President Trump Joins the Line of Critics for F-35

[Rio Cana]

The F-35 is a good plane. It's just got teething problems which is to be expected on a program of this magnitude. Once the software is up to spec and it's started to enter more widespread service the aircraft will be fine. Does the program have issues? Yes, but at this point we have the plane nearly done and we've ended up in a position where we don't have any alternatives. The production lines for the F-15, F-16, F-18 and F-22 are either winding down or closed. The US does not have any comparable aircraft under development. End the F-35 and you end the ability of the US to make it's own fighter aircraft. By the time whatever replacement you came up with gets as far along as the F-35 is all of the fighter aircraft production lines will be closed and the people who make the damn things will have retired without replacement.

And no building more aircraft based on 30+ year old designs is not a solution. A 30 year old design ten years from now will not be anywhere near as competitive as the F-35 will be.

In unclassified news I went to an expo recently and we were shown a new anti-tank round being developed. This new round is designed to penetrate the armor of a tank and through that little penetration (Don't exactly know how big the hole would be) it would create vacuum that would suck all crew members inside to the outside (I've heard the theory is that it is similar to hole been blown into a shuttle in space for example). Currently they are in final stages of production and one the things that holding it back is the debate of whether this weapon is unethical or ethical.

That is not how differences in pressure work. Creating a vacuum inside the tank would literally cause the exact opposite of forcing things out of the container. You've no doubt completely misunderstood how the round worked.

Israel , if Israel bought this expensive fighter then it has to be good since they tend to seek the best militiary equipment when it comes to defending there nation. Of course, the problem with this fighter is not really the cost if it does what it is said to do. The problem is the continued development in technology. Someone might invent a much cheaper defense weapon that can take away the effectiveness of this very expensive fighter.

[The Two Jerseys]

The F-35B should never even have been attempted. Designing an aircraft that works for both the Navy and Air Force is a feasible goal (look at how the Phantom turned out, and they weren't even trying), but VTOL capability in the same airframe is a step too far.

Arguably yes the VTOL version should have been a different airframe and different project. But it is too late at this point. In hindsight obviously the F-35 program could have been done better. But we cannot go back in time to change that.

We can only pray they learned their lesson for next time. I wouldn't hold my breath...

[Arkinesia]

The F-35B should never even have been attempted. Designing an aircraft that works for both the Navy and Air Force is a feasible goal (look at how the Phantom turned out, and they weren't even trying), but VTOL capability in the same airframe is a step too far.

Arguably yes the VTOL version should have been a different airframe and different project. But it is too late at this point. In hindsight obviously the F-35 program could have been done better. But we cannot go back in time to change that.

Arguably the VTOL fighter project, in any form, shouldn't even exist. The Corps keeps bitching about how badly they need a VTOL, to which my response remains that guess what, we have helicopters now, and if you can't figure out a way to repurpose 1200 consecutive feet of ground into a runway (and we have the technology to get supersonic fighters off the ground, unassisted, in 1200 feet), you don't have space for temporary storage of VTOL jets anyway.

VTOL is the ultimate waste of time. The Harrier was secretly dogshit and everyone is just enabling the idiocy the Corps keeps pushing about a “““need””” for VTOL fighters.

[The Two Jerseys]

Arguably yes the VTOL version should have been a different airframe and different project. But it is too late at this point. In hindsight obviously the F-35 program could have been done better. But we cannot go back in time to change that.

Arguably the VTOL fighter project, in any form, shouldn't even exist. The Corps keeps bitching about how badly they need a VTOL, to which my response remains that guess what, we have helicopters now, and if you can't figure out a way to repurpose 1200 consecutive feet of ground into a runway (and we have the technology to get supersonic fighters off the ground, unassisted, in 1200 feet), you don't have space for temporary storage of VTOL jets anyway.

VTOL is the ultimate waste of time. The Harrier was secretly dogshit and everyone is just enabling the idiocy the Corps keeps pushing about a “““need””” for VTOL fighters.

Between aircraft carriers and midair refueling, what's the likelihood that the Marines are even going to be operating from improvised airstrips anymore?

And it's not like the Harrier ever had an air-to-air capability that justified the need for a new VTOL fighter.

[Novus America]

Arguably yes the VTOL version should have been a different airframe and different project. But it is too late at this point. In hindsight obviously the F-35 program could have been done better. But we cannot go back in time to change that.

Arguably the VTOL fighter project, in any form, shouldn't even exist. The Corps keeps bitching about how badly they need a VTOL, to which my response remains that guess what, we have helicopters now, and if you can't figure out a way to repurpose 1200 consecutive feet of ground into a runway (and we have the technology to get supersonic fighters off the ground, unassisted, in 1200 feet), you don't have space for temporary storage of VTOL jets anyway.

VTOL is the ultimate waste of time. The Harrier was secretly dogshit and everyone is just enabling the idiocy the Corps keeps pushing about a “““need””” for VTOL fighters.

Umm most western carriers are VTOL. Without VTOL NATO loses most of our aircraft carriers...
VTOL can be very useful. Helicopters cannot do everything a miltirole fighter can.

Harrier is not the greatest fighter true, but you know without it the U.K. would have lost the Falklands right?

[The Corparation]

And it's not like the Harrier ever had an air-to-air capability that justified the need for a new VTOL fighter.

You know because it's not like the Falklands War ever happened or anything.

[Philjia]

Arguably the VTOL fighter project, in any form, shouldn't even exist. The Corps keeps bitching about how badly they need a VTOL, to which my response remains that guess what, we have helicopters now, and if you can't figure out a way to repurpose 1200 consecutive feet of ground into a runway (and we have the technology to get supersonic fighters off the ground, unassisted, in 1200 feet), you don't have space for temporary storage of VTOL jets anyway.

VTOL is the ultimate waste of time. The Harrier was secretly dogshit and everyone is just enabling the idiocy the Corps keeps pushing about a “““need””” for VTOL fighters.

Between aircraft carriers and midair refueling, what's the likelihood that the Marines are even going to be operating from improvised airstrips anymore?

And it's not like the Harrier ever had an air-to-air capability that justified the need for a new VTOL fighter.

You need some VTOL capability to get off of an aircraft carrier. The UK has mothballed it's Harriers, and now we have no planes that can be launched from our aircraft carriers.

[The Great Devourer of All]

And it's not like the Harrier ever had an air-to-air capability that justified the need for a new VTOL fighter.

You know because it's not like the Falklands War ever happened or anything.

Your flag has Calvin and Hobbes on it. You should be more worried about messing up that F-4 model than the government messing up the F-35.

[The Two Jerseys]

And it's not like the Harrier ever had an air-to-air capability that justified the need for a new VTOL fighter.

You know because it's not like the Falklands War ever happened or anything.

And when have the US Marines used the Harrier as a fighter?

Go on, I'll wait.

Between aircraft carriers and midair refueling, what's the likelihood that the Marines are even going to be operating from improvised airstrips anymore?

And it's not like the Harrier ever had an air-to-air capability that justified the need for a new VTOL fighter.

You need some VTOL capability to get off of an aircraft carrier. The UK has mothballed it's Harriers, and now we have no planes that can be launched from our aircraft carriers.

Catapults and arrester wires.

I rest my case.

[Gig em Aggies]

You know because it's not like the Falklands War ever happened or anything.

And when have the US Marines used the Harrier as a fighter?

Go on, I'll wait.

You need some VTOL capability to get off of an aircraft carrier. The UK has mothballed it's Harriers, and now we have no planes that can be launched from our aircraft carriers.

Catapults and arrester wires.

I rest my case.

Ahem not ever nation is as rich as America and can't afford a massive conventional carrier using arresting wires and catapults. Plus VTOL carriers are so much more cheaper and easier to maintain. Plus not everyone needs a US style carrier these days.

[Vassenor]

You know because it's not like the Falklands War ever happened or anything.

And when have the US Marines used the Harrier as a fighter?

Go on, I'll wait.

You need some VTOL capability to get off of an aircraft carrier. The UK has mothballed it's Harriers, and now we have no planes that can be launched from our aircraft carriers.

Catapults and arrester wires.

I rest my case.

...So the USMC is the only armed service in the world that matters or something? Or are you just trying to ignore when Harriers went 20-0 in air to air combat because that would be inconvenient for your narrative?

[The Two Jerseys]

And when have the US Marines used the Harrier as a fighter?

Go on, I'll wait.

Catapults and arrester wires.

I rest my case.

...So the USMC is the only armed service in the world that matters or something? Or are you just trying to ignore when Harriers went 20-0 in air to air combat because that would be inconvenient for your narrative?

When we're talking about an aircraft that's being developed by the United States Department of Defense for the primary use of the United States Armed Forces, yes, the USMC is the only force that matters.

And the USMC doesn't need a VTOL fighter.

[The Corparation]

You know because it's not like the Falklands War ever happened or anything.

And when have the US Marines used the Harrier as a fighter?

Go on, I'll wait.

The AV-8B+ has better Air to Air capability than the Sea Harrier so clearly the USMC feels that it's an important capability. At any rate Air to Air isn't the primary mission of the Harrier and won't be the primary mission of the F-35B. The USMC has mostly used their harriers for ground attack missions and the F-35 is shaping up to be an extremely good attack aircraft.

You need some VTOL capability to get off of an aircraft carrier. The UK has mothballed it's Harriers, and now we have no planes that can be launched from our aircraft carriers.

Catapults and arrester wires.

I rest my case.

The US is not the only customer for the F-35. Not everyone can afford a CATOBAR carrier and even within the US Military you can't fit a catapult and arrestor wires onto a LHA.

[Novus America]

You know because it's not like the Falklands War ever happened or anything.

And when have the US Marines used the Harrier as a fighter?

Go on, I'll wait.

You need some VTOL capability to get off of an aircraft carrier. The UK has mothballed it's Harriers, and now we have no planes that can be launched from our aircraft carriers.

Catapults and arrester wires.

I rest my case.

The Marines have used the Harrier as a strike fighter. And might have to use it as a on in the future , it is a strong possibility. The amphibious ships used by Marines do not have and cannot be equipped with catapults. Half of US carriers are VTOL only.

And every non US NATO carrier besides the De Gaul is VTOL only.

Having no VTOL would greatly reduce the carrier strength of NATO including the US.

[Fartsniffage]

And when have the US Marines used the Harrier as a fighter?

Go on, I'll wait.

Catapults and arrester wires.

I rest my case.

The Marines have used the Harrier as a strike fighter. And might have to use it as a on in the future , it is a strong possibility. The amphibious ships used by Marines do not have and cannot be equipped with catapults. Half of US carriers are VTOL only.

And every non US NATO carrier besides the De Gaul is VTOL only.

Having no VTOL would greatly reduce the carrier strength of NATO including the US.

UK still should have stuck CATOBAR on our new carriers though....

[The Corparation]

...So the USMC is the only armed service in the world that matters or something? Or are you just trying to ignore when Harriers went 20-0 in air to air combat because that would be inconvenient for your narrative?

When we're talking about an aircraft that's being developed by the United States Department of Defense for the primary use of the United States Armed Forces, yes, the USMC is the only force that matters.

And the USMC doesn't need a VTOL fighter.

You do realize that since the start the F-35 has always been intended to be used by people besides the US don't you? The UK signed onto the project before it was even called Joint Strike Fighter. The majority of people on this site weren't even born yet. I think it's a little silly to say the second largest contributor to the program doesn't matter.

[Novus America]

...So the USMC is the only armed service in the world that matters or something? Or are you just trying to ignore when Harriers went 20-0 in air to air combat because that would be inconvenient for your narrative?

When we're talking about an aircraft that's being developed by the United States Department of Defense for the primary use of the United States Armed Forces, yes, the USMC is the only force that matters.

And the USMC doesn't need a VTOL fighter.

It is not being developed only by the US for the US. Other countries have paid money into it to. And exports are good for the US economy.

And the US does need it, or we lose half of our carriers.

[Novus America]

The Marines have used the Harrier as a strike fighter. And might have to use it as a on in the future , it is a strong possibility. The amphibious ships used by Marines do not have and cannot be equipped with catapults. Half of US carriers are VTOL only.

And every non US NATO carrier besides the De Gaul is VTOL only.

Having no VTOL would greatly reduce the carrier strength of NATO including the US.

UK still should have stuck CATOBAR on our new carriers though....

Maybe.
They are big enough unlike the tiny ones they replace. Still the U.K. is the second largest partner in the project, and they want VTOL. Still other NATO countries including the US operate VTOL only carriers.

Their is a large demand for VTOL fighters.

[Occupied Deutschland]

When we're talking about an aircraft that's being developed by the United States Department of Defense for the primary use of the United States Armed Forces, yes, the USMC is the only force that matters.

And the USMC doesn't need a VTOL fighter.

It is not being developed only by the US for the US. Other countries have paid money into it to. And exports are good for the US economy.

And the US does need it, or we lose half of our carriers.

I'm not sure if 'half our carriers' is a reasonable comparison point considering the difference in capability between Wasp and America assault ships and real CVNs.

I mean, it's a fair point. Those ships become less capable without VTOL aircraft that can utilize them. But phrasing it that way makes it sound like the Navy suddenly went full-retard while people weren't looking and built themselves into a VTOL-carrier hole.

[The Two Jerseys]

If every other country wants a VTOL F-35, they should be providing the entire cost of the VTOL variant. Or heaven forbid they develop their own aircraft...

The US not using the F-35B will not reduce our carrier strength, because amphibious assault ships cannot even operate the same aircraft that a CVN operates.

[Novus America]

It is not being developed only by the US for the US. Other countries have paid money into it to. And exports are good for the US economy.

And the US does need it, or we lose half of our carriers.

I'm not sure if 'half our carriers' is a reasonable comparison point considering the difference in capability between Wasp and America assault ships and real CVNs.

I mean, it's a fair point. Those ships become less capable without VTOL aircraft that can utilize them. But phrasing it that way makes it sound like the Navy suddenly went full-retard while people weren't looking and built themselves into a VTOL-carrier hole.

Which is why I said half our carriers, and not half our carrier strength. In total number of ships we would lose half.

Not half our carrier planes.

[Novus America]

If every other country wants a VTOL F-35, they should be providing the entire cost of the VTOL variant. Or heaven forbid they develop their own aircraft...

The US not using the F-35B will not reduce our carrier strength, because amphibious assault ships cannot even operate the same aircraft that a CVN operates.

It is better for our ecnomy they buy ours instead of making their own.

And Umm you just completely contradicted yourself. Yes our amphibious carriers cannot operate the same aircraft as the CVNs, hence why they NEED a DIFFERENT aircraft.

[Occupied Deutschland]

If every other country wants a VTOL F-35, they should be providing the entire cost of the VTOL variant. Or heaven forbid they develop their own aircraft...

The US not using the F-35B will not reduce our carrier strength, because amphibious assault ships cannot even operate the same aircraft that a CVN operates.

But they can, and do, operate VTOL aircraft.

Much as trying to go VTOL on the same airframe as a conventional aircraft might have been a dunderhead design move, it's long-past the stage where it could be corrected, and the US does see a benefit from having a VTOL aircraft in its inventory. The F-35B, by regrettable default, has to be that aircraft. Not having such does limit the flexibility currently provided by AV-8B equipped LHDs and LHAs.

[The Two Jerseys]

If every other country wants a VTOL F-35, they should be providing the entire cost of the VTOL variant. Or heaven forbid they develop their own aircraft...

The US not using the F-35B will not reduce our carrier strength, because amphibious assault ships cannot even operate the same aircraft that a CVN operates.

It is better for our ecnomy they buy ours instead of making their own.

And Umm you just completely contradicted yourself. Yes our amphibious carriers cannot operate the same aircraft as the CVNs, hence why they NEED a DIFFERENT aircraft.

They already have helicopters and ground attack Harriers.

They don't need a strike fighter, because CVNs.

[Rio Cana]

When we're talking about an aircraft that's being developed by the United States Department of Defense for the primary use of the United States Armed Forces, yes, the USMC is the only force that matters.

And the USMC doesn't need a VTOL fighter.

It is not being developed only by the US for the US. Other countries have paid money into it to. And exports are good for the US economy.

And the US does need it, or we lose half of our carriers.

There is an article which says aircraft carriers will become obsolete. While there is another article which says laser technology will make aircraft carriers quite powerful.

Is there not more money in exporting electric fans worldwide. I do know that in 2013, the Chinese bought 138 million electric fans. And yes, there is still one US electric fan company left in PA.

There product - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPQLeS4pN_k