• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So the F35 has a squadron now

kanabco

Banned
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
350
Reaction score
97
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Air Force Declares F-35A Ready For Combat

Does anyone think this was not a rush to fix it?
They have a squadron now of F35As
Big deal.
There have been squadrons of F35Bs for --- how long?--- a year?
The A has so many problems it will take at least another year to fix but they just release this kind of stuff to insure everything is ok.

Now let me be clear.. the A was over promised technologically and they don't want to lose the B. The USMC LOVES the B. But the A is still not ready. The C is doing fine... sort of.

Sometimes I hate my profession... I mean the one I used to have.
 
Last edited:
Air Force Declares F-35A Ready For Combat

Does anyone think this was not a rush to fix it?
They have a squadron now of F35As
Big deal.
There have been squadrons of F35Bs for --- how long?--- a year?
The A has so many problems it will take at least another year to fix but they just release this kind of stuff to insure everything is ok.

Now let me be clear.. the A was over promised technologically and they don't want to lose the B. The USMC LOVES the B. But the A is still not ready. The C is doing fine... sort of.

Sometimes I hate my profession... I mean the one I used to have.

Lockheed Martin has facilities making parts for this all over the country. You can bet your ass it will be called a success no matter what.
 
Air Force Declares F-35A Ready For Combat

Does anyone think this was not a rush to fix it?
They have a squadron now of F35As
Big deal.
There have been squadrons of F35Bs for --- how long?--- a year?
The A has so many problems it will take at least another year to fix but they just release this kind of stuff to insure everything is ok.

Now let me be clear.. the A was over promised technologically and they don't want to lose the B. The USMC LOVES the B. But the A is still not ready. The C is doing fine... sort of.

Sometimes I hate my profession... I mean the one I used to have.

I am not overly bothered by it. The A is not ideal, but nothing is. Better to gave them out there, people working on them daily as they work out the issues. 3F is going to be a huge upgrade, but the current software is still miles better than any software when I was in. The EW package alone makes having the A available worth it.

The other thing worth noting, the sooner they are out there in actual service, the sooner the problems that will crop up under operational tempo are found. When I got to my squadron, they had F-18As. We had all the aging problems that where cured mostly for C/D, stress cracks in the landing gear well bulkheads, Kapton wiring(dear god, Kapton wiring, what a ****ing nightmare), and a host of other issues. Testing and test squadrons will find a lot, but not nearly all.
 
Lockheed Martin has facilities making parts for this all over the country. You can bet your ass it will be called a success no matter what.

:2rofll: :2rofll: :2rofll:
 
I am not overly bothered by it. The A is not ideal, but nothing is. Better to gave them out there, people working on them daily as they work out the issues. 3F is going to be a huge upgrade, but the current software is still miles better than any software when I was in. The EW package alone makes having the A available worth it.

The other thing worth noting, the sooner they are out there in actual service, the sooner the problems that will crop up under operational tempo are found. When I got to my squadron, they had F-18As. We had all the aging problems that where cured mostly for C/D, stress cracks in the landing gear well bulkheads, Kapton wiring(dear god, Kapton wiring, what a ****ing nightmare), and a host of other issues. Testing and test squadrons will find a lot, but not nearly all.

Did you fly?
what software are you familiar with?
 
Did you fly?
what software are you familiar with?

No, ground crew, avionics. The 18 software packages I worked with where 87C and 91X.
 
I like the B, hate the C and dislike the A.

I like the B for obvious reasons...it is a huge step up from the Harrier - which is old. And they have no other option for a V/STOL fighter-bomber...even if it is ridiculously expensive.

I hate the C because a) it is single engined (safety); b) it offers virtually nothing over the Super Hornet but stealthiness - which is almost totally useless against the targets the Navy is attacking these days...stealth only really helps against enemies equipped with radar guided missiles/guns. ISIS has few/none of those. Yet costs a TON more so far less can be procured.
And c) I believe it is too much of a compromise. If the Navy believes they will only take on crudely-equipped opponents...then the F-35 is WAY too sophisticated/expensive for the job. But if the Navy is gearing up for a war against China/Russia...then their top-of-the-line fighter should actually be top-of-the-line - as good as the F-22. But the F-35 is not nearly as capable at air superiority as the F-22.
Imo, the Navy should have replaced the F-14 with a plane as capable as the the F-22 (a navalized F-22 way back when?) and stuck with the excellent F/A-18E/F/G's for the foreseeable future or asked for a seperate Super Hornet replacement with twin engines and different then the F-35.

I dislike the A because though it is noticeably better then the F-16, it is still far, FAR too expensive. If it was a reasonable price, I would have few problems with it as an F-16 replacement.


At least that is what I think IMHO.
 
Last edited:
I like the B, hate the C and dislike the A.

I like the B for obvious reasons...it is a huge step up from the Harrier - which is old. And they have no other option for a V/STOL fighter-bomber...even if it is ridiculously expensive.

I hate the C because a) it is single engined (safety); b) it offers virtually nothing over the Super Hornet but stealthiness - which is almost totally useless against the targets the Navy is attacking these days...stealth only really helps against enemies equipped with radar guided missiles/guns. ISIS has few/none of those. Yet costs a TON more so far less can be procured.
And c) I believe it is too much of a compromise. If the Navy believes they will only take on crudely-equipped opponents...then the F-35 is WAY too sophisticated/expensive for the job. But if the Navy is gearing up for a war against China/Russia...then their top-of-the-line fighter should actually be top-of-the-line - as good as the F-22. But the F-35 is not nearly as capable at air superiority as the F-22.
Imo, the Navy should have replaced the F-14 with a plane as capable as the the F-22 (a navalized F-22 way back when?) and stuck with the excellent F/A-18E/F/G's for the foreseeable future or asked for a seperate Super Hornet replacement with twin engines and different then the F-35.

I dislike the A because though it is noticeably better then the F-16, it is still far, FAR too expensive. If it was a reasonable price, I would have few problems with it as an F-16 replacement.


At least that is what I think IMHO.

Great post, though I kinda disagree with a couple things. Your comments on the B are spot on, and the C being single engined sucks. The stealth aspect is one of those things that does not hurt(much, when we got our first 18C, lot 13s, it did kinda suck for awhile) when it isn't needed, but if it is, you are glad you got it. It is not a huge upgrade over the 18 E/F, but they really are kinda picking at the corners, with real limits as to how much they are going to be able to gain stealthwise. Gearing up for China/Russia is fine, that gear works against ISIS/ISIL just fine, and can be used later against China/Russia, and does serve as a deterrent now(how much of a deterrent is debatable, but some anyway).

The only things that made an F-14 good at air superiority was the radar package, and the phoenix missiles that radar supported. Without those missiles, the F-14 was fair at best, and routinely beaten by 18s in dogfighting trials. AMRAAM made the phoenix obsolete, which took away the only reason the the 14s existence.

Most of the cost for the As is already spent. Might as well get something for it, rather than spending that insane amount of money for nothing.
 
I like the B, hate the C and dislike the A.

I like the B for obvious reasons...it is a huge step up from the Harrier - which is old. And they have no other option for a V/STOL fighter-bomber...even if it is ridiculously expensive.

I hate the C because a) it is single engined (safety);

F-8?
A-7?
A-4?
F9F?
F11F?
F4D?
F3D?

Twin engines have been the exception in carrier fighters for 70 years - and jet engines are substantially more reliable today.

b) it offers virtually nothing over the Super Hornet but stealthiness - which is almost totally useless against the targets the Navy is attacking these days...stealth only really helps against enemies equipped with radar guided missiles/guns. ISIS has few/none of those. Yet costs a TON more so far less can be procured.

OK, what happens tomorrow?

c) I believe it is too much of a compromise. If the Navy believes they will only take on crudely-equipped opponents...then the F-35 is WAY too sophisticated/expensive for the job. But if the Navy is gearing up for a war against China/Russia...then their top-of-the-line fighter should actually be top-of-the-line - as good as the F-22. But the F-35 is not nearly as capable at air superiority as the F-22.

If the F-35 requirement was to be as good at air-to-air as the F-22 then they would have built,... F-22N's. But that is not now and never has been a requirement of the F-35. Its a bit like criticizing a screwdriver for not being as good as a hammer.

Imo, the Navy should have replaced the F-14 with a plane as capable as the the F-22 (a navalized F-22 way back when?) and stuck with the excellent F/A-18E/F/G's for the foreseeable future or asked for a seperate Super Hornet replacement with twin engines and different then the F-35.

Except the F-35C is a F/A-18C/D replacement, not a F-14 replacement. The F-14 mission largely evaporated with the end of the Cold War (intercepting squadrons of Soviet missile-carrying bombers far enough out so they could not shoot at the carriers first).

[qote]I dislike the A because though it is noticeably better then the F-16, it is still far, FAR too expensive. If it was a reasonable price, I would have few problems with it as an F-16 replacement.[/quote]

Great. What capability do you want to give up?
 
Air Force Declares F-35A Ready For Combat

Does anyone think this was not a rush to fix it?
They have a squadron now of F35As
Big deal.
There have been squadrons of F35Bs for --- how long?--- a year?
The A has so many problems it will take at least another year to fix but they just release this kind of stuff to insure everything is ok.

Now let me be clear.. the A was over promised technologically and they don't want to lose the B. The USMC LOVES the B. But the A is still not ready. The C is doing fine... sort of.

Sometimes I hate my profession... I mean the one I used to have.

Yeah, this sounds to me like a "hurry up rush so we can secure the contract" type of thing.
$400 billion for 2,457 planes

And 1 Trillon dollars to maintain the program

The F-35: Is it worth the cost? - CNNPolitics.com

And, we're getting THAT from money from where exactly?

It's Satan's toy shop all way for this stuff.
 
F-8?
A-7?
A-4?
F9F?
F11F?
F4D?
F3D?

Twin engines have been the exception in carrier fighters for 70 years - and jet engines are substantially more reliable today.

Fine...ask a Navy pilot whether he wants one or two engines beneath him when he is 300 miles from his carrier.

And maybe sometimes governments allocate less-than-ideal weapons systems to the military to save money.

Use your head.


I did not bother reading the rest. I have dealt with you before...you're not worth my time.

I find your opinions are useless to me (that I remember). Your ideas are weak, your knowledge lacking and your attitude childish.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Fine...ask a Navy pilot whether he wants one or two engines beneath him when he is 300 miles from his carrier.

And maybe sometimes governments allocate less-than-ideal weapons systems to the military to save money.

Use your head.


I did not bother reading the rest. I have dealt with you before...you're not worth my time.

I find your opinions are useless to me (that I remember). Your ideas are weak, your knowledge lacking and your attitude childish.

Have a nice day.

Funny, I have no recollection of ever having any interactions with you before - and given your interesting attitude I suspect I would have remembered. But hey, if running away is what you need to do to sustain your (false) sense of moral and intellectual superiority then by all means have at it.

:2wave:
 
Except the F-35C is a F/A-18C/D replacement, not a F-14 replacement. The F-14 mission largely evaporated with the end of the Cold War (intercepting squadrons of Soviet missile-carrying bombers far enough out so they could not shoot at the carriers first).

Just to make the point, the F-14 mission evaporated when AMRAAM ranges started to approach that of the phoenix. The end of the cold war had nothing to do with it. When the F-14 was not the only plane that could kill at extended range, and other planes could do more, and do it better, and where easier to maintain(we laughed at the poor F-14 guys pushing the nit cart around every night), it kinda no longer had a role.
 
Just to make the point, the F-14 mission evaporated when AMRAAM ranges started to approach that of the phoenix. The end of the cold war had nothing to do with it. When the F-14 was not the only plane that could kill at extended range, and other planes could do more, and do it better, and where easier to maintain(we laughed at the poor F-14 guys pushing the nit cart around every night), it kinda no longer had a role.

I read a few places that the Phoenix was actually not nearly as effective as advertised.

Is that true?
 
Just to make the point, the F-14 mission evaporated when AMRAAM ranges started to approach that of the phoenix. The end of the cold war had nothing to do with it. When the F-14 was not the only plane that could kill at extended range, and other planes could do more, and do it better, and where easier to maintain(we laughed at the poor F-14 guys pushing the nit cart around every night), it kinda no longer had a role.

That would be fine except the only AIM-120 model to come even close to the range capability of the AIM-54 Pheonix is the D model which is only just being fielded now - a full decade after the last F-14's were withdrawn. And the aircraft that carry AIM-120, such as the F/A-18E/F with AIM-120C combination which effectively replaced the F-14 does not offer anything like the reach-out-and-touch-someone potential of the F-14 with AIM-54.

The F-14 was built as a counter to long-range cruise missiles launched principally from Soviet Naval Aviation bombers. When that threat largely receded in the early 1990's F-14 numbers on carriers were reduced and attempts were made to extend the relevance of the aircraft by giving it some semblance of a multi-role capability, adding JDAM for example in the F-14B "Bombcat" and F-14D. The NATF - an aircraft broadly comparable in performance and capability to the F-22 - was supposed to replace the F-14 but that program was cancelled in 1992, very shortly after the end of the Cold War. Hmmmm,....

Fundamentally, the mission changed and the need for an old, unreliable and expensive to maintain aircraft built specifically for a mission which no longer existed - or a direct replacement to fill that mission - went away.
 
I read a few places that the Phoenix was actually not nearly as effective as advertised.

Is that true?

I really don't know. That was way outside my area of "need to know", so if true, I never heard it. I will say that during normal training ops, 14's almost never carried them. They where expensive, a pain to load and unload, and with where they mounted, it was asking for trouble on recoveries.
 
That would be fine except the only AIM-120 model to come even close to the range capability of the AIM-54 Pheonix is the D model which is only just being fielded now - a full decade after the last F-14's were withdrawn. And the aircraft that carry AIM-120, such as the F/A-18E/F with AIM-120C combination which effectively replaced the F-14 does not offer anything like the reach-out-and-touch-someone potential of the F-14 with AIM-54.

The F-14 was built as a counter to long-range cruise missiles launched principally from Soviet Naval Aviation bombers. When that threat largely receded in the early 1990's F-14 numbers on carriers were reduced and attempts were made to extend the relevance of the aircraft by giving it some semblance of a multi-role capability, adding JDAM for example in the F-14B "Bombcat" and F-14D. The NATF - an aircraft broadly comparable in performance and capability to the F-22 - was supposed to replace the F-14 but that program was cancelled in 1992, very shortly after the end of the Cold War. Hmmmm,....

Fundamentally, the mission changed and the need for an old, unreliable and expensive to maintain aircraft built specifically for a mission which no longer existed - or a direct replacement to fill that mission - went away.

The C has a listed range of over 50 miles and was actually probably somewhat longer. That is about half that of the phoenix, which is really good for a munition that is about a million times easier to use and not manufactured for one airframe. The D has been in the pipeline for a long time, and was a major part of the decision to retire the 14(aging airframe, pain in the ass maintenance, lack of a secondary role being the 3 biggest other factors).
 
I really don't know. That was way outside my area of "need to know", so if true, I never heard it. I will say that during normal training ops, 14's almost never carried them. They where expensive, a pain to load and unload, and with where they mounted, it was asking for trouble on recoveries.

Interesting.
 


The F-35B is way better because of the vector thrust. I wonder which one has a tighter turn radius, the F-35A or the F-35B.
 
Back
Top Bottom