USAF generals smash the F-35?

Lunatik

Lunatik

Active member
Well, this is going to affect the JSF's sales prospects a bit negatively... :crybaby:

“The F-35 was designed from the bottom up to be the Air Force's premiere surface-to-air-missile killer and is uniquely equipped for the mission with its cutting edge processing power, synthetic aperture radar integration techniques and advance target recognition."

This is false. One best bone up on the history of the JSF program and not fall into after-the-fact sales lingo from the F-35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin. The F-35 is going to look awful silly getting pushed into skill-sets it was never designed for as the “premiere surface-to-air missile killer” because it doesn’t have the survivability to take on emerging long range area SAM threats.

From the article on F-16.net: http://www.f-16.net/news_article3354.html

What do you all think?
 
Definitely. If it can do what an F-16 can do (and a bit more) at a reasonable price, it should sell quite well.
 
I think the USAF are trying for two things:
1. Get more F-22
2. Unlike the USN buying Hornets, the USAF didn't keep buying Vipers and now they need them big time. This is a push for more F-16s and maybe F-15s as well.

Take the F-35 out of the stealth mode and I'm sure that 42,000 lbs thrust engine can haul plenty of bombs, missiles, etc to any target. Let the F-22 kill the SAM's.

This politics plain and simple remember the Viper line is down to 80/100 orders left on it, then what? Panic sets in quick order more!
icon12.gif
 
Yeah, but those of us without the F-22, it might be a bit of a problem since we won't have the luxury of sacrificing stealth for external payload. All those JSF countries are counting on its stealth and if it won't work against, say, a higher-end S-300, then we'll be in a big predicament. :sarc:
 
If I'm an F-35 pilot and the enemy's SAM can track me before I can take it out, I think I'd rather be flying in a Typhoon.
 
F-35

Lunatik
Don't let this article turn you off from the F-35 before it's even complete. Besides in the AG role the Typhoon not even up to an Block-40 Viper, at least not yet.
icon7.gif


Looking at a map I see that Turkey shares a border with Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Greece. Its strange I always think of Greece as Turkey's I'll say as main concern but Iran and others are a handful as well. Turkey has a full plate I wonder does Turkey runs military drills for if Iran & Syria attacked at the same time?
icon14.gif


Does Turkey have enough armor to deal with a two prone attack?
icon5.gif


I'm sure the US would help in heartbeat but it makes you wonder looking at a map of the region. Jets cover distances so fast add in stand-off weapons and sometimes you may only get a few minutes warning, if that.
 
Oh, I'm not giving up on the JSF, far from it. It was just a bit surprising to hear (of all, from USAF generals) that the aircraft might not be as good as advertised. As I said, Turkey (like all other JSF partners) is mostly attracted to its 'stealth' character. On a one-on-one encounter with all other things being equal, the F-35 is expected to spot and lock a Typhoon first. But that may not be the case with external weapons/fuel.

Italy and the UK will be flying both the F-35 and the Typhoon, for example. Whereas Turkey, as a first batch, is committed to 115 F-35s only and an ongoing CCIP upgrade on her 200 something F-16s.


Turkey can probably handle a multi-front war against most of its neighbors. But if ALL were to attack us at the same time, I think NATO membership would prove useful for once. :)

As for armor numbers, I think these are pretty close:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_and_uniform_of_the_Turkish_Army

746px-Sabra_tank.jpg
 
I don't get it though. Doing a little cost-cutting and having a much higher number of the (slightly) less capable aircraft should make a lot of sense from the generals' point of view too. :-|

I think the USAF already has enough Raptors to tackle the hardest jobs we'll face.

Unless we're fighting Russia, China or Europe (all of which may hint to a world war and the use nukes), I don't even see why they'd be needed.
 
Last edited:
It's not about point of view. It's in their benefit that the F-22 gets fielded in the numbers first quoted.
In their benefit, one way or the other.
 
Lunatik said:
I don't get it though. Doing a little cost-cutting and having a much higher number of the (slightly) less capable aircraft should make a lot of sense from the generals' point of view too. :-|

I think the USAF already has enough Raptors to tackle the hardest jobs we'll face.

Unless we're fighting Russia, China or Europe (all of which may hint to a world war and the use nukes), I don't even see why they'd be needed.
Click to expand...

Once all 187 (last i heard) F-22s are deployed we'll have more than what we need. They were designed as a direct replacement for the F-15 in the air superiority role. And we've never needed even half that number of F-15s to get the job done. And the F-35 was designed as a nextgen multirole replacement for the current F-16s and F-18s. It was never meant as the end all of ground attack planes.
 
03USMC said:
They are pissed off over the F22 being on the chopping block would be my guess.
Click to expand...


I agree as well, but at $130 Million the F-22 is simply too expensive. An single Squadron costs the same as a Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier. The AF Generals demands are quite frankly unreasonable...

The F-22 is truly an amazing aircraft, but the money better spent elsewhere.
 
mmarsh said:
I agree as well, but at $130 Million the F-22 is simply too expensive. An single Squadron costs the same as a Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier. The AF Generals demands are quite frankly unreasonable...

The F-22 is truly an amazing aircraft, but the money better spent elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I agree, the money could be better spent elsewhere. Even the F-35 is horrendously expensive compared to the aircraft it's supposed to replace. But remember that this is the US Air Force. They pennypinch until the end of the year and then spend $15 on a roofing nail. It's ridiculous how much money the US military wastes just so they can have the same amount to waste next year.
 
mmarsh said:
I agree as well, but at $130 Million the F-22 is simply too expensive. An single Squadron costs the same as a Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier. The AF Generals demands are quite frankly unreasonable...

The F-22 is truly an amazing aircraft, but the money better spent elsewhere.
Click to expand...


I've heard cost estimates for the F-22 @ $143 million.
 
endgame said:
better off with f15se
Click to expand...

I agree. As things stand now our money would be better spent on a new series of F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 fighters. As an American taxpayer I have to ask. Why spend so much for one fighter when you can buy half a dozen F-15s for the same price. True, the F-22 is an unparalleled fighter but we simply don't have a pressing need for it now. In reality fifth generation fighters like the F-22 and F-35 won't be needed for another 15 to 20 years and the technology will be significantly cheaper by then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top