2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

[mikeCK]

You may be right. But it's better than the alternative...which is nothing really. Shame they couldn't have left it as a supplement to the F22 and let the Navy bid out for its own plane with longer range, 2 engines, Etc

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

You may be right. But it's better than the alternative...which is nothing really. Shame they couldn't have left it as a supplement to the F22 and let the Navy bid out for its own plane with longer range, 2 engines, Etc

I agree with you. We can additionally hope they upgrade the AMRAAM and other long range AAW munitions and detection & BVR IFF equipment.

As long a fighter doesn't have to maneuver like a fighter and can kill at a long distance undetected, there will be a role for it.

Regards,
Feltan

[Korvar]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

There is I think and I'm sure this discussion is right up there with explaining Highlander II.

I'm sure the answer will be "So how bout that LCS?"[:)]

Mike

Haha - true.

I don't envy the guys who are now charged with making the program a reality. The parameters for the F-35 are already set, and the people involved are surely doing everything possible to deliver the most capable product they can.

Also, our punditry won't matter one iota to the actual program - this is of course a pure spectator sport for (most of) us. Just be glad the debate hasn't descended into Wikipedia style ninja editing of DB3000... or even worse, lobbying for such [:D]

ORIGINAL: Feltan
The Marines got what they wanted over just about everybody's objection via Congressional direction and funding.

Quite a masterful stroke for the Marines, especially considering they got what they wanted over the objections of even the Navy.

ORIGINAL: Feltan
And yes, I really do believe the Air Force and Navy know they are getting a turd with wings. The Brits and few others are buying the F-35B, which, as I stated previously will be better than current STOL aircraft.

The F-35 becomes a much better program in the context of STOL aircraft.

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

You may be right. But it's better than the alternative...which is nothing really. Shame they couldn't have left it as a supplement to the F22 and let the Navy bid out for its own plane with longer range, 2 engines, Etc

Sorry, can't resist: youtu.be/IWJeqrvoF6M (as an obvious ad)

But in all seriousness, you're right that it's a shame that the missions of the F-35 weren't split among several platforms. All airframes involved in the F-X (F-14 / F-15) and Lightweight Fighter (F-16 / F/A-18) programs benefited from having clean splits between the different Air Force & Navy requirements.

[cf_dallas]

OK, I tried to stay out, but I just couldn't do it... shame on me. Maybe it's because the Giants got shellacked tonight.

Two things:

ORIGINAL: Randomizer
Or that the observations were pretty much fiscal with virtually no analysis of operational issues and it was written before the last series of on-board fires in test aircraft?

First, were there more fires than the one (highly publicized) incident that scotched plans to send F-35s to Farnborough? "The last series of... fires" is a bit of wordplay that implies that these things have been going up in smoke for years. I'm relatively certain that wasn't the case, but if you have sources stating otherwise, please do enlighten us. I'm also relatively certain that the one aircraft that experienced a fire was an operational training F-35A based at Eglin AFB... not a 'test aircraft'. More here: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-la ... se-emerges

And second, as far as the multiple posts talking about the inferiority of multi-role aircraft... I can only hope the program fails this well:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/article ... 07409.html

[Randomizer]

Thanks for the correction regarding the engine fire.

That said, the comparing the F-35 with the F-4 is a massive red-herring made of straw. The F-4 was certainly a successful example of a multi-role aircraft however it also existed in a military environment that it shared with other combat aircraft regardless of the user armed service or country. This ensures that those other aircraft would be available to reinforce the Phantom in those roles where its limitations might affect the mission.

The fact that the Phantom co-existed with the F-104, F-105, A-4, A-7, A-8, F-101 and others demonstrates that some designs could perform some missions better than the F-4. However, the F-35 is planned to essentially replace every combat aircraft that is not an F-35 otherwise the compromises inherent in the design make no operational sense. Unlike the Phantom, it will not have the luxury of having other designs fill those tactical niches that it cannot since this is intentional and by design. There never was any Phantom only air force or carrier air group but the F-35 will be deployed all alone (except in the USAF where it won't be trusted for air defence, which falls on the F-22 unless I'm mistaken).

Believe it or not I am not "anti-F-35" per se but do think that the project has been badly executed and that pursuing the chimera of a one-size-fits-all combat aircraft may come back to haunt those countries who have signed on to the project as it has become. It's good on the Marines that they may be getting the plane that they want, after decades of cast-off aircraft they have probably earned it but we'll see how the other F-35 buyers make out.

-C

[jtoatoktoe]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

ORIGINAL: jtoatoktoe

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Don't be too upset over the F 35 money considering what the plan is designed to do and that it will replace aircraft in three different services. Lots of new technology primarily software on electronics. once it's deployed though it will replace multiple types of older aircraft and save a lot of money

I was disappointed to see that there is no money for the requisition of LRASM anti-ship missiles for the Navy to replace the harpoons. I thought they were to be deployed in 2015

The LRASM is now slated for 2018, it seems though i'm sure they could get it sooner, but they will only be available in Air Launch version, as a full competition for the next gen Anti Ship missile is slated in 2017 since Raytheon was butthurt the DOD didn't consider its JSOW-ER since they claim it has similar capability at lower cost so a full competition will be used to decide at least between JSOW-ER (or its navalized version) and the LRASM....unknown if there will be other participants. Full Deployment should begin in 2024.

Wow...so for the next 10 years the Navy is stuck with the Harpoon as it's only ASM??

Edit: just read in article discussing this. Apparently the navy is purchasing several hundred LRASMs for deployment next year (fy 16). After that, it will enter phase 2 and open a bid for a new ASM to be deployed on 2024. That fact that the US navy doesn't have ANY anti ship missiles on its warships (even harpoons) is disturbing. Incredible

Correct, but from what I understand the purchase will only be for a air launch version for Hornets and F-35's (Plus Air Force B-1's are supposed to be included). But they have tested it in a vls in a factory so its possible they could add a few to Cruisers and Destroyers.......maybe its a surprise if someone pushes our buttons.

[downtown]

The book itself has some descriptions of US weapons that can be used to update Baloogan's wiki.