Production F-35 too heavy to take off vertically

[Major Johnathan]

Just a note about Cheney, I agree he was dead wrong on the F-14 and in delaying the Osprey, but he didn't exactly do this single handed, most of Congress and plenty of Military brass are willing to go along for the hope of promotions. It's not as if during Clinton's 8 years they went around 'righting' the wrongs, quite the opposite. Cheney may have helped start the demise of the F-14, but Clinton's people nailed the coffin shut. I only mean to keep this bipartisan, both parties and administrations have made some horrible (perhaps corrupt) decisions regarding the U.S. military's budget. As overpowering as the U.S. military is, it could be far more so had clearer heads prevailed.

It all started with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Congress and Administrations(Bush and Clinton) decided to gut the military and felt free to play games with weapons systems because after all, who could imagine any serious threats with the end of the USSR? Plenty more money for pork barrel crap. History repeats it's self, just like the end of WWI & WWII, America couldn't disarm fast enough. It's incredible to think of the vast Navy and Airforce we had that defeated Japan and only 5 years after the U.S. was scrambling for every plane, ship, tank and soldier it could get it's hands on to tangle with North Korea(a 3rd rate power.

Now I depressed myself...

P.S. Bill Clinton's greatest contribution the U.S. military? Don't ask, don't tell.

[ewilen]

When Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense (late 80's, early 90's), the Navy's next "big" fighter" was supposed to be a navalized F-22 or F-23 (I'm approaching this from a pre June 1991 perspective). It was Slick Willy, Les Aspen, Richard Cohen, et al that gave us a Naval aviation program solely relying on the stop-gap Super Hornet and the JSF.

It would be nice if you could document this claim, since all indications are that the Navy had lost interest in the ATF (if they ever really had any to begin with) by 1991 at the latest.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...crs/IB87111.htm

Major Jonathan, I see you are falling into a familiar trap--I wonder how many air superiority fighters the US needs to combat third world guerillas, terrorists, and impoverished communist client states.

[ewilen]

Apropos of the topic (as opposed to broadbrush political rants), I snagged the following link from a Usenet discussion:

http://www.pratt-whitney.com/pr_052404.asp

Admittedly, it's a press release from one of the main contractors, but it suggests that things are going a little better than indicated in that news report. Dated 5/24/04, so very current. Skepticism on the F-35 is warranted for many reasons but I'd say we're quite far from the gloom 'n doom stage.

[Nied]

As much as I'd like it to see a Tomcat 21 ST-21 or even jsut a bunch of upgraded Ds, it's just not going to happen. The Tomcat is dead Cheney killed it, and did it in such a way that it can't be brought back. With all the jigs and tooling gone it's nearly impossible (at least without spending billions of dollars) to make new planes. Hell as David pointed out there's not even any way to build spare parts for the planes we do have, let alone introduce an all new variant.

[Mislovrit]

I wonder how many air superiority fighters the US needs to combat third world guerillas, terrorists, and impoverished communist client states.

A buttload of fighters, bombers, tanks, soldiers and everything else to keep everyone friend and foe alike from even thinking of crossing swords with the U.S.A. Not to mentioned history have shown repeatedly how costly it is for the U.S. to build a military from scratch.

Edited May 27, 2004 by Mislovrit

[Nied]

When Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense (late 80's, early 90's), the Navy's next "big" fighter" was supposed to be a navalized F-22 or F-23 (I'm approaching this from a pre June 1991 perspective). It was Slick Willy, Les Aspen, Richard Cohen, et al that gave us a Naval aviation program solely relying on the stop-gap Super Hornet and the JSF.

Nope it was Cheney all the way. If you do a google search on "DIck Cheney" and "F-14" you'll get plenty of hit's explaining this (more so now that Cheney has been criticizing John Kerry for voting to cut various military programs in the early '90s). Actually if you go real far into th elinks you may still be able to find the Air Forces Monthly article that first clued me into that fact, a harebrained scheme to purchase Su-33s from Russia.

A bunch of B-1B's (about 30 meaning only 60 or so are in service) are needlessly sitting out at Davis Monthan as we speak. The events of the last few years have proven the dire need for long range bombers... you can't always trust on "ally" countries to let you use their airfields to fly short range fighters and attack aircraft from.

I'll give you two gueses as to who's idea that was...

[Mislovrit]

One thing which is very bad about the U.S. procurement process is upgrading older equipment (aircraft, AFVs, APC and etc.) is considered a huge threat for everything new in development and those just entering production. Even upgrade kits only just for foreign buyers is a big no-no.

[ewilen]

I wonder how many air superiority fighters the US needs to combat third world guerillas, terrorists, and impoverished communist client states.

A buttload of fighters, bombers, tanks, soldiers and everything else to keep everyone friend and foe alike from even thinking of crossing swords with the U.S.A.

Quite. Of course, since the fall of the USSR, regardless of who occupied the Oval Office, no one with a conventional military has entertained such suicidal thoughts. (The suicidals, unfortunately, are harder to counter with tanks and fighter-bombers.)

[J A Dare]

Erm, I don't think we should have to make new larger aircraft carriers just because the the F-35 is a lardarse. We can't afford to run a fleet of huge carriers like America has, we're not made of money!   However, there are a couple of new slightly larger carriers in the works and rumor has it that there are also plans for the first British supercarrier but until then Lockheed Martin will just have to a) make the fat git lighter or b) give it a more powerful engine

Oh come on...isn't the Pound stronger than the Dollar??

Have they named the carriers yet? My vote goes to HMS Beckham and HMS Posh Spice.

[ewilen]

HMS Simon Cowell and HMS Anne Robinson--no need for jets, you can just use verbal abuse to make the enemy feel so bad about himself that he slinks home with his tail beteen his legs.

[Mislovrit]

(The suicidals, unfortunately, are harder to counter with tanks and fighter-bombers.)

All the more reasons to target their backers, supporters and logistics. The suicidals are very harmless when they no wheels, money, weapons and explosives.

[ewilen]

So, our existing military is so weak that it can't take out those backers, is that the problem?

[VF19]

I think we could take out the backers.......our problem is proving they exist and then finding them.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

The navy really wasnt for the ATF program to begin with. it was primarily air force. THe navy did want a NATF which is documented in the F-14 books, and it was a swing wing F-22 variant but it did not materialize due to cost. But see the navy never really was involved in the ATF program. It just wanted a variant and to my knowledge no navy brass or pilots even touched or handeled with the F-22 and its program.

[Mislovrit]

Finding the all of backers, supporters and the suicidals requires huge amounts of human intelligence which is the CIA and the Special Forces job. The tanks and bombers aren't very effective in this role.

[ewilen]

Shin, I think if you look more closely, you'll find that the Navy fooled around with a NATF, but purely in the context of an add-on to the ATF program. It wasn't entirely realistic since the resulting jet would have had to be substantially redesigned. In any case, whatever the Navy or DoD wanted to do, all the decisions (no NATF, no A-12, yes Super Hornet) were made prior to 1993. The Super Hornet had to be reaffirmed during the Clinton administration, but at that point there weren't many alternatives.

[ewilen]

Finding the all of backers, supporters and the suicidals requires huge amounts of human intelligence which is the CIA and the Special Forces job. The tanks and bombers aren't very effective in this role.

Oh, I thought the reason our military was so woeful after the 90's was its lack of tanks and bombers. At least, that's what Major Jonathan was telling us.

[Mislovrit]

Oh, I thought the reason our military was so woeful after the 90's was its lack of tanks and bombers. At least, that's what Major Jonathan was telling us.

The military is lacking everything right now. hell there isn't even enough specialty schools(right name??) to train recruits and personnal higher skills for their assignments whether it's officier to flight training.

Example of the stae of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex Ammo Follies

US asks private sector to ease bullet shortage

[David Hingtgen]

Hmmn, what to add. Let's see:

1. F-22 blows away the F-15 in every category. That's why NOBODY laments the eventual phasing out of the F-15. The only discussion is 22 vs 23, but they both eat F-15's for breakfast.

2. But F-14 vs F-18F is VERY different. The Super Hornet may be better in SOME areas, but is way worse in many more. Yes, the -22 would beat the -14 in most if not all categories, but we don't have any Naval -22's and there probably won't ever be any unless we see an entire Super Hornet wing get its butt kicked by a squadron of Flankers. (Though I think an F-23N would be even better---it's got a larger wing with lower wing loading for a slower approach speed, and it already had F-18 gear so all it really needed was a tailhook)

3. Why does the Super Hornet suck? Drag. Drag, drag, and more drag. And a bit of weight, and the fact that at this point the design is more like a cobbled together collection of parts, rather than a "whole" design. It's the YF-17 Cobra III in reality. I have never liked modifying planes much, you start to introduce aerodynamic problems, which then need more modifications.

4. Specific reasons why Mega Bugs suck/have-more-drag-than-a-brick available upon request.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

uh...hey guys lets keep this convo on jets. Back on topic. JSF SUCKS. ok cool continue

Ewilen, yea thats kind ofg what i meant they werent heavily involved, from what i understand all pilots in the program and the brass were all air force. Topmcat 21 and A-12 were axed either a year apart or close to each other starting in 91. Kind of the reason I beleive the true successor to the tomcat will show up when a super hornet replacement is needed in the coming 2 decades.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

ah yes. F-18F vs F-14 D-tomcat 21-ASF-14....now THAT isa great discussion. I wonder why the hell the mods locked the topic i made on that before. I mean it rocked. It was getting real good going 5 pages long...I cant remember if i was the same thread someone kept bringing up how the F-15 was better but that had nothing to do with it. Kind of weird but yes it was an awesome discussion.

I could tell by looking at the super bug that it really had a lot of drag on it. It just doesnt give off the impression of an agile high alpha fighter like the legacy one does. I mean the legacy one gives off the impression that its swift quick and very agile. the super bug looks like it has to take its time doin what the legacy one can...or trying 2.

there are only 2 things which could successfully out do a tomcat with no regrets. THe NATF(sadly never made), and whichever fighter replaces the superbug since as it seems it would probably be capable enough to take on the F-14s task and roles and out do it as well by the time a repalcement fgior the hornet is needed.

I guess in terms of dogfighing we will know for sure how the superbug is when some crews go to topgun in the plane. Not sure if any of them went to fallon yet. Its just sad seeing some awesome tomcat sqaudrons with kick ass decals switch over to hornets...when that happens the superbug just doesnt look as good with decals.

VFA-101 grim reapers? shiver..............................................WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY SUPER BUG!>?

[David Hingtgen]

Don't worry, no VFA-101. Grim Reapers will be disestablished. Jolly Rogers "turn to the dark side" next year.

[Mislovrit]

Topmcat 21 and A-12 were axed either a year apart or close to each other starting in 91.  Kind of the reason I beleive the true successor to the tomcat will show up when a super hornet replacement is needed in the coming 2 decades.

Iirc McNamera killed the A-12, Cheney killed the resurrection of the SR-71 over objections by the USAF.

Why have F-22s when the F-35 is supposed to replace everything?

Edited May 27, 2004 by Mislovrit

[ewilen]

Mislovrit, the A-12 referenced here is the Avenger II flying dorito carrier-based stealth attack plane that the Navy wanted to build.

Why have F-22's? Good question. But didn't we hash that out before?

[Druna Skass]

I saw a thing on the History Channel about some aeronautical war games that go on the U.S. one of the participating groups was a Luftwaffa MiG-29 squad. Has the Supah Fly gone up against those planes yet?

[David Hingtgen]

We have F-22's because the Flanker exists, and the fact that ANY plane with an AMRAAM-equivalent missile can zap an F-15 at range. Lower IR and RCS signatures protects the F-22 from being sniped.

The real question is why have F-35's. We've pretty much established it can replace the Harrier, the question is why replace F-16C Block 52's...

[ewilen]

I don't know but the Luftwaffe is giving up its Mig-29's and handing them over to Poland. Some info about them (including exercises in which they participated) is here: http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH...404/FR0404c.htm

(So, Mislovrit, the Army needs bullets, which proves we didn't buy enough airplanes in the 90's?)

[KingNor]

its not due for active service for 8 years, ITS A PROTOTYPE.. geze this is what militarys get for developing things in the public spotlight.

[Valkyrie Nut]

Erm, I don't think we should have to make new larger aircraft carriers just because the the F-35 is a lardarse. We can't afford to run a fleet of huge carriers like America has, we're not made of money!   However, there are a couple of new slightly larger carriers in the works and rumor has it that there are also plans for the first British supercarrier but until then Lockheed Martin will just have to a) make the fat git lighter or b) give it a more powerful engine

Oh come on...isn't the Pound stronger than the Dollar??

Have they named the carriers yet? My vote goes to HMS Beckham and HMS Posh Spice.

It may be stronger, but we still have far from sufficent funds for large carriers. Perhaps in 10 - 15 years but not right now.

No they have not been named and they will definately not be called by those names unless the objective is for the enemy to take the piss

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

no JSF aint replacing EVERYTHING just most [;anes. F-22 is far superioor to the JSF which i consider a POS. It cant even match up to the F-22 in a2a...yea i know its not meant to be but for something smaller and envisioned as a F-16 replacement I expect a lot more. At this point it can jsut outmanuever a F-117. JSf cant replace the F-22.

Crap...knew it was inevitable jolly rogers would submit. I just hope VF-1 si not reestablished with super bugs. I mean crap they even got to VF-2 bounty hunters!(all squadrons that previously had tomcats were much more beautiful on tomcat.s...hornets make the decvals look boring)

VIVA VF-101! I wonder what the RAG for the super bugs will be.

[David Hingtgen]

I doubt any old F-14 squadrons will be brought back as Super Hornet squadrons. Just my opinion. I'd want to see VF-111 if anything though.

King Nor---throughout history, planes have gotten heavier as they get closer to service, and then get heavier after service entry. If it's ALREADY *extremely* overweight, that does not bode well.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

yup. Parallels with the commonality first plane, the F-111. That bastard got heavier with its variants. I can only iomagine how heavy if the navy chose it to hold some phoenixes internally while holding bombs on external pylons. Holy crap. HOLE in carrier! BTW it was underpowered as is, it would have been worse with bombs.

Oh yea if the JSF does gain more growth weight than it mihgt not even be able to do STOL with munitions on, something the harrier can do/

[Warmaker]

Aah, the JSF. I really, really, hope they pull a Houdini on this project. My beloved Marine Corps is really staking quite a bit onto this aircraft. If the Royal Navy is aggrivated about the weight issue, you can be assured the USMC can be too, though I haven't heard it yet.

Actually, for a different subject, the USMC really needs to replace the CH-46. The CH-53 I think can soldier on for a couple more years than the '46. Our two helos are really feeling the age. The Super Cobra should get a nice boost with the AH-1Z.

[imode]

JSf cant replace the F-22.

Perhaps because it wasn't designed to do so?

[Druna Skass]

At this point it can jsut outmanuever a F-117.

Is that really saying a lot?