. /../Why US insists on that shitty.../ 1
i haz title: speed-g-dof
written by Speeder on May 15, 2014 13:47
Why US insists in creating the F-35 as a crappy-do-it-all certainly-master-of-none plane?

It is outrageously expensive, don't do what some planes it is substituting are supposed to do (most notably, it cannot do what the A-10 do, at all...), and all simulations so far show that it always loses against Russian planes, even against some old ones.

So... what is the reason to insist on that? Incompetence (throwing good money after bad money)? Malice (free money to defense industry)? Stupidity (no better ideas)?
r'lyeh sweet r'lyeh
written by Neuzd on May 15, 2014 14:15
Admittedly, what plane can do what the A10 does, which is being one of the most beautiful machines ever built by man?
And that when it is stationary.
Then it takes off and makes flying-unicorn-tiger-whales cry of inadequacy.

I'm so anti-war, but when I become a super villain and you'll see an A10 coming your way, wave your hand so I know I have to make some pretty maneuvers before spectacularly destroying your area of residence.
i haz title: speed-g-dof
written by Speeder on May 15, 2014 14:23
I really don't understood your post


Also by the way, I am anti-US in general, specially regarding US foreign policy, but US recent behaviour in military spending kinda baffles me.

The A10 in particular is the only plane that can give infantary support, that plane do the same job planes did in World War 1, that is rain down stuff on trenches (even if your "trench" is a bunch of people hiding behind or on top of a building that your own side cannot reach)

The F-35 flies too fast to do that, its stall speed is too high, you can at best throw bombs on the enemy, but that sometimes is very bad idea (ie: you don't want for example to explode a building that might fall on your own troops, also you don't want to explode civilians, or turn the enemy country in a cratered wasteland...)
rawr
written by Raptorjedi on May 15, 2014 16:16
Not knowing much about planes (or military things in general). I'd say the reason is political, someone, somewhere is making money off the purchase. However I'm reading that the A-10 is currently not going to stop being used anytime soon.
i haz title: speed-g-dof
written by Speeder on May 15, 2014 17:30
The US congress half-backtracked on the original F-35 law.

When the F-35 project law was made, it stated that F-18, A-10 and some other planes would all stop being used, and F-35 would be used instead.

The A-10 date to end use was postponed (but no new A-10 can be bought), and the US congress if I remember correctly decided to order some F-18 some months ago.

But the end plan is still the same (retire several planes, and use only the F-35).

I read a article that the original idea was to have all A-10 scrapped by 2019, now the idea is scrap them all by 2028, still in 2013 the Air Force requested a 30% budget DECREASE for A-10 (I found no news if that budget decrease was allowed or not).


About the plane differences and the problems:

The F-35 is to replace a bunch of planes, I found not list of all of them, but the most known ones are:

Harrier
F-16
F-18 (now exception a new variant that I mentioned previously that US ordered a few)
A-10

F-16 is a fighter, that proved to be good enough to be used in other ways, but is a fighter, the focus on this plane is to be easy to manuever, to be fast, and to allow the pilot to use it as a tool to strike down other planes, so among its features are a cockpit that is easy for you to turn your head inside and look around and see with your eyes (not only with equipment, that can be jammed and hacked) where the enemy is.

F-18 is a hybrid of fighter and light bomber, it is used mostly by the navy, to attack enemy amphibian troops and ships, it is not fast or easy to manuever as the F-16, but is more resiliant and can carry more bombs (obviously).

The A-10 is just a machine-gun with wings, its purpose is fire a machine-gun on the ground, like a helicopter, but it is a plane... That plane is slow, heavy, and very well armoured, people on the ground being shot by it can shoot back all they want, they won't take this plane down.


The harrier purpose is take off vertically from the landing boats that the marines use.

It suck at that purpose (it melts the boat).

Also it suck at doing that from land too (it kicks debris inside its own engines, damaging them).

Also it suck at being a normal plane (a third of the harriers ever built crashed outside combat, also its ejection seat killed or maimed a couple of pilots).

None of harrier real war missions used its vertical take off capability... (only training missions did).

Also there has been harriers shot down with small arms (yes, the plane suck that bad).



The F-35 features:

Stealth (notice how the four previous planes none were stealthy and none are made to avoid or withstand anti-air fire? yep, someone thought that to substitute those four planes, making a stealthplane like the F-22 is good idea).

Vertical Take Off (like Harrier)

Reasonably fast and armed.

The problems are:

First, stealth planes are expensive, and useful mostly for bombing stuff, the F-35 is not a bomber.

Second, the vertical take off introduced all the problems that harrier had, and made some advanges don't work, for example test F-35 pilots used to the F-16 complained that the vertical take off turbine hampers their vision (meaning that a russian 40 year old MIG can reach from behind and shoot down a F-35... the only thing the pilot can do in that situation is try his best to not let the MIG near him, or try to shoot down the MIG first in front-to-front combat)

Also, the plane is very heavy because of all the stuff people crammed on it, to serve all purposes, and it cannot for example carry all weapons a F-16 can for air-to-air fight.

Neither it can carry all weapons a A-10 can for air-to-ground attack (if I remember correctly the F-35 carry like 1/10 of the amount of ammo a A-10 can have).

Also for now the vertical take off don't work... all tests made with it so far, when the actual turbine is installed, the plane gets too heavy and don't fly (what use is a plane that don't fly?)

Also, the plane cannot substitute the A-10 because it needs to fly too fast to aim on the ground, and it has much less armor than the A-10 (meaning AK-47 armed third world terrorists can shoot it down with said AK-47 if the plane attempts to shoot the ground from close like the A-10 do).


The only plane that you can use the F-35 on its place, is the F-18, except newer F-18 are really good and made the US order more of them.

Maybe the F-35 can substitute stealth bombers, but F-22 (a light bomber) is faster and more stable than it, and can carry more bombs...

And the B-2 is a proper heavy bomber.

As someone that loves technology, hacking, physics, politics, and some other stuff, the F-35 project is interesting to me as a example of how to NOT do something.
written by Cryoburner on May 15, 2014 21:47
You seem to be mistaken about a few things here. First of all, the reason the F-35 was so over-budget is because it's simply a front for the real aircraft that were being developed. The F-35s are considered "good enough" to line up on airfields and sell to other countries, while the X-444 Space-Time Assault Ring is intended for the real military use, should the need arise. You can't just leave something like that laying around though.
written by Kristos on May 16, 2014 01:46
Neuzd said:
Admittedly, what plane can do what the A10 does, which is being one of the most beautiful machines ever built by man?
And that when it is stationary.
Then it takes off and makes flying-unicorn-tiger-whales cry of inadequacy.

I'm so anti-war, but when I become a super villain and you'll see an A10 coming your way, wave your hand so I know I have to make some pretty maneuvers before spectacularly destroying your area of residence.
That earthquake just now? That was me laughing.
i haz title: speed-g-dof
written by Speeder on May 16, 2014 14:30
Cryoburner said:
You seem to be mistaken about a few things here. First of all, the reason the F-35 was so over-budget is because it's simply a front for the real aircraft that were being developed. The F-35s are considered "good enough" to line up on airfields and sell to other countries, while the X-444 Space-Time Assault Ring is intended for the real military use, should the need arise. You can't just leave something like that laying around though.
That made me laugh
reading this thread
no members are reading this thread
. /../Why US insists on that shitty.../ 1
29596, 10 queries, 0.071 s.this frame is part of the AnyNowhere network