another nation. Out of the question diplomatically. Though it would be AWESOME if somehow we bought the clones of our jet from China. Hahahaha.
Prinz Eugn
Member
You can try (and some countries are still buying F-16s and F-15s) but at some point you run out of space and weight for new stuff, and there are some things you just can't add on, like stealthy features.
luckygodzilla
Member
Longer range, larger payload, more maneuverable when both are fully loaded, better sensors, better data links (allowing it to share information better with other assets), more survivable, better cockpit.
The issue with this program isn't the specs of the plane, it's the procurement process.
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
Been doing that since the 70s. After awhile, just updating the avionics only does so much. That being said... a one-size-fits-all solution rarely fits all. The ground support profile would seem to be the biggest deficiency in the design, but maybe with drones augmenting, high-survivability, flying tanks aren't going to be the godsend they were in the last few conflicts.
Your jets are different to where I live we've got eurofighters's and tornados GR4's till we get some new ones in 2020 ish which I think are meant to be F-35's.
Well no harm in modernizing I suppose specifically if you can pull it off. But as you say it will get to a point where not much can be added to what's already there.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
There is a general trend towards the use of cheap unmanned aircraft to do most of the "legwork" that would otherwise be handled by expensive manned aircraft. However airforces would also like to have aircraft that are capable of outperforming rival nations in the event of a conflict. The USAF has been on the cutting edge of aviation technology since the opening years of the Cold War and would like to maintain the technological advantage it enjoys over countries like China and Russia, who are themselves pursuing programs of modenization to produce modern Aircraft. To buy "old stuff that already works" would indeed be adequate for the job of bombing goat herders in central Asia, but ultimately it's not really appropriate for the Air Force to change its entire structure to be geared towards fighting the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan.
Giant Panda
Member
No, the specs of the plane are what caused the whole mess. The Marines requirements basically meant that the F-35 can fulfill more roles than any other modern plane, except it does all of those roles terribly and made the plane so complex that designing and building them costs a fortune.
sooperkool
Member
Military equipment and preparedness is not something that ever allows you to be complacent. So yes, we need this plane and the other things in life. Did we need the internet? No one thought so but the military and now here it is for your use and consumption like so many other things in your life.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I imagine a lot of them want to slash military spending generally.
Giant Panda
Member
Making the F-35s won't let the U.S. Air Force maintain its edge and there's probably no alternative today that lets them maintain their edge either; they've backed themselves into a corner. I would think the least bad option is to cancel the F-35, and ride out on more F-22s and F-15/16s for the near future while multiple new designs are made to replace individual planes.
Hari Seldon
Member
Drones. They are far cheaper to engineer since you don't need all the safety equipment.
And since they can pull as many Gs as the equipment can handle (the pilot is the limiting factor on a manned plane), they can be made far superior.
Well, our PM in Australia just broke our health care and education system to pay for a few. I would say to us it is not worth it.
Aircraft carriers and drones are more useful than the 100 or so F35's that will eventually be bought due to normal DoD budget excesses resulting in less purchases inflating the unit price leading to less purchases inflating the unit price leading to less purchases. So just the normal weapons procurement cycle.
Aircraft carriers and drones are more useful than the 100 or so F35's that will eventually be bought due to normal DoD budget excesses resulting in less purchases inflating the unit price leading to less purchases inflating the unit price leading to less purchases. So just the normal weapons procurement cycle.
luckygodzilla
Member
Better maneuverability than an F-16 when both are fully loaded, can hit the same AoA of an F-18 while having 25,000+ more pounds of thrust. Better targeting and data links than an A-10, allowing it to hit targets more accurately while providing better coverage to troops. And of course it can survive in contested airspace without jamming whereas legacy platforms would have been blown out of the sky. And the F-35B is so much better than the harrier in every performance metric it's not even funny. The only legacy platform we have that has any significant performance gains (only in maneuverability mind you) was the F-15. But it's important to keep in mind that the F-35 was never intended to replace the F-15, the F-22 was.
It does everything better than our legacy platforms, but development has cost us an arm and a leg. As such, the performance isn't the issue, the procurement is.
The F-22's already been cancelled, Gates killed it a few years ago. Besides, it really doesn't have a place in the current battles we're fighting.
Do I think the F-35 is worth it, no, not by a long shot. Do I think the A-10 should be killed off and replaced by the F-35, no way in fucking hell.
Will both happen, yep.
Liferebooted
Banned
Can't we just go back to the days of horses and swords =[
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I thought that was pretty much an independent decision; the Howard, Rudd and Gillard government were all on board with the F35 program and were committed to buying the planes at some point. I don't think their horrendous cuts to important things were directly because of the F35 procurement program.
Boom Boom Pow
Banned
and yet if Russia starts getting more aggressive and say venture more into NATO space, everyone's all like, thank god we got that
- Status