Should the F-35 be scrapped?

To be replaced with what?

They scrapped the F-22 (future procurement of the F-22 anyway). The JSF should be a cheaper, more versatile plane. It's also being backed by several other countries, so no, I don't think they should -- and would be surprised if they did.
 
Taarkin said:
Let me know when we're threatened by a country with a modern-ish air force.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be the time to take our fighter fleet out of moth balls and start production on the F-35. I'm sure we'd have several years to do this...
 
WildCat said:
Let me know when a drone takes out an enemy aircraft.
Click to expand...

Hasn't been much in the way of an opportunity yet. In fact I'm not sure there has been a clash between a UAV with arial combat ability and a maned aircraft since the Gulf War.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
For the military buffs here:

Should the F-35 JSF be scrapped?
Click to expand...

Can't keep updateing the F-16 forever. The harrier is also seriously starting to show it's age. There is a slight lack of alturnatives to the JSF at the moment.
 
geni said:
Hasn't been much in the way of an opportunity yet. In fact I'm not sure there has been a clash between a UAV with arial combat ability and a maned aircraft since the Gulf War.
Click to expand...
What UAV has aerial combat ability?
 
WildCat said:
Let me know when a drone takes out an enemy aircraft.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked, there were several categories of autonomous and semi-autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles that were designed specifically to engage and destroy aircraft.

There's also a whole other set of drone categories, designed specifically for engaging and destroying targets on the ground.

Most of them tend to be rocket-powered and single-use, but the principle is the same.
 
WildCat said:
There's a lot more to aerial combat than being able to carry a missile.
Click to expand...

That depends on your tactical doctrine. Obviously the flying SAM aproach has proven less than successful but it does exist (and considering the relative costs are you sure you can manage an 18:1 kill ratio against someone trying it?). If someone with a fair number of UAVs went up agaist someone with a decent number of aircraft I would expect to see some UAVs getting some kills. However it hasn't happened yet so the waiting for one to shoot something down is not a reasonable standard for the foreseeable future.


None of this makes them replacement for manned aircraft yet though. If they will be by 2016 is a more complex question.
 
We pretty m,uch have air supremacy now. We DON'T have a hell of a lot of money to spend on new weapons systems. Mothball it or just let those countries that do have the need for a better ground-attack aircraft subsidize us to keep the production lines viable should we ever decide we need it. It would take a while for any potential enemy to arm up to the point that we need it.

Remember what Eisenhower said about spending money on the armaments industry when you have other needs.

Weapons production is good for the ecconomy only when you sell weapons to other users.
 
leftysergeant said:
We pretty m,uch have air supremacy now.
Click to expand...

F-35 is not meant to be the US's Air supremacy fighter.

We DON'T have a hell of a lot of money to spend on new weapons systems. Mothball it or just let those countries that do have the need for a better ground-attack aircraft subsidize us to keep the production lines viable should we ever decide we need it.
Click to expand...

Not going to be availible for sale until 2016 and if the US drops out other countries will go elsewhere.

It would take a while for any potential enemy to arm up to the point that we need it.
Click to expand...

Actualy it would take about a week. Some of the more problematical saudi arabia senarios see to that.

Remember what Eisenhower said about spending money on the armaments industry when you have other needs.

Weapons production is good for the ecconomy only when you sell weapons to other users.
Click to expand...

The F-35 is sellable to quite a number of non US users.
 
geni said:
Not going to be availible for sale until 2016 and if the US drops out other countries will go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

]QUOTE]The F-35 is sellable to quite a number of non US users.[/QUOTE]

These two remarks do not seem consistant with each other.

If the US remains involved at all, it should be to produce planes for export.
 
leftysergeant said:
]QUOTE]The F-35 is sellable to quite a number of non US users.
Click to expand...

These two remarks do not seem consistant with each other.

If the US remains involved at all, it should be to produce planes for export.[/QUOTE]

Development costs are such that if the US doesn't make a purchase that covers a significant chuck of them everyone else will look for a cheaper option.
 
Then we can do without it for now, maybe buy that cheaper option down the road. We have more pressing needs right now. Maybe after we wring the last dime out of the last Iraq War profiteer.
 
geni said:
That depends on your tactical doctrine. Obviously the flying SAM aproach has proven less than successful but it does exist (and considering the relative costs are you sure you can manage an 18:1 kill ratio against someone trying it?). If someone with a fair number of UAVs went up agaist someone with a decent number of aircraft I would expect to see some UAVs getting some kills. However it hasn't happened yet so the waiting for one to shoot something down is not a reasonable standard for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

1: UAVs are less capable than manned fighter aircraft at present, both in terms of raw capabilities and situational awareness.

2: The F-15 has racked up a 105:0 air-to-air combat kill ratio against manned fighter aircraft IIRC

3: The F-15 was also the fighter involved in the blue-on-blue shootdown of two Blackhawk helicopters over Iraq in the first Gulf War. The shootdown was preceded by VID.

It is clear that proper training and rigorous identification procedures, combined with amazing airframes and state-of the art radars, go a long way towards ensuring air superiority. It is also clear that if this sort of preparation can completely overwhelm manned fighter operations, making a fight against UAVs almost a foregone conclusion. From the Blackhawk shootdown, one can also see that even with every identification procedure employed, mistakes can still occur. Removing one of the ID barriers - visual identification - or replacing it with a weak alternative with inferior drone perspectives would seem to increase the chance of fratricide.

Furthermore, two of the biggest drivers behind the capability of current fighter aircraft are radar and stealth technology. Both of these are extremely expensive, yet necessary to maintain a competitive edge. Equipping more or less disposable drones ("flying SAMs") with either of these capabilities would easily cost far more than the total of our current manned fighter aircraft programs.
 
Sporanox said:
1: UAVs are less capable than manned fighter aircraft at present, both in terms of raw capabilities and situational awareness.

2: The F-15 has racked up a 105:0 air-to-air combat kill ratio against manned fighter aircraft IIRC
Click to expand...

They are yet to go up agaist high end aircraft in the hands of highly skill pilots. A couple have also been lost to ground fire which suggests the massed flying SAM aproach would be a problem although the F-15's comparatively low cost means that you would only need about an 8:1 kill ratio.


It is clear that proper training and rigorous identification procedures, combined with amazing airframes and state-of the art radars, go a long way towards ensuring air superiority. It is also clear that if this sort of preparation can completely overwhelm manned fighter operations, making a fight against UAVs almost a foregone conclusion. From the Blackhawk shootdown, one can also see that even with every identification procedure employed, mistakes can still occur. Removing one of the ID barriers - visual identification - or replacing it with a weak alternative with inferior drone perspectives would seem to increase the chance of fratricide.
Click to expand...

UAVs are currently operating in the ground strike role which is far more open to blue on blue problems than air to air.

Furthermore, two of the biggest drivers behind the capability of current fighter aircraft are radar and stealth technology. Both of these are extremely expensive, yet necessary to maintain a competitive edge. Equipping more or less disposable drones ("flying SAMs") with either of these capabilities would easily cost far more than the total of our current manned fighter aircraft programs.
Click to expand...

F-35 doesn't include much in the way of stealth features and actual costs of current UAV development programs (which are useing stealth designs) are not consistent with your claim.
 
They are yet to go up agaist high end aircraft in the hands of highly skill pilots. A couple have also been lost to ground fire which suggests the massed flying SAM aproach would be a problem although the F-15's comparatively low cost means that you would only need about an 8:1 kill ratio.
Click to expand...

The fact that ground fire at least sometimes scores a kill in no way validates a "flying SAM" approach. The VF-41 Black Aces, a US Navy Tomcat squadron, played an instrumental part in destroying the Serbian Army in the course of the Kosovo conflict with no casualties - against Serb operators that were easily more competent than Iraqi SAM batteries.

The cost effectiveness and even effectiveness of flying SAMs are not proven. Moreover, if equipped with low-grade radar, most if not all would be shot down before even entering their kill range.

UAVs are currently operating in the ground strike role which is far more open to blue on blue problems than air to air.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure about that. Most UAV striking is remote assassination of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, not close air support AFAIK. Also, when you have aerial/satellite intelligence worked up on a near- or completely stationary target hours to days in advance and use a gimballed LANTIRN, which can visualize structures quite well, to drop bombs on it, you have several advantages over IDing and striking at a blip on the edge of your radar.

F-35 doesn't include much in the way of stealth features and actual costs of current UAV development programs (which are useing stealth designs) are not consistent with your claim.
Click to expand...

It is interesting that you dismiss the F-35's stealth capability and then in the same breath tout the stealth designs of the developmental UAVs. How do you know which is stealthier? Also, note that when I was examining the issue of cost effectiveness, I was referring to your proposed approach - e.g., a disposable drone attack.
 
It should be scrapped, it is a waste of resources and the military is moving in different directions. So it is not even a good allocation of resources to the military.

I think they should take a lot of the military spending and give everyone a tax break.
 
Should go with the F-1000 - it can morph into any aircraft you need.

The F-35 has three distinct versions, one each for the AF, Marines and Navy. It's more versatile. It can stay. The F-22 is for air superiority - but we have a lot of them. Paraphrasing someone, we have to fight the enemy we have, not the enemy we want to have or wish to have. The enemy we have is sneaky, resourceful, widespread and low-tech. We need more weapons to fight that kind of enemy. Like unmanned UAVs.

Consider this, though: Eventually, older fighter pilots have to step down for health reasons. With UAVs, they can keep flying through their 70s and 80s. Imagine dozens of pilots with 30-40 years of experience flying those things from an office building.
 
Consider this, though: Eventually, older fighter pilots have to step down for health reasons. With UAVs, they can keep flying through their 70s and 80s.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain that's not true. UAV flying is extremely stressful.
 
Couldn't you persuade them to scrap it NOW...? It seems that my goverment, inticed by a bunch of GUNG-HO fighter pilots that would love to get their hands on a "new toy" will decide to buy this billiondollar "wondertoy".
It would be a very expensive failure because the plane is much much too complex to the simple tasks we need a fighterplane for and FAR too expensive. The decision is to be taken in a couple of months but the manufacturer has alleready signed contracts with Danish companies for co-production, something that smells avfully IMHO.

The Swedish "JAS Gripen" is far more suited to our needs and much cheaper.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
For the military buffs here:

Should the F-35 JSF be scrapped?
Click to expand...
No.

It is likely the last manned fighter/fighter bomber the US will build, however. The point of diminishing returns has probably been reached, in terms of the tradeoffs and benefits that one has to make, engineering and performance wise, for a manned tactical aircraft.

DR
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
I think they should take a lot of the military spending and give everyone a tax break.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of military spending is personnel costs, not equipment. And wasn't a big criticism of Bush that he failed to get the troops the latest and best equipment? I don't see how sticking with an aging and increasingly obsolete aircraft fleet is good for protection of our personnel.

At any rate,we'd still be running a trillion dollar deficit even if we cut military spending to zero, so I don't see where this tax break will be coming from.
 
Ove said:
The Swedish "JAS Gripen" is far more suited to our needs and much cheaper.
Click to expand...
It's a pretty plane, but not stealthy and thus the last generation of fighter aircraft. More suited to South Africa than a nation needing a first-rate air force.
 
Sporanox said:
I am not so sure about that. Most UAV striking is remote assassination of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, not close air support AFAIK.
Click to expand...
Uh, not quite. A 500 pound GBU 12 delivered by a Reaper (Predator on steroids) is no less a GBU-12 than one delivered by an A-10 or F-18. CAS in a static battlefield spends a lot of dwell time waiting for a call for fire, in a dynamic/moving/shifting battlefield, not so much. UAV's as CAS do that dwell thing real good. ;)
It is interesting that you dismiss the F-35's stealth capability and then in the same breath tout the stealth designs of the developmental UAVs. How do you know which is stealthier?
Click to expand...
Good point. :)
 
Last edited:
Anecdotal evidence, but according to Michael Yon the favorite aircraft of ground troops to support them is the F-15E:
We talked some more about smashin’ the Taliban. When the A-10s turned toward some distant battle, nobody here complained. Yes, we need more helicopters, but since I have been in Sangin, we never have been short on attack aircraft. The JTACs are happy. Air cover, since I have been in Sangin, is better than we could honestly hope for. Axle talked about strike aircraft; “The F-15E Strike Eagles are brilliant,” he said. The JTACs, if given a choice of the other fourteen types of piloted aircraft that come on station, seem to vote for F-15E Strike Eagles.

The F-15E package (weapons, electronics, and strike pilots) is particularly lethal for this fight. When strike aircraft come onto station, the pilots declare their weapons load. A typical F-15E declartion sounds like this: An American voice crackles over the radio, “Good morning. I’ve got 4 GBU-12s, 6 GBU-38s, 2 GBU-31s, and 1,000 x 20mm cannon.” [GBU-12: 500lb Laser Guided Bomb is the JTAC favorite here; GBU-38 is a 500lb JDAM and also very good; GBU-31 is a 2,000lb JDAM and too big for use in Sangin but there are many other fights in Afghanistan; 20mm cannon can destroy armored vehicles but bounce off the compound walls here.]

In total, the two F-15Es arrive with a dozen accurate bombs, a thousand rounds of 20mm, incredibly good optics, and a great downlink package so the JTACs can peer through F-15E crosshairs and coordinate with the pilot. Most importantly, the Strike Eagle pilots are specifically trained for this mission. Nobody on the ground complains about this package.

Whereas Strike Eagles are favored in Sangin, there are close runner-ups. B-1Bs are called “Bones” because B-One spells bone. Bones were made for nuclear war with the Soviets and for carrying hydrogen bombs, and so they don’t carry a lot of different tricks for small battles. B-1Bs do come with 12 GBU-38s and 8 GBU-31s, very good optics and Axle says the pilots are easy to talk onto targets. When a B-1B runs low on gas, refuelers can fly to us. One day, Axle could see Bones refueling directly overhead while continuing to track a target.

In all, about fourteen types of aircraft fly topcover, including American, Belgian, British, Dutch and French. JTACs here say the least desirable aircraft of those fourteen are the French M2000D. A package of two jets carries no cannon, no downlink and a total of only 4 GBU 12s. The optics aboard the aircraft are not good, and the trail aircraft spots targets with binoculars like the Red Baron. Also, the French and British have problems understanding each other’s accents.
Click to expand...
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/bad-medicine.htm

While UAVs have a downlink (so the troops on the ground can see what the UAV is looking at) they simply can't carry the weapons load fighter aircraft can.
 
Sporanox said:
The fact that ground fire at least sometimes scores a kill in no way validates a "flying SAM" approach. The VF-41 Black Aces, a US Navy Tomcat squadron, played an instrumental part in destroying the Serbian Army in the course of the Kosovo conflict with no casualties - against Serb operators that were easily more competent than Iraqi SAM batteries.

The cost effectiveness and even effectiveness of flying SAMs are not proven. Moreover, if equipped with low-grade radar, most if not all would be shot down before even entering their kill range.
Click to expand...

Well we won't know untill someone tries it.


I am not so sure about that. Most UAV striking is remote assassination of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, not close air support AFAIK. Also, when you have aerial/satellite intelligence worked up on a near- or completely stationary target hours to days in advance and use a gimballed LANTIRN, which can visualize structures quite well, to drop bombs on it, you have several advantages over IDing and striking at a blip on the edge of your radar.
Click to expand...

I was more thinking what they got up to in Iraq:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010823


It is interesting that you dismiss the F-35's stealth capability and then in the same breath tout the stealth designs of the developmental UAVs. How do you know which is stealthier?
Click to expand...

X-47 and X-45 appear to have stealth as a higher priority.

Also, note that when I was examining the issue of cost effectiveness, I was referring to your proposed approach - e.g., a disposable drone attack.
Click to expand...

F-35's come in at a bit over $80 million a time. Thats about eight times the cost of the MQ-9 Reaper which I think is the most expensive UAV actualy in use.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
While UAVs have a downlink (so the troops on the ground can see what the UAV is looking at) they simply can't carry the weapons load fighter aircraft can.
Click to expand...

Because so far no one has felt the need to build a UAV with that kind of lifting capacity. Heh the MQ-1 Predator really is a modifed reconnaissance platform and the MQ-9 Reaper is very much derived from that.
 
geni said:
F-35's come in at a bit over $80 million a time. Thats about eight times the cost of the MQ-9 Reaper which I think is the most expensive UAV actualy in use.
Click to expand...
Cost isn't the only factor when considering the requirements of a means to respond to a call for fire (which is what CAS is, a form of airborne fires.) Response time, and controllability of the engagement are also important, else we'd have gone back to the much cheaper missiles, tube artillery, and mortars ages ago.

Reaper and Preadator class UAV's have no dash speed. Typical CAS vehicles do. Time, and response time, is a critical commodity on the modern battlefield.
 
WildCat said:
Anecdotal evidence, but according to Michael Yon the favorite aircraft of ground troops to support them is the F-15E:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/bad-medicine.htm

While UAVs have a downlink (so the troops on the ground can see what the UAV is looking at) they simply can't carry the weapons load fighter aircraft can.
Click to expand...

But is there any problem that 2 fighters with 9,000 pounds of ordinance and 2,000 vulcan rounds can solve that can't be solved with 4 lightly armed drones properly positioned?

One ton bombs are for tank columns, not insurgent fighting. I mean yes, in the field, it is comforting to put 3,000 pounds of explosives on your target, but I question the necessity.

Also, UAVs can be used as artillery spotters. Good 120 mile artillery and spotters is a much better, and much cheaper package.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom