# F-35: top gun or 'dog' **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 22, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914 "2013-08-22T22:22:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/301 "2013-09-13T13:30:15Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > If you want to talk about really absurd weapons systems, how about the conversion of Trident sub launched ICBMs to conventional warheads? Instead of the nuke, use a 1 billion missile (launched from a SSBN submarine), to deliver a 2 ton warhead! We can destroy a Taliban village for only 1 billion! This is the age ob absurd war-spend a fortune to attack a 15th century enemy, What “$1 billion missile”? Tridents cost $30m apiece. Tomahawks cost $1.45m in their most advanced version. An entire Ohio-class submarine only costs $2 billion. Seriously, where do you get this nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/302 "2013-09-13T13:36:48Z")
> [@Gack](#): > > Lord have mercy ! Things have calmed down, and, er, I clearly demonstrated, for anyone who read and understood the Dani post, that the F-117 is a complete joke. I’m saying no more on that subject. you’ve clearly demonstrated how little you know about anything. You though the F-117 was a fighter aircraft and then went on to say it required escort in combat which is the exact opposite of the truth. It was the front line aircraft that required support. It took specialized aircraft to jam radar and it took specialized aircraft to destroy anti-aircraft missiles. That’s why there are many different versions of production planes. They each have a specific mission to accomplish. That you don’t understand this is mind boggling considering how easy it is to read up on the subject via the internet. ---
**Author:** ![AdamF](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/adamf/32/6246_2.png) [@AdamF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AdamF)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/303 "2013-09-13T13:37:16Z")
> [@Gack](#): > > Things have calmed down, and, er, I clearly demonstrated, for anyone who read and understood the Dani post, that the F-117 is a complete joke. Since nobody else is doing it, I have to disabuse you of this notion. You failed to persuade a single person, they just grew tired of responding to you. F-117 was an excellent aircraft designed for a very specific single mission (attacking hardened and defended high-priority targets). And it could do it very well. It certainly wasn’t 100% successful, but it was a lot better than any other aircraft at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/304 "2013-09-13T13:39:06Z")
I think tankers are useless because they serve no function unless there are other aircraft around them. Why can’t they complete their missions without other aircraft being involved, huh? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/305 "2013-09-13T14:25:10Z")
> [@Gack](#): > > Lord have mercy ! Things have calmed down, and, er, I clearly demonstrated, for anyone who read and understood the Dani post, that the F-117 is a complete joke. I’m saying no more on that subject. Sadly, you were unable to read and comprehend it yourself. The only thing you clearly demonstrated was that you don’t have a clue on this subject (we won’t get into your marvelous contributions in other threads on other subjects) and your ability to delude yourself with erroneous feelings of adequacy. On the good side, though, ralph124c seems to be with you, so that’s something. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/306 "2013-09-13T15:12:26Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > If you want to talk about really absurd weapons systems, how about the conversion of Trident sub launched ICBMs to conventional warheads? Instead of the nuke, use a 1 billion missile (launched from a SSBN submarine), to deliver a 2 ton warhead! We can destroy a Taliban village for only 1 billion! This is the age ob absurd war-spend a fortune to attack a 15th century enemy, The Conventional Trident Modification program was never funded by Congress. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/307 "2013-09-13T15:37:31Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The Conventional Trident Modification program was never funded by Congress. Is he thinking of [the Ohio classes that got converted to SSGNs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_submarine#U.S._Navy) last decade? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/308 "2013-09-13T15:41:02Z")
Those missiles are _cheaper_. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/309 "2013-09-13T16:38:55Z")
> [@Gack](#): > > Lord have mercy ! Things have calmed down, and, er, I clearly demonstrated, for anyone who read and understood the Dani post, that the F-117 is a complete joke. I’m saying no more on that subject. You never demonstrated anything. You claimed stealth doesn’t work, but have never given any evidence for your bizarre conspiracy theory, except to repeat it ad infinitum. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/310 "2013-09-13T19:32:31Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Is he thinking of [the Ohio classes that got converted to SSGNs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_submarine#U.S._Navy) last decade? Who knows. He doesn’t have a very strong record of being precise and accurate with posts like that, so far all I know he’s talking about some weapon that Werner von Braun put on the _H.L. Hunley_. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/311 "2013-09-18T19:43:47Z")
I’m only bumping this because I just read a really interesting interview with a Marine pilot who has flown the F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35, as well as being a TOPGUN instructor and even a Forward Air Controller. That, my friends, is a hell of a resume. [Link.](http://breakingdefense.com/2013/09/16/shaping-new-combat-instincts-prepping-for-5th-generation-warfare/) The short of it is that he does not portray 5th generation aircraft (neither F-35s or F-22s) as silver bullets that are just going to obliterate the enemy all by themselves. He talks about how those capabilities are so much greater than what our current aircraft offer, that 4th and 5th generation aircraft should be blended together operationally. I think his views are really interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/312 "2013-09-19T02:33:52Z")
What you mention about how 4th and 5th are not really that apart is the opinion of many other, i.e., that 5th gen is not a clear not type of plane. Just bring back the A-6 and SR-71 and I’ll be happy. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/313 "2013-09-19T02:59:06Z")
Sure, there’s people who are marketing 4.5 gen airplanes who want to say that they are 5th gen aircraft. Just like how producers of Kraft Singles pretend that their product is cheese. ---
**Author:** ![Gack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecccb3/32.png) [@Gack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gack)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/314 "2013-09-19T03:30:49Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m only bumping this because I just read a really interesting interview with a Marine pilot who has flown the F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35, as well as being a TOPGUN instructor and even a Forward Air Controller. That, my friends, is a hell of a resume. > > [Link.](http://breakingdefense.com/2013/09/16/shaping-new-combat-instincts-prepping-for-5th-generation-warfare/) The short of it is that he does not portray 5th generation aircraft (neither F-35s or F-22s) as silver bullets that are just going to obliterate the enemy all by themselves. He talks about how those capabilities are so much greater than what our current aircraft offer, that 4th and 5th generation aircraft should be blended together operationally. I think his views are really interesting. The way I read it he never mentions the flight characteristics of the plane or the stealth characteristics of the plane or the weapons on the plane but instead focuses on the information systems on the plane … ““The F-35 adds layers of depth on top of what the F-22 has because there are so many different sensors looking at any field — anything in the spectrum deep, not just the radar.” and "In the fifth-generation world, you do not have wingmen and you do not have data. You have information. The data is behind the glass and the screen provides the information. In effect you are shifting from being a tactical asset doing tactical aircraft missions to a more strategic engagement.” Well, I don’t know what that means. I think a few examples of what this means in specific scenarios would be helpful, even necessary, for the layman to understand what he’s talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/315 "2014-07-04T19:36:18Z")
[All F-35s have been grounded until engine inspections are completed](http://news.yahoo.com/u-grounds-entire-f-35-fleet-pending-engine-004829590--finance.html). ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/316 "2015-02-22T22:39:23Z")
[U.S. Navy to Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Stealth Fighter: “We’re Just Not That Into You”](http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/22/us-navy-to-lockheed-martins-f-35-stealth-fighter-w.aspx) > [@](#): > > n fact, China says it already has a radar system capable of detecting the F-35 at distances of 240 to 360 miles… > > If true, that largely negates the advantages of stealth. > > Now add to that negation the fact that Lockheed Martin’s F-35 is only truly stealthy when partially loaded… To achieve its full stealth potential, therefore, the F-35 is limited to whatever weapons it can carry internally – just 17% of a full weapons load. > > For the U.S. Navy, that’s a problem… > > \ > > [Defense analyst Richard] Aboulafia said the Navy could cut its buy down to just 200 F-35Cs in total – 23% fewer than the 260 originally planned. At $154 million per aircraft, that’s a potential $9.2 billion loss of revenue to Lockheed. > > And even that’s not the worst possible scenario. > > “There are some officers in the Navy,” warned Aboulafia, who would prefer to “shift all funding to the sixth generation” – to skip further F-35 purchases, make do with present-day fourth-generation aircraft, and save the service’s money for investment in the envisioned new F/A-XX aircraft. The McDonnell-Douglas F-4 _Phantom II_ worked great as a common aircraft between the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The more advanced General Dynamics F-111 fighter/bomber… not so much. I think the F-35 is a huge waste of money. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/317 "2015-02-22T22:59:45Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > The McDonnell-Douglas F-4 _Phantom II_ worked great as a common aircraft between the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The more advanced General Dynamics F-111 fighter/bomber… not so much. I think the F-35 is a huge waste of money. I wonder if it is a matter of the direction development takes. If you take an excellent Navy plane, you can reduce the weight by swapping out the strengthened landing gear for something not intended to bounce on carrier decks and by removing the tailhook. If you start from a position of “joint” development, the designers are going to play hob trying to fit conflicting requests into a single airframe. Like the _Phantom II_, the Navy’s FJ _Fury_ turned into the superb F-86 _Sabre_ when the Air Force picked up a copy and stripped off the extra weight. Heck, even the P-12 was basically a Navy F4B in Air Corps markings. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/318 "2015-02-22T23:02:04Z")
The A and C variants have much more internal fuel than the B variant. Am I correct in assuming that that additional fuel occupies the volume that in the B variant holds the lift fan? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/319 "2015-02-23T01:27:15Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > [U.S. Navy to Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Stealth Fighter: “We’re Just Not That Into You”](http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/22/us-navy-to-lockheed-martins-f-35-stealth-fighter-w.aspx) > The McDonnell-Douglas F-4 _Phantom II_ worked great as a common aircraft between the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The more advanced General Dynamics F-111 fighter/bomber… not so much. I think the F-35 is a huge waste of money. I disagree, but I find it ironic that the Chinese are so seemingly dismissive of the F-35 (I’m also highly skeptical that they have in fact broken it’s stealth because, frankly, if they had they would be idiots to say so) since the J-31 is basically an attempt to copy the F-35. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/320 "2015-02-23T01:35:20Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I disagree With what? That the F-4 was very successful between forces? That the F-111 wasn’t? Or that the F-35 is a huge waste of money? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914.md?page=17)