F-35 Lightning info

[Clark Griswold]

Critique on the subject of the F-35B and the current CONOP for use.

The Marines’ Stealth Jump Jet Plan Is Wishful Thinking

Not that it matters as the milk is already spilled but the idea that an MEU is going to operate on its own without support from USN, USAF, US Army, etc. in any kind of seriously contested environment against another military force is crazy. The doctrine of the USMC may say that they will have that capability but does anyone really believe that? The more we keep just trying to build better versions of the things we have because we keep thinking that this what we will always use or that this is always the way we will do things is a sure fire way to keep making the best airplanes and weapons for the battlefield of 25+ years ago.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Clark Griswold

[di1630]

Just remember that the F-35 needs/concepts/design criteria etc. were developed 22 years ago in 1993.

The world, technology and our needs are quite different now.

[HerkFE]

"F-35 pilot Major John Wilson " must have an airline job lined up. His AF career is over after that blasphemous statement.

[Majestik Møøse]

This concept has been argued on here before. Basically, the Marines don't trust anybody else to provide air support because everyone abandoned them in WWII, so they want their own stealthish fighter for denied airspace.

The whole line of reasoning on the F-35B is full of contradictions. The MEU will be hitting the beach and launching F-35s off of a Navy LHC, but for some reason the Navy forgot to send a carrier to take down the IADs first. Pretty unimaginable, especially since the LHC will need the regular contingent of cruisers and destroyers for protection against subs and stuff. Okay, let's assume the carrier broke down or sank enroute, and the Marines still need some jets to kill things with radars; that's why they're stealthish, right? Well, first of all, I'm saying stealth-ish because, since they have no internal gun, they'll be carrying a gun pod. They're also going to have a shit ton of external stores because there are only six of them on an LHC. Six fucking jets. Which means two flying, two turning/on alert, and two broken. So possibly only two jets ready to fight with, best case with no bombs or tanks, ten AMRAAMs amongst them. I'm no fighter guy, but I bet they would have a hard time dealing with, oh I don't know, ELEVEN airborne threats.

Well that's what the Navy and Air Force are for right? Then why do we need F-35Bs? Radar-guided pop up threats only? The whole thing is nuts. The Marines would be better off flying Hornets or F-35Cs off the big boat while flying as many Cobras as they want from the helicopter boat.

And of course the B-model has had enormous development costs while making the A and C-models fat and worse overall.

[ThreeHoler]

LHD-3 did a pretty bang up job kicking off Libya and rescuing a downed crewmember. As I recall, SEAD didn't happen until day 3, and there were still viable SAM and aircraft threats for months.

[Red Fox]

Some counter arguments:

The MEU with air support from an amphibious assault ship is still the primary plan rather than AV-8's on the ground in country.

And just because recently the Navy has enjoyed the success of twin engine airplanes doesn't mean it lacks a history with successful single engine fighters (ie: A-7, F-8, A-4).

Stoleit, counter arguments noted.

Questions: If the F-35 is to operate off an assault ship to support let's say a beachhead, will it have to immediately climb to get out of the AAA threat and deliver weapons from high above? If so, I just don't see how it can deliver much fire-power. Do you think it will be effective in that role? Or how about other Marine operations? How do you think it will do? I view the A-7, F-8, and A-4 as fairly inexpensive aircraft that wouldn't put such a large hole in our pocketbook if one were lost. I see us making a major investment in this plane. Do you think it prudent to put such a high-priced aircraft that is single engine on a boat? Seems to me that not just with a loss of an engine, but also in reduced thrust conditions the plane will become a fish house. I think a second engine could save many. Do you agree or disagree?

Regards, RF

Edited July 4, 2015 by Red Fox

[Lawman]

Keep in mind the Marines never wanted a 5th Gen Harrier replacement.

Harrier was supposed to be replaced by a 4.5 gen program similar to what the Navy did with the Super Hornet but got told to play with the other kids on JSF.

And moose don't get stuck on 6 as a hard number. The whole point of a MEU is its modular and small footprint. There have been incidents in the past where the Marines have taken more Harriers and less Cobra etc to get lore legged CAS because the Cobra off the boat is severely limited with where the boat stages from if there is a surface to surface threat.

[Prosuper]

This makes the F-111 look like a huge success but it did one thing, bomber , very well. The F-35 sounds like it doesn't do anything well and the corporate guys just want to send guys to their death for profit and face saving. Were Screwed.

[SurelySerious]

This makes the F-111 look like a huge success but it did one thing, bomber , very well. The F-35 sounds like it doesn't do anything well and the corporate guys just want to send guys to their death for profit and face saving. Were Screwed.

Our people wrote the underwhelming requirements. All goes back to the VSTOL.

[xcraftllc]

This makes the F-111 look like a huge success but it did one thing, bomber , very well. The F-35 sounds like it doesn't do anything well and the corporate guys just want to send guys to their death for profit and face saving. Were Screwed.

B-1 too for that matter. Kinda ended up in the same boat but at least it was actually intended to be a bomber.

[brabus]

Just remember that the F-35 needs/concepts/design criteria etc. were developed 22 years ago in 1993.

The world, technology and our needs are quite different now.

Thank you bureaucratic wasteland called DOD/US Government. This is 100% how it will be for every new idea for the rest of our history unless we make a massive paradigm shift in acquisitions, contracting, etc. I'm not betting a single penny on happening. It takes 5-7 years just to put something new on a 4th gen...we're taking 5+ YEARS from requirement to fielding, now that is fucked up. All of this assumes new concept/idea, not taking pre-existing products and molding them to fit our need, as well as we get the funding/approval at T+0. There's a long list of shit we've been asking for over a decade that still sits at the bottom of the pile on a staffer's desk.

Edited July 6, 2015 by brabus

[xcraftllc]

And yet we continue to throw away god knows how much money at programs that are ridiculously impractical, unnecessary, or outright dangerous. A few things that come to mind from my days in the Army are; the entire Universal Camoflage Pattern program (more commonly known as simply "ACU Pattern"), the two-piece flight suit, and these little wonders, (to be fair though, most of the problem is congress and their lobbyist buddies):

http://rt.com/usa/157244-flying-army-truck-viral/

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/army-futuristic-hover-bike-technology/story?id=32009095

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html

[HuggyU2]

Thank you bureaucratic wasteland called DOD/US Government. This is 100% how it will be for every new idea for the rest of our history unless we make a massive paradigm shift in acquisitions, contracting, etc.

Kelly and Ben would agree with you.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/101438.Skunk_Works

[Breckey]

And yet we continue to throw away god knows how much money at programs that are ridiculously impractical, unnecessary, or outright dangerous. A few things that come to mind from my days in the Army are; the entire Universal Camoflage Pattern program (more commonly known as simply "ACU Pattern"), the two-piece flight suit, and these little wonders, (to be fair though, most of the problem is congress and their lobbyist buddies):

Two piece flight suits are legit, especially when wearing armor in a helicopter with no air-conditioning. Or for the sweaties when they're pre-flighting or loading cargo so they can take off their blouse instead of tying their flight suit around their waist and risk getting yelled at by SMSgt Dicks-a-lot.

[StoleIt]

Two piece flight suits are legit, especially when wearing armor in a helicopter with no air-conditioning. Or for the sweaties when they're pre-flighting or loading cargo so they can take off their blouse instead of tying their flight suit around their waist and risk getting yelled at by SMSgt Dicks-a-lot.

This. I love my 2 piece for those lovely Deid preflights.

[Lawman]

Two piece flight suits are legit, especially when wearing armor in a helicopter with no air-conditioning. Or for the sweaties when they're pre-flighting or loading cargo so they can take off their blouse instead of tying their flight suit around their waist and risk getting yelled at by SMSgt Dicks-a-lot.

Unfortunately one of the first things tha came out with the 2 piece was a directive in every Brigade by every Bd CSM to ban removing tops.

No different than the ultracool fire retardant shirts designed to be worn under body armor. We even had a command that went so far as to ban the wear of those in the company area, so you could only wear them from boarding the helo to mission complete and then had to change.... Gayness

[Prosuper]

Pierre Sprey is making the rounds saying the F-35 is junk, definitely from the Boyd school of fighter design.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665

[SurelySerious]

Pierre Sprey is making the rounds saying the F-35 is junk, definitely from the Boyd school of fighter design.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665

Yadda yadda yadda fighters shouldn't even have a radar

Not a very credible critique

[matmacwc]

The F-22 was junk for a while, hell, the F-16 was junk for a while. Give it time, it can't all be Ironman on day 1.

Edited July 7, 2015 by matmacwc

[Clark Griswold]

Yadda yadda yadda fighters shouldn't even have a radar

Not a very credible critique

Or batshit crazy if you prefer.

Project on Government Oversight has an interview with Winslow Wheeler that really gets to most fundamental flaws of the JSF project:

concurrency which equals cost + risk + complexity + eggs-in-one-basket

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2014/02/heres-what-60-minutes-didnt-tell-you-about-the-f-35.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

[TreeA10]

Another War is Boring article. The thoughts "Never say never" and "Those that fail to study history are doomed to repeat it" keep cropping up.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/07/06/usaf_promised_the_f-4_and_f-35_would_never_dogfight_108180.html

[Clark Griswold]

Another War is Boring article. The thoughts "Never say never" and "Those that fail to study history are doomed to repeat it" keep cropping up.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/07/06/usaf_promised_the_f-4_and_f-35_would_never_dogfight_108180.html

War is Boring is really on a tear for the F-35, another article this one saying it's the next 105 (which gets more abuse for its performance than it deserves IMO given what it was tasked to do, the restrictions on ROE and concentration of enemy AAA, SAMs and MiGs) but another for the pile:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-f-105-was-the-f-35-of-the-vietnam-era-51863811024a

Respect the Thud, it was given a man's job

[Lawman]

Another War is Boring article. The thoughts "Never say never" and "Those that fail to study history are doomed to repeat it" keep cropping up.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/07/06/usaf_promised_the_f-4_and_f-35_would_never_dogfight_108180.html

That article kinda forgets that the F-4 and the militaries shift to high fast bomber interceptors existed in an entirely different level of technological reliability.

Seriously, they would have a point if we were strapping AIM-9B's we found in a warehouse somewhere to the F-35, but you start talking about HOBS capable helmet slaved missiles (God forbid somebody finally gets image seekers to work for cheap) and nobody is gonna want to dogfight anybody anymore.

Yeah let's not forget the lessons of the past, but the F-4s dismal initial performance was not replicated after Vietnam, because we finally put money and time teaching the guys driving the thing to fight.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Lawman

[TreeA10]

Post WW2, the AF was ran by bomber generals with the cold war in full swing. Their opinion was the next war would be nuclear and conventional capability wasn't required, including weapons and training for ACM. Therefore, we certainly didn't need a cannon on a jet or train to use one. We've been the only stealth player in town but I'm thinking others will join us. At that time, what is our advantage relative to our adversaries?

[Clark Griswold]

War is Boring has another F-35 article, now it's too slow and hot (not in the good way) to win

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/no-the-f-35-can-t-fight-at-long-range-either-5508913252dd