Video of F-35B Lightening II deck operations on USS Wasp

[janon]

The answer is simple - cost, keeping an out of production fighter in service and operational becomes more expensive with each passing year. Also, the more types you have in service the less efficient you are.. Think about, training, logistics and knowledge required to support legacy programs. Many don't realize that a single F-35 has more computing power than the PAF's entire fleet of F-16's. There is no way we can get that kind of performance form legacy fighters, there is just no room for it.

Also, the F-35 is not a good fit for India. Just in case anyone thinks I support the authors point of view.

Well, my point is why stop the production of 4th gen fighters at all? Why not keep a production line for one of the F-teens open? The most advanced F-15 (is it the silent eagle?) with stealth features and RAM coating and an AESA radar will give ANY air force in the world a tough time. Or the F-16 IN that was offered to India in the M-MRCA competition - I am sure that the production and operational cost of that during it's lifetime would be way less than that of a stealth aircraft like the F-35. Shouldn't the US keep a production line open for one of these, to reduce costs over the next 25 years?

I understand that an F-35's avionics and mission computer are several times more powerful than an F-16's. But how much computing power do you need, to drop a few bombs on a Talibani sniper, or to send a missile into a cave complex in Tora Bora? The point I am trying to clarify is this - why use the operaational life of a very expensive F-35 to do such menial tasks, instead of using a humble F-16? I'm not arguing against getting F-35s, but shouldn't US also maintain a fleet of less expensive aircrafts? Use the stealth fighters to take on China or Russia, should the eventuality arise; but while that is a remote possibility, the possibility of USAF having to fight wars against foes like Iraq or Taliban or rag tag Libyans is much more.

Take the present situation, for instance. The USAF could not aquire as many F-22s as they wanted, due to cost reasons, and had to cap it at 189. But many of its squadrons are facing issues of ageing aircrafts, due to the delays in the F-35 program. Why not equip those squadrons with brand new F-15s or F-16s, with the best electronic wizardry? They can still overwhelm the air force of ANY other country on earth.

Of all the combat missions flown by the USAF in the past ten years, how many of them would have been better served by an F-35, instead of an F-teen? In future too, I don't think that will change. The majority of missions will be against insurgents and rag tag militias. And using an F-35 with it's highly advanced avionics and stealth coating would be tantamount to using a lightning bolt to kill a bug.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Now I am convinced that Mr Shukla is on the payroll of Lockheed-Martin. There is no other explanation why an informed person (he was a colonel, lets not forget) would put out such a laughably facile hack job. It is an aggressive advertisement, pretending to be a journalistic "article". Marketing and PR people will peddle any lie to sell their wares.

He starts off by calling the Rafale an "outdated dinosaur". While anybody who knows anything about military aviation knows that on the contrary, it is one of the most modern combat jets, with the most advanced technologies on the planet, be it the airframe or avionics or weapons. I dare him to name three or four aircrafts that are currently in service anywhere that is more modern in any respect than Rafale. If he can't do that, he should be asked to justify the phrase he used. The only outdated dinosaur in the room is Mr Shukla's brain.

Every following sentence is either a lie, or a damned lie. The last para is a masterpiece of strawman tactics. He pretends to preempt critics by addressing their points, but brings up points that no critic of F-35 has ever made:



He pretends that this is the reason for criticising vertical landing aircrafts, and then attacks it. Create a strawman and attack it. Has anybody really argued against the F-35 for that reason? How does he think harriers land on the Viraat? Are there any large, gaping holes in the deck of the Viraat?

I'm sorry, but this piece of writing (not sure what to call it; calling it an article would be too generous) does not really even deserve a response. Instead of putting this article in the air warfare section, it should be moved to the jokes thread, or some thread where we can lament and bemoan the accelerated decay of the brain cells of a former tank commander.

Mr Shukla was pushing for the MMRCA to be scrapped in favour of a large F-35A buy- remember?

 

[Abingdonboy]

I am confused....so is india buying this or going to make it?

The Indian Navy is the only viable Indian potential buyer for the F-35 and they are said to be interested but are weighing up their options.


Personally I think the F-35 is not what India and the IN needs. It all depends on whether HAL and Sukhoi can get a navalised variant of the FGFA that is able to take-off using a catapult ready by the time the IN's IAC-2 is ready for service in ~2022/3.

 

[Viper0011.]

But it should still be at a disadvantage compared to an F-35 that takes off conventionally with that engine, right? I mean, for the same engine performance, a conventional take off would always give more load or range, wouldn't it?

I'm not really sure of the wisdom of having an all 5th gen fleet. Most of the conflicts in which USAF is expected to participate, would not need expensive assets like F-35s to do the bulk of the work. For instance, dropping munitions on insurgents like the Taliban or Iraqi militias - why would you want to do that with an F-35? Wouldn't a good old F-16 bring a lot more value for money? If you take any recent war the USA has engaged in, how much of it was done in an environment where air combat or SAM threats existed?

Not sure if you understand the strategy behind it. But, this variant eliminates the need for a carrier presence in a dangerous area. In other words, its stealthy, hard to see. It can be landed in a special ops mode on large cargo ships that may be under cover USN ships, refuel, reload and bam, out to the target WITHOUT the target knowing there is USN presence. The radar and sam threat is eliminated easily due to the advanced nature of this plane and the electronics used in F-22. For a quick in mission and quick out, without anyone detecting a massive USN carrier move, this plane can sneak in, do the job and come back. Heck, you can land this puppy safely on some highway in Afghanistan, load munitions to it and oil from a basic post if they have the required gas and armament needed for the mission and off it goes....virtually undetected and armed with some of the most advanced avionics, jamming system and stealthy features, without giving the enemy ANY idea about almost an immediate strike. I.E. the future of warfare. No more large scale movements by USN battle groups for threats like Talibans, Terrorists hideouts, etc, etc. USN will still use its other assets like Sub and Destroyer but this gives a lot more previous strike capability than anything else.

 

[ZYXW]

The Indian Navy is the only viable Indian potential buyer for the F-35 and they are said to be interested but are weighing up their options.


Personally I think the F-35 is not what India and the IN needs. It all depends on whether HAL and Sukhoi can get a navalised variant of the FGFA that is able to take-off using a catapult ready by the time the IN's IAC-2 is ready for service in ~2022/3.

Oh I seee....
But like isn't it good to have one just incase?? so atleast they have the design and a few at hand, if ever necessary.

 

[gambit]

Well, my point is why stop the production of 4th gen fighters at all? Why not keep a production line for one of the F-teens open? The most advanced F-15 (is it the silent eagle?) with stealth features and RAM coating and an AESA radar will give ANY air force in the world a tough time. Or the F-16 IN that was offered to India in the M-MRCA competition - I am sure that the production and operational cost of that during it's lifetime would be way less than that of a stealth aircraft like the F-35. Shouldn't the US keep a production line open for one of these, to reduce costs over the next 25 years?

I understand that an F-35's avionics and mission computer are several times more powerful than an F-16's. But how much computing power do you need, to drop a few bombs on a Talibani sniper, or to send a missile into a cave complex in Tora Bora? The point I am trying to clarify is this - why use the operaational life of a very expensive F-35 to do such menial tasks, instead of using a humble F-16? I'm not arguing against getting F-35s, but shouldn't US also maintain a fleet of less expensive aircrafts? Use the stealth fighters to take on China or Russia, should the eventuality arise; but while that is a remote possibility, the possibility of USAF having to fight wars against foes like Iraq or Taliban or rag tag Libyans is much more.

Take the present situation, for instance. The USAF could not aquire as many F-22s as they wanted, due to cost reasons, and had to cap it at 189. But many of its squadrons are facing issues of ageing aircrafts, due to the delays in the F-35 program. Why not equip those squadrons with brand new F-15s or F-16s, with the best electronic wizardry? They can still overwhelm the air force of ANY other country on earth.

Of all the combat missions flown by the USAF in the past ten years, how many of them would have been better served by an F-35, instead of an F-teen? In future too, I don't think that will change. The majority of missions will be against insurgents and rag tag militias. And using an F-35 with it's highly advanced avionics and stealth coating would be tantamount to using a lightning bolt to kill a bug.

The budget is a finite quantity and inside that budget lies competing demands. The longer we keep older platforms just to perform 'menial' missions, the less inside that budget to develop new platforms and keep the current newer ones. Your argument is falsely based on the premise that the ONLY potential adversaries for US are 'rag tag militias'. Militias do not win wars or conquer and secure territories. Formal armies do. And that is what the F-35 is intended to be against. So if all we have is the Lightning bolt against an insect, so be it.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Oh I seee....
But like isn't it good to have one just incase?? so atleast they have the design and a few at hand, if ever necessary.

The F-35s wouldn't come with full ToT and would be heavily regulated as with all US fighter sales. The critical tech would be sealed and India would have to break seals and agreements to gain access to such tech. Such moves would have a negative affect on all Indo-US defence deals and could affect India economically.

India doesn't work like this, it prefers to work with partners instead of working in such underhand methods that hurt your interests in the long-run.

 

[janon]

The budget is a finite quantity and inside that budget lies competing demands. The longer we keep older platforms just to perform 'menial' missions, the less inside that budget to develop new platforms and keep the current newer ones. Your argument is falsely based on the premise that the ONLY potential adversaries for US are 'rag tag militias'. Militias do not win wars or conquer and secure territories. Formal armies do. And that is what the F-35 is intended to be against. So if all we have is the Lightning bolt against an insect, so be it.

Oh no, I did not mean that at all. My assumption was that USA's conflicts would be largely against rag tag militias. If I assumed that rag tag militias are all they would face, then why have jet aircrafts at all?

My contention was that the USAF should maintain 5th gen aircrafts for regular threats like China, but also maintain a fleet of non stealthy aircrafts like F-15, which can still carry huge payloads and drop them on the heads of Talibani snipers or Libyan mercenaries.

(Actually I was using a hyperbole in mentioning rag tag militias. Even professional air forces normally get decimated in the first few days of a war against the USAF. The Iraqi air force ceased to exist after the first few days, but the Iraq war lasted several years. So after that happens, after the professional opponent is annihilated, why would you want stealth fighters to do sorties, instead of cheaper non stealth ones? Except for China or Russia, USAF wouldn't have to fight for more than a few days against any other country's air force, no matter how professional they are. Influencing the ground war AFTER your opponent's air capability has been eliminated - surely that can be done equally well by the F-teens? So after the initial "shock and awe", isn't it better to use 4th gen aircrafts for the duration of the rest of the conflict? So my point applies to professional militaries as well, not just the talib types.)

There have beeen many stories emanating, about how maintanence heavy the F-22s are, and the very high operating costs. So instead of having 2000 F-35s, wouldn't it be a lot more value for money to have 1500 F-35s, and 500 F-16s or F-15s? Those aircrafts can do everything that the F-35 can do, in afghanistan or Iraq (post invasion), for far less costs. Why use aircrafts with RAM coating and a 150 million + price tag, to do those duties? How much does one flight hour of an F-35 cost, as opposed to an F-16? And then when you look at the total cost of ownership for the few thousand hours of its service life - isn't it a given that an F-teen will cost significantly less?

Of course the USAF should have a large fleet of F-22s and F-35s, to maintain overwhelming technological superiority over its potential adversaries, as it has always done. Why not also have a fleet of 4 or 4.5 gen fighters, to do many of the non-cutting edge work, to reduce costs? @Death.By.Chocolate says that having additional types incurs a cost penalty, and while that is undoubtedly true, given the huge size of the USAF and the large number of conflicts in participates in, I think it is very likely that that cost penalty will be more than offset by the savings accrued from using legacy aircrafts where those would do. (By the way, "legacy" is a relative term. What the USAF considers "legacy" is cutting edge for many other countries.)

BTW, what would the air national guard units be equipped with in future? Would they also transition to F-35s? Since the F-teen production lines are about to close, they can't continue using them, can they?

 

[gambit]

Oh no, I did not mean that at all. My assumption was that USA's conflicts would be largely against rag tag militias. If I assumed that rag tag militias are all they would face, then why have jet aircrafts at all?

My contention was that the USAF should maintain 5th gen aircrafts for regular threats like China, but also maintain a fleet of non stealthy aircrafts like F-15, which can still carry huge payloads and drop them on the heads of Talibani snipers or Libyan mercenaries.

(Actually I was using a hyperbole in mentioning rag tag militias. Even professional air forces normally get decimated in the first few days of a war against the USAF. The Iraqi air force ceased to exist after the first few days, but the Iraq war lasted several years. So after that happens, after the professional opponent is annihilated, why would you want stealth fighters to do sorties, instead of cheaper non stealth ones? Except for China or Russia, USAF wouldn't have to fight for more than a few days against any other country's air force, no matter how professional they are. Influencing the ground war AFTER your opponent's air capability has been eliminated - surely that can be done equally well by the F-teens? So after the initial "shock and awe", isn't it better to use 4th gen aircrafts for the duration of the rest of the conflict? So my point applies to professional militaries as well, not just the talib types.)

There have beeen many stories emanating, about how maintanence heavy the F-22s are, and the very high operating costs. So instead of having 2000 F-35s, wouldn't it be a lot more value for money to have 1500 F-35s, and 500 F-16s or F-15s? Those aircrafts can do everything that the F-35 can do, in afghanistan or Iraq (post invasion), for far less costs. Why use aircrafts with RAM coating and a 150 million + price tag, to do those duties? How much does one flight hour of an F-35 cost, as opposed to an F-16? And then when you look at the total cost of ownership for the few thousand hours of its service life - isn't it a given that an F-teen will cost significantly less?

Of course the USAF should have a large fleet of F-22s and F-35s, to maintain overwhelming technological superiority over its potential adversaries, as it has always done. Why not also have a fleet of 4 or 4.5 gen fighters, to do many of the non-cutting edge work, to reduce costs? @Death.By.Chocolate says that having additional types incurs a cost penalty, and while that is undoubtedly true, given the huge size of the USAF and the large number of conflicts in participates in, I think it is very likely that that cost penalty will be more than offset by the savings accrued from using legacy aircrafts where those would do. (By the way, "legacy" is a relative term. What the USAF considers "legacy" is cutting edge for many other countries.)

BTW, what would the air national guard units be equipped with in future? Would they also transition to F-35s? Since the F-teen production lines are about to close, they can't continue using them, can they?

And again, as it has been presented to you several times already, it is about money.

When a US aircraft carrier sails in the past, the ship sailed with the F-14, F-18, A-6, E-3, S-3B (anti-sub), and helos. Today, the F-18 Super Hornet takes the role of fleet defense, EW, and strike. Removing a huge burden on logistics and training.

For the USAF, it is no different. It does not matter the caliber of an adversary. A sledgehammer works on skulls as well as insects.

 

[jhungary]

Oh no, I did not mean that at all. My assumption was that USA's conflicts would be largely against rag tag militias. If I assumed that rag tag militias are all they would face, then why have jet aircrafts at all?

My contention was that the USAF should maintain 5th gen aircrafts for regular threats like China, but also maintain a fleet of non stealthy aircrafts like F-15, which can still carry huge payloads and drop them on the heads of Talibani snipers or Libyan mercenaries.

(Actually I was using a hyperbole in mentioning rag tag militias. Even professional air forces normally get decimated in the first few days of a war against the USAF. The Iraqi air force ceased to exist after the first few days, but the Iraq war lasted several years. So after that happens, after the professional opponent is annihilated, why would you want stealth fighters to do sorties, instead of cheaper non stealth ones? Except for China or Russia, USAF wouldn't have to fight for more than a few days against any other country's air force, no matter how professional they are. Influencing the ground war AFTER your opponent's air capability has been eliminated - surely that can be done equally well by the F-teens? So after the initial "shock and awe", isn't it better to use 4th gen aircrafts for the duration of the rest of the conflict? So my point applies to professional militaries as well, not just the talib types.)

There have beeen many stories emanating, about how maintanence heavy the F-22s are, and the very high operating costs. So instead of having 2000 F-35s, wouldn't it be a lot more value for money to have 1500 F-35s, and 500 F-16s or F-15s? Those aircrafts can do everything that the F-35 can do, in afghanistan or Iraq (post invasion), for far less costs. Why use aircrafts with RAM coating and a 150 million + price tag, to do those duties? How much does one flight hour of an F-35 cost, as opposed to an F-16? And then when you look at the total cost of ownership for the few thousand hours of its service life - isn't it a given that an F-teen will cost significantly less?

Of course the USAF should have a large fleet of F-22s and F-35s, to maintain overwhelming technological superiority over its potential adversaries, as it has always done. Why not also have a fleet of 4 or 4.5 gen fighters, to do many of the non-cutting edge work, to reduce costs? @Death.By.Chocolate says that having additional types incurs a cost penalty, and while that is undoubtedly true, given the huge size of the USAF and the large number of conflicts in participates in, I think it is very likely that that cost penalty will be more than offset by the savings accrued from using legacy aircrafts where those would do. (By the way, "legacy" is a relative term. What the USAF considers "legacy" is cutting edge for many other countries.)

BTW, what would the air national guard units be equipped with in future? Would they also transition to F-35s? Since the F-teen production lines are about to close, they can't continue using them, can they?

The first problem of your thinking I can see is your assumption is not a bright one honestly. You cannot assume our enemy will always be ragtag military in the future.

Basic Military tactics, people, you assume nothing, expect everything. The moment you put your assumption in military planning, that is the exact moment you doomed your planning.

If you assume that we could only be deal with ragtag Para-military organisation, so what if a near peer or peer enemy show up? We should just lay down our arms and surrender??

You cannot assume this and plan your military forward using such assumption.

Second things is, as everyone said. Money.

Every machine break. you cannot have a mechanical device function forever. Problem of fixing cost money. Doesn't matter if you fix the engine, hull or even the production line. It all cost money.

On the other hand, with technology approve. We now simplified our procedure of making new things. Imagine it used to need 200 people to build 1 single car now we only need a handful, maybe 20. With automation looming, we can't afford to do thing old fashion way anymore.

It will cost money to keep on sponsoring the old production line, on the other hand, you save money on building a new line, which one do you prefer??

And again, as it has been presented to you several times already, it is about money.

When a US aircraft carrier sails in the past, the ship sailed with the F-14, F-18, A-6, E-3, S-3B (anti-sub), and helos. Today, the F-18 Super Hornet takes the role of fleet defense, EW, and strike. Removing a huge burden on logistics and training.

For the USAF, it is no different. It does not matter the caliber of an adversary. A sledgehammer works on skulls as well as insects.

Dude, E-2C, not E-3.......lol catch the typo before somebody else open up

 

[IND151]

Well, my point is why stop the production of 4th gen fighters at all? Why not keep a production line for one of the F-teens open? The most advanced F-15 (is it the silent eagle?) with stealth features and RAM coating and an AESA radar will give ANY air force in the world a tough time. Or the F-16 IN that was offered to India in the M-MRCA competition - I am sure that the production and operational cost of that during it's lifetime would be way less than that of a stealth aircraft like the F-35. Shouldn't the US keep a production line open for one of these, to reduce costs over the next 25 years?

I understand that an F-35's avionics and mission computer are several times more powerful than an F-16's. But how much computing power do you need, to drop a few bombs on a Talibani sniper, or to send a missile into a cave complex in Tora Bora? The point I am trying to clarify is this - why use the operaational life of a very expensive F-35 to do such menial tasks, instead of using a humble F-16? I'm not arguing against getting F-35s, but shouldn't US also maintain a fleet of less expensive aircrafts? Use the stealth fighters to take on China or Russia, should the eventuality arise; but while that is a remote possibility, the possibility of USAF having to fight wars against foes like Iraq or Taliban or rag tag Libyans is much more.

Take the present situation, for instance. The USAF could not aquire as many F-22s as they wanted, due to cost reasons, and had to cap it at 189. But many of its squadrons are facing issues of ageing aircrafts, due to the delays in the F-35 program. Why not equip those squadrons with brand new F-15s or F-16s, with the best electronic wizardry? They can still overwhelm the air force of ANY other country on earth.

Of all the combat missions flown by the USAF in the past ten years, how many of them would have been better served by an F-35, instead of an F-teen? In future too, I don't think that will change. The majority of missions will be against insurgents and rag tag militias. And using an F-35 with it's highly advanced avionics and stealth coating would be tantamount to using a lightning bolt to kill a bug.

4.75th gen fighter like F 15 Silent Eagle offer good abilities and lower operational costs, they don't offer abilities like true 5th gen but they are superior to 4+gen or 4.5th gen and 4.5th gen (US standard) fighters used worldwide.

USAF should deploy 500-600 Silent Eagles, but may be the fault in design of F-15 makes it bad choice for up gradation to 4.75th gen

The US Air Force reported on 28 November 2007 that a critical location in the upper longerons on the F-15C model was suspected of causing the failure, causing the fuselage forward of the air intakes, including the cockpit and radome, to separate from the airframe.[54]

In a report released on 10 January 2008, nine other F-15s were identified to have similar problems in the longeron. As a result of these problems, General John D. W. Corley stated that "the long-term future of the F-15 is in question."[59]

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&r...xIDgDw&usg=AFQjCNEVmM8guA0d2LZk1DizIyQcGP0JTA

 

[godofwar]

If the US wants to put all its eggs in one basket then so be it.
After all, its their neck on the line.

 

[gambit]

If the US wants to put all its eggs in one basket then so be it.
After all, its their neck on the line.

More like when we are done, it will be others' necks who will be on the the F-22/F-35's line.

 

[godofwar]

More like when we are done, it will be others' necks who will be on the the F-22/F-35's line.

I hope for your sake that F-35 doesn't turn out to be a mistake of "We don't need a gun, we have BVR missiles" proportions ala Vietnam.

As people said in this very thread, one should never assume anything when it comes to military matters.Don't assume stealth will be enough to save F35 in a future war.

 

[jhungary]

I hope for your sake that F-35 doesn't turn out to be a mistake of "We don't need a gun, we have BVR missiles" proportions ala Vietnam.

As people said in this very thread, one should never assume anything when it comes to military matters. Don't assume stealth will be enough to save F35 in a future war.

We don't, hence we are going over the 6th Gen already, while you lot still working on the 5th