It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon Grounds F-35 Fleet After Runway Fire

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

en.wikipedia.org...
The F-18 Growler is an electronics warfare aircraft that specializes in jamming. Boeing says it does a better job of this than JSF.




posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

Wouldn't it make sense that Boeing would claim that since Boeing and LM are rivals?



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

The line was never fully shut down like the F-22 has been. The -53 went through upgrades like everything else, but lot of those were changing engines, new blades, etc. The original line never went into shut down, unlike the F-22, where the equipment was stored for awhile, but at least some of which has been disposed of.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

Any platform that is purpose built for a mission is going to do better at it than a multi-role aircraft will. Of course the Growler is going to be better than the F-35 at it, because it's specialized for that mission. That's like saying that a semi truck will pull a 53 foot trailer better than an F150 will.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

Who cares if Boeing says so.

Lockheed says the F-35 is perfect.

Sukhoi thinks both suck.

Saab thinks the Gripen is better than both.

The consortium who builds the Eurofighter thinks the Eurofighter is best.

That's because they are trying to sell their own product.
edit on 7/7/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

breakingdefense.com...
"WASHINGTON: Stealth is being outpaced by software, radar and computing power, so electronic warfare and cyber attacks are growing in importance. While the F-35 may possess excellent — if circumscribed — electronic attack and cyber capabilities, it needs help from the Navy’s EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft.

That means, Boeing and the Navy are arguing, that the Navy needs more of the electronic attack versions of the F-18, known as the Growler, to fly with the F-35 on the first day of combat to protect the F-35 and to help protect the service’s precious carrier strike groups."



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 04:20 AM
link   
"According to the GAO, the Super Hornet actually costs the U.S. Navy $15,346 an hour to fly. It sounds like a lot — until you see that the U.S. Air Force's official "target" for operating the F-35 is $31,900 an hour. The GAO says it's a little more — closer to $32,500.

CBC also asked Lockheed Martin to say if it had any quarrel with these numbers — and it did not."

www.cbc.ca...



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Some of the limitations of JSF:
www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

"This is all much harder to do for the F-35, which remains a developmental aircraft and lacks key aerodynamic features like combat thrust vectoring (Harrier, SU-30 family, MiG-29OVT, F-22A), canards for fast “point and shoot” maneuvers with high off-boresight short-range missiles (some SU-30 family, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen), or loaded supersonic cruise (F-22A). The F-35 has also been designed from the outset to feature less stealth than the F-22A, though it will be stealthier than contemporary 4.5 generation European and Russian aircraft."

“Moreover, it’s made just as Graham Warwick reports (subscription) that Maj. Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command’s advanced air dominance branch, stated last week: “I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons.” There is surely a universe where these two statements are compatible, but we don’t live there… If the F-35 can really do all that, why did the USAF spend billions on supercruise, rear-aspect stealth and supermaneuverability (the reason for 2D vectoring nozzles) for the F-22? And does this mean that the all-aspect/wideband LO tech on the B-2 and X-47B UCAS is superfluous?”

"“A. The F-22, when it was produced, was flying with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console…. I have to… try to get modern technology into my legacy fleet. That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet [of under 200 F-22As], I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be.”"



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 05:49 AM
link   
So?

You're not being consistent or making a proper argument.

In one post you critique the F-35 for being too expensive to operate. In the next you bring up some aircraft, the only one of which that is western and reasonably new is the F-22, which is out of production, costs around twice the F-35, and has over twice the cost per flight hour.

So it costs more to fly than a less capable aircraft, and is less capable than a more expensive aircraft.

There's also talk of the Eurofighter, which while far more maneuverable is also more expensive than the F-35, not stealthy, and still doesn't have the sensors. And then there's the Rafale which frankly nobody wants except France.

An aircraft as maneuverable as the F-22, with the sensors of the F-35, with the all-aspect stealth of the B-2, with the cost per flight hour of the F/A-18 is impossible. Those traits are often contradictory and mutually exclusive. So what mix of those attributes do you want?
edit on 8/7/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

Some interesting info there and a lot of arguing back and forth. The best alternative to the F-35A would probably be the Eurofighter Typhoon IMO. The F-35B and C versions have no real alternative apart from keeping existing jets flying. It's highly unlikely any more F-22 Raptors will be built so forget about that idea. The US won't sell it to anyone else anyway.

I found this bit interesting the part under DAS plane.


Rather than entering a turning fight at the merge, the F-35 barrels through and takes an over-the-shoulder defensive shot. As a Northrop Grumman video puts it, “maneuvering is irrelevant”.


www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

The EW and ELINT environment is becoming increasingly complicated with counter measures and counter counter measures and counter counter counter measures. lol.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

Stealth is far outpacing counter stealth in the non-media world. People believe that stealth is not useful, but the reality is far different.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I hear the f 35 has been given the all clear to make the flight to the UK?



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Matt1951

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Matt1951

You think the only advantage the F-35 will be the vertical landing? It has sensors and equipment the F-22 can only dream about.


Tell me what hardware or equipment the F-22 lacks. I am still waiting for an answer on that one. Is it classified? I can understand why you can't say if it is.
As for sensors all the F-22s are being upgraded.


Well for one the F-35 can track and jam the F-22s radar.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

Been a little busy this weekend, so haven't had a chance to follow up with it, but the Scorpion has landed in the UK after an uneventful trip.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
That's alright the riat fbook group I follow seems very excited so I presumed it was all good news. I like the scorpion looks pretty funky looking forward to I seeing it



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

They changed the paint on it, going to a darker paint. It looks good.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
For starters I would like to say that this is a great discussion about the F-35 and F-22. I personally think that it would be worth starting up the F-22 line again for say 200 more aircraft even if they divert the money from the JSF and cost us 400 F-35s. In the long run it would be worth it. But we gotta look at the facts...


originally posted by: Matt1951
a reply to: Zaphod58

It would cost a lot less to restart production of the F-22, compared to just fixing the problems on the 100 or so mistake jet JSF we have already purchased.



When the RAND group did their analysis of what it would cost to restart the raptor line, they came up with this report. They said it would take roughly 330-400 million dollars and two years just to start the line back up. On a production run of 75 aircraft, the average flyaway cost per jet would be 179 million and average unit cost when factoring in the restart would be 227 million per aircraft. The total cost of 75 aircraft plus all startup costs would be over 19 billion dollars. I think this is worth every penny even if we would have to sacrifice 150 F-35's to do it. But I don't get to make that call...


The last F-22 were made in 2011, I doubt building new will double the price since 2011. Actually the F-22 cost less in the same year, than the LRIP JSF made in 2011. Or any JSF to date.


I think your confusing the flyaway cost of the F-22 (generally accepted to be 150 mil per aircraft) with the average unit cost of the F-35 when combined with R&D. The average flyaway cost of the F-35 right now is around 145 mil, so you are somewhat correct. But by FY2019, the average flyaway cost will be 97 million. Here's the USAF Aircraft Procurement Budget Analysis for 2014 with the flyaway costs I highlighted in red...

Now if we do end up running a full production run of F-35s like they are still planning, then even with R&D included in the price, the JSF will be around 120-130 mil a piece, simply due to spreading the cost to over 2500 plus aircraft. Compare that to the 330 million plus per aircraft for the raptor.


originally posted by: Matt1951
a reply to: C0bzz
US should offer the F-22 to allies.



Never gonna happen. That would be like saying lets export the B-2. Although the real numbers are classified, its widely believed that the F-22 has a frontal RCS of .0001m2 (-40db) or the size of a marble. It's believed that the B-2 has the same frontal RCS. Now here's the kicker. The F-35, even though everyone is giving it crap about its RCS is still .0013m2 or the size of a golf ball. You can actually increase the F-35s RCS by a factor of ten and it will still be stealthier than the F-117. Also, some people claim that if you incorporate all around stealth in the equation, the F-35 is actually stealthier than the B-2:



The RCS of a stealth aircraft is typically multiple orders of magnitude lower than a conventional plane and is often comparable to that of a small bird or large insect. "From the front, the F/A-22's signature is -40dBm2 (the size of a marble) while the F-35's is -30 dBm2 (the size of a golf ball). The F-35 is said to have a small area of vulnerability from the rear because engineers reduced cost by not designing a radar blocker for the engine exhaust." [Aviation Week & Space Technology; 11/14/2005, page 27] The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117.
globalsecurity.org

I read a blog recently (cant remember which one!) where the guy had a great idea. Just like most of us, he said to just pay the cost to reopen the raptor line, make another 200-250 of them, and use the money saved from cutting 500 F-35s off the order. I like this idea because it would give us more raptors (a better air to air fighter) and Lockheed Martin probably wouldn't complain about it because they own both aircraft. Also, there are other ways to eventually increase the abilities of the F-35 like the stealthy external pylons. But the bottom line is that the F-35 is a needed weapons system. They just went about the whole thing wrong trying to build three different versions.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Tylor Rogoway did a pretty good article on foxtrotalpha about the engines...
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...
edit on 8-7-2014 by boomer135 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

Well I am about worn out if you don't get it yet.

Your numbers are off? Show me where the cost of the F-22 is twice the cost of the JSF per flight hour, if I am wrong, I will admit it. The point is, F-22 is a true air superiority fighter. We get something that works for our money.

Just some of the JSF limitations - "draggy airframe"; unforeseen SLOW acceleration from Mach .8 to Mach 1.2. This problem cannot be fixed.

Stealth - JSF not stealthy from the rear, or when carrying external weapons. Even the ancient Mig 21 will shoot down the JSF chasing from the rear as JSF returns to ship. New radars detect stealth.

Cost - Was supposed to be a low cost bomb truck, now the cost of the still non-functional JSF is rivaling the F-22.

Can't supercruise

Carries only two missiles in stealth mode. Not much in the way of self protection.

Ongoing problems with the clutch and driveshaft. The dry clutch can only take one engagement, a second engagement overheats it. Have to wave off landing on a carrier? No, you won't get a second chance.

30 million lines (60 minutes) of software code. Years to go if this is every sorted out.

Some potential problems: flying near lightning, maybe the tail hook is fixed, maybe the helmet if fixable.

I personally want the F18 Growler (in addition to more F18s) for the Navy, the upgraded F22 for the Air Force, cancel JSF, and start new fighter programs for the Air Force, Navy, Marines. Take what is good from JSF and put it in future fighters.

That should make very clear what I want.





edit on 8-7-2014 by Matt1951 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Matt1951

Your numbers are off? Show me where the cost of the F-22 is twice the cost of the JSF per flight hour, if I am wrong, I will admit it. The point is, F-22 is a true air superiority fighter. We get something that works for our money.


The F-22 costs $68,362 an hour. In May of 2013 it was estimated that the F-35 would cost around $32,000 per hour to operate.


Just some of the JSF limitations - "draggy airframe"; unforeseen SLOW acceleration from Mach .8 to Mach 1.2. This problem cannot be fixed.


The F-18 has the exact same problem, but for some reason is "a great fighter".


Stealth - JSF not stealthy from the rear, or when carrying external weapons. Even the ancient Mig 21 will shoot down the JSF chasing from the rear as JSF returns to ship. New radars detect stealth.


Wrong, they don't detect stealth.


Cost - Was supposed to be a low cost bomb truck, now the cost of the still non-functional JSF is rivaling the F-22.


See above.


Can't supercruise


Neither does the F-18 or any other legacy fighter.


Carries only two missiles in stealth mode. Not much in the way of self protection.


Two missiles is the standard payload, not the maximum payload. But the F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter, so there will be other aircraft in the area, such as the F-22, and other F-35s.


Ongoing problems with the clutch and driveshaft. The dry clutch can only take one engagement, a second engagement overheats it. Have to wave off landing on a carrier? No, you won't get a second chance.


There is a slow rolling recovery being developed (30 knot approach) that will allow for landing with weapons still on board, among other things. Vertical landings look great, and impress people at airshows, but aren't the most useful things if you want to bring weapons, or a heavy fuel payload back to the ship.



I personally want the F18 Growler for the Navy, the upgraded F22 for the Air Force, cancel JSF, and start new fighter programs for the Air Force, Navy, Marines. Take what is good from JSF and put it in future fighters.

That should make very clear what I want.


Then it's a good thing you aren't in charge of future procurement. It would set fighter development for the US back at least 20 years, and cost any advantage that we currently have.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join