Well if there's still any doubt that the F-35 really works and is hand down superior to any 4th gen aircraft, I hope the following article finally dismisses it:

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/red-flag-gives-f-35a-its-toughest-test-yet


For example you can read above that in Read Flag the F-35 have been subjected to extremely challenging scenarios and despite it, the F-35 is achieving a kill ratio of 15 to 1 (in favour of the F-35, obviously).
I hope this confirms once and for all that the F-35 is an excellent and the best, except perhaps the F-22 fighter aircraft in air-to-air combat.

This does not change the cost and all the misteps up to this point.

cheaper just to bribe all the pilots, ground staff and politicians on the other side than it is to drag these things into the sky

good and cool plane but yeesh, cost control anyone

you dont need to bribe them. They already got stakes in the project.

@FlightJunkie and VF9_Longbow

Jezz, the cost doesn't change and it "out of control", like this:

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/d...low-100-million




Incredible how people still refuse to distinguish between cost of pre-production aircraft and higher or full production aircraft. Also incredible that people either ignore and/or refuse to acknowledge that every ground breaking or next step evolution in technology always bring extra development problems.
And also keep ignoring that basically every aerospace project have had development problems and cost overruns and this is not a recent event - F-14, F-15, F-16, Rafale, Typhoon are just a few examples.

What's also unbelievable is that the costs of the F-35 have been under control and on schedule since at least 2012 or more precisely after the 2010 program restructuring but people still claim that the F-35 program cost is "out of control".

Finally it's funny to see the F-35 program reaching every proposed/planned milestone, having it's price drastically dropped during the last years or resuming proving that the critics are wrong but critics still fail (or refuse) to acknowledge this

Pentagon strikes new F-35 deal with Lockheed after Trump involvement

A new, lower price per plane.

I must admit that i'm not very familar with ultra modern aircrafts.
But i remember watching a TV documentary last year about aircrafts and they mentioned that any stealth aircraft can be detected very easely by using modern weather radars. Because of the engine heat every aircraft creates contrails ( visible or not) and this contrail shows up on the radar it wouldn't surprised me if this Technology will be used in the future to fight stealth planes. If the operator notice contrails coming out of nothing he can be sure that there is a Stealth plane in the air and launch his SAM.
Guess it will be possible ti the future to fit this radars in aircrafts too. The one they showed in the tv show were already very small.

This is worth a copy/paste here... a bit WCE, but I'm guessing there's enough F-35 relevant commentary from a Super Hornet pilot here to offset that...


----------


Super Hornet pilot here... long #%&*$# post ahead and I can't #%&*$# believe the day has come when the future POTUS thinks it is fit to micromanage fighter jet procurement via popular appeal, especially when it's most likely #%&*$# Internet posts and blog articles that give him the extent of knowledge on the F-35 or other acquisitions programs - and not, you know, secret classified briefs by the experts in this area.

And before people say that this will rein in the military-industrial complex, or that this will save us money.... read on why he's so horribly wrong.

First of all, if you are one of those guys who thinks we should support the troops, or that Obama gutted the military, or whatever - you need to tell Trump to stop with this #%&*$#. Politicians getting involved in procurement and trying to micromanage ever aspect is exactly how we end up with unnecessary procurement, aging equipment, and a persistent 'kick-the-can' down the road mentality.

Don't believe me? Here's two recent examples of brilliant political meddling:
The USS Zumwalt and her class of destroyers were envisioned due to a Congressional requirement for shore bombardment ships after the US retired the Iowa-class battleships in the early 90s. Aside from the fact that shore bombardment for mass amphibious assaults is of questionable necessity in modern warfare with the advent of precision weapons and helicopters, this class was cut to just 3 ships (with each now costing multiple billions) with unnecessary compromises (although railguns are #%&*$# cool, tbh) and an unknown future and role.

The F-22 was originally supposed to have over 700 of them built. Citing the end of the Cold War, the US cut that order to around 380. Then in the 2000s, it was finally cut down to 187 total built because the Bush administration felt it was unnecessary and a relic of the Cold War. Fast forward to today, and we don't have enough F-22's so we've had to extend the life of our F-15s - which are aging - and now suddenly everyone now wants F-22's instead of F-35s. Oops.
Now, as for the F-35 and the F/A-18 Super Hornet... look, as a Rhino pilot (the nickname for the Super Hornet), I'd love all the fancy toys, funding, and the entire concept behind the Advanced Super Hornet/Block 3 Rhino...

But this ship has sailed. And honestly, this whole tweet just screams of populist politics from someone who doesn't know the intricacies or complexity of a modern fighter jet project or modern aerial warfare.

Cost First of all, the F-35's cost has gone way down since the project underwent reform a few years ago, with low rate production F-35A's (the Air Force model) reaching the cost of the Super Hornet already. The Aussies bought 24 Super Hornets at a price of $90 million each, and they recently bought the EA-18G Growler (the electronic attack version of the Rhino) about $110 million a piece.

Yes, the F-35B and -C versions (the Marine and Navy versions, respectively) cost more, but replacing the F-35A with the Super Hornet or a derivative of it makes no sense, unless you're reading Wikipedia and think the $60 million price tag on a Super Hornet still exists (it doesn't). Not to mention, the Advanced Super Hornet concept isn't going to cost anywhere near $60 million, not after you've added the conformal fuel tanks, stealthy weapon pods, and other equipment.

And before people say 'but the F-35 has had cost overruns!' - yes, it has, and they're inexcusable. That said, the time to cancel the program was 10 years ago, not today after the first F-35B squadron went operational a year ago, and not after the first F-35A squadron went operational this year, and not after multiple nations have their Air Force personnel in the US training on and preparing for their own inductions of these planes.

To Best Understand the F-35... Read Further I was going to try and do a point by point comparison of the F-35 and the Super Hornet, but I realized it was easier to just explain why the F-35 exists in the first place.

Back in the 1970s, the US Air Force adopted a "high-low" doctrine to replace the 8+ variants of interceptors and fighters they had in operation. That doctrine produced the "high" F-15 Eagle - a no-holds-barred air superiority fighter that was big, fast, and cost a ton of money. The "low" plane, the F-16 Fighting Falcon (Viper), was supposed to be small, cheap, and a complement to the F-15.

You see, fighter jets have gone through different 'generations' of development. The first generation of fighter jets - those designed during and right after WW2, like the German Me262, the Soviet MiG-15, and the US F-86 Sabre, had little in difference to the propeller fighters of WW2 besides having much higher speeds and engine performance.

The second generation of fighter jets, of the 1950s like the F-100 Super Sabre and the F-106 Delta Dart, pushed the aerodynamic envelope. They had big afterburning turbojet engines, were capable of supersonic flight, and were primarily focused on speed to intercept Soviet bombers as it was widely believed that any war would be determined by massive bomber formations carrying nuclear weapons to annihilate the other side.

By the end of the 2nd generation (the end of the 1950s), avionics had improved rapidly: on-board radars, data-links to ground intercept controllers, and air-to-air missiles came into existence, which created the third generation of fighter jets. The F-4 Phantom was the US's third generation fighter jet - it could fly fast, it had powerful engines, and it had a powerful radar and the latest in air-to-air missile technology. Problem was, the technology wasn't quite there yet, and the tactics (which I will cover later) weren't up to date.

In the late 60s, the US started developing the next generation of fighter jets: they had to maneuver and perform well, but would continue leveraging avionics. Thus was born the first fourth generation fighters, the F-14 Tomcat and the aforementioned F-15.

Well, avionics design and warfighting changed considerably. The F-16 - packed with modern avionics and radar - quickly took on the strike fighter role, capable of air to air combat as well as air-to-ground combat, becoming the workhorse of airstrikes in the Gulf War through today.

By the end of the Cold War, the US realized it needed to work on the next generation air superiority fighter - thus was born the F-22. In the late 90s, the US realized it needed to work on the next generation complement to the F-22 - and thus the Joint Strike Fighter project started.

The JSF had lofty goals - too lofty as some would say - as it wanted to combine a strike fighter replacement for the F-16, F/A-18 (which itself was derived from the rival prototype of the F-16, the YF-17), AV-8 and A-10.
It was always destined to be a HUGE project. All this talk of its 'record expense' was by design: the US alone was going to purchase 2,443 of them to replace all those airplanes, many of whom were last produced for the US decades ago (no exaggeration - the last A-10 rolled off the line in 1984).

The F-35 was also going to be sold to our closest allies, just as the F-16 (of which over 4,500 have been produced) and F/A-18 were. Nations ordering them right now include the UK, Italy, Australia, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Korea, Japan, etc.

This isn't a minor detail either. More types of airframes adds complexity and bureaucracy throughout the military: it means more pilots required, more training programs for each individual airframe, more program management (for future upgrades to each type), and more maintenance training and parts supply lines for the different jets.

So before anyone says "well the F-35 was going to cost a trillion over its 50 year lifespan" consider the costs of having 4 separate fighter jet pipelines, much less the rising costs of trying to keep jets designed in the Cold War airworthy and relevant.

The Navy actually already 'necked down': it retired the A-7, A-6, F-14, S-3, and EA-6B.
What aircraft did it buy to replace ALL those roles? The Super Hornet (and its derivative the Growler) for fleet defense, interdiction, attack, and tanking.

The Super Hornet is - contrary to popular belief - not just an 'upgraded' Hornet. It was sold with the F/A-18 moniker to convince Congress that it wasn't a new jet, just an upgrade, but by and large it mostly does not have parts commonality and it is a much larger jet. Underlying systems architecture is similar, as are many maintenance procedures, but it has different engines and a different radar and its avionics have diverged considerably from the original Hornets.

The Rhino is what we would call a Gen 4.5 fighter - an aircraft not quite a 5th generation fighter like the F-22 or F-35, but one that incorporates all the technological advances and concepts of the 90s and puts them into a modern jet. With multiple upgradeable flight computers, advanced mission computers designed specifically to receive constant upgrades (think of yearly updates from smartphones - now, we've even benefitted from F-35 derived tech, on both fronts), and newer sensors and countermeasures as well as a concerted effort to reduce our radar cross section (and make us stealthier), we're much costlier than the older Hornet - but more survivable and more mission capable.

Our capabilities to integrate into the battlefield, the carrier battle group, and even connect with the guy on the ground or surveillance in the air makes us tactically flexible (we can choose the right tactics for the right situation), more precise, and deadlier.

Which brings me to my next point: going to the Super Hornet or a Super Hornet derived plane now for the Air Force, at least, is #%&*$# stupid.

No Rhino pilot is going to say we're the fastest thing out there, or the most maneuverable. But we are all going to say that we are confident in our tactics and our capabilities and getting the most out of the sum of the jet, and it's one hell of a jet.

The problem with going to a Super Hornet derivative now is that the Super Hornet was designed from the start for carrier takeoffs and landings. That means a big beefy landing gear and strong arresting hook, capable of taking the shock of landing a 44,000 pound jet on a moving carrier deck flying at 140 knots through the air and bringing it to a halt in 3 seconds. That means big foldable wings to lower your approach speed and for storage on the ship. Those are all compromises the Air Force and their 1 million foot long runways (I kid, I kid) don't need.

In addition, you're talking about buying a plane that was ultimately designed over 20 years ago. Aerospace design and concepts have changed considerably today. There were design 'features' on the Rhino that, today, don't make sense or we've figured out newer and better ways to do it - and have built it into the F-35.

Stealth is built into the underlying structure of the F-35 - that can't be retrofitted.

Sensor integration is another big one. The Rhino has a ton of antennas and sensors, sure - meanwhile, the F-35 is designed to have them built in all over the airframe to give the pilot the ability to look in any direction and visually "see through" the aircraft - not to mention, to be able to detect threats from any direction as well and have a computer that can process all of this and feed it to the pilot in a digestable manner. The guys that have all flown it have raved about its situational awareness, and more situational awareness for us pilots = more mission effectiveness = we get the mission done correctly and get home safe.

The best way I can explain it is imagine having a printer built in the 1980s, and trying to get it to print wirelessly on your home network. I'm sure you can rig a solution to make it work, but at one point or another, you should just buy a new #%&*$# printer.

So has the F-35 had shortcomings in its development? Abso-#%&*$#-lutely. Some legitimate, but most of the concerns you hear about on the Internet are wrong and show a huge misunderstanding of how fighter jets are developed, how aerial combat works, etc.

For instance, the argument about how the F-35 couldn't fire its gun. Unless you think fighter jets simply fire their guns blindly now, you'd realize that our guns are linked to our systems to give us a firing solution. It's not that the F-35 couldn't fire its gun - it's that it would be useless and a waste of bullets if our mission computers weren't fully programmed yet to give us accurate firing solutions to account for every variable.

Same thing with all the angst about what weapons it can drop. The reality is, EVERY single weapon is tested and delivered/dropped by test pilots in every flight regime imaginable from flying straight and level to steep 45 degree-plus dive bombing profiles. Sure it can drop them - but we won't certify them for use in training or combat until we are certain they won't miss or even hit our own aircraft because of aerodynamic issues with weapons release. And with modern smart weapons, they have to interface with our own avionics to make sure we're getting the right releases at the right parameters and that said weapons will hit the right targets at the right times.

Again, the F-35 is unprecedented in that regard. When the F-16 and F/A-18 were introduced in the late 70s/early 80s, they had to be certified for their 20mm gun, the AIM-9 Sidewinder, the AIM-7 Sparrow, dumb bombs, and some basic smart weapons and air to ground missiles. The arsenal the F-35 has to be certified for today incorporates everything from GPS-guided JDAMs, to laser-guided bombs of all sizes, to different variants of the AMRAAM and Sidewinder, as well as a new gun (which Congress dictated... again, more political meddling).

Tactics... I mentioned I'd talk about that. First of all, all those articles you read about the F-16 beating the F-35? Throw them the #%&*$# out. We train our aircrew to fly each airframe to its advantages and limits, and to take advantage of opponent weaknesses.

The F-35 is a new airframe, and tactics for it are being developed as we speak. Even how to fight it is up for development. You fight an F-16 very differently than you do an F/A-18, and no doubt, the F-35 will fly differently from those as well.

I bring this up, because during the Vietnam War, the Air Force and Navy diverged on how to make up for the lackluster F-4 performance. The Air Force chose to add guns to their F-4 - which improved their kill ratio.

The Navy opened up TOPGUN to develop tactics for the F-4. The Navy never added guns, but increased its kill ratio even more than the Air Force did. How so? Because the Navy started teaching its pilots to fight the F-4 vertically, to utilize its power advantage over the nimbler but less powerful MiGs. When MiGs got pushed into a vertical fight, the F-4 outperformed them and shot them the #%&*$# down.

Absolutely NONE of this #%&*$# is done willy nilly - a ton of time, effort, and money is put into all of this. And unfortunately, too many people are commenting on and getting involved in areas they have next to zero expertise in.
Ultimately, Trump's comments here are pointless and disruptive. If an Advanced Super Hornet design was being made to compete against the F-35, the Air Force, Marines, and Navy would choose the F-35 still meaning we're wasting money and time. It's not like the F-35 didn't compete - it beat the X-32 in 2000, when the Super Hornet had already been introduced, so any 'price competition' on F-35's today is going to end up with the F-35 as the only option.

Hell, the Navy has already put out RFP's for a 'sixth generation' fighter to replace the Super Hornet in the 2030's - we're already thinking ahead.

In sum:

Cost - the F-35 isn't necessarily more expensive than the Super Hornet, and it is a cheaper beast going forward than standing pat with what we have.

The time to cancel the F-35 was a decade ago, not today, after the F-35 has already reached operational status.

The F-35 has had cost overruns and delays, yes, but those are in the past. It's pointless to start a competition now for a fighter jet we decided on 16 years ago.

The Super Hornet isn't the right plane for the Air Force, and is reaching its upgrade limits a lot quicker than the F-35 will.

The F-35 is the cornerstone of American airpower for the next few decades, and will be the cornerstone of Western airpower as well. This affects a whole lot more than a tiny fraction of the US budget.

Most people don't know #%&*$# about aerial combat, military procurement and testing and development, but all feel fit to comment anwyays.

Excellent post Zamzow, that Super Hornet pilot pretty much nails it

I believe that you (and many other people for that matter) misunderstands the concept of Stealth.

First and above, ANY radar can detect ANY stealth aircraft! Yes, you read that correctly - basically any radar can detect any stealth aircraft.
This means that Stealth doesn't make an aircraft "invisible" to radar. What stealth does is to reduce the size or area of the aircraft that can be seen by a radar.
For example with your naked eye you can spot a Boeing 747 much further than you can stop a F-16 and why? Because the 747 is bigger.
When it comes to radar, it was discovered decades ago that the size of a radar contact is not dependent of the contact's actual size but on the contact's actual shape. For example a B-2 looks much more smaller to a radar than for example an Airbus A320 while both have similar real size.
And what does this mean? It means that a radar will detect the Airbus A320 at MUCH LONGER range than it can detect the B-2. For example a radar that could detect the A320 at several hundreds of kilometers would only be able to detect the B-2 at a dozen kilometers, if so.
And this is what Stealth is all about.

For example how far can your "contrail weather radar" detect a stealth aircraft like the F-35?
And if it actually can detect the stealth aircraft at a "useful" range what would be that radar's precision/resolution? Would it is sufficient to for example actually guide a missile towards the stealth aircraft?

Also, the fact is that even if you came up with a radar system (like that contrail weather radar) that could detect a F-35 at a relatively useful range, lets say for example 100km the fact is that non-stealth aircraft (like the Super Hornet, Typhoon, etc...) would be detected at much farther distances/range like for example 400km or even more. So believe me, Stealth is here to stay as many other technologies before it, like for example the guided missiles and ECM.

Resuming, even if new radar detection systems that would be more effective against stealth aircraft came up this only means that non-stealth aircraft would be at an even more disadvantageous situation since these system would still detect non-stealth aircraft at much farther range compared to stealth aircraft.


I hope I'm not extending this post too much but I can give you a more practical example:

- Probably one of the "best" systems against Stealth aircraft nowadays and in the near future is the Russian Nebo-M VHF radar - VHF radars which are another often mentioned "magical solution against stealth" - which is a radar system often used in conjunction with S-400 SAM system.
However while powerful, this radar can detected a F-35 stealth aircraft at best at a maximum range of less than 90km - And this using the RCS (Radar Cross Section) value for the F-35 of a "golf ball" which according to newer information the F-35 RCS value is even lower (or more "stealthier") and this 90kn value is also without the F-35 using it's standoff directional jammer against the VHF radar source.
While 90km seems an "interesting" range against an advanced and stealth fighter aircraft like the F-35, it's must be noted that the F-35 will be able to carry weapons like the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) which has a range in excess of 110km, which means that a F-35 can destroy these radars without ever being detected.

Moreover, this same radar system (Nebo-M) will be able to detect non-stealth fighter aircraft like the Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale, etc... at ranges around 480km. I hope this example alone is enough to demonstrate the advantage of STEALTH.

Someone already told Trump, the American voters.

And while the "Super Hornet pilot here..." has a right to his opinion his job is to fly the plane.

I am 1 million percent behind every US veteran but a wall of text proceeded by an obvious dig at the American voters, we did put the guy there, should relegate this topic to the dumpster

Why?
2 reasons from op:
"First of all, if you are one of those guys who thinks we should support the troops, or that Obama gutted the military, or whatever - you need to tell Trump to stop with this #%&*$#."

"Ultimately, Trump's comments here are pointless and disruptive."

1 reason from me:
My response.

This is an F-35 thread. And I don't think that guy was trying to politicize the topic at all - he was calling out people (whether voters OR certain elected officials) simply not knowing what they're talking about. That's why I went ahead and pasted the thing in it's entirety.

I would have suggested that you snip out the initial and unnecessary political content.

That makes it more about the airplane and program and less likely to go off the rails.

Your paste begins:

"Super Hornet pilot here... long #%&*$# post ahead and I can't #%&*$# believe the day has come when the future POTUS thinks it is fit to micromanage fighter jet procurement via popular appeal, especially when it's most likely #%&*$# Internet posts and blog articles that give him the extent of knowledge on the F-35 or other acquisitions programs - and not, you know, secret classified briefs by the experts in this area.

Sim hq has moved posts into WCE with less provocative content.

@ricnunes.
Guess you didn't understand correctly what i wrote. The weather radar In the documentary doesn't detect the aircraft itself but the contrails.
Example. Let's say there are 4 planes in the air at xxx miles. 3 of them are F18s and one is the F35.
The operator on a standard radar detects 3 aircrafts but the operator on the weather radar detects 4 contrails.
Conclusion, there is a stealth aircraft in the air.
Well i don't know details about the range of the weather Radar and what can be read and what not (alt speed ect...)
Like always in history there are measurements and countermeasurements.

Btw. Anyone ever heard of passive radars? They try to make use of all the signals coming from am/fm mobile devices and all that stuff that surrounds us everyday to spot stealth aircrafts.

Correct.

But the topic is good and we are showing some restraint because we hope that the focus stays on the airplane and the program.

In hindsight, it might have been appropriate for moderators to edit out all the superfluous stuff and made a comment that we did so.

I actually understood the concept. However and again the concept is only good as its practical range.
And again the system is also as good as it's precision. Seeing that such system doesn't detect the aircraft itself but instead its contrails I would say that the precision of such "radar"/system would be quite low and likely insufficient to for example guide a missile towards the target.

And moreover, a jet aircraft doesn't always leave a contrail behind it! For example where I live during the summer I can easily observe that most airliners don't leave a contrail. And even more if for example a F-35 (or any other jet) flies lower - let's say 20,000 feet or even a bit lower - it won't leave contrails and as such wouldn't be detected by that "contrail radar".

I would even bet some serious money that even if the F-35 (or again any other jet) leave a contrail behind that such radar wouldn't be able to detect these contrails at long and/or any useful range. For example I doubt that it would surpass the detection range against a stealth aircraft of a Nebo-M VHF radar for example.
And lets not even start about the complexity of having "normal radars" working in tandem with that "contrail radars" and all of this to achieve what would be a "dubious" performance.


The "passive radar" is likely an even more "far fetched" concept. Again how far would such a "passive" system be able to detect anything, specially against Stealth aircraft which not only deflects radio waves away from the emitter but also absorbs them (thru the use of RAM materials)?


All this talk about "contrail radars" and "passive radars" reminds me the talk about body armour used by soldiers or even police officers and I'll quote a comment that I read from someone in the past which I found "spot on":
- Any blacksmith can "easily" build you a body armour that could even withstand with .50 cal HMG rounds. However the problem is building a body armour that can be easily be carried by humans/soldiers (or lightweight enough) and with a good ability to stop incoming rounds.
That's why you only have body armour that can defeat assault rifles but aren't unable to stop HMG and even high powered rifles (like sniper rifles) since to stop those rounds you would need a prohibitive and very heavy armour.

With "contrail radars" and "passive radars" the concept is the similar. You could "successfully" develop them however would they be any good or really effective? IMO, nope!

As far as the contrail radar and passive radar capabilities go, I would say that if anyone here knows about it, then the people designing the modern aircraft know about it, and to assume they aren't factoring in those capabilities I think does them an injustice.

Something someone read on the Internet is most likely something that those designers know about it detail long before it hits the web, so I'm confident their design has dealt with it as needed.

Both seems very new Radar designs and they are working on it.

https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsro...sive-radar-use/

Trump was not making a detailed assessment of high tech weapons... he was doing a VERY SIMPLE tactic to "soften the ground", or "prepare the battlespace" or "Suppression of enemy air defence", in prep for NEGOTIATING a better price. That he might, or might not get.

He's not comparing RCS, or studying Sun Tsu, more using his own book "The Art of The Deal".

That this Naval Aviator did not recognise this, is his own fault.

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.

Well sure, how else do you earn the title of "Internet Expert"?

I just remember the whole C-27 fiasco with the Air Force all too well; I won't trust anything they say about the F-35, since too many careers are dependent upon acceptance of the aircraft for service. Having said that, we'll just have to agree to disagree regarding the need for the aircraft and whether or not history will justify that view - though I sorely hope I'm wrong.

I will add that I was wrong about the F/A-18 shootdown, as I was using dated information. There's actually strong evidence that it was shot down by a MiG-25, a lot of which has come out within the past 5 years. Nonetheless, that's an example of an extremely lucky shot on the part of the MiG-25 driver, as he had simply shot at random without confirming any hits. In other words, very similar to the F-117 shootdown over the former Yugoslavia.

Franze, for you to be right about the F-35, pretty much all of the military leaders of the USAF, USN, USMC, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Israel, the UK, and other countries would have to be wrong. And they all have access to information that I'm guessing you don't, so if I had to pick which group was most knowledgeable, I'd go with experts from the countries who are buying the F-35.

Many of those military leaders want a new toy because they're working with 30+ year old hardware that hasn't been upgraded in 20 years due to their inability to properly plan. You'll forgive me if I don't put much faith in military leaders that will blow $370,000 of taxpayer dollars to redo a foyer in their house - then turn around and ask why someone needs $50 in safety equipment to work in a construction zone.

I'm sorry, but I don't find that to be a convincing argument. Every air force leader from multiple countries would have to be corrupt for that to be true. Is that what you think, that all of the Dutch or the Israeli leaders, for example, are into spending tax money on their personal needs instead of on military needs? Do you have any evidence of that?

Additionally, there are certainly other aircraft they could buy - the Rafale, the Typhoon, the Super Hornet, etc., so why pick the F-35 if they just want something new?

Nuh-uh!

How Much Would It Cost To Build A Death Star?



There are other estimates of varying amounts, but they are all waaaaay more than what an F-35 costs.

Well, Australia DID pick the Super Hornet a few years ago. Not exclusively to replace the F-35, mind you, but to serve in the interim until they could get F-35s. Canada made a similar decision last year. In Denmark, there are indications that Boeing may take legal action against Denmark due to allegations of fraud in the selection process. For Norway, there is strong evidence that the US put political pressure on them to pick the F-35 over the Gripen.

Of course, that's not everyone, and that's a casual browsing of the net without thorough investigation, but there's a lot of indication that many of the partners are picking the F-35 for political reasons more than for cost and capability reasons.

I have no evidence of foreign leaders mismanaging their own taxpayer's funds - and it is absurd to assume that I have any. What I do have is personal experience with the US DOD and the associated military industrial complex, and from that I can gather much of the fraud, waste, and abuse that occurs is primarily a human problem that applies to everyone.

Australia purchased the Super Hornet to replace the F-111 which was retired much sooner than expected. The Australian Air Force (RAAF) planned to operate the F-111 until 2020 however as it's well known the RAAF F-111 fleet was forced to retire 10 years sooner (2010). And that's it about the Australian Super Hornet purchase - it had nothing to do with the F-35.




I won't even start about Canada or else this post of mine runs the risk of occupying several pages or worse the risk of this thread ending up in the PWEC forum!

However and speaking about Canada did you watch the video that I posted in my last post? Please answer YES or NO.

If no than please watch it.
You can see that basically every criticism made to the F/A-18 back in 1980 are the same applied nowadays to the F-35! Were those critics right about the F/A-18?? As you obviously know, they were NOT. The same goes for all the F-35 critics nowadays!




The Danish competition found exactly the same as the competitions in Japan and South Korea: The F-35 is the BEST OPTION in terms of quality and cost.
This was a PR maneuver from Boeing directly aimed to Canada which by now was (and still is) the only JSF partner nation that didn't select the F-35.





LoL the Gripen or more precisely the Gripen NG?? The aircraft which was expected to fly for the first time (pre-production airframe) for the first time in 2014, then delayed to 2015 and then delayed to 2016 and NOW delayed to 2017??
And critics still say that the F-35 is the only aerospace program facing problems?? At least there are hundreds of combat capable F-35 flying today. Now the Gripen NG which was supposed to be a much simpler project there's none. However it's funny that no-one claims that there are problems with the Gripen NG.

And people still wonder why Norway chose the F-35 over the Gripen NG - I wonder why??






Others have already addressed this so I'll reinforce it. Isn't it more probable that the F-35 was selected because it's indeed SUPERIOR to all other existing fighter aircraft? I believe that's "almost insane" to even consider that all the nations that choose the F-35 - and there are a lot of them, including Israel which for the obvious reasons don't mess up with critical weapons procurement - did this because of "political reasons/pressures".


Anyway, saying that F-35 which is the next step in evolution will be a failure would be the same as if we lived back in the late 1940's and say that upcoming the F-86 Sabre would be a failure and we should stick with P-51D Mustang instead. Well at least the P-51D Mustang still had a fighting chance against the F-86 (albeit minimal). Now the Super Hornet against the F-35?? Well I would feel really sorry for all those Super Hornet pilots - or any other 4th fighter aircraft pilot that would have to face the F-35 but heck, war is not fair!

And guess what?? Neither did the people that designed and build the F-35 and its systems - Does this means that such people aren't experts on the subject (F-35)?





At least I'm not a nonsense expert

I think ricnunes countered a lot of Franzes points, so I won't add much.

First, I am confident that there are all kinds of pressures applied from all sides during buying decisions like this, so I'm not surprised that the US was pushing it. And the Boeing lawsuit is pretty meaningless, because that's just standard business these days. They lost the tanker contract and sued, and are now late and over budget by billions on it. And they are also being sued by another company that lost the tanker support contract to them. That's what companies do now.

I would say that the whole corruption argument seems to be predicated on two views: first, that the system is completely corrupt, and second, that the F-35 is not the best aircraft for the job and was only chosen because of corruption.

I think that a question that would need to be addressed in regards to the F-35 is, wouldn't any aircraft decision be corrupt? Like when Canada pulled out, wouldn't corruption be just as likely there as if they hadn't? Maybe Boeing paid somebody off? That seems even more likely when you hear that the billions being spent by Canada on the Super Hornets may only result in a 12-year use of those aircraft:
Click Here

It seems that any time an aircraft other than the F-35 is chosen, all the F-35 bashers go "See!!!" but when the F-35 is chosen, it's "Corruption!!!" If the argument is that it must be corruption because the F-35 isn't the best aircraft, then I think proof needs to be presented showing that's the case. I really get the impression that a lot of people have decided that the F-35 is a bad airplane because of press stories but no real data, and then work backwards to try to justify that view, and jump on any info that seems to back it up.

Excellent post Arthonon.

I just want to add something to this comment of yours:



The fact is that in all and every competitions where the F-35 have been involved, the F-35 always won.

So far the competitions where the F-35 have been involved were in South Korea (against Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle and Eurofighter Typhoon), Japan (against Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon) and Denmark (also against Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon) and guess what? The F-35 was found to the best in almost every parameter including cost.
Isn't this more than enough indication that the F-35 is simply superior hands-down to any other fighter aircraft (except perhaps the F-22)? Afterall the F-35 is a 5th gen fighter aircraft while all others (again except the F-22) are 4th gen! Again the F-35 is superior to the Super Hornet just like the F-86 Sabre was superior to the P-51D or the F/A-18 was superior to the F-4 Phantom.

And by the way, everytime another aircraft was chosen (for example Saudi Arabia chose the Eurofighter Typhoon, Kuwait chose the Super Hornet, Brazil chose the Gripen NG and so on...) the F-35 was NOT offered to that particular country.

/OT



i found it extremely ridiculous as well so had to say this, only from another perspective.

since the buttons file decryption the FMs were readable and moddable. turns out the flight model engine was
very simplified <- proper way of saying it
rather crap <- my own take on it

it provides very few data points and can only be considered simplified/generic FM. 'twas totally stupid popping veins to fight over something this primitive.

nowadayz if i can't read/mod it i don't play it.

here the Bf109f4 FM from one of the versions - see how simple it is.


/OT

sorry and carry on.

Dropping the project now, shortly before the F-35 enters service, would be a rather dumb move, though. Especially after spending so much already for its development. Scrapping the F-35 program and instead developing a replacement would probably take another 20 years - even if such a project would receive funding right away - and the aging air-frames currently in service would have to jug on even longer...and their upkeep would not be cheap, either.

Whether it's the best thing since the invention of the wheel, or the biggest stinker in aircraft history, it's here and almost ready to enter service.

Only time will tell how capable the F-35 really is.

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that. Would seem to be pretty telling.

I had heard that Brazil chose the Gripen over the Super Hornet in part because of the NSA revelations of the US spying on Brazilian politicians and companies, and did a search to find that.

I did find a reference to it here:

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/b...294bf81850.html

As Brazil�s decade-long fighter competition came to a close, Boeing was &#65279;seen as the favorite over Saab and French plane-maker Dassault. But the company appeared to lose momentum after news broke of National Security Agency spying on Brazilian companies and officials, including President Dilma Rouseff.

But on the subject of corruption, I also found this:

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2...illion-for.aspx

An excerpt:

"...with French Dassault playing especially dirty, trading favors with then-Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to improve its chances of winning the contract. You can read all about the details of the insider dealing [elsewhere]. But basically, France agreed to buy military equipment from Brazilian defense contractor Embraer (NYSE:ERJ), and even back an Olympic Games bid for Rio de Janeiro, if Brazil would choose Dassault's planes over those of Saab and Boeing.

This tangled web of favor-trading turned France's pricey Rafale, reportedly as much as $6.2 billion, plus $4 billion for maintenance contracts over 30 years, into the front-runner to win the contract. This was despite reports that Saab was offering to sell Brazil the Gripen for just $6 billion, maintenance included. Boeing's position, lacking Dassault's political connections and charging $7.7 billion for its plane (also including maintenance), looked tenuous in the extreme."

When it comes to wasting money, I think most now agree that stopping F-22 production when it did was a big mistake. The price had come down (the final one off the line cost $140m) and we really needed more. Instead, we're now looking at spending billions to extend the usefulness of the C model Eagles into the next few decades.
I don't think that cost-benefit analysis will come out right in about 20 years from now when we have a mere 180 35-yr old F-22s flying alongside 50+ yr old F-15Cs.



The Jedi Master

180 only if we don't lose any in training accidents, etc. The USAF has lost about 55 F15Cs, and as of 2010 had a total of 254 F15C/D in service. A total of 483 Cs were built, I didn't look for numbers but I'd be surprised if fewer than 300 went to the USAF. So, we could be looking at a 20% loss rate just from training accidents over about 35 years. We could be looking at 140-150 F22s left by 2040.

Huge mistake not building at least 100 more F-22's...

Also a huge mistake running the pilots oxygen system thru the engine....

What part of serious potential for trouble did some rocket scientist miss there?

Well the raptor doesn't sell and doesn't generate geopolitical influence like the lightning does. 'Tis fighter aircraft diplomacy.

I forget. How many F-22's were ultimately made? Something like 200?

189 I think? Not counting the YF-22s which were not used beyond testing.

The fact that Congress passed that brilliant "thou shalt not export the F-22" law certainly hurt. Japan was in, possibly Saudi Arabia and I'm sure Israel would've gone for them. In other words, all the countries that jumped on the F-15A back in the 70s. Could've sold another 100 easily between those 3, further lowering the price.

Instead, they were made to wait for the F-35. Ironically, while its A2A performance is lower than the 22, in many ways it is more advanced and certainly more capable in the A2G role.

But no one ever said Congress was well-informed or made good decisions.



The Jedi Master

plus the buiz opportunities and jobs and influence it creates worldwide since it's multinational, i.e.
https://www.f35.com/global/participation/italy

f-22 program haven't this kinda reach

Well, as JM says, the F-22 was never going to be offered for export, so there's no way to compare how other factors might have impacted its sales or cost. But yes, it does seem foolish to have spent all that money on development and then only make 189, not all of which were produced to the same standard.

While the F-35 seems more advanced from what we know, I wouldn't be surprised if there were things about the F-22 that were using more advanced and secret technology, but no one outside of the top secret circles would know.

Just like the B-2. The public doesn't know everything it can do by design.

To contrast that, the F-35's general capabilities are known because it is being bought all over the world, even if the details are classified.



The Jedi Master

I guess I could do some research on this, but I haven't - I always wonder if the planes the US sells have been "de-tuned" in some way vs. the American version, like there's a "secret sauce" kept just for the US versions.

on the f-16 the software source code is not sold, for example.
exception israel hence israeli vipers are somewhat unique.

We been using the air taken from the engines with passenger planes for decades without much problems. There's no way a 16 hour flight will have enough air on board alone for 600 passengers unless air is taken from an outside source.

Yes, the F-35 is only offered to the closest US allies, at least in the foreseeable future. That pretty much means NATO members and only a very few other countries (and close US allies) outside NATO such as Australia, Japan, South Korea, Israel and Singapore.
But wait! Of those 5 countries listed above 4 of them already ordered the F-35 while the remaining (Singapore) is said to be very interested in acquiring the F-35.

Regarding Brazil, yes like you posted the initial favourite of the 3 finalist (Rafale, Super Hornet and Gripen NG) was the Rafale however this fighter aircraft was found to be extremely expensive - just look at Qatar's Rafale purchase contract value!
Next it was said that the favourite fighter aircraft was the Super Hornet, this with the new (back then) President Dilma Rousseff which albeit from the same political party as her predecessor claimed to favour closer relations with American countries (including the US) than for example Europe. However like you said, due to the "NSA/espionage scandal" the Gripen NG was chosen instead. Gripen NG program also promised to Brazil a closer partnership compared to the other two competitors.

Well I won't say that stopping the F-22 production was a mistake.
Of course having more F-22s would be great - Who wouldn't like to have more F-22s??

However the truth is that the F-35 is a far more capable aircraft than the F-22. Perhaps not performance wise (in terms of max speed, supercruise and perhaps even agility) but in the rest the F-35 should be much better than the F-22 and specially and above all the F-35 is better in one of the most important factors - Cost! Yes, the F-22 was costing around $140-$150 Million USD each in later production stages however the F-22 doesn't have nearly the capabilities of the F-35 - we just need to look at the F-22 and F-35 cockpits respectively.

Honestly I believe that the F-15C will inevitably be replaced by the F-35A. However this is something that the USAF won't admit anytime soon since this would be a sort of admitting that the F-22 program somehow failed or that it was/is pointless/redundant.
Resuming, I believe that the F-35A replacing the F-15C will be something that will be done "silently" and "slowly", with the F-15Cs being retired at a slow pace while more F-35As come online.

I pretty much doubt that the F-22 has more advanced technology than the F-35. It seems clearly that's exactly the opposite where some of the (more advanced) technology of the F-35 is being retrofitted to the F-22 - The RAM/stealth coating being a top example of this.

From what I could gather and read there's only a technology which the F-22 likely has which surpasses everything else, which is: Stealthy Variable Air Intakes.

In order for an aircraft to effectively surpass Mach 2 (something that the F-22 is quite capable of) the aircraft must have Variable Air Intakes. However Variable Air Intakes drastically increase Radar Cross Section (RCS) or resuming an aircraft with Variable Air Intakes will be much less stealthy than aircraft without Variable Air Intakes, like the F-35, F-16, F/A-18, Rafale, etc...

However it seems that LM somehow managed to equip the F-22 with Variable Air Intakes that don't increase the RCS much.

Regarding the F-22 not being offered for export while the F-35 is, again remember that the F-35 is only being offered to the closest US Allies. Even countries that are considered "traditional US Allied" like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are being "excluded" from the F-35.
Besides the main reason why the F-35 was designed from the beginning to be exported was exactly to drive down its costs (both acquisition and operational costs) - basically the only way for even the USA to be able to acquire thousands of these aircraft.

The main issue is the F-35 isn't capable of the speed, range, or altitude of the F-22. It will have the same AAM armament, which means outside of gun battles it will be equally capable in an A2A battle.

BUT

In a scramble from a QRA base, the F-22 and F-15C will beat an F-35 in time-to-intercept every day. The F-35 will remain hidden, unlike the F-15C, which will help in that arena, but if it's another 9/11 "race to stop the plane before it reaches the target" scenario, the F-35 may not get there in time. Sure, even the F-15s failed that day because of when they were scrambled, but they had a better chance.

The F-35 wasn't designed to be an interceptor, and it will always fall short in that area compared to the F-22.



The Jedi Master

negative as speed and altitude gives huge boost to missile range. high alt super sonic maneuverability also means it is easier to defend against enemy. even without stealth or those high tech gadgets the f-22 simply would pwn bvr like nobody due to its aerodynamics.

however i feel that none of that is really relevant as given the huge payout incentives to involved parties (e.g. defense big corp, political elites, military top brass..) of the f-35 deals, the equation is unavoidably skewered towards the -35 and against the -22. i think following the money, tis a problem the anti f-35 guys can get at.

for fighter capability everything is classified so it's i say you say but in the end nobody really knows:|

When comparing the F-22 to the F-35, sure the F-22 is faster than the F-35. But now in terms of altitude or maximum operational ceiling things aren't probably much different between both aircraft. The F-22 is reported to have a ceiling of around 60,000ft while the F-35 "exact" ceiling is unknown it's however known that the F-35 ceiling is very high and well above 50,000ft which is still impressive.

Now the F-35 has a huge advantage over the F-22 which is DAS. As I mentioned here in the past quite often, DAS functions as a 360 degree (spherical) IRST a capability that the F-22 completely lacks. As such I would say that there's a good chance that when facing head to head that the F-35 may have an advantage over the F-22 due to carrying an "IRST" (DAS) which could potentially detect the F-22 before the F-22 radar can detect the F-35.

But yes, the F-22 is better performance wise than the F-35 but then again, what's better: To be faster or to be able to shot and kill first?


Now comparing the F-35 to the F-15C namely in terms of speed, it seems to me that you're looking at the max. speed "paper specs" figures for both aircraft - Mach 2.5 for the F-15C and Mach 1.6 for the F-35 - but you're forgetting the most important part:
The F-15C can only reach its max. speed of Mach 2.5 in a clean configuration, which means completely unarmed and without any pylons and any other kind of external stores. On the other hand the F-35 can reach Mach 1.6 with a full internal weapon load such as 2xAMRAAMs and 2x2000lb Bombs or in an air-to-air configuration with 4xAMRAAM's or in the future Block 4 configuration with 6xAMRAAMs (all internal).
Moreover the F-35 was so far tested at a maximum speed of Mach 1.6 or 1,200mph (1,930 km/h) - but in order to attain Mach 1.6 and 1,200mph this was likely done at altitudes of around 10,000ft (since Mach is not a constant - it's a speed which varies with air temperature and as such with altitude). What I mean with this is that the speed of 1,200mph is equivalent to around Mach 1.8 at for example 40,000ft and this is likely the F-35's true maximum speed (in Mach values).

Now getting back to the F-15, once you start adding pylons and weapons (even lighter air-to-air missiles) the maximum speed drastically drops. For example it seems that the F-15C max. speed with a loadout of 8 (eight) Air-to-Air Missiles is Mach 1.78 - That means that the operational maximum speed of the F-15C is around the same or even slightly lower than the maximum operational speed of the F-35 with an internal load of 6xAMRAAMs and again the service celling of both aircraft seems to be similar.


Therefore I'm pretty confident that the F-35 will be a better "interceptor" than the F-15C.

The problem is that you can only shoot what you can "see" or more precisely - detect and track!

If the F-35 can detect the F-22 first (see my previous posts about DAS and frontal RCS) than any performance advantages such as speed become secondary if not "useless".

The same also and obviously apply to any other aircraft - For example in the past, the F-16 shot down the much faster and much higher celling Mig-25 without suffering losses.

If they worry about their taxpayer money, find what's wrong with it. Everybody would then understand. The 35 program gets much publicity anyway. the root cause of the controversy is whether tax money are being mishandled, rather than whether the lightning is a capable fighter, isn't it? Surely it's about the money? So why not follow the money and see how it's being spent? why haven't some good old investigative journalist or motivated citizens went and dug at the money problem.

Instead every article is by some amateur blogger that doesn't even know more than me except he Googled more. Nobody cares about military hobbyist assessment of fighter capability based on blind guesses. One can only convince oneself with it. Something seems wrong here, maybe something has cracked in this democratic process. maybe it is a clown's scheme to get the stupid ignorant public's panties in a twist so they at least aren't bored.

Money is easy. Cost plus contracts. There is zero incentive for gov't contractors to cut costs because the gov't reimburses them for it.

The only time they do is when the gov't forces them to do it. However, considering how much is spent on classified stuff is usually also classified, it's a death spiral.

Combine that with P&W inexplicable hiding of their engine prices "for competitive reasons" (when they have a sole source contract since GE's alternate was cancelled and there are no other engines available let alone qualified) and you can only see high-level costs in the public budget.

Anything else would require violating company privacy or gov't classification laws.






The Jedi Master

the interesting stuff hides behind those. something like say the recent Mossack Fonseca. if they can find something to that caliber they have an impact. anything else i think it's background noise like any other big defense project in the past and it's just a time waster:| the internet only reverberates that noise.

I agree that "almost nobody" or rarely someone seems to have the desire to make a throughout and detailed analysis of the F-35 program, specially in the so called "mainstream press".
I believe that a combination of events surrounding the F-35 program made the program the "perfect target" for all critics, naysayers and "doomsday prophets". Some of these events are:

- The program cost involved huge amounts of money never seen in any other fighter aircraft program. However many people (including many "experts") forget that this is a three-in-one program where basically three different aircraft are being developed, the F-35A (CTOL), the F-35B (STOVL) and the F-35C (CATOBAR) this despite these 3 aircraft share a very similar airframe and the same avionics. On top of this, the F-35 program total cost includes the operational costs of the aircraft during a 40 year timeframe, something that again no other fighter aircraft program ever did!
Therefore, how much would it cost to develop the so needed 3 completely different CTOL, STOVL and CATOBAR aircraft plus their respective 40 year operational costs if the F-35 route wasn't followed?? This is the "million dollar question" that many, including the "mainstream media" don't seem willing to answer or to find the answer.

IMO, this is due to a combination of the following factors:

1- "Bad news" such as a program failure sells much more and much better than "Good news" such as highlighting the good point and success of a program. This is a "major point" for the "mainstream media".
2- Lockheed Martin's PR (Public Relations) department seems to leave much to be desired! Most of the information about all the milestones and the very good points about the F-35 doesn't seem to come from Lockheed Martin (the developer and manufacturer) but instead from somewhere else. Even more important and for people that don't have much knowledge about combat aircraft is that the information that praises the F-35 program that comes out to the public is most of the times somehow hard to understand (a bit "technical") for the same people that again don't have much of a knowledge about combat aircraft.
3- I'm sure there are lots of pressure either on governments and on "mainstream media" by Lockheed Martin's competitors. Two (2) of these competitors are "only" the two biggest aerospace companies on the planet, I'm obviously talking about Boeing (with for example the Super Hornet) and Airbus/EADS (with the Eurofighter Typhoon). Don't underestimate the influence power of these two companies (and not only) over governments and media companies around the western world.
4- There were indeed cost/budgets overruns and delays with the F-35 program. However was there any modern aerospace program that also didn't suffer from cost/budgets overruns and delays? The answer is a clear NO.
5- Many people ranging from journalists, to former "aerospace engineers", to some former "military men", to bloggers, etc... bet on the failure of the F-35 or that the F-35 wouldn't perform as it should/advertised and/or that it would cost much more than it should. However all these people were proved to be wrong, time after time.
Unfortunately nowadays it seems to be so hard to admit: "I was wrong"!
And as such most of these people instead of admitting being wrong they just keep insisting on their fake arguments, perhaps who knows, with the hope that repeating something false/fake arguments over and over again they would someday become "true".

We live in a world where critics have no accountability, and being wrong 9 times in a row is forgotten as long as that tenth time they can triumphantly crow "I told you so!" Then they are seen as knowledgeable experts.

Many of them have worse track records than weather forecasters, which is saying a lot.



The Jedi Master

That's very true indeed, Jedi Master!

And of course the Internet for all the good that it brings, it also brings "bad stuff" and one of these "bad stuff" is exactly helping to perpetuate and promote (worldwide) these so called "experts".

With this edition of Red Flag having ended, the F-35 performance and kill ratio was even better with the F-35 achieving a kill ratio of 20 to 1 (in favour of the F-35, obviously):

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35a-records-20-to-1-kill-ratio-at-red-flag-exercise

The F35 is a real dog then.. lol.

Heh, 20:1 kill ratio!! Even the USN didn't have that kind of kill ratio against the IJN late in the war.

All this arguing is going to be moot if we don't fix the massive debt bubble that is growing every day.