"The F-35 is a Lemon. It's a Turkey"

[Frank Merton]

I have to wonder whether people can distinguish between a lemon and something with toothing problems.

For something so bad, it seems to be selling well. Of course I can imagine politics here, and I can imagine the authorities involved deciding using the same plane as everyone else is a good idea even if the plane has problems. The most likely thing I can see from my perspective would be people just taking the best of a bad set of choices.

Usually technology does trump numbers, but not always.

[Yamato]

Canada is in the unenviable position of having chosen to have a fighter force of all F-35s, so I do hope it does look at other options. Australia planned to continue using their F-18s at least, and has recently expressed interest in purchasing an additional 24 F-18s on top of the 24 they already had. Or maybe they have already but again I really hope Australia does this at least.

It's a political and economic weapon anymore, more than it is a competent replacement to today's front line aircraft, selling our overpriced science experiment to the world in a p***poor airframe.

[Space Commander Travis]

I have to wonder whether people can distinguish between a lemon and something with toothing problems.

For something so bad, it seems to be selling well. Of course I can imagine politics here, and I can imagine the authorities involved deciding using the same plane as everyone else is a good idea even if the plane has problems. The most likely thing I can see from my perspective would be people just taking the best of a bad set of choices.

Usually technology does trump numbers, but not always.

Well, countries with significant political clout rarely seem to have much trouble selling stuff to loyal allies, do they, there are alternatives certainly (Rafale or Gripen or Typhoon), but you shouldn't underestimate the pressure that Loyal Allies come under to make the right choice.

[Duke Wellington]

Pierre Sprey, a US aircraft developer of the A-10 and F-16 makes a lot of good points unfortunately.

[media=]

[/media]

For those countries in the world who dumped their dough on this thing, we salute you.

The F-35 is a good all round fighter jet but in trying to be everything it isnt the best at anything. The F-22 is poor as its sacrificed a lot so that it could be a stealth figher jet. If the US is fighting 2nd rate nations then the F-22 will win air supremacy but first rate powers such as UK, France, Germany, Russia and China can all track it with existing radar.

Frances Dassault Rafale is the worlds best fighter jet, followed by Swedens Saab JAS 39 Gripen and finally the Eurofighter. In mock combat exercises the Rafale beat the F-22, F-35 and Eurofighter hands down. I believe they didnt suffer a single loss. Probably why the Arabs scraped their Eurofighter order for Rafales.

[Frank Merton]

I don't think you will ever see the Americans buying something like that from a European or other country.

Did anyone notice the buyers seem to be all predominantly English speaking countries, or is that just a selection effect of the language of the participants of this board.

Has Jamaica bought any?

[Duke Wellington]

I don't think you will ever see the Americans buying something like that from a European or other country.

Did anyone notice the buyers seem to be all predominantly English speaking countries, or is that just a selection effect of the language of the participants of this board.

Has Jamaica bought any?

They are all playing follow the leader to keep the US happy. By buying jets from the Americans it sprinkles some of its gold dust on them when needed.

[Space Commander Travis]

I don't think you will ever see the Americans buying something like that from a European or other country.

Did anyone notice the buyers seem to be all predominantly English speaking countries, or is that just a selection effect of the language of the participants of this board.

Has Jamaica bought any?

No, but they do have a Cessna Centurion.

[Yamato]

The F-35 is a good all round fighter jet but in trying to be everything it isnt the best at anything. The F-22 is poor as its sacrificed a lot so that it could be a stealth figher jet. If the US is fighting 2nd rate nations then the F-22 will win air supremacy but first rate powers such as UK, France, Germany, Russia and China can all track it with existing radar.

Frances Dassault Rafale is the worlds best fighter jet, followed by Swedens Saab JAS 39 Gripen and finally the Eurofighter. In mock combat exercises the Rafale beat the F-22, F-35 and Eurofighter hands down. I believe they didnt suffer a single loss. Probably why the Arabs scraped their Eurofighter order for Rafales.

The Rafale is a great fighter it's a bit surprising it hasn't sold a lot better than it has after all these years. Rafale's got wings (and real teeth under them). Something the US engineers lost in the translation of trying to do everything for everybody. Which reminds me of the gunless F-4s getting waxed by relatively obsolete MiGs over Vietnam, it seems that once again our Pentagon bureaucrats have gone all-in on their big theory of what the future of air combat will be. And once again, it ain't all that.

[Space Commander Travis]

The Rafale is a great fighter it's a bit surprising it hasn't sold a lot better than it has after all these years. Rafale's got wings (and real teeth under them).

I suspect probably that countries were anxious to stay on the good side of Uncle Sam, and so bought American rather than French (particularly during the Bush regime), and it probably wasn't helped by the fact that other European countries were developing a fighter of their own (the Eurofighter/Typhoon) in direct competition with it. American companies could do that, knowing that the Govt. would buy everything, however lemony it may be, but not many countries could afford the luxury of buying both.

[Yamato]

I suspect probably that countries were anxious to stay on the good side of Uncle Sam, and so bought American rather than French (particularly during the Bush regime), and it probably wasn't helped by the fact that other European countries were developing a fighter of their own (the Eurofighter/Typhoon) in direct competition with it. American companies could do that, knowing that the Govt. would buy everything, however lemony it may be, but not many countries could afford the luxury of buying both.

Or maybe there's somebody smart in France who wasn't keen on exporting it? Knowing what you've got without letting the other guy is probably the best way to play if spending money isn't the goal. The Soviets were always good at this. I have a book on my shelf copyright December 1979 and the only known photograph the US had of an Su-24 was basically just a shadow of it. You could see the outline of the nose cone well enough, and we had to speculate that there must be a ginormous radar in it, but this turned out to be over a decade after it went into production! Even the 27 we didn't even see until the mid to late '80s when they finally unleashed them on the unsuspecting world so they played their secrecy very well.

[Yamato]

No, but they do have a Cessna Centurion.

They've got a Cadillac Commando. They needed that.

[Thanato]

Canada is in the unenviable position of having chosen to have a fighter force of all F-35s, so I do hope it does look at other options. Australia planned to continue using their F-18s at least, and has recently expressed interest in purchasing an additional 24 F-18s on top of the 24 they already had. Or maybe they have already but again I really hope Australia does this at least.

It's a political and economic weapon anymore, more than it is a competent replacement to today's front line aircraft, selling our overpriced science experiment to the world in a p***poor airframe.

Canada is no longer commuted to buy the F35. They have opened up to other fighters

[Duke Wellington]

I suspect probably that countries were anxious to stay on the good side of Uncle Sam, and so bought American rather than French (particularly during the Bush regime), and it probably wasn't helped by the fact that other European countries were developing a fighter of their own (the Eurofighter/Typhoon) in direct competition with it. American companies could do that, knowing that the Govt. would buy everything, however lemony it may be, but not many countries could afford the luxury of buying both.

If you guys watch the video you'll notice the Rafale and Eurofighter look the same and have all the same moves. However the Rafale goes through its alpha rolls and turns faster. Its because the delta wings are closer to the main wings. Eurofighter looks slow and cumbersome in comparison.

Edited May 12, 2014 by RabidMongoose

[Rafterman]

Trying to build a one-size-fits-all aircraft hasn't worked too well in the past and it's probably never going to work well in the future either.

But I'm not ready to write off the F35 as of yet. It's a capable aircraft that simply needs to find its roll. Once it does, it will probably be a mainstay of the air fleet for years to come. Of course there is always the exception to this rule. Only time will tell.

We also have to remember that pretty much every piece of military equipment in the US inventory was considered a boondoggle and "dead on arrival" at some point in its career only to go on and have vaunted service careers. Even the A-10 had major problems in development and don't even start on the F16 because it was s complete mess.

[+and-then]

I have to wonder whether people can distinguish between a lemon and something with toothing problems.

For something so bad, it seems to be selling well. Of course I can imagine politics here, and I can imagine the authorities involved deciding using the same plane as everyone else is a good idea even if the plane has problems. The most likely thing I can see from my perspective would be people just taking the best of a bad set of choices.

Usually technology does trump numbers, but not always.

I have no idea if it's as bad as being portrayed but you are correct about the teething issue. The B-29 and the F4U Corsair in WWII were considered junk until the bugs were shaken out. That said, the first time I saw this thing fly I remember saying that anything THAT sophisticated cannot be combat survivable. I guess we'll see.

[Yamato]

The Pentagon has killed the Zombie F-22 and Obama approved. 30 years in development and what's proven to be the most survivable of all are the problems with it. "We don't need anymore F-22s", said Merc14. So the manufacturers retool for other things they can actually make (money on), and we'll be maintaining the half-fleet we have with what, cannibalism and field replaceable units from China? If we're going to kill it, kill it. But we've decided we'll be dealing with it, with half measures and compromise.

Interestingly in a comparison of the F-22 and the T-50, the one drawback of the T-50 that was pointed out was the radar absorption of its skin vs. the F-22, that's all well and good when hiding and running are your two best cards, but at least the T-50 can go out in the rain.

And shouldn't the F-35 be the F-24? What bureaucratic genius decided to jump 13 lucky numbers to help the dupes buy it? Build a mess of a plane that will be lucky if it can even fly every other day no matter what mission it's going to half-ass perform, and put the lives of our pilots in the way of it all the while. Just so long as Lockheed Martin gets the $30+ billion in taxpayer money every year so they can make billions in profits. Big government the chickenhawk conservatives can approve of.

[Yamato]

I have no idea if it's as bad as being portrayed but you are correct about the teething issue. The B-29 and the F4U Corsair in WWII were considered junk until the bugs were shaken out. That said, the first time I saw this thing fly I remember saying that anything THAT sophisticated cannot be combat survivable. I guess we'll see.

Considered junk by who? The bugs were worked out in unprecedented speed of delivery and the B-29 wasn't a compromised bomber design at all vs. any contemporary in the world we can speak of. That we even had the B-29 in WWII at all is remarkable. It was so good so early, Stalin put a proverbial gun to the head of the Soviet aviation industry and forced them to build an identical plane. Unfortunately they were tooled to the metric system, and so they wound up with a clone that was heavier and inferior in performance.

[DecoNoir]

Considered junk by who? The bugs were worked out in unprecedented speed of delivery and the B-29 wasn't a compromised bomber design at all vs. any contemporary in the world we can speak of. That we even had the B-29 in WWII at all is remarkable. It was so good so early, Stalin put a proverbial gun to the head of the Soviet aviation industry and forced them to build an identical plane. Unfortunately they were tooled to the metric system, and so they wound up with a clone that was heavier and inferior in performance.

If I remember my military history correctly, it wasn't so much that it was junk (talking B-29) as that pilots found it difficult to fly compared to the B-17 and B-24. It also suffered from early engine problems and fires. All and all nothing too terrible.

On the note of the Soviet copies: The engineers where so desperate to emulate the design, when they copied a captured aircraft, they even put in the patches to cover and repair previous battle damage!

[Yamato]

No it wasn't "junk" at all. I don't know where that came from. All in all that's not even remarkable.

I haven't heard of the difficult to fly complaint. A temporary force of conscript pilots who don't have thousands of hours in many different aircraft are always going to have more difficulty with a switch. The hiccups you're referring to are present for any aircraft not due to any inherent design flaw in the B-29.

and then's comment was baseless by any comparison. It went from concept to prototype in four years flat, and what, it can't have any problems or that means it's analogous to the F-35 here, or "junk"? Seriously.

[DecoNoir]

No it wasn't "junk" at all. I don't know where that came from. All in all that's not even remarkable.

I haven't heard of the difficult to fly complaint. A temporary force of conscript pilots who don't have thousands of hours in many different aircraft are always going to have more difficulty with a switch. The hiccups you're referring to are present for any aircraft not due to any inherent design flaw in the B-29.

and then's comment was baseless by any comparison. It went from concept to prototype in four years flat, and what, it can't have any problems or that means it's analogous to the F-35 here, or "junk"? Seriously.

Yeah... kind of the jist I was going for.

[Yamato]

I don't think you will ever see the Americans buying something like that from a European or other country.

Did anyone notice the buyers seem to be all predominantly English speaking countries, or is that just a selection effect of the language of the participants of this board.

Has Jamaica bought any?

Rafale is a great dog-fighter that's at least competitive with the F-22 in past competitions but it's not perfect and not the best fighter in the world. That was oversold. Stealth aside, the F-22 is a supremely high powered heavy fighter. It's theoretically invulnerable on the defense because it can control the range between itself and bogeys, it's got both the legs and the bicycle to do that from 30,000 ft+. As an interceptor defending the skies over the USA we're in good hands. Guns and single engines and delta wings giving good high energy maneuverability are a great combination for a knife fight, they're not ideal for air dominance. A country like France on mainland Europe with a long border and potential invasions they have to respond to immediately should have a quick fighter that can get in close to enemy aircraft and destroy them quickly. It may well be the best fighter in the world, for France even at its age which is saying a lot. But it's a terrible combination for power, armament, ceiling, endurance. Heavy powerful fighters keep the ceiling clean. If they don't want to get in a knife fight, they don't. Conversely, the Rafale wants to get in a knife fight, but can't. The better adversary for air combat over miles and not feet is the Su-30 variants from Russia or the Su-37 (if I'm greedy enough to need canards too) or the new T-50. The Rafale is an old design and underpowered looking at the potential adversaries like Russia and China flying their twin engined gymnasts. The US buying these would be shocking when it's been in this game forever. I wouldn't bet France's avionics, weapons, software et to be on par with ours either and I'm sure I'm not alone. A hotshot French pilot making a good show at the show is only meaningful if its replicable. If I could set the parameters for a competition, I can make the F-22 nearly invincible.

The US's problem with this turkey is that everything we do with our air force has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with offense. So the identified need for a 2nd aircraft to fill in the F-22s giant gaps was correct. But it looks like we replaced the Harrier more than the F-18 and at this point I don't want the US to lose its F-18s either.

I didn't know Canada bailed. So Sprey was right and the orders are nosediving. I see Australia just purchased 58? but they cut their purchase down from their original proposal.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Yamato

[+and-then]

No it wasn't "junk" at all. I don't know where that came from. All in all that's not even remarkable.

I haven't heard of the difficult to fly complaint. A temporary force of conscript pilots who don't have thousands of hours in many different aircraft are always going to have more difficulty with a switch. The hiccups you're referring to are present for any aircraft not due to any inherent design flaw in the B-29.

and then's comment was baseless by any comparison. It went from concept to prototype in four years flat, and what, it can't have any problems or that means it's analogous to the F-35 here, or "junk"? Seriously.

I did say "considered" not that it was junk. The point being that it's easy and common to jump on the bandwagon for disparaging any weapons system that you didn't vote for in congress. The Corsair was one of the finest fighters of the war but until the Marines took it and used it from carriers no one would accept it's abilities. Just like you, Yam, some folks just love to complain about something whether it's baseless or not

[Frank Merton]

The best defense is a good offense. Maginot walls don't need to be penetrated, just circumvented. I think the best way to deter war is to make it a disaster at home.

[Yamato]

The best defense is a good offense. Maginot walls don't need to be penetrated, just circumvented. I think the best way to deter war is to make it a disaster at home.

Offense is bombers and F-18s on aircraft carriers. We've got a fantastic offense. We're just trying to replace it with a golden turkey.

I would love a bill from this Congress that says to all the future unknown Presidents of this country if you want to start a war, you've got to pay for it with current revenues. So to legislatively draw the line between offense and defense, two opposite things our bureaucrats love to blur just like you are here. And why trust offensive foreign policies ever? Do you actually trust who the US chooses to bomb and attack sitting safely at your keyboard over there in communist Vietnam?

[Yamato]

I did say "considered" not that it was junk. The point being that it's easy and common to jump on the bandwagon for disparaging any weapons system that you didn't vote for in congress. The Corsair was one of the finest fighters of the war but until the Marines took it and used it from carriers no one would accept it's abilities. Just like you, Yam, some folks just love to complain about something whether it's baseless or not

Complaints are a dime a dozen. I don't accept baseless criticism (partisan political these days). But no, I've never heard of anyone who considered the B-29 junk. That sounds like a complaint too btw, so pot here's kettle?