F-35 JSF Is the F-35 doomed?

[10ringr]

Originally Posted by djpav

It seems that the F-35 is getting a lot of bad press lately, and there is no question that some of it is justified (the cost keeps going up and the delays are mounting). This article is quite damning:

Winslow T. Wheeler: The Self-Dismembering F-35

Here's a quote: "At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)

Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."

As a "close air support" ground-attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is too fast to identify the targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire, and too short-legged to loiter usefully over embattled US ground units for sustained periods. It is a giant step backward from the current A-10".

Is the F35 destined to be an all-time mega-expensive failure? Should partner countries start looking at other options? Your thoughtful comments, please

[10ringr]

Originally Posted by 10ringr

Originally the plan for the F-22 was for about 750 units. This was needed to combat current and future air threats. This is a vastly different playing field with very good jets coming from many areas of the world and not all of them friendly. I'm certain that the F-22 is the best up there but there is simply not enough of them and now the F-35 is being put under the microscope as a source for possible cuts and Obama is supposedly the one to decide. With production rates like that Obama even he served two terms (God forbid) he'd still be looking at seeing only about 500 of the 2500 needed. Has anyone figured out what the production rates are on these........ at a max they're talking about producing 60 of these type per year. The amount of F-35's needed are over 2000 units if the navy is going to make good on replacing it's A-10's, 16's and 18's A-C's.... that means that by the time they build 2500 aircraft you're looking at 40 years from now. Does anyone think that's the most idiotic plan in history. I surely expect a few of you to start jumping on the table and talk about upgrades but if that's the case then we should be still flying Phantoms......10ringr
WE MUST BUILD MORE F-22's..............

Originally Posted by 10ringr

Originally the plan for the F-22 was for about 750 units. This was needed to combat current and future air threats. This is a vastly different playing field with very good jets coming from many areas of the world and not all of them friendly.

Not enough for whom and what threat scenario? The F-22 is not the sole air defence fighter planned for the US. Over 170 "golden Eagles" are to be maintained for the majority of the life of the Raptor as well.

Suddenly you've got more than 350x dedicated air defence fighters in the USAF alone (not including multi-role F-16, F/A-18 and F-35 here) and if you look at the air combat tactics the USA is developing: LO "sleepers" - F-22/F-35 and unmanned aerial vehicles and 4th gen spear carriers with long ranged weapons and radars - F-15's and Block II Supers in combined operations, you'll see that enemy forces are going to have to fight under the worst of both sets of circumstances (LO fighters and the more traditional fighter aircraft with powerful radars and large numbers of long ranged weapons).

This construct is also supported by an C4ISR, aerial tanking and strategic strike (B-2, B-1B, B-52 and USN strike capabilities) infrastructure that is unmatched even by the next top 10 world powers combined.

Fools like WHEELER can't or won't comprehend the advantages that LO and the supporting infrastructure provides. All he cares about is thrust to weight, fuel fraction, top speed etc in 1 v 1 "Biggles" type scenarios. Such are NOT the predominant factors in victories in air combat nor are the 1 v 1 fighter scenarios relevant to modern warfighting operations.

I'm certain that the F-22 is the best up there but there is simply not enough of them and now the F-35 is being put under the microscope as a source for possible cuts and Obama is supposedly the one to decide.

1. The USAF has unmatched air combat capability even without the Raptor. Stating there is not enough, is like arguing a sledgehammer isn't enough to crack walnuts, we need MORE sledgehammers.

2. There have been NO "announced" cuts to the F-35 program since 2001. I would expect that a Defence Professional could look a bit beyond sensationalist media reporting and perhaps even take a look at US budgetary documents to see what the REAL state of US military funding IS and see exactly what is being spent. The so-called "trouble" you see should be put in the context that it absolutely dwarfs any other defence budget on Earth...

With production rates like that Obama even he served two terms (God forbid) he'd still be looking at seeing only about 500 of the 2500 needed. Has anyone figured out what the production rates are on these........ at a max they're talking about producing 60 of these type per year. The amount of F-35's needed are over 2000 units if the navy is going to make good on replacing it's A-10's, 16's and 18's A-C's.... that means that by the time they build 2500 aircraft you're looking at 40 years from now.

Er no, USAF alone will be taking approximately 80 aircraft per year at full rate production with about 120 airframes per year in total. The plan is STILL for USAF alone to purchase 1763 fighters over a 20 year build. The numbers built per year then speak for themselves...

Does anyone think that's the most idiotic plan in history. I surely expect a few of you to start jumping on the table and talk about upgrades but if that's the case then we should be still flying Phantoms......10ringr
WE MUST BUILD MORE F-22's..............

It would help if you could straighten out your facts before sharing an opinion. The US navy operates NO A-10's. It only operates a small number of F-16's in aggressor roles.

The Navy is expecting around 400 odd F-35C's out to 2030. Factor in partner nation buys, USAF buys and USMC buys and you can work out how many aircraft L-M will need to build per year.

I do like how the anti-JSF crowd uses Mr Wheeler's comments when it suits their own POV. It's a pity they don't possess a shred of intellectual honesty though. Go and research his opinion on the F-22. He hates it even more than the F-35, if possible....

His opinion is that USAF needs nothing more than 5-6000 F-16A's armed with short ranged Sidewinders only and no radar. THAT is the future of air combat according to this "expert"...