"Just Face It – The F-35 Is A “Bomb Truck”" Topic

"The only thing remarkable in General Hostage's assessment of the F-35 is that anyone should find his comments remarkable. It is refreshing that the head of the USAF's Air Combat Command should make such frank remarks.

He is right on the money. The F-35 is a bomb truck. It was designed by Lockheed to be inferior in every respect to the F-22. It was anticipated that the USAF would have a fleet of upwards of 800 F-22s to provide cover for the F-35. President Obama turned off the F-22 tap at just 170-airframes.

What was interesting, and went unnoticed or at least unmentioned in the media, was how the F-35 was transformed into a world-beating fighter with the cancelation of the F-22 contract…"
Full article here.
link

Amicalement
Armand

"The F-35 is a bomb truck".

I wouldn't really call a stealth aircraft that can apparently, only carry two bombs internally, a "bomb truck". More like a "bomb Yugo", or "light bomb jeep".

Yes, I know it can carry more bombs than that, externally, on its wings, but that then defeats the whole stealth design. If the article below is correct, the stealth feature, which we are paying enormously for ($200+ mil a copy, with development costs added in), only really works from the front arc anyway, and is expected to be obsolete in about 5 years (about the same time I expect them to be fielded, in quantity, operationally, assuming there aren't more delays, and we don't cut back further on the "in quantity" procurement plan):

link

"….how the F-35 was transformed into a world-beating fighter….".

Man, those marketing word-smith people are getting better, and better. Surely rivaling Baghdad Bob, and the Iranian and Chinese propaganda ministers, for over the top rhetoric.

The quote above outdoes Bob's "…the Americans are everywhere…", when talking about our troops in his country, "…even on the moon….".

Someone is working hard to earn their bonus this year. Well deserved, in my opinion.

"The Russians already know that all they have to do to counter the F-35 is force it to manoeuvre and then it's dead meat".

Flying straight and level is suicidal too.

Not 100% sure who is the greater threat to our air defense, Russia, and China, or Lockheed Martin, but I have strong suspicions.

It's a stealthy SLUF with upgraded sensors, with none of the affordability. Its EW should help offset the expected degradation of its VLO, but I wouldn't expect the degree of 'invulnerability' that our other platforms (F-22, B-2) have.

Saw a show on aircraft of the future. Other than the touted multi-use factors, one of the biggest factors was the ability to go mach 1.6 without afterburners. While slower than the F-22, this ability is interesting as it makes it more stealthy at this speed than the F-22.

A prime example of an aircraft being built for multi-use and not excelling in any of the diverse categories it is meant to fill.

Contrary to the AF gentleman pilot's opinion of the last few months on TMP (thank you sir for your service), the A-10 still fills it's ground support and air to ground role better than any aircraft I can think of. The F-35 will not be as effective in this role where speed isn't important but payload and armament is.

We could go through each of the other roles and really say the same thing. It will be stealthier than the current crop of multi-use aircraft and have the most modern avionics, etc. (which any new airframe would be able to take advantage of and actually many older airframes could be upgraded too). The stealth factors and the higher speed sans afterburners are the only real advantage I see with the aircraft. One could say the verticle takeoff is important but that already exists with the Harrier.

I think it is a case that the sum of the whole does not equal to a game changing aircraft. As stated above, if the F-22 is clearing the way, it leaves the Navy in a difficult place.

The stealth design is a tradeoff for me. One tactical option is I get a difficult to spot attack aircraft with just a few precision munitions for early air war strikes on C2, ADA, or High Pay Off targets. The second option is I get a bit easier to spot multi-role aircraft to help the F-22 finish air domination or attack ground targets. As an Army fire supporter, I'm happy with both options.

My only real complaint is these things are gas hogs and station time is short without good airborne refueling. If the Air Force needs anything at this point it's tankers- and lots of them. I have scar tissue from telling a Division CHOPs he wasn't getting air one night because the tanker had to move and the air support didn't have the legs to get to his AO and loiter over it.

As good or bad as we think these new zoomy toys are, we won't know unless they have the gas to get to the target.

yea there is a need for a lot of stealth tankers or they need to start building fighters with more useful range.

If they could carry more bombs, you'd need a lot fewer tankers and "bomb trucks".

Or a bomb rickshaw.
Who is designing this crap for us these days. We haven't designed a decent plane since the late '70s.

Some would argue that the F-35 is a bomb, period.

LOL Don't worry, where I am we don't even have enough pilot for our planes even. ;)

I'm beginning to wish that were true in our case, so we'd stop wasting huge sums on them.

"The F-35 is a bomb truck".

I wouldn't really call a stealth aircraft that can apparently, only carry two bombs internally, a "bomb truck". More like a "bomb Yugo", or "light bomb jeep".

What do you call the F117, then, since the Nighthawk had no capacity for AAMs whatsoever?

What would you have called the A12, which was intended to carry what the F35 does, plus a pair of HARMs?

The A7 could carry 15,000lbs of bombs externally, and so can the F35. In fact, since the F35 carries another 3000lbs internally, it has the same bombload as the A6 Intruder, 18,000lbs total.

The F35 can carry more bombs externally than the FA18C/D. If you really want to get down to it, the F35 can carry a little bit more than an F18E/F (super bug carries a max of 17,750lbs).

If you want a bird that can carry a heavy bomb load (say, 25,000lbs on a rotary launcher) internally for stealth, you're looking at something roughly the same fuselage diameter as a B1. That bird won't fly on a carrier.

If you're gonna carry all those "externally", why bother with stealth, since they negate all that expensive cost too?

Just build stealth drones to take out the radar and SAM sites, or use cruise missiles to do that, and then send in cheaper mud movers to deal with the rest, like perhaps, the A-10, for example.

Bought and paid for, only about 40 years old, and we've got lots of them, which are a proven, battle-survivable design.

Heck I suspect if the F-35 hits a dragonfly, its stealth will be compromised (exaggerated, over the top rhetoric, just to show I can mix it with their wordsmiths too).

The Buff is still flying, and much older than the A-10.

The latter has 11 hardpoints, and can carry 16,000 lbs. of bombs, and has an anti-armor gatling gun in the nose, if the info on the bomb stats, on the wiki site, is correct.

I'll bet it could land on a carrier too, if they wanted it too. Add tailhook, will travel (yes, I know it might need a bit of structural engineering to permit that, but the airframe is built like a tank, so can probably handle that).

No. It can't.

If you're gonna carry all those "externally", why bother with stealth, since they negate all that expensive cost too?

Again, a bird capable of carrying 18+klbs of bombs internally is going to be closer to the size of a B1, not the size of an F111. And an F111 is too big to operate from a carrier. Carrier max takeoff weights are right around 60,000lbs, so you need an aircraft with a 15+ft diameter fuselage to accept a rotary launcher that weighs less than 20,000lbs dry and empty.

The basic idea is to use the stealthy aircraft to take out command and control sites and air defenses, to allow the non-stealthy aircraft to come through with heavier loads.

Cruise missiles are not particularly effective due to their limited warhead types, and once launched/fired they cannot be recalled. Some can have their target changed in-flight, but they will have to blow up SOMEWHERE.

Drones are better since they can carry anything a manned aircraft can, but they require a data link and are vulnerable to the satellite comms delay (a sufficiently fast missile could kill a drone before the operator has a chance to start evasive maneuvers).

I'll bet [the A10] could land on a carrier too, if they wanted it too. Add tailhook, will travel (yes, I know it might need a bit of structural engineering to permit that, but the airframe is built like a tank, so can probably handle that).

Oh, it could probably LAND on a carrier.

It just wouldn't be able to take off again.

The nose gear isn't on the centerline because of that huge antitank cannon, so it can't be modified to accept a catapult bridle (the Marines asked).

I think the problem with F-35 is that it was designed for a very specific mission – bombing targets in a heavily defended area but without enemy air being present.

Basically it was built around Baghdad 1991. Problem is that since 1991 this type of mission has never eventuated due to no opponents having even close to the mediocre capabilities that Iraq had.

The other problem is that opponents with the type of ground based systems the F-35 is meant to bypass also have large and relatively modern air forces equipped with a variety of modern aircraft, have the ability to strike airbases/ships the F-35 operates from and are developing their own stealth and counter-stealth capabilities.

They also have the ability to shut down force multipliers ala very non-stealthy AWACS and tankers, thus potentially crippling F-35 operations.

These opponents are of course China and Russia.

It's also interesting that the Israelis regard stealth as a perishable asset with a maximum of 5 years utility after service entry.

So the Israelis assume that by 2025, F-35s stealth capabilities will no longer provide any significant advantage.

So we're back to the 1970s/-80s requirements – large numbers of maneouvrable, multirole jets supported by heavily defended force multipliers.

@ Lion in the Stars : "And an F111 is too big to operate from a carrier." Guess you meant, B-1…

Risaldar Singh, maybe Lion In The Stars should rephrase to "the F-111B was too heavy to operate from a carrier in any sort of useful configuration, let alone fleet interceptor role." :P

I'd need to talk to a currently-serving carrier Sailor to find out what the current max weight is for carrier landings. Back when the F111B was getting designed, that limit was 50,000lbs. As far as I know, that's still the limit.

The F111B was also 5000lbs lighter than the USAF variants empty, and 10,000lbs heavier than the carrier recovery spec. And the F111B was still too heavy to safely operate while loaded with weapons.

For that matter, the F14 was too heavy to safely land on a carrier with a full load of 6 Phoenix missiles. That's why you almost always see them with Sparrows/AMRAAMs on the shoulder station.

I think if F-14s ever had to launch with 6 AIM-54s, they'd probably be landing with none and there'd be some scraps of debris floating in the Atlantic with cyrillic writing on it.

ThomasHobbes, you're completely right. With six AIM-54s, the Tomcat exceeded its maximum landing weight.

F-35? Joke. To expensive. To complicated. To difficult to maintain.
I bet that upgraded F-16/F-18 and MiGs-29/Su-27 be the workhorses of most of air forces on the World in many yaers. You need not to have super-dooper-turbo-stealth-ping-making-jet worth $200,000,000 USD+ to drop the napalm on
guerrillas in the middle of the forest…

We do, apparently……

Follow the taxpayers' money.