F-35 facts?

[Meso]

I came across this video on youtube. the netherlands is planning to buy 37 of them now the question is why???? seems a loss of money

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

whats your opinion? im not in a position to really judge if its a good plane or not. according to dutch pilots who flew it its a flying i-phone? easy to handle and capable fighter. but one could guess the amount of freedom they have to give a neutral opinion....

[Tom Burnside]

Think any country buying the F-35 is loosing money personally I think the Netherlands would be better off buying the Eurofighter or more F-16s.

[Naismith]

Oh, I think there has probably been some shenanigans going on with politicians and cash and so forth. It is an unproven aircraft yet they all rush to buy it?

[mirage3]

I think the F-35 is a too expensive aircraft that isn't capable to combat any enemy like Lockheed says. The Aircraft has too many problems from the weapons side and is too complex for the roles that would be assigned to it! The especiality, looking from my side is the fighter role, but in a ground strike role, it would loss all his good points. Do you can imagine a 5th gen. aircraft that does CAS like the Warthog? I personally, no

I think, its only power in combat are the stealth capability. Why? Because today the AAM combat (dogfight) lost points, the aircraft isn't maneuvrable (i think) but it's compensed by a good BVR combat possibility. Recently i readed that the Most powerful radar is The APG-77 AESA, Followed by the APG-79 AESA of the Super Hornet and this is followed by them from the F-35. I didn't know if it's right, but am not for revolution (F-35) but for evolution (Super Hornet, Super Viper, etc.).
Generally, when i were a nation, i wouldn't choose the Lightning II...:sly:

[Naismith]

Another thing re Canadian purchase, the (R)CAF always insisted on twin engines in the past (which is why we bought the Hornet) due to our extremes of Wx. Now suddenly one engine is OK. Why not more modern Hornets I say. That would save on retraining in large part. Then they could re-equip the Snowbirds with more modern a/c.

[Ferry_vO]

Think any country buying the F-35 is loosing money personally I think the Netherlands would be better off buying the Eurofighter or more F-16s.

Our government bought a high speed train in Italy, which was a cheap upgraded version of a lower speed train, and once winter came the trains quite litteraly fell to pieces. Then we bought the NH-90 for our navy, and after a long period of solving problems, we found quite soon after taking it into service that the thing will start to rust when in contact with salt water. So I have no reason to doubt our goverment's judgement when it comes to buying a replacement for our F-16, especially now that the same company that built the train and helicopter wants to build the F-35 here in Europe..

[StormILM]

Mr. Sprey is a respected expert in his field but nearly most of what he's states in the video has been debunked by former colleagues and F-35 test performance goals. That being said and being a follower of the program, yes, there have been a lot of teething issues but there are two main aspects to consider here regarding the cost overruns and delays. One, since WE (the USA) are the designer, I will honestly put it out there that it is our procurement and political system structure that causes these defense cost overruns. It is a matter of how many elected Congress members can get their "fingers in the pie" for spending in their districts or in a colleagues district. That plus all of the different procurement regulations and laws make our costs disproportionately higher than they should be. Second, the original promise of the F-35 being cheaper than the F-22 was not off the mark, but the threat environment has drastically changed since the original JSF plan was issued and thus the mission requirements and aircraft component requirements have changed with it. What most folks do not know(and there is a LOT of disinformation/misinformation out there on the F-35) is that the original plan was for the aircraft to not be available until at least 2015 or later due to the need for it's technologies to mature and this being contingent on there being no major issues. So the program is not actually behind schedule, but due to the formerly mentioned point(design changes), it is over original budget. The other issue is that the decision was made to try and move the F-35's service entry date up by several years and since the core technologies were simply not ready yet, that decision was hasty at best and certainly added headaches for the engineers. So, things are catching up and the issues that remain on Lockheed Martin's end are mostly minor and the updated policy on the F-35 procurement is that if one of the aircraft on the assembly line has issues/flaws or is delayed, the cost for that comes off of Lockheed Martin profit per aircraft (which is completely fair in dealing with overruns). The one issue I have is the engine. Our Congress killed the Alternate Engine by General Electric which at first, seemed like a good idea but in retrospect, the PW F135 engine is now the single biggest issue with the F-35 design. PW makes good engines and I am sure they will fix the issues but when it comes to Defense, it is always a good idea to have major component backups just in case.

So, the question remains, what will your Air Forces be getting with the F-35? Stealth, yes and other core technologies that no other aircraft have which will help it mitigate both air to air and surface to air threats which at current capability level, all non-stealth aircraft are technically obsolete within the latest and forecast threat realm. One of the other key core components is the DAS system which will give the F-35 Pilot full 360 degree omnispherical passive threat detection & identification and the ability to engage those threats at any angle. For example, with the current and next two phases of the AIM-9X missile, the F-35 Pilot will be able to see an air to air threat, identify it, fire an AIM-9X and Lock After Launch. This capability is Over-the Shoulder and the final phase AIM-9X will have a range of over 50 nautical miles. The F-35's current and soon to be added air to ground ordy will also have the ability to fire on distant or close targets at any angle. The above mentioned is only a fraction of the capability this aircraft will bring and there is no other aircraft currently made that is even close to the F-35's capability.

One other point, some have made issue that the F-35 isn't as maneuverable as other current fighters. Not so, it's extreme AoA performance is better than any non-thrust vectoring fighter and it's instantaneous and sustained turn rate are at or slightly better than any other non-thrust vectoring fighter but in reality, if the F-35 Pilot uses the core capability, there will be no traditional dogfight, the enemy will be dead well before a merge which with current and forecast threats, any dogfight type close in merge is literally an unaffordable option. The other point about the AIM-9X being central to the F-35 is that there is serious concern over the possibility that there are significant electronic countermeasures that already exist that can jam radar guided missiles or disrupt their mid course guidance. That is why the long range/burn 2 to 3 stage motor for the AIM-9X is being developed as it has advanced IR guidance with mid course steering to-target before the seeker makes it's terminal lock on. The latest IR seekers are extremely resistant to flare countermeasures as they take a "snap shot" of the enemy aircraft's IR/Electromagnetic outline(it's skin friction and internal engine IR signature) and stay locked on to that image ignoring flares. There's reasonable belief that current and upcoming IR seekers are also immune to laser blinding from short range defense lasers. Also, the AIM-9X's thrust vectoring will easily outmaneuver the most maneuverable thrust vectoring aircraft in existence today.

Lastly, in time the F-35 will overcome it's teething issues and prove it's detractors wrong. Most of the current defense hardware now seen in the US and NATO has been through rough spots of development and thus have endured plenty of criticisms regarding costs and issues and along the way as well as plenty of calls came for many of those programs to be cancelled. I am confident the F-35 will prevail and perform well for a long time but bear in mind, these weapons will never become cheaper, only more expensive as new threats arise. That has always been the case.

[Naismith]

That whole interview could be summed up as "Jack of all trades, Master of none" Could have saved myself 7 minutes.

[mirage3]

When you think at the AIM-9X Blk.2 and the JHMCS, with the Lock-after-shoot, then like our F/A-18C (Switzerland) have this possibility, they are able to launch it and also the AIM-120C7. In this case i prefer the hornet. It's maneurable, honest and had a quite good fly per hour price.
The F-35 is a too expensive aircraft which maybe can be good for what it was projected but at a very high price.

[StormILM]

When you think at the AIM-9X Blk.2 and the JHMCS, with the Lock-after-shoot, then like our F/A-18C (Switzerland) have this possibility, they are able to launch it and also the AIM-120C7. In this case i prefer the hornet. It's maneurable, honest and had a quite good fly per hour price.
The F-35 is a too expensive aircraft which maybe can be good for what it was projected but at a very high price.

Maneuverability means little to nothing anymore, rear aspect dogfighting days are in general over with. The issue at hand is what will be able to mitigate not just fighter threats but also and most importantly the latest and projected SAM & Radar Net Threats. The legacy fighters may still have life left in them for use in conflicts where there is little chance of facing the former mentioned threats but otherwise, if you're not in the Stealth game and with the edge the F-35 and it's pending successor design will offer (which is already being worked on), you're Air Force is not in the game. The other issue is that legacy airframes are rapidly running out of flight hours and need replacement. The cost of replacement will be very high, yes, but not being at the tip of the spear by choosing designs that are 2 to 3 decades behind trend is a risk that if met with unforeseen conflicts with aggressors who have Tier 1 defenses, it could literally mean the difference between deterring or rapidly neutralizing a threat or outright defeat.

[TARPSBird]

I haven't been following all the pro and con about the F-35 but here's an article I read over the weekend:
"Five Terrible Alternatives to the F-35"
http://www.realcleardefense.com/arti...35_107335.html

[mirage3]

Maneuverability means little to nothing anymore, rear aspect dogfighting days are in general over with. The issue at hand is what will be able to mitigate not just fighter threats but also and most importantly the latest and projected SAM & Radar Net Threats. The legacy fighters may still have life left in them for use in conflicts where there is little chance of facing the former mentioned threats but otherwise, if you're not in the Stealth game and with the edge the F-35 and it's pending successor design will offer (which is already being worked on), you're Air Force is not in the game. The other issue is that legacy airframes are rapidly running out of flight hours and need replacement. The cost of replacement will be very high, yes, but not being at the tip of the spear by choosing designs that are 2 to 3 decades behind trend is a risk that if met with unforeseen conflicts with aggressors who have Tier 1 defenses, it could literally mean the difference between deterring or rapidly neutralizing a threat or outright defeat.

Accepting this, Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, MiG-29, Su-27 and all the 4 1/2 (or 4th, because MiG-29 and Su-27 are 4th gen.) don't have a future?

[StormILM]

Accepting this, Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, MiG-29, Su-27 and all the 4 1/2 (or 4th, because MiG-29 and Su-27 are 4th gen.) don't have a future?

The Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, F-16C/D Block 60, are non-Stealth but are on par with Mig and Sukhoi types in general but in a close in fight, it's a toss up. Some would argue that an SU-35 can outmaneuver those designs and to a degree, that is correct BUT with off boresight trust vectored weapons, the trust vectored fighters can be neutralized by those types. Tactics and good sensor feeds can help mitigate such fighter threats but still, merge fights are too high of a risk now. The big question as to whether the T-50 or J-20 & J-31 may become a threat? Yes and no. Going on what the Indian Air Force said about the T-50, it's a massive piece of crap, very complex and expensive to maintain with poor stealth coatings and substandard radar and sensor feed(TDL). This is due to the fact the Russians are new to the stealth game which we have been in since the 1980's. I'm not overestimating Chinese nor Russian designs but then again, never underestimate any potential threat. I am still of the feeling that the T-50 or J-20 & J-31 may render pre-fifth gen fighters out in the cold but still, it's the SAM threats we need to be most concerned with as they are cheaper to produce and deploy and do so on a large scale. Legacy fighters are running out of time on that front and quickly so even with updated ECM capability. If we play our cards right, with the right capability we would neutralize an enemy air force on the ground taking them out of the fight and then proceed to strike at other targets at will. I think there are other manned aircraft flying in Black Projects that are in service which are another piece of the puzzle meant to give us a massive asymmetric edge on a Strategic level whereas the F-35 and F-22 will do the same on the Tactical/Battlefield level.

[mirage3]

Thanks Storm, i have better ideas this time!

[AndyG43]

The Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, F-16C/D Block 60, are non-Stealth but are on par with Mig and Sukhoi types in general but in a close in fight, it's a toss up.

Have to be honest, I think the "stealth" argument is a bit of a red herring in this context; obviously figures are classified but some realistic estimates I have seen suggest that Typhoon has a radar cross section of about 0.5 sq m compared with (for example) a pigeon which has an RCS of 0.1 sq m and an F-22 with an RCS of about 0.0001 sq m.

So does that mean that Typhoon, with an RCS about the same as a large seabird, is obsolete in comparison to the Raptor? No, of course it doesn't. If all the combat stayed BVR then stealth is an advantage but in the real world that is an unlikely scenario as recent Red Flag exercises have proved; officially all sides involved have remained tight lipped about the relative effectiveness of the Typhoon vs Raptor, but off the record there are an awful lot of very smug British and German pilots!!

Back to the F-35. On paper the F-35 has an RCS about the size of a large insect but the instant you hang anything on the outside that goes up (same applies for Typhho, F-22 etc obviously) and, for most customers the F-35 will be (more or less) a bomb truck so they will be hanging things on the outside or not having any payload worth talking about; the version my own country is being saddled with, the F-35B, has an internal capacity of 2 x 1000lb bombs and 2 x AAM (the A & the C can carry 2 x 2000lb bombs internally) - tactically about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

My personal feeling is that the British Government have taken the wrong route. They should have gone with a CTOL carrier which would have enabled us to buy the (relatively) more capable -C model or even gone with a navalised Typhoon; the latter, with it's outstanding power to weight ratio, wouldn't even need a catapult, it could use a skijump as the Russians do with their MiGs and Sukhois. But this is now more about politics than operational effectiveness, so we're all going to be stuck with these white elephants. :-(

[StormILM]

Andy,

I have pondered over exactly what you mentioned there many times and at one point years ago, I tried to find any valid point or argument that stealth was not needed. Of course I failed to do so because at the time and considering what was available in both ground based and airborne radars, even the early iteration of stealth was overall very effective. Fast forward to now with current and developing radars which are vastly more capable than just 10 years ago, I am compelled to believe that RCS scaling as we commonly quote is probably inaccurate as with common or legacy radars, the RCS on previous gen fighters is one thing but with the advances scan capabilities of the newer radars being able to detect flaws(gaps and shape changes) in an aircraft surface, legacy fighters paint themselves quite brightly. I've heard it said clearly, on Red Flag, the Super Hornet, Typhoon, & Rafale stick out like a sore thumb on AESA radars at a distance even when they are "noses cold" or running ECM. If an AESA radar can pick something up in such a way, then the large phased array SAM systems certainly can.

BTW, yes there have been some 1v1 runs where the Typhoon has "killed" the Raptor nose on but what never get's told is the Raptor's massive ACM kill ratio over those types when the "restrictions" are lifted on its full capability. It's sobering to say the least and the F-35 will be even deadlier. I understand that some of the F-35's core will eventually be added in the the F-22 during upgrades.

[AndyG43]

BTW, yes there have been some 1v1 runs where the Typhoon has "killed" the Raptor nose on but what never get's told is the Raptor's massive ACM kill ratio over those types when the "restrictions" are lifted on its full capability. It's sobering to say the least and the F-35 will be even deadlier. I understand that some of the F-35's core will eventually be added in the the F-22 during upgrades.

Yes, they haven't been told; which is kinda odd as the USAF were keen to talk about the 108:0 kill ratio they achieved against F-15s in exercise.

And I don't agree that the F-35 will be deadlier. The single real advantage the F-22 possesses in this situation is all aspect stealth which, potentially, allows it to stand off & pick its victims at leisure; the instant it gets into close combat with something more agile than itself Raptor is vulnerable, as we've seen - not great news when a gold plated dedicated air superiority fighter can get taken down by a multi role opponent.

And the F-35 doesn't even have those advantages; nose on it is stealthy, from the side & rear less so, it doesn't possess TVC, its wing loading is what you would expect from a bomb truck & it can't super cruise. I get what you're saying about modern AESA radars, but the Russians have been players in that game for a while; and they also use something neither of us has mentioned thus far, IRST - ranges may be less than radar, but if you can keep your own radar off you remain less visible while still being able to detect your opponent from range.

All in all I think the F-35 is a mistake. But I'm probably being partisan.

[Ivan]

Having done a fair amount of reading but not being involved in the program, it appears to me that the best summary of the F-35 is that it is a very mediocre airframe with lots of really cool technology and some beyond state-of-the-art weapons systems.

Is this a fair assessment?
- Ivan.

[AndyG43]

Having done a fair amount of reading but not being involved in the program, it appears to me that the best summary of the F-35 is that it is a very mediocre airframe with lots of really cool technology and some beyond state-of-the-art weapons systems.

Is this a fair assessment?
- Ivan.

Sounds about right to me Ivan.

[StormILM]

And I don't agree that the F-35 will be deadlier. The single real advantage the F-22 possesses in this situation is all aspect stealth which, potentially, allows it to stand off & pick its victims at leisure; the instant it gets into close combat with something more agile than itself Raptor is vulnerable, as we've seen - not great news when a gold plated dedicated air superiority fighter can get taken down by a multi role opponent.

And the F-35 doesn't even have those advantages; nose on it is stealthy, from the side & rear less so, it doesn't possess TVC, its wing loading is what you would expect from a bomb truck & it can't super cruise. I get what you're saying about modern AESA radars, but the Russians have been players in that game for a while; and they also use something neither of us has mentioned thus far, IRST - ranges may be less than radar, but if you can keep your own radar off you remain less visible while still being able to detect your opponent from range.

The Raptor can easily outmaneuver any NATO or non-TV fighter close in. It has done it easily when the pilots are authorized to fly unrestricted profiles and using their full capability both in maneuvering and sensors(not being limited to the opponents maximum capability), they have never been defeated. There's a lot more to the BVR and ACM capability of the F-22 than has ever been publicly shown. In reality, thrust vectoring is essentially useless with thrust vectoring air to air weapons now in use which can engage at all aspect and high off bore-sight. With IRST, your range is severely limited and even with current Helmet Cueing, such systems are generally restricted to the upper visual plane. With the F-35's DAS system and helmet, the system can see omnispherically at distances greater than most radar sets and the system can process the threat data non-cooperatively(non-IFF). The F-35 Pilot can look down through or behind the body of the aircraft and visually see an enemy aircraft (the data of it) superimposed on his visor along with specific data on that threat. This in conjunction with JTIDS type system feeds into the tactical picture, any air to air threat to the F-35 will be seen and killed before it sees it. And yes, with DAS, the F-35 can shoot enemy aircraft over the shoulder at both beyond visual range and close in. Even if the F-35 needed to turn nose on, it's turn rates and AoA are on par with anything in the non-TV classes of fighters. And stealthwise, the F-35 has excellent coverage in all aspects, even to the rear with the saw-tooth nozzle which is very effective.


BTW, one of the big issues with the F-35's helmet system (vital to the DAS) was that both the original American design and the BAE versions were the cause of many problems and delays. Now that the Helmet design and manufacturing is done by Rockwell-Collins and Elbit Systems, the issues are resolved. I knew Elbit would come through as they are the original pioneers of putting a working HMCS into service 2 decades ago.

[StormILM]

Having done a fair amount of reading but not being involved in the program, it appears to me that the best summary of the F-35 is that it is a very mediocre airframe with lots of really cool technology and some beyond state-of-the-art weapons systems.

Is this a fair assessment?
- Ivan.

No, the source of that information seems plentiful but cannot be proven as factual. When you press anyone for what they mean by the F-35 airframe being weak or poorly made, you can never get a straight answer. The fact is that the original source of that information was referring to original internal structure issues which were of concern some time ago(and correctly state was a manufacturing process issue, not a design flaw) . The problem was rectified long ago but somehow this story continues to find its way around net and news circles as it is new news every couple of months. What most forget about fighter airframes is that due to the inherent stresses inflicted upon them(even nominally), they wear out much faster than other airframes. Enter them onto aircraft carriers, double the already accelerated wear and corrosion rates. The more the fighter ages and builds hours, the more technical order and inspections follow. Here in my state and city, US Marine AV-8B's are weekly visitors every Thursday and Friday to our local airfield where they stay overnight. When they leave Cherry Point for routine training, regardless of distance or hours flown, when they return to base the aircraft go through a mandatory invasive inspection equivalent to a 100 hour inspection or even annual so the crews stay out on their flight assignment away from base from 1 to 2 days flying multi-leg flights prior to the inspections. Since this inspection process has been carrier out, the accident/mishap rate for our Harriers has dropped dramatically but then again, the airframes and components are aging and thus the cost for maintaining them is going up sharply.

[huub vink]

Our government bought a high speed train in Italy, which was a cheap upgraded version of a lower speed train, and once winter came the trains quite litteraly fell to pieces. Then we bought the NH-90 for our navy, and after a long period of solving problems, we found quite soon after taking it into service that the thing will start to rust when in contact with salt water. So I have no reason to doubt our goverment's judgement when it comes to buying a replacement for our F-16, especially now that the same company that built the train and helicopter wants to build the F-35 here in Europe..

Don't worry my friend. Before the first F-35 will be delivered, the last Dutch military airfield will long be closed and we will most probably sell "our" F-35s cheap to Portugal

Cheers,
Huub

[Ferry_vO]

Don't worry my friend. Before the first F-35 will be delivered, the last Dutch military airfield will long be closed and we will most probably sell "our" F-35s cheap to Portugal

Yep... Before ww2 broke out we had more tanks (One to be precise..) and airfields than we have right now....

[AndyG43]

[QUOTE=StormILM;898819]When you press anyone for what they mean by the F-35 airframe being weak or poorly made, you can never get a straight answer. QUOTE]

Weeeell, I'd question whether a carrier-borne bomb truck that couldn't even catch a hook was well made (and that was a design flaw). Straight enough answer for you?

I'm ducking out of this debate, as I suspect it could get heated and do nobody any favours.

[StormILM]

[/QUOTE]Weeeell, I'd question whether a carrier-borne bomb truck that couldn't even catch a hook was well made (and that was a design flaw). Straight enough answer for you?

I'm ducking out of this debate, as I suspect it could get heated and do nobody any favours.[/QUOTE]

I suppose you're referring to this design flaw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POHXQzpKRdk

I recall the news story posted here and other places about the F-35C not being able to catch a a wire during arrestment due to the geometry of the hook being so close to the main gear coupled with the AoA requirement needed for the F-35C carrier approach. The story was related to "observer concerns" from a handful of aeronautical engineers who made what appeared to be a valid concern but as you can see in the above video, this was proven to be non-sense. Many conventional carrier aircraft have gone through hook design tweaking during the NATOPS testing phases and almost invariably, changes are made.

No intent whatsoever to heat up this discussion to anything mean spirited or to anger anyone but as I have often encountered, new stories can be and are often laced or flooded with inaccuracies and half-truths and the reasons for such can be unintentional to there often being an ulterior motive(which the latter is often the case with anything defense related within the press). That is why I never trust typical news sources on such matters and utilize my own knowledge and sources on the subject at hand. It gives me a much more realistic view of what is really going on beyond the misleading sources that so many accept.

BTW, I have literally small mountains of paper files on defense projects going back 40 plus years that show the stark separation between the reality of those project versus the thin surface facade often shown by simple press releases. Of that, there is a percentage of simpleton speak from the Defense manufacturers to bolster public support for said projects but a massive amount of material from press and political sources attacking the shortcomings of many projects which later turned out being some of the most successful designs in history.