On the F-35 - and its many problems

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

^ I would pass on the F-35. There are better and cheaper alternatives like the F-15's and F-16's. If they had thrust vectoring, they might be even better in low speed flight. At high speed, I think it might pull more G's than the human body can withstand-for long. I think they would come in at a drastically lower cost as well.

With regards to the Tornado, I believe they are more of a strike aircraft and less of an air superiority type fighter aircraft like the F-15's and F-16's. If vertical lift is / was an issue, I believe the Brit Harrier, re-engineered would have been a viable alternative as well. The English showed in the Falklands war how good the Harrier can be-in capable hands. With new turbofan engines capable of mach speeds, and a redesigned nose to accommodate modern radars or up to date Blue Vixen radars suites, I believe the Harrier would be even more formidable than it is now.

The Blue Vixen's were compatible with Sidewinders, Aim-120 Amraam's and Brit Sea Eagle's. I would be willing to bet they could be made to work with Israeli Python and other missiles as well.

Again, this deal now is predominantly about secuing an ongoing of the German nuclear participation, that the Germans can operate bombers that can carry American nuclear bombs. Without that, the Tornados would already have been phased out since a few years, most likely. This is not meant to replace the full conventional fighter fleet. The germans have showed to be unable to get their homework for a Tornado-replacement done since many, many years. Now there is panic.

My biggest argument against the F-35 is the logistics behind maintaining it, and the dependency on US-provided certified US technicians. Key components in the planes delivered to foreign customers are not allowed to be maintained by national workers, but only by American personennel. Also, spare parts again make us depending on the US. Its also an intel breach concern, since this arrangement gives the US a deep insight into operations and plans of these foreign customers. Availabiltiy and delivery of spare parts also will be a concern if the US gets engaged in a longer conflict in asia and has own losses it must compensate then. Now wonder where Lockheed'S loyalties and liabilties then will prioritize!

But we cannot come up with a new plane by ourselves in just 2 years. The new European super-wonder-miracle fighter is expected not before 2040 or later - and then it will suffer from plenty of teethign problems, and will need more years to mature, and then will be bought in ridiculously low numbers becasue it will be so hilariously expensive.

We slept too long. Now there are only compromises left, none of them comes without serious disadvantages.

Beside Britian and France, germany and maybe Italy should get their own nukes, too. The French never have and never will put their arsenal under true full European command or NATO command. But Europe should have nuclear options independently from the US to deter certain aggressions, obviously.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Again, this deal now is predominantly about secuing an ongoing of the German nuclear participation, that the Germans can operate bombers that can carry American nuclear bombs. Without that, the Tornados would already have been phased out since a few years, most likely. This is not meant to replace the full conventional fighter fleet. The germans have showed to be unable to get their homework for a Tornado-replacement done since many, many years. Now there is panic.

My biggest argument against the F-35 is the logistics behind maintaining it, and the dependency on US-provided certified US technicians. Key components in the planes delivered to foreign customers are not allowed to be maintained by national workers, but only by American personennel. Also, spare parts again make us depending on the US. Its also an intel breach concern, since this arrangement gives the US a deep insight into operations and plans of these foreign customers. Availabiltiy and delivery of spare parts also will be a concern if the US gets engaged in a longer conflict in asia and has own losses it must compensate then. Now wonder where Lockheed'S loyalties and liabilties then will prioritize!

But we cannot come up with a new plane by ourselves in just 2 years. The new European super-wonder-miracle fighter is expected not before 2040 or later - and then it will suffer from plenty of teethign problems, and will need more years to mature, and then will be bought in ridiculously low numbers becasue it will be so hilariously expensive.

We slept too long. Now there are only compromises left, none of them comes without serious disadvantages.

Beside Britian and France, germany and maybe Italy should get their own nukes, too. The French never have and never will put their arsenal under true full European command or NATO command. But Europe should have nuclear options independently from the US to deter certain aggressions, obviously.

With the actions of Russia at the forefront of the news and Putin wanting a remake of the former Soviet Union, What you have said makes a lot of sense. For years, Germany neglected contributing enough of it GNP's to it's own defense. I think now, Germany sees how foolhardy this action was.


With regards to the F-15's and F-16s, I'm quite certain they can all be configured to use a wide variety of munitions, if you know what I mean.

[mapuc]

Had to dig into my longtime memory.

When I was young I had this love for aviation mostly American jets. I had a book about the American history of aviation and if I remember correctly they had a bunch of problem with F14 Tomcat or was it F-15 Eagle. When these problem was solved it became one of the most reliable fighter jet in the American Air force and/or Navy.

Markus

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Had to dig into my longtime memory.

When I was young I had this love for aviation mostly American jets. I had a book about the American history of aviation and if I remember correctly they had a bunch of problem with F14 Tomcat or was it F-15 Eagle. When these problem was solved it became one of the most reliable fighter jet in the American Air force and/or Navy.

Markus

The F-14 Tomcat had recurring issues with It's Pratt and Whitney TF-30 engines in that they were prone to compressor stalls. The faughty engines resulted in a number of lost aircraft and crews. It remained an issue through out it's life until the F-14D models were re-engines with I believe GE -F404 and or 110 engines. Only then did the F-14 realize it's full potential. By then, the F-14 program was at the end of it's service life.

[Jimbuna]

The Tornado and Harrier were retired far too early because the UK knew there would never be another war on European soil

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

The Tornado and Harrier all sorts of military hardware were retired far too early because the UK Germany knew there would never be another war on European soil

Corrected this a bit

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Corrected this a bit

Danke

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

The F-14 Tomcat had recurring issues with It's Pratt and Whitney TF-30 engines in that they were prone to compressor stalls. The faughty engines resulted in a number of lost aircraft and crews. It remained an issue through out it's life until the F-14D models were re-engines with I believe GE -F404 and or 110 engines. Only then did the F-14 realize it's full potential. By then, the F-14 program was at the end of it's service life.

Have I remembered wrong all these year-'cause this fighter jet became one of US most reliable fighter jet. in the decades that followed-So I wonder if it wasn't the F-15 Eagle after all.

Sad is that I don't have this book anymore Got it as a present from my parents.

Markus

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Have I remembered wrong all these year-'cause this fighter jet became one of US most reliable fighter jet. in the decades that followed-So I wonder if it wasn't the F-15 Eagle after all.

Sad is that I don't have this book anymore Got it as a present from my parents.

Markus

The F-14 was a great aircraft once it was re-engined with the General Electric Engines. unfortunately, with the engine nacelles spaced as far apart as they were and with the old Pratt and Whitney Engines, if airflow was disrupted to one engine and it stalled, It could throw the aircraft into a flat spin. The F-14 had a range no other fighter aircraft could match including the F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets. To use F-18's close to a contested area means having tanker support close which exposes the tankers to enemy fire.

The fire control suite was state of the art for it's time as well. Unfortunately, the AIM-54 Phoenix air to air missiles the F-14 carried had an inflated reputation, as I understand it. The F-14 was a robust aircraft but was said to need 6 hours maintenance for every hour flown.

The Swedish Saab Drakken, Viggen and now the JAS 39 Gripen were all said to be unique and capable aircraft, especially the Viggen with it's double Delta Wings. The Swedes were certainly thinking " out of the box " with these aircraft.
The Swedes really know how to engineer an aircraft.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

The F-14 was a great aircraft once it was re-engined with the General Electric Engines. unfortunately, with the engine nacelles spaced as far apart as they were, if airflow was disrupted to one engine and it stalled, It could throw the aircraft into a flat spin. The F-14 had a range no other fighter aircraft could match including the F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets. To use F-18's close to a contested means having tanker support close which exposes the tankers to enemy fire.

The fire control suite was state of the art for it's time as well. Unfortunately, the AIM-54 Phoenix air to air missiles the F-14 carried had an inflated reputation, as I understand it. The F-14 was a robust aircraft but was said to need 6 hours maintenance for every hour flown.

The Swedish Saab Drakken, Viggen and now the JAS 39 Gripen were all said to be unique and capable aircraft, especially the Viggen with it's double Delta Wings. The Swedes were certainly thinking " out of the box " with these aircraft.
The Swedes really know how to engineer an aircraft.

Oh remember when I was a young lad around 12-14 years old Then my biggest dream was to be a fighter pilot and fly the JA 37 Viggen. When I was around 20 My doctor said I did not have the body for it.
Since then my biggest dream was and still are-To become a doctor-Lung and heart doctor.

This is not some kind of military secret-The engine in the JAS 39 Gripen is so build it would take 4 soldiers around 30 minutes to take it out and replace it-Same with weapons around 20-30 minutes to rearm the jet.

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

With regards to the F-15's and F-16s, I'm quite certain they can all be configured to use a wide variety of munitions, if you know what I mean.

No doubt they can carry nukes, but whether they can deliver them in a heavily radar-saturated environment - that is something else. The Germans no longer trust the Tornado can do that (and its maintenance by now is beocming a financial and organisational nightmare), and the Tornado specialised in extreme low flying attack profiles, thats what it was originally made for. So low that the British lost two or three of them in low flight missions in Kuwait without enemy effect on them, AFAIR.
The F-35 however claims to be able to handle enemy radar, kind of.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Again, this deal now is predominantly about secuing an ongoing of the German nuclear participation, that the Germans can operate bombers that can carry American nuclear bombs. Without that, the Tornados would already have been phased out since a few years, most likely. This is not meant to replace the full conventional fighter fleet. The germans have showed to be unable to get their homework for a Tornado-replacement done since many, many years. Now there is panic.

My biggest argument against the F-35 is the logistics behind maintaining it, and the dependency on US-provided certified US technicians. Key components in the planes delivered to foreign customers are not allowed to be maintained by national workers, but only by American personennel. Also, spare parts again make us depending on the US. Its also an intel breach concern, since this arrangement gives the US a deep insight into operations and plans of these foreign customers. Availabiltiy and delivery of spare parts also will be a concern if the US gets engaged in a longer conflict in asia and has own losses it must compensate then. Now wonder where Lockheed'S loyalties and liabilties then will prioritize!

But we cannot come up with a new plane by ourselves in just 2 years. The new European super-wonder-miracle fighter is expected not before 2040 or later - and then it will suffer from plenty of teethign problems, and will need more years to mature, and then will be bought in ridiculously low numbers becasue it will be so hilariously expensive.

We slept too long. Now there are only compromises left, none of them comes without serious disadvantages.

Beside Britian and France, germany and maybe Italy should get their own nukes, too. The French never have and never will put their arsenal under true full European command or NATO command. But Europe should have nuclear options independently from the US to deter certain aggressions, obviously.

Say what you want of Trump, he warned you and even demanded Euro NATO nations increase their defense and funding to NATO 2% of GDP. Now there's a rush to do so.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Say what you want of Trump, he warned you and even demanded Euro NATO nations increase their defense and funding to NATO 2% of GDP. Now there's a rush to do so.

Not for Denmark. Here it ain't a rush-They have decided to s.l.o.w.l.y increase the amount of the BNP to the military so it's 2 % in 2033. Today it's around 1.16 % of BNP.

Markus