F-35 VS F-18 FIGHTER JETS

[canuckeight]

President Trump was at Boeing Friday and threw out a nibble that maybe the F18 Super Hornet might be in the mix for government contract.

Like to hear opinions from active Military, Veterans and civilians alike.

[LexusLover]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...who-wins-15670

This article raises some "issues" in short the F35, like many items, will be almost obsolete by the time it is fully deployed, if it will be.

Since the U.S. projects her rapid response military power by sea for the most part the selection of a manned aircraft should fit Navy requirements and the changing environment and potential of the enemy with an emphasis on the future ability of ANY potential enemy or threat.

Read that part of the article (and any others) discussing "range"!

[dilbert firestorm]

one of the things that I noticed about navy fighters is the decline in range. they went from 1200 - 1500 mile range without refueling in the `1960s . by 1970, this declined further to a rough 500 mile range with the addition of the F-14.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

one of the things that I noticed about navy fighters is the decline in range. they went from 1200 - 1500 mile range without refueling in the `1960s . by 1970, this declined further to a rough 500 mile range.

It's not just the Navy ... the Israelis have the same issue.

From our perspective, as the article mentions, we need more reliable and effective "stand off" aircraft ... IMO that's why we end up using stealth bombers, which also have to refuel, but can do so outside of the target "theater."

As NATO evolves we have to look for other options for ground support aircraft, since our "basing privileges" and "fly over privileges" will be restricted depending on the continued relationship of countries to NATO and our own with NATO countries (they can refuse privileges even if they belong to NATO). Even though we are "partners" today doesn't mean we will be in any particular conflict 15-20 years down the road .... and is mentioned that is the timeline for developing and deploying aircraft to meet those contingencies.

Also, we can't simply keep focused on manned, fixed-wing aircraft. We also have to R&D on unmanned and rotary aircraft for ground support and intelligence gathering.

[gary5912]

good post excellent debate

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gary5912

good post excellent debate

Some of these dreamers need to take a "ride" crammed down in the back on some sloshing gerry cans bumping around on the grass lumps trying to get up to air speed in an L-4 with shit every where to make the tree line up ahead in a drizzle overcast day to go home!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's not just the Navy ... the Israelis have the same issue.

I do not think this really applied to Israelis. they have fighters in the 1000+ range. but it does become an issue if they intend do operations against Iran.

I see that they have F-35s in operation which are short legged. I guess that would be an issue.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I do not think this really applied to Israelis. they have fighters in the 1000+ range. but it does become an issue if they intend do operations against Iran.

I see that they have F-35s in operation which are short legged. I guess that would be an issue.

It is my understanding with respect to Iran the Israelis would have to discard their reserve fuel to carry the weapon systems to effectively strike the Iranian facilities and had requested from the Obaminable admistration "bunker busters" to soften the targets for a kill strike in a second wave attack, which would essentially be a suicide mission now that Iraq is no longer an option for setting down "dry" aircraft and in-flight refueling would be dicey at best unless the Iranian AND the Syrian aircraft could be neutralized on the ground before the initial strike. Now with the Russian presence ala Obaminable the mix is even more complicated and unworkable for the Israelis.

I believe there has never been an issue on the quality of the Israelis pilots up against Russian, Syrian, or Iranian pilots and aircraft, until the Russians brought in superior aircraft and anti-aircraft missile systems, which would protect the Syrian airforce. The Kurds have been historically friendly with the Israelis, so there may be some "cover" there on the ground until an extraction could be made. Turkey used to be an option, but not for the Israelis.

The "issue" with range from Israel is not 1,000 miles, because the mission would not be "crow's fly" path and would necessarily have to be conducted with a low altitude approach outside of electronic and/or visual detection, which is the "expertise" of the Israelis, but that is not a straight line flight path. It would also require U.S. satellite assistance for guidance.

[JD Barleycorn]

In the navy there is a trade off between range, payload, and durability. You can land a C 130 on an aircraft carrier but you can't operate from an aircraft carrier. F-35 have a problem with durability. In trying to create an all around fighter you have to cover the extremes. Bulking up the frame to handle cat launches and hook landings increases the weight of the aircraft and reduces either payload or range.
Cost is important too. The last numbers that I saw were that one F-35 can pay for 2 1/2 F/A-18s. Would 1200 F/A-18s be more effective than 480 F-35s. Depends on what you have them doing. Hitler made the mistake of putting bombs on his jet fighters reducing their speed and endurance. From what I understand, for dogfighting using stealth capablilities the F-35 is superior. We want to hang smart bombs and task the planes for other things. The F/A-18 is pretty much the same as the F-35 in this case but at over twice the price!
Okay, do we have the manpower (or woman power) to man up all the aircraft? That is a great question in this reduced navy. How about replacing the losses? In the worst case scenario planes will be destroyed and pilots will be killed. Can we replace them quickly? In World War II, the Kaiser shipyard could complete a Liberty ship in eight days. Today, the lead time for new aircraft is months away.

Okay, manpower, cost, and capability. Right now the US does not have the manpower to man all those F/A-18s. It would take several months to build them and get them to the ship. Only in certain situations would the F-35 out perform the F/A-18 to any significant advantage.

I would forget the one size fits all philosophy and be prepared for different aircraft in the inventory. That requires support. We need to increase the fleet to 14 aircraft carriers again. They need to be fully manned with backup squadrons stateside to replace losses. The F/A-18 will continue to be the mainstay of the US navy for another decade but new aircraft should be brought on by squadron and not piece meal. The ships are also upping their game. In ten years we might be relying on armed, unmanned drones to defend this country. Aircraft carriers will carry more aircraft and it will be easier to outfit each drone aircraft for each specific mission.

[LexusLover]

The military needs to dictate what it needs, not the politicians, and when I say "military" I'm speaking of "hands-on" folks and not paper pushers.

This country still must adequately fit appropriate aspects of the military with fast response, stealth capabilities that can penetrate any country under any circumstances to complete any assigned task and return home as safely as can be expected with minimal casualties. That requires the correct equipment, excellent intelligence, and superb training ... with absolute secrecy of all three resources. That strike capacity can neutralize potential threats before they fester into a "need" for a massive air response, manned or unmanned.

[wordup666]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/if-the-...s-it-so-hated/

Pros and cons of the f35.

[Jackie S]

There is a saying....."the people who make radar guns also make radar detectors".

Logic would dictate that our "future enemies" are as hard at work defeating stealth technology as we are developing it.

When they can finally "see" you, the issue then becomes inflicting as much damage as possible while being able to absorb, or avoid, damage that will result in the loss of the Pilot, either through capture or death.

Remember a few years back when there was a push to get rid of the A-10 Warthog. Too old, to low tech, just not the whiz bang weapon we needed.

That is, untill actual combat men told the desk warriors the facts of not only it's devasting affectivness in the arena it was designed to operate in, but also it's outstanding survival rate.

I think the Dream of every enemy of the United States would be to sink one of our huge aircraft carriers. Yes, that would be a formidable task. But in a real war, where your enemy might have some of the same capabilities as you, the scenario is not that far fetched.

Before the age of airpower, the Battleship was seen as the ultimate in naval superiority. Airpower showed that Battleships, while being a tough nut to crack, could be sunk, or at least put out of commission, by well coordinated air attacks. That gave rise to the Air Craft Carrier being the supreme capital ship.

Discounting submarines, that still holds true. But keep in mind, our enemies are figuring ways to get past the Carrier Task Force defenses. The thought of billions of dollars going down with one well placed Missle is at the very least, unnerving.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Logic would dictate that our "future enemies" are as hard at work defeating stealth technology as we are developing it.

That's one reason why the "leaking" is outrageous!

[Luke_Wyatt]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

In the navy there is a trade off between range, payload, and durability. You can land a C 130 on an aircraft carrier but you can't operate from an aircraft carrier. F-35 have a problem with durability. In trying to create an all around fighter you have to cover the extremes. Bulking up the frame to handle cat launches and hook landings increases the weight of the aircraft and reduces either payload or range.
Cost is important too. The last numbers that I saw were that one F-35 can pay for 2 1/2 F/A-18s. Would 1200 F/A-18s be more effective than 480 F-35s. Depends on what you have them doing. Hitler made the mistake of putting bombs on his jet fighters reducing their speed and endurance. From what I understand, for dogfighting using stealth capablilities the F-35 is superior. We want to hang smart bombs and task the planes for other things. The F/A-18 is pretty much the same as the F-35 in this case but at over twice the price!
Okay, do we have the manpower (or woman power) to man up all the aircraft? That is a great question in this reduced navy. How about replacing the losses? In the worst case scenario planes will be destroyed and pilots will be killed. Can we replace them quickly? In World War II, the Kaiser shipyard could complete a Liberty ship in eight days. Today, the lead time for new aircraft is months away.

Okay, manpower, cost, and capability. Right now the US does not have the manpower to man all those F/A-18s. It would take several months to build them and get them to the ship. Only in certain situations would the F-35 out perform the F/A-18 to any significant advantage.

I would forget the one size fits all philosophy and be prepared for different aircraft in the inventory. That requires support. We need to increase the fleet to 14 aircraft carriers again. They need to be fully manned with backup squadrons stateside to replace losses. The F/A-18 will continue to be the mainstay of the US navy for another decade but new aircraft should be brought on by squadron and not piece meal. The ships are also upping their game. In ten years we might be relying on armed, unmanned drones to defend this country. Aircraft carriers will carry more aircraft and it will be easier to outfit each drone aircraft for each specific mission.

I agree with JD 100 percent, price is an important issue- there are advantages and disadvantages to both planes, but the military needs to make sure they get the best bang for the buck.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

I agree with JD 100 percent, price is an important issue- there are advantages and disadvantages to both planes, but the military needs to make sure they get the best bang for the buck.

I have to say: For a brain damaged lying POS who pretends to have been a drill sergeant in the Army and who spuriously brags about all the people he has killed (purportedly in the military as opposed to be s serial killer) your analysis of the comparative usefulness of these two aircraft and you extraordinary command of the tactical considerations in the selection of combat aircraft is quite stimulating and your announcement is equally interesting and "on point"! Thank you for your well reasoned and in depth contribution.