The F-35 thread, Mk II
Criticism of F35 is unfair. As a military procurement programme it has exceeded all reasonable expectations, at least in terms of meeting its objective.
I think the problem lies with our understandinmg of the objective....
Some of you seem to think it is to bring into service a multi role stealth fighter than can take on any opposition, or something on those lines.
However, you're wrong. the objective is to be a sink hole for money. Objective met with 100% success.
If, at the end of the project, you get a useful bit of kit..... Well, consider that a bonus.
I think the problem lies with our understandinmg of the objective....
Some of you seem to think it is to bring into service a multi role stealth fighter than can take on any opposition, or something on those lines.
However, you're wrong. the objective is to be a sink hole for money. Objective met with 100% success.
If, at the end of the project, you get a useful bit of kit..... Well, consider that a bonus.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
5) I have yet to see the "founding" papers for the NGAD machine - the statement of operational need, the required operational capabilities
Salute!
Great point, ORAC, and the F-35 naval variant has more range than anything we have had in the U.S. since the Intruder. I compare with the one I flew in 'nam, and it beat the hell outta the A-4 and F-4.... the lowly Sluf. But range is not the biggie WRT operational capabilities the attack jet must possess now.
When I see the unit cost of the F-35 today, I am surprised. To see a $$ per plane half of what an F-22 cost 15 or 20 years ago is impressive. Oh, BTW, latest numbers show the USAF F-35 mission capable number highest of our fighter/attack inventory. An even bigger surprise. The logistic tail is catching up.
The folks against the F-35 keep using lifetime costs of the plane from cradle to grave. Look at the Viper from 1973, look at the Typhoon or Tornado, look at many and then project into the future. Trying to find actual combat use of the Tiffie, but the 35 has been used by IAF and the U.S. over hostile territory with decent results and no losses best we know.
To be very honest, many of we comat vets that flew in the Gulf and even Viet Nam had our doubts about the "bridge too far" aspects of the F-35. We still do. OTOH, the thing has done well in the big exercises, puts on a helluva good demo for a plane "that could not dogfight" and has actually flown over enema territory a few times.
Gums sends...
Great point, ORAC, and the F-35 naval variant has more range than anything we have had in the U.S. since the Intruder. I compare with the one I flew in 'nam, and it beat the hell outta the A-4 and F-4.... the lowly Sluf. But range is not the biggie WRT operational capabilities the attack jet must possess now.
When I see the unit cost of the F-35 today, I am surprised. To see a $$ per plane half of what an F-22 cost 15 or 20 years ago is impressive. Oh, BTW, latest numbers show the USAF F-35 mission capable number highest of our fighter/attack inventory. An even bigger surprise. The logistic tail is catching up.
The folks against the F-35 keep using lifetime costs of the plane from cradle to grave. Look at the Viper from 1973, look at the Typhoon or Tornado, look at many and then project into the future. Trying to find actual combat use of the Tiffie, but the 35 has been used by IAF and the U.S. over hostile territory with decent results and no losses best we know.
To be very honest, many of we comat vets that flew in the Gulf and even Viet Nam had our doubts about the "bridge too far" aspects of the F-35. We still do. OTOH, the thing has done well in the big exercises, puts on a helluva good demo for a plane "that could not dogfight" and has actually flown over enema territory a few times.
Gums sends...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Trying to find actual combat use of the Tiffie
Last edited by ORAC; 6th Jun 2021 at 08:33.
British and US Marine F-35s go to war.
I guess this could have gone in the Future Carrier thread as well
airsound
Edited to add that, to no one's surprise, WEBF has already added it to the Future Carrier thread.....
I guess this could have gone in the Future Carrier thread as well
airsound
Edited to add that, to no one's surprise, WEBF has already added it to the Future Carrier thread.....
Last edited by airsound; 22nd Jun 2021 at 14:59.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 78
Posts: 7,633
Received 82 Likes
on
39 Posts
A subdued ‘W00T’.
OK, it’s a milestone. A multi-billion milestone involving dropping bombs on an enemy with no perceptible AD capability. And the £ per Daesh equation is … ?
OK, it’s a milestone. A multi-billion milestone involving dropping bombs on an enemy with no perceptible AD capability. And the £ per Daesh equation is … ?
MPN11,
There is an ongoing multi-national effort against Daesh and ISIS in Syria and Iraq, the UK contributes to that effort. We have 2 assets able to contribute, and we are now using the second one. Why the issue? We are not in an economic war with Daesh, we are eliminating them where we find them, cost is an irrelevance.
There is an ongoing multi-national effort against Daesh and ISIS in Syria and Iraq, the UK contributes to that effort. We have 2 assets able to contribute, and we are now using the second one. Why the issue? We are not in an economic war with Daesh, we are eliminating them where we find them, cost is an irrelevance.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 78
Posts: 7,633
Received 82 Likes
on
39 Posts
I was somewhat tongue in cheek, and should indeed have used a ‘smiley’ as the minimum. Sorry!
I’m obviously glad that UK is ‘in the fight’, and that our best (and most expensive) assets are getting a meaningful outing. I just found the PR blurb a bit OTT, I suppose. “We flew off the ship and did what we were designed to do” doesn’t make great headlines. 😟
I’m obviously glad that UK is ‘in the fight’, and that our best (and most expensive) assets are getting a meaningful outing. I just found the PR blurb a bit OTT, I suppose. “We flew off the ship and did what we were designed to do” doesn’t make great headlines. 😟
Administrator
From your linked article.
It would appear that the special relationship continues.
This is also notable as the first combat mission flown by US aircraft from a foreign carrier since HMS Victorious in the South Pacific in 1943. The level of integration between Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and US Marine Corps is truly seamless, and testament to how close we’ve become since we first embarked together last October.
Criticism of F35 is unfair. As a military procurement programme it has exceeded all reasonable expectations, at least in terms of meeting its objective.
I think the problem lies with our understandinmg of the objective....
Some of you seem to think it is to bring into service a multi role stealth fighter than can take on any opposition, or something on those lines.
However, you're wrong. the objective is to be a sink hole for money. Objective met with 100% success.
If, at the end of the project, you get a useful bit of kit..... Well, consider that a bonus.
I think the problem lies with our understandinmg of the objective....
Some of you seem to think it is to bring into service a multi role stealth fighter than can take on any opposition, or something on those lines.
However, you're wrong. the objective is to be a sink hole for money. Objective met with 100% success.
If, at the end of the project, you get a useful bit of kit..... Well, consider that a bonus.
And perhaps a sarcasm font...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
UK applying pressure over certification of Meteor and Spear before making any more orders…..
https://www.defensenews.com/global/e...e-of-the-f-35/
Two reasons Britain could slow its purchase of the F-35
https://www.defensenews.com/global/e...e-of-the-f-35/
Two reasons Britain could slow its purchase of the F-35
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 56
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
8 Posts
