The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by jkgoblue, Feb 25, 2021.

  1. Pugs

    Pugs Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2018
    Messages:
    764
    Location:
    Maryland
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pugs
    The kill ratio of the F-4 in SEA had less to do with the jet and more to do with a F'ed up ROE that it had to operate under.
     
    3393RP, flightwriter and Velocity173 like this.
  2. Velocity173

    Velocity173 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    12,627
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Velocity173
    That and early on, faulty missiles (mostly Sparrows) that failed to track a number of times. At least on the Navy side, carrier life wasn’t kind to hardware.
     
  3. David Megginson

    David Megginson Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,308
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Canuck
    Kill rates are tricky anyway. For example, during the Second World War, Corvettes actually sank relatively few U-boats in the Battle of the Atlantic — they were just too slow and underequipped— but most of the time they at least managed to force the U-boats to submerge so that they couldn't position themselves for torpedo attacks on the convoys, which was the main point.
     
  4. SoonerAviator

    SoonerAviator Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2014
    Messages:
    6,371
    Location:
    Broken Arrow, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    SoonerAviator
    That, and the 'Vettes didn't fly very far off the end of the carrier decks before plummeting into the water.

    Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk
     
    Glen R, Groundpounder and aterry1067 like this.
  5. nauga

    nauga Administrator Management Council Member PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,726
    Location:
    Rockwood Storage Facility
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mantis Toboggan, MD
    "I don't care if it works or not, as long as they put their heads down when I call 'Magnum'"

    Nauga,
    at the risk of repeating himself
     
    TCABM and Pugs like this.
  6. kyleb

    kyleb Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,967
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Drake the Outlaw
    I think stealth matters. The closer you can get while staying "hidden" as you track and close with the bad guy, the bigger your advantage. Even a marginal advantage matters, IMO.
     
  7. Ed Haywood

    Ed Haywood Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2020
    Messages:
    349
    Location:
    Tampa FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Big Ed
    Ground troops love nothing more than ragging on each other. Except maybe hot chow. And a warm, dry place to sleep. We really like those things.
     
    TCABM and PPC1052 like this.
  8. Jeff767

    Jeff767 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    323
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jeff767
    The real problem is the US has been to good at air superiority. In fact we have been stellar at it. The A10 and AC130 are useless without absolute air superiority. US troops have not had to operate under the threat of air attack since WW2. The next conflict will probably be quite different. The ability to gather threat intel, penetrate unescorted and self escort will be critical. The F35 is the only airframe that can do that. Fighting third world countries the A10 and AC 130 are great and a ground troops best friend. Fighting the Russians or a Chinese they will be sitting on the ramp unused until we can maintain at least temporary local air superiority. Ground troops may well find themselves more concerned about being attacked from the air than getting air support. They are going to love the F35 at that point.
     
    TCABM and Velocity173 like this.
  9. David Megginson

    David Megginson Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,308
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Canuck
    Do you think there's much of a future for manned fighter/interceptors at all? Ever since we stopped worrying about Soviet Bear bombers lumbering across the Arctic circle and started worrying about ICBMs, I've wondered if interceptor aircraft really had a long-term future, and the rise of drones/remotely-piloted aircraft has only strengthened that feeling.
     
  10. topgun260

    topgun260 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2013
    Messages:
    226
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Topgun260
    aterry1067 likes this.
  11. Jeff767

    Jeff767 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    323
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jeff767
    The discussion was at a battlefield level about the F35. I don’t think there is much value at a strategic level and most interceptor squadron were shut down decades ago.
     
    David Megginson likes this.
  12. EvilEagle

    EvilEagle Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    EvilEagle
    Stealth isn't like wonder woman's jet. It's not as if it can't be seen on radar, it's that it can't easily be seen on radar. No currently fielded stealth aircraft can just fly into any airspace they want with complete impunity. It quickly gets into classified info beyond that, it's a great tool but it has limitations and has to be employed with the correct support assets.
     
    TCABM and Sierra_Hotel like this.
  13. Pugs

    Pugs Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2018
    Messages:
    764
    Location:
    Maryland
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pugs
    And even more specifically, if it can be seen on radar but can't be tracked and engaged that's certainly stealthy. Think B band and the 117. Even still, doing stupid stuff will get you bagged.

    I'm no fan of the F-35 but admit it has it's place but we're going to be flying F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s for a long time to come and some of that 35 technology will trickle down.
     
    TCABM and Sierra_Hotel like this.
  14. Ghery

    Ghery Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    10,538
    Location:
    Olympia, Washington
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ghery Pettit
    And, from what I've heard, 1 trillion from last year still hasn't been spent. But, back to the real purpose of this thread...
     
  15. DavidWhite

    DavidWhite Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    6,596
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    VBP
    Pretty egregious that our country has spent more on a single failed project than they have spent on NASA in the history of the space program.

    There’s no profit in science though.
     
  16. jrcox19

    jrcox19 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    May 5, 2019
    Messages:
    204
    Location:
    KOJC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    jrcox19
    Are you saying that the F35 program alone cost more than NASA's entire historical budget? That doesn't sound correct.
     
  17. kyleb

    kyleb Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,967
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Drake the Outlaw
    It might be true on a purely accounting basis where a 2020 dollar has the same value as a 1960 dollar and where the F-35 opponent is counting 2020 dollars and making assumptions about future costs of the program.

    Beware of people using selective facts to skew the context and make their argument.
     
    aterry1067 likes this.
  18. AKiss20

    AKiss20 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    268
    Location:
    Cambridge, MA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    AKiss20
    Inflation adjusted (2019 dollars) expenditure of NASA throughout it's history: ~1.2 Trillion [1]
    Estimated lifetime cost of the F35 project (based on GAO estimates I presume): 1.7 Trillion [2,3,4]

    Edit: Corrected NASA from 1.9 to 1.2 trillion

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
    [2] https://www.defensenews.com/congres...-services-chairman-looking-to-cut-our-losses/
    [3] https://www.stripes.com/news/us/pen...unning-10-billion-short-through-2025-1.644700
    [4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-10-billion-short-through-2025-pentagon-finds
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2021
  19. 35 AoA

    35 AoA Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,577
    Location:
    Oak Harbor, WA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    35 AoA
    I also fail to understand the claims of the F-35 being a failure. I've seen a decent amount behind the curtain and have many friends who fly it now. It is not a failure, regardless of what clickbait has one believe.

    We can certainly argue about whether it is relevant or not, but it does do the job it was bought to do. Much better than anyone in the mid-late 1990's would have imagined (as it was being drawn up).
     
  20. DavidWhite

    DavidWhite Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    6,596
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    VBP
    According to your wiki link the amount spent on NASA adjusted for inflation is about 1.2 trillion.
     
    AKiss20 likes this.
  21. DavidWhite

    DavidWhite Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    6,596
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    VBP
    Sorry, the FACT is NASA has spent about $1.2 trillion adjusted for inflation since its inception.

    Beware of people who have not a clue what they are talking about
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2021
  22. DavidWhite

    DavidWhite Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    6,596
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    VBP
    It is correct.

    We spend a disgustingly huge amount on defense.

    Could have had people on Mars, instead my grandkids will be paying down the interest of the 2010s fascination with drone striking mud huts
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2021
    DaleB and AKiss20 like this.
  23. AKiss20

    AKiss20 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    268
    Location:
    Cambridge, MA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    AKiss20
    My apologies I misread In my haste, thanks for the correction And I have edited my original post. Just makes it substantially lower than the estimated F-35 lifetime cost rather than slightly above it.
     
  24. Bob Noel

    Bob Noel Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    15,528
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bob Noel
    "Beware of people who have not a clue what they are talking about"

    indeed
     
  25. flyboyrv6

    flyboyrv6 Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2019
    Messages:
    19
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Flyboyrv6
    How many times is congress going to fall for “We can build one plane to fit every services need”? They fell for it on the F111 and now again for the F35, which is ending up to be three very different planes. When the soviets and Chinese figure out how to counter the electronic wizardry of the F35 (which is inevitable), then we will be back to which plane is the better fighter and it is unlikely to be the F35.
    When you start out to build the best fighter, design the best fighter and THEN stuff in the electronics.
     
  26. Domenick

    Domenick Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2019
    Messages:
    560
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Domenick
    Not to mention the trillions spent on the politics of COVID in a single year.
     
  27. kyleb

    kyleb Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,967
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Drake the Outlaw
    This is a false claim. You are comparing what has been spent by NASA with what has been spent plus what MIGHT be spent over the next several decades on the F-35. Yet the comparison reads as if both numbers are what has already been spent.

    There’s nothing wrong with questioning the spend on the F-35 or the nation’s priorities, but comparing two vastly different metrics isn’t a legitimate way of going about it.
     
  28. AKiss20

    AKiss20 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    268
    Location:
    Cambridge, MA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    AKiss20
    It's not really that different of a metric to be honest. It's comparing the spending of the first 62 years of the NASA program to the estimated spending of the first 70 years of the F35 program. Yes we don't know what the actual lifetime cost of the F35 program will be, sure, but with the cost estimates of the F35 that is the anticipated and willing spending of the Pentagon subject to future congressional whims. The fact that we have had >1 trillion dollar estimates of lifetime costs for the past 5-10 years in the program (they have only grown with time) and the program has not been subject to massive cuts or cancellation indicates the pentagon/congress is willing to live with that number. From that we can say that Congress/the Pentagon values 62 years of NASA approximately equivalently to 70 years of a single aircraft program, which I believe was DavidWhite's original point.
     
    DavidWhite likes this.
  29. Pugs

    Pugs Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2018
    Messages:
    764
    Location:
    Maryland
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pugs
    Which is mostly what they did with the F-35. It's built on the first gen open systems architecture that, in theory, allows for pretty "simple" upgrades through the life of the plane.
     
  30. jkgoblue

    jkgoblue Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    305
    Location:
    Sands Point, NY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    John K.
  31. X3 Skier

    X3 Skier En-Route

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,555
    Location:
    I19 & SBS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Geezer
    35 AoA and TCABM like this.
  32. David Megginson

    David Megginson Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,308
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Canuck
    One of the biggest concerns in Canada during early tests — aside from the fact it kept failing in extreme cold weather — was having only a single engine and low payload for the long distances and widely-spaced airports that we'd need to operate over (including the three oceans we border). That's part of what convinced us to tap out on the whole collaboration and look elsewhere to replace our current CF-18s.
     
  33. kyleb

    kyleb Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,967
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Drake the Outlaw
    That makes plenty of sense, although I do not question the single engine design. At some point, you don't get everything you want in your second tier (behind the F-22) fighter. You're gonna have to live with one engine. But the fuel fraction and range are definitely underwhelming. That (IMO) is the biggest limitation of all of our fighters. They don't have the legs to surprise anyone because to go much beyond a 500 mile radius, they need a caravan of tankers. That's a problem over (or near) indian country. If the bad guys pop your tankers, forget the mission kill, you can lose the whole strike force.
     
    TCABM likes this.
  34. David Megginson

    David Megginson Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,308
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Canuck
    That's the same lesson the Allies finally learned in the Battle of the Atlantic during the Second World War — sink the supply boats and milch cows, and then the raiders and U-boats can't stay out all that long.
     
  35. 3393RP

    3393RP En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,127
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    3393RP
    While the targeting of U-bootwaffe supply fleet through Ultra decryption produced some results, almost all of those assets served the fleet in the South Atlantic, which had a smaller number of U-boats and much less Allied shipping presence.

    The more significant destruction of the U-boat fleet, beginning in March 1943, was in the North Atlantic, due to the increase in convoy escorts, more long range aircraft, and advances in detection and weaponry. In May, the fleet lost 43 submarines, about 25% of the operational U-boats. This caused Dönitz to withdraw the fleet from the North Atlantic.

    While there were piecemeal U-boat actions beginning later that Fall, the U-bootwaffe never recovered. For the rest of the war, U-boat attacks were inconsequential to Allied shipping efforts.
     
    kyleb likes this.