Well, forgive me for not "filtering it" for "potential offensiveness".

I think the pilot was completely on point (if not so "PC" on how he articulated his points).

Can we go back to talking about the F-35?

What I don't get is that these arguments are nonsensical.

So if a stealth aircraft is supposedly so easy to see, what do you think that makes existing non-stealth aircraft? Equal? Hell no! They're 10x, 100x, 1000x more visible!

It's like saying since camo uniforms are no good when the environment changes (using green in the snow for example), all infantry should just wear t-shirts and jeans, or maybe neon tracksuits. They cost less!

Also, there are 2 separate aspects. There is detection, and there is tracking. Detection is the first part. If you're not detected, you can't be tracked. Detection is easier. Yet detection may be nothing more than general knowledge that something is over there in this general area. It gives you an area to focus your attention on, but it doesn't mean you can destroy it. Stealth planes are much harder to detect than regular planes, but if you're close enough you can, or sometimes you'll see the hole they make in the clutter--a lack of garbage returns where there SHOULD be garbage returns.

Tracking is harder. It requires precise position information to begin and maintain. If you can't track a target, you can't shoot it. Knowing there's a stealth plane 20-25 miles away somewhere between 10k and 20k isn't useful. Detection gets you that. You need more to track. Stealth planes require a lot more to track than to detect, so much so that the operational idea is that by the time you can track them they have killed you already.

It's not like these stealth planes are being told to fly over SAM sites and not shoot at them. If you can destroy your adversary before they can destroy you, stealth has done its job.




The Jedi Master

+1 JM

My best friend was at RF 17-1 last week, photographing the action. He caught one of the 422nd F-15C with the Talon HATE package installed. Interesting plan to integrate the Eagle with the Raptor and possibly the -35.

As was said, the time to kill the F-35 was long ago. We're stuck with the bill, now to make the jet perform the mission.

For all of the F-35 critics, could you please let us know what you know that Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, IAF Commander, doesn't know? If you can, please be specific when countering his statements below:

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/isra...-missile-threat

�It�s more than just an aircraft. It will transform the entire service into a much more effective, much more lethal force,� Eshel said.

...

In an address devoted to the singular attributes of airpower, Eshel said the F-35 embodied flexibility, speed, agility and survivability that has become a central element of Israeli force strength. �It�s a revolution; far better than anything we have and anything that is flying in this region,� he said.

I don't think anyone doubts the capability of the F-35

people doubt the cost performance of the F-35

If you put up a flight of F-15's vs a single opponent (from whatever nation) would the single opponent still win the fight?

If you looked at the cost figures, would it still be worth it?

The F-35 is a fantastic aircraft but there needs to be a limit to how much you spend on each aircraft in order to ensure that the aircraft can actually be fielded with reasonable numbers against XYZ opponent in the future!

Cost controls need to be put into place. Lockheed needs to make it work for less money. Engineers are talented. They can figure out all kinds of interesting things if you put constraints on them.

ricnunes, a huge supporter of the F-35, has stated in the past that he believes that the MiG-31 is a very high capability aircraft, but if we consider the budget the MiG-25 and MiG-31 compared to the F-22 and F-35 programs, can we say that we're getting the same value for our money? I have to say I don't think so.

More ingenuity is needed at lower cost. Cost cuts (when necessary) force innovation.

First of all, there are LOTS of people who have been saying the F-35 won't perform well and is a bad aircraft.

But to focus on the cost, there's no doubt it's over budget and late, but I'd guess that the majority of defense projects, especially those with cutting-edge technology, are that way, so the F-35 is hardly unique in that regard.

Pricing, though, can be a bit tricky because the F-35 includes stuff that costs extra on other platforms, such as FLIR targeting and ECM. If you add those to the costs of those other aircraft, I'm not sure the difference is as great. Also, a lot of the numbers being floated around, like $1 trillion, aren't for just the basic aircraft, but also all the spare parts, fuel, etc., that they'll need to operate over their lifetime, so it can be a little confusing.

I still think the question is valid, though - if you think that way about the F-35, and people like Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel don't, why do you think that is? He specifically says that having the F-35 will make the 4th gen aircraft better, so having it seems to be better than just having more 4th gen aircraft, in his views

That's exactly what I've been saying but your explanation is probably simpler (and thus easier to understand) than mine.

So, like F4Udash4 said: +1

But once again you're ignoring the following facts:
1- The cost of the F-35 have been drastically dropping to the point that a current low rate production F-35A (LRIP 10) already costs less than $100 Million each ($94.6 Million to be more precise) and this already INCLUDING the engine.
2- Since the acquisition costs have drastically dropped you can bet that operational costs are also dropping as well.
Resuming you say that "Cost controls need to be put into place" but for some odd reason you ignore that cost control ARE already IN PLACE! There's lot's of evidence regarding this, like and again the second link that I posted in this thread (on my second post here) and CyBerkut also posted a similar link as well.
But again you keep ignoring this. And another evidence on this regard is again this Red Flag edition where the F-35 seem to have had the best maintenance record of all aircraft involved in this Red Flag exercise.

3- Even if the F-35 ends up having a higher maintenance cost than for example the F-15 (which I pretty much doubt!) you're ignoring the following:
3.1- In line with your question, YES a single F-35 will do the job of 4 (four) or more F-15 - I have no doubts about that. So yes, a single F-35 will be able to defeat a flight of 4 F-15s - again look at the record of the F-35 in Red Flag (15 to 1) and this using a "non-fully capable" (or "beta version" if you like) version of the software - the Block 3i.
3.2- Taking into consideration what I mentioned above, 4 (four) F-15 will cost MUCH, MUCH MORE to maintain (and obviously to acquire) than a single F-35.
3.3- And the same goes for higher numbers - for example 4 F-35s will do a better job than 16 F-15s. So in the end, the F-35 will not only be the best option is terms of quality but also the best in terms of actual costs (acquisition + maintenance).





What do you mean with ricnunes (me) believing that the MiG-31 is a very high capability aircraft?
You seem to imply that I said that the Mig-31 is the best "value for our money" but that's FALSE and please don't put "words my mouth" that I didn't say!

What I did say in a past discussion with you was that I considered (and still consider) the Mig-31 the biggest threat to western aircraft, namely to 4th gen fighter aircraft like the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, etc...
So lets not compared apples with oranges. And I said this because:
1- Russian technology, specially airborne fighter radars - or more precisely, miniaturization of electronic components - lags WAY behind it's western counterparts! And what does this mean? It means that in order for the Russians to have a very good or effective airborne fighter radar, namely in terms of detection and tracking range and effective against western Electronic Warfare, they (the Russians) need to build a "monster of a radar" (or resuming a very big and powerful radar) and the Mig-31 carries precisely that - A "monster of a radar"!

Therefore and again, I never said that the Mig-31 was a good/best concept since as we all can see the future is having multi-role fighter aircraft instead of specialized aircraft like for example interceptors (which is what the Mig-31 is).
During that same discussion I acknowledged (something which BTW, you seem unwilling to do) that there's another Russian radar/fighter combo which is likely more threatening to western aircraft than the Mig-31 which is the Ibris-E/Su-35 combo. But again the Ibris-E is still "monster of a radar"!
So if we exclude Su-35/Ibris-E, I still believe that the Mig-31 is the biggest aerial threat to western aircraft and again this has NOTHING TO DO with the (Mig-31) concept being good or bad.

Besides a similar reasoning can be followed if we look into another nation - Iran.
If we look at Iran's air force and try to identify what is its biggest aerial threat than I believe that most will say that it would be the F-14. Now does the F-14 gives the "best value for money"?? Obviously not and this goes even to the point where the US Navy already retired their F-14s a decade ago.

I hope this time my point becomes "clearer" to you (although I'm starting to have my doubts).

Wait a minute, here...

The Su-35, which is essentially a Su-27 derivative, costs anywhere from $40 to $60 million a jet. It's supposedly this huge boogeyman that will totally wipe the floor with current generation aircraft like the F-15, F-16, and F-18. I can't find many figures for previous MiG-31s, but the MiG-31E is quoted at having a price of roughly ~$60 million a jet. If we're doing an apples to apples comparison, how does the F-16E/F and F-15SA compare to the Su-35 and MiG-31? Ignoring the fact that currently, there are less than 100 Su-35s in existence and some 500 MiG-31s built, though not in current service.

I won't argue capability - the F-35 has it, and it'd better for the price it costs. It also, sadly enough, has become 'too big to fail' and we're stuck with it, for better or for worse. The question should be will the F-35 be able to fill the roles left behind by the F-16 and legacy F-18? Can it do so in such a way to argue a $40 million increase in price tag over an F-16E/F? Is it worth that price to ignore needs in airlift and close air support? Will anyone be willing to risk losing an F-35 to accomplish a mission?

If the F-35 can only fill some of the roles asked of it, then why shouldn't we cut procurement numbers and shift those funds to aircraft that can?

Russian avionics are not on par with the US, let alone the UK/France. Su-35s use some French avionics as well. Likewise, the Russians are still trying to get the R-77 into service. The AIM-120 has been in service for over two decades now, and many new capabilities have been added to it. On the other hand, the Russians are still trying to improve the R-77 to the point it will be up to par and mass produced.

The Su-35 has an excellent air-frame, but it lacks the avionics and weapon systems of western aircraft. The Russians have still not fielded an anti tank missile as good as the AGM-65, let alone the Brimestone. The KH-29 is massive and you can only carry a few of them compared to their western counterparts. The Su-35 would be a superb aircraft if it had the advanced western avionics, but then it would probably cost roughly the same as a modern F-15E (much more expensive than the F-35).

No, the Su-35 is not up to par with the F-15. It is certainly competitive, but it is simply not as good. Essentially all of the Cold War era military equipment out of Russia is the same, with the exception of SAMs and artillery.

The MIG-31 is a glorified bomber chaser; a Cold War relic. Certainly better for its time than the MIG-25, but that is not saying much. Yes, occasionally, the Soviets put out something better than the west. The R-73 is an example. But those instances are abnormalities. No, the MIG-31s will not orbit and act as a giant AWACS.

Coming back to the F-35, I believe the cost is now below the Rafale/Eurofighter.

Here's a question I've not seen addressed:

Since current in service US fighters are wearing out and need to be replaced what should we replace them with: updated versions of aircraft designed in the 60's-70's or new aircraft designed in the 90's-00's?

I think the answer to that should be clear.

The problem with what you say which is the same as many/most F-35 critics say, is that the values that you mention aren't true or resuming there are not accurate.
For example the most advanced version of the F-16, the F-16V (which for example uses a radar derived from the F-35 radar, the APG-81) is estimated to cost $70 Million USD per unit while a full production F-35A is estimated to cost $85 Million USD or even less. I don't remember the cost per unit of the F-16E/F but it shouldn't be far (or much cheaper) than the cost per unit of the F-16V.
So isn't an extra $15 Million USD (on top of $70 Million) or around 21% more worth for an aircraft (F-35) which is at least 400% better (or way more) than older aircraft like the F-16?

Also and like Flogger23m said, the F-35 is already much less expensive than many or even most 4.5 gen fighter aircraft like the Typhoon and Rafale (and the Gripen E as well).

I fully agree Flogger23m.

And to be clear I never said that the Mig-31 was any better than western aircraft like the F-15!
What I meant is that Russian technology lags behind (is not on par) with US or even western European technology and as such only Russian fighter aircraft with very big/huge radars will have some fighting change (note "fighting change" and not "better"!) against western fighter aircraft and these Russian fighter aircraft with very big/huge radars are/include the Mig-31 and more recently the Su-35 with Ibris-E.

Obviously I believe that for example the F-15s equipped with AESA radars will still be better the Mig-31 and the Su-35/Ibris-E. However in theory these Russian aircraft should have some fighting chance (even still being inferior) while other variants of the Su-27 and not to mention the Mig-29 won't even have this "fighting chance".

And why do I say this? We just need to look at Desert Storm in 1991 where the only Iraqi aircraft that had some success was exactly the Mig-25 where it managed to shot down one F/A-18 Hornet (a much more advanced fighter aircraft than the Mig-25) while only 2 (two) Mig-25s were lost in air-to-air combat during Desert Storm.
If we look at the Iraqi Mig-25 combat record during Desert Storm we can see that it was 1:2 and while being a "negative record", the Mig-25 combat record was FAR better than the combat record of any other Iraqi fighter aircraft, namely much better than the supposedly much more advanced Mig-29 (which as you certainly know the Iraq Air Force also operated during Desert Storm).

Where is this $85 million figure coming from? The latest figures I saw claim the F-35A is $94.6 million, the F-35B $122.8 million, and the F-35C $121.8 million. Much of the cost reduction because of recent rumblings regarding the overall cost of the program. If orders are cut, how much will that cost rise?

Where is this 400% better coming from? Is it really that much better for dropping a bomb on a tent? If it is in the air dominance field, isn't that infringing on the F-22's mission? If that's the case, wouldn't we be out ahead to mothball the F-22 and replace it with the F-35?



I think you've hit on why a lot of people are skeptical about the F-35: you're speaking in theory when no one really knows what direction the next conflict will take, if any. The vast majority of potential adversaries do not have access to peer generation aircraft, much less future generation aircraft; further, very few will be able to afford them in sufficient quantities to be a threat to an allied coalition. If we assume that the west somehow ends up in a conflict with Russia or China, the world is already lost because the moment one side gains the conventional advantage, the other goes straight nuclear. Even if you somehow take nuclear out of the conflict, the end result is not only that the west has far greater numbers of more capable aircraft, but far greater numbers of capable personnel as well. Su-35s and MiG-31s may never even get off the ground due to lack of parts and personnel.

A lot of people are critical about the need for not just the F-35 itself, but the vast numbers of them. A reasonable argument could be made for the F-35B since the AV-8Bs are so limited in number and almost completely worn out, but the Air Force has backed itself into a corner because they didn't continue with incremental upgrades to the F-16 and F-15. Further, if we want to get into the age of the airframes, why are B-52s still around? Those have been in service since the '50s! To put it another way: why should the taxpayer be paying for the Air Force's mismanagement of its own programs?

Regarding the F/A-18 shootdown in ODS: it's never been confirmed that a MiG-25 shot down Scott Speicher, just speculation by a number of conspiracy theorists. If it was shot down, it was most likely by a SAM, but there is strong evidence to indicate mechanical failure above all.

https://youtu.be/6KBmv6HBltM


From the horses mouth

I agree with Franze. I don't think that the F-35 is needed or affordable in large numbers because of the Nuke option with theoretical opponents. Whats needed is opposition for the numerous small actor nations which seem to be popping up like packs of dogs.

15 and 1 w/ an Incomplete Software/Block Package and Weapons Capability.

From several sources, namely from the manufacturer itself - Lockheed Martin, here:

https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost


In the link above you can read the following:
"The goal of these programs is to drive the cost of an F-35A to less than $85 million in 2019, where it will be equivalent to, or less, than any 4th-generation fighter."

Reading better it seems that a full production F-35 (by 2019) will even cost less than $85 million.

By the way, those costs you came with are from LRIP 10 and LRIP stands for Low Rate Initial Production which is equivalent to say that it's a pre/low rate production which obviously is more costly than a full rate production which will start next year if I'm not mistaken. So and considering that a low rate production F-35A already costs 94.6 million I have absolutely no reasons to doubt that a full production F-35 will cost $85 Million or less each.




Again, from several sources like for example from Red Flag results (see the first post and first link in this thread) where the F-35A achieved kills of 15 to 1 in situations where pilots admitted that it would be impossible for any 4th generation fighter aircraft to even survive let alone to "destroy" the enemy and complete the mission like the F-35s managed to do. So I would say that "being 400% better" is almost certainly a conservative value.
Also like Skatezilla said, this was done using non-fully capably software (Block 3i) than just imagine what would be accomplished if and when the F-35s will carry the fully combat capable Block 3F software.






The reasons why a "lot of people are skeptical about the F-35" are the same as why people were skeptical about the F-14, the F-16, the F/A-18, etc... when these aircraft were being developed and about to be fielded.

Here I have a "gem" for you. Anyone that watches the following video and abstracts from the "F/A-18" name will have a "deva vu" regarding all the press around the F-35 - but this news article was about the F/A-18 in 1980 - well here it is:








Well all I can say is, considering that the F-35 will cost about the same as a 4th gen fighter aircraft (and I've already proved this to you twice) and if you cannot buy the F-35 in sufficient numbers, guess what?
- You won't be able to buy 4th or 4.5th fighter aircraft (like the Super Hornet) in sufficient numbers as well!




Actually this F/A-18 shootdown is pretty much confirmed. It's actually the ONLY confirmed Iraqi air-to-air kill. There are several reasons and facts why this shotdown is confirmed, such as:

1- The ESM of the AWACS and E-2C both detect a lock-on signal from the direction of the MiG-25. The signal was not that of a western type radar.
2- The AWACS and E-2C both sent warnings to the flight of four F/A-18's but there was no follow up.
3- The F/A-18C's RWR went on for a few seconds before Lt Speicher's air craft was hit by a missile.
4- The MiG-25 approached the F/A-18 flight about sixty degrees of their course but it then passed behind them.
5- There were no SAM sites (fixed or mobile) in that area.
6- The rank and name of the Iraqi pilot flying the Mig-25 is known: Lieutenant Colonel Zuhair Dawood

This thread is ALMOST as cool as the old FM threads in the IL2 board, well I didn't read them much either because, well like this thread, NONE OF THEM HAD EVER FLOWN THE BIRD THEY ARE "EXPERT" ON!

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

They still cost more than a deathstar.