U.S. may scrap F35, set to be Israel's fighter jet of the future

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
It's not a jet, but when talking about wasted opportunities in the last few decades the Comanche deserves to be mentioned.




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
My word, where to begin to reply to this thread? Lets start at the beginning;

The F-35 is a very complex aircraft and I remain to be convinced about its ultimate usefulness, but I am open minded. One thing it definitely is, is hideously expensive, and it is this, plus delays which only add to the expense, that may lead to its downfall. My belief is that the F-35B may get the chop altogether, with the UK having already made the switch to the C model and the USMC ordering more Super Hornets to fill the gap, I feel the B is looking very vulnerable.

The Navalised Typhoon is only a proposal, and not actually being made. Its main purpose is to sway India away from the Rafale, I cannot realistically envisage an RN order, much as I would like to see it. A total cancellation of the F-35 by the US would change this picture, I feel, and I still think we would be better off getting the Navy to fly Rafales.


reply to post by pcrobotwolf
 


The reason all these aircraft are so old is because developing a replacement is so expensive and takes so long. The notion that the F-35, or anything else, is merely a cover to hide more advanced secret technology is no more than uninformed fanboy fantasy.

The ultra advanced unmanned aircraft do exist, as prototypes and development vehicles. They will be the next generation after the F-35. Thats how long these things take.

reply to post by peruvianmonk
 


The F-22 is far from a joke. It is still the most advanced and capable fighter aircraft on the planet by a considerable margin, the Russian T-50 is a very credible effort to match it, but still with many years of development ahead of it. The Chinese J-20 lags a very very long way behind.

As the the carrier version of the F-35 (I presume you meant) the UK decision was based on the way the lift fan technology (ironically our own input) limited the payload range and performance of the aircraft compared to the standard carrier model with its greater fuel capacity and larger weapons bays. This was a choice I was calling for in my own small way for a long time (on here!) and am glad we made it, I feel the USMC will be next, then Italy is buggered.

reply to post by billxam
 


No. Really, just no. see above paragraph

Anyone who thinks that anyone else will get any F-35's if the US cancels it are also deluded. If the US pulls the plug, thats it, end of programme. The costs of trying to produce a handful of export models would be ridiculous.

Finally, threads on cancelled projects? Have a look at these and add to them if you like;


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I had loads like this but Im gutted to see the pics have gone from a lot of them. Maybe time for a remastering of the old classics, lol



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 



Is it because it is rubbish or becasue it is ridiculously expensive per plane?


They have been having huge problems getting the aircraft to work as advertised. Essentially, what they are trying to do is take an F-16, give it an internal munitions bay, some LO features, as well as shrink an AWACS system down and incorporate it into the aircraft. And expect the same performance and success they have seen out of the F-16s multirole functionality.

The F-16 was designed as a lightweight fighter and has, over time, assumed a CAS and strike role. Trying to take that same general form factor and work it into a "all in one" solution is not going to go well.

While the "all in one" solution is not necessarily fatally flawed, it is at such scales. They should have started at something closer to a light bomber (F-111 or F-14/15) if they wanted to incorporate such a diverse array of functions, and simply cut the VTOL out of the project and decided to design a completely separate airframe (using parts-commonality where possible).

The aircraft ends up being mediocre at best and running into massive budget problems as development costs swell. They are, essentially, building three different airframes and to maintain parts commonality quotas, have to change/tweak the design of all three airframes any time one airframe needs an adjustment.


In my opinion this appears to be a huge waste of money. The RAF is slated to purcahse some F-35'S. I would take the Typhoon over this plane any day of the week.


That's really the insult to injury for the F-35 program. $120M+ fighter that comes out of this project is not going to offer near the functionality of the $250M+ F-22 or have much standing against $75M+ offerings for F-18E/F and F-15SE proposals.

Either of those aircraft will be able to offer similar to and better real-world performance compared to the F-35 (which will find itself horribly overwhelmed by more modern aerial threats offered on the Russian market and beginning to find their way into the arsenals of our prospective buyers' enemies). Better still - those aircraft likely already have some parts commonality with aircraft already in service with those nations.

Whenever you really start to look at it - the F-35 is just not worth the price - or even really the space it will take up in your hangar, by comparison to the other offerings out there.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 
Maybe I missed something here OP, but last time I looked the F-35 was "set to be the US and program partner nations fighter jet of the future", (i.e. those countries that actually bought in a token share of the development costs) NOT Israel's. Ironically apart from the title you dont mention Israel anywhere else.

As for the F-35, "snort!" I could go on and on about how much of a ham fisted debacle this hellish abortion of a program is but I think Waynos and Aim64C said it best, so I will leave my rant hat in the cupboard for now.

LEE.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 




F-23? Never heard of that, sounds sexy though.


A damned sexy airplane, in my opinion.

The problem with the F-23 was that it was a bit ahead of its time. The airframe would have made an excellent strike bomber as it is simply unmatched in supersonic cruise performance. The shape of the wings reduces vortex and viscous drag by improving laminar flow over the entire wing. This gives it a much greater lift ratio than traditional delta wings (the tapering of the trailing edge of the wing is the key, here) - and the design was considerably more difficult to detect on radar and IR search systems.

The problem with the F-23 is that the competition was decided before the ATF program became the Advanced Tactical Identity Crisis - where we put all of this money in developing an air supremacy fighter to rival Russia's efforts into the 21st century.... and Russia was no longer able to participate in the arms race.

The F-23's basic airframe, with some expansions and modifications, would have made an excellent multi-role aircraft and interceptor. Whether or not it would have been a good fit for carrier life is a bit hard to tell - it would have required some considerable modifications to the airframe to handle carrier take-off and landings, as well as storage in the hangars. In either case - the deep munitions bay and wide, deep, blended form factor of the F-23 would have made it a prime candidate for modification into a successor to the F-15E and F/B-111 with plenty of capability to fill air-supremacy roles.

en.wikipedia.org...





The second one has some footage of the YF-23 performing some maneuvers I'd never seen it perform, before.

Anyway - in my opinion - what they are wanting the F-35 to do belongs in a larger airframe - one maybe about 5-15% larger than the F-23 (which was pretty beast for a fighter, to begin with). The main reason for the increased size would be the need to add in more and larger bays while still maintaining LO features. Would have been pretty crazy if they could have gotten this thing to fit a complement of Aim-54 "D" models (a hypothetical improvement over the C that wold have brought many concepts from the Aim-120 AMRAAM and incorporated them into the longer ranged Phoenix - possibly even a derivative using an independent multi-warhead system that took advantage of the ballistic trajectory of the Aim-54 and could target entire formations with a single missile or do more to ensure a hit against maneuvering targets).

In that sense - had the USSR collapsed back in the 80s, as opposed to the 90s, we may have seen the F-23 flying today as opposed to the F-22, since the 23 seems to have a much more versatile airframe. The F-35 would have, thus, never really been much of an issue - as the F-35 really came about as a failure of the F-22 to satisfy the multirole demand many shouldered upon the ATF program.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
The F-35 should be scrapped. The F-22 is better, even if a little more expensive... for now.

And Israel/Canada should buy the F-15 Silent Eagle instead. It's stealthier than F-16/F-15/F-18 and way less expensive than the F-22 or the F-35.

IMO Israel doesn't need new airplanes... theirs already outranks everything the countries surrounding it have...not to mention one of the most important things, if not THE most important... TRAINING...

Syria has no real air force, Jordan either... Egypt has a good one, but there's no training... And Iran is too far.

So Israel just wants new war toys because of their war industry and because they are paranoiac.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk

Senior members of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee last week instructed the Pentagon to come up with alternatives to the jet fighter of the future, the F-35, with the project facing massive cost overruns.


www.haaretz.com...

The future seems very cloudy for the F-35.

Is it because it is rubbish or becasue it is ridiculously expensive per plane?

Any tech heads out there who can shed some light on this?

In my opinion this appears to be a huge waste of money. The RAF is slated to purcahse some F-35'S. I would take the Typhoon over this plane any day of the week.
edit on 24-5-2011 by Peruvianmonk because: Spelling


As far as I know, the F-35 is an amazing plane.... but yeah, they are extremely expensive. Knowing the U.S. If they are dumping the F-35, it's because they developed a newer, more expensive plane.


Did you even read the article? It clearly states that the F-35 has doubled in price since the initial orders were made. On top of that, there have been defects in the produced models and testing phases are still occuring longer than promised.

F-35 probably would've been a good plane at $69 million a piece. I don't think it's worth paying up to, or more than, $112 million per unit when it is probably already has the highest maintenance cost (in terms of money and manpower) of any modern fighter.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by billxam
 


The F-22 was a joke though wasn't it? Hugely expensive with little advancement?

Yes the Carrier version seems to be the more popular choice to the STOL version.

Why is that? something to do with manuverability, thrust, weight?


Are you kidding me? While it may be insanely expensive, it is unmatched in speed, stealth, and agility. F-22's can even reach afterburner speeds without the use of afterburner. And just look at it, its beautiful. I have a scaled model of one, and whenever I look at its shape and design, I cannot see something more perfect.

I would like to see the F-35 become our JSF though. Have you seen the helmet's the pilot's are suppose to wear?
edit on 25-5-2011 by patrickmclanahan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 
Aim I couldn't agree more on the possible derivations that the YF-23 could have spawned with regard to a replacement for the Beagle and F-111. It just makes me drool thinking what a stretched longer ranged Black Widow could have, nay would have achieved. Sometimes the best just doesn't win.

LEE.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by patrickmclanahan
I have a scaled model of one, and whenever I look at its shape and design, I cannot see something more perfect.



I beg to differ.

Flying saucers (UFOs) are utmost excellent and no fighter plan can match its speed.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by wisdomnotemotion
 

Oh this better be a tongue in cheek joke. First off spelling, the word is fighter "plane" not fighter plan. Second this is an aircraft forum not a tin foil hat convention. Please tell me you were joking.

LEE.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Just checked out those videos.

Damn, that thing has some serious pace & beauty.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


Given that we have UFO type craft advanced far far far beyond any such plane . . .

it seems like a very expensive charade to begin with.

Maybe that's the point . . . drag out the expensive charade as long as possible . . . maybe even get WWIII going in the mean time . . .

That could leave us under protected and/or set the stage for the UFO type craft to be used in WWIII???



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 

Are we all taking the pi$$ here or what?

This is supposed to be a thread about the F-35 and instead we have people vomiting crap about UFO's. If you want to discuss such things fine but do it in the appropriate forum. This is exactly how this site went from good to bad, and exactly why some very good and distinguished posters stopped contributing. If you dont have anything adult to add THEN GO AWAY CHILDREN.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Isn't the US in some really serious debt, which is getting worse and worse? so my guess is that they are scrapping them because they really can't afford, maybe it's come to that point where the US government need to shrink its military defence budget in liught of the increasing debt they have, just like the UK had to, it can't go on forever.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
The next war America fights will be in the Pacific.

For the F-35 to operate from Guam or Japan to secure the Philippine Sea/Pacific Ocean the F-35 lacks internal fuel.

It would have to have external fuel pods and weapons thus no longer having "stealth". It's dead because it serves no use on the next battlefield. The Super Hornet can perform Pacific Theatre operations right now better than the F-35 ever could.

So what's the new thing? UAV Fighters. Cheaper than dirt, disposable. Extreme Stealth. flyable from anywhere's.

Even if China destroys every airfield all the way to California there will still be plenty of places to fly UAV fighters from to keep your airspace. Nobody will know where you base them.

The F-35 never offered any capability to even justify it's cost. It was a bluff to make other people think that's what we're makin'.

We could never make enough F-35's to keep up with China's JF-17 production. Even if the F-35 had a higher kill ratio China would eventually get all of them due to numbers of hardware they are fielding. Especially since we would have to slap external tanks and external weapons pods just to get the F-35 to be able to operate far enough from Guam to even get into the battle.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


You clearly haven't seen the logistics involved in fueling,re-fueling, arming, rearming a UAV.
It doesn't refuel or re-arm it self. And it doesn't do its own maintenance.

You need a space to land it, and a space to have it take of from.
You need access roads for fuel trucks or other transportation methods.

A UAV dont have the luxury of being deployed from anywhere. The arias which are capable of deploying UAVs with its range capabilities can also be assessed tactically by studying maps.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Pervius
 


You clearly haven't seen the logistics involved in fueling,re-fueling, arming, rearming a UAV.
It doesn't refuel or re-arm it self. And it doesn't do its own maintenance.

You need a space to land it, and a space to have it take of from.
You need access roads for fuel trucks or other transportation methods.

A UAV dont have the luxury of being deployed from anywhere. The arias which are capable of deploying UAVs with its range capabilities can also be assessed tactically by studying maps.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



The American/German radio controlled plane community would argue against that.
Minimal support would be needed to support little fighter UAV's the size of your car. A monkey could be taught to slap the missiles in and pull the pins. Refueling? If you can pump gas into your car you can refuel many of the small planes of the world.

Maintenance? If it needs maintenance put it in the cargo container and send it back.

When the battle starts you strike first and clear the way for the bombers and manned fighters. Whatever needs maintenance after that is irrelevant to the battle plan.

Guerrilla Air Warfare after that with whatever you gots.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by thebozeian
 


Its enough to drive you crackers isnt it? You try to have a serious discussion and along come the sci fi brigade with their wet dreams to spoil it



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Pervius
 


You clearly haven't seen the logistics involved in fueling,re-fueling, arming, rearming a UAV.
It doesn't refuel or re-arm it self. And it doesn't do its own maintenance.

You need a space to land it, and a space to have it take of from.
You need access roads for fuel trucks or other transportation methods.

A UAV dont have the luxury of being deployed from anywhere. The arias which are capable of deploying UAVs with its range capabilities can also be assessed tactically by studying maps.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



The American/German radio controlled plane community would argue against that.
Minimal support would be needed to support little fighter UAV's the size of your car. A monkey could be taught to slap the missiles in and pull the pins. Refueling? If you can pump gas into your car you can refuel many of the small planes of the world.

Maintenance? If it needs maintenance put it in the cargo container and send it back.

When the battle starts you strike first and clear the way for the bombers and manned fighters. Whatever needs maintenance after that is irrelevant to the battle plan.

Guerrilla Air Warfare after that with whatever you gots.


Even if a monkey could fuel a car. The fuel must still be transported to the location and stored at the location.

If a monkey could load a 200lbs bomb or a AMG onto a UAV. The bombs would still be needed to be transported and stored at the location.

If the UAV is as large as a car, and weigh about 4 to 10 tons folly fueled and loaded with weapons. It would need a sufficient runway to be able to take of. That is not a UAV you can just taus into the air by hand.

The runway must also be able to support the weight of a fully loaded UAV.

Sometimes iron mats have to be laid out before a Apache or a Cobra can land in the woods. Just so it wont sink into the ground because of its weight. This might also be the case in the desert.

The same goes for the trucks that have fuel and weapons for these helis.
sometimes they also have to have a pre-made foundation so they dont sink into the ground.

Locating and preparing a suitable location for these things take a lot of resources.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join