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

[Space Commander Travis]

Oh, this is the other F-35 thread. There was another one recently about Canadia buying F-18s in preference, I don't know if you've seen that one?

[Unusual Tournament]

On 2 August 2015 at 7:25 PM, Harry_Dresden said:

Yes the amount of code on the F-35 is way above even that of the F-22. When you say a beast it would to me resemble a shark pack, relentless and with little warning.

Excellent assessment.

[travelnjones]

well it certainly isn't a warthog!!

[Timothy]

On 29/12/2016 at 0:01 PM, travelnjones said:

well it certainly isn't a warthog!!

That piece of work, one of my favorite few of all time. Beautiful aircraft.

I guess we have to wait. Is there any indication when one of the F-35 units will be fully functional? I haven't been following the development for almost a year.

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, Timonthy said:

That piece of work, one of my favorite few of all time. Beautiful aircraft.

I guess we have to wait. Is there any indication when one of the F-35 units will be fully functional? I haven't been following the development for almost a year.

They do claim that On 2 August 2016, the U.S. Air Force declared its first squadron of F-35A fighters combat-ready.^[ , although I suspect that's probably only if it isn't cloudy and the enemy doesn't do anything unsporting like not staying still. 

[+and-then]

Israel has taken delivery of a couple and pilots are in training on them now.  I think it's slightly comical that people are still concerned with the aircraft's agility and ability to dogfight.  The whole concept is to never allow the enemy to be close enough to worry about such problems.  If it turns out to be the pig everyone thinks, we'll know soon enough.  My guess is a squadron of these Lightning IIs will be used at some point to eradicate a few S-400 sites in Syria  

[Space Commander Travis]

13 minutes ago, and then said:

 My guess is a squadron of these Lightning IIs will be used at some point to eradicate a few S-400 sites in Syria

Which an F-15 or even F-16 could do just as well. Why would they want something as incredibly over-elaborate and over-expensive? And if the Obama regime supposedly hates Israel as much as some people make out, why would they force their sell their very latest and most super hardware to them? Or maybe it is a sly way of getting back at Bibi; foisting such enormously expensive turkeys on them is a great way of weakening their economy!  (Even at the no doubt very cut price that they were offered.) 

[+and-then]

27 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

Which an F-15 or even F-16 could do just as well. Why would they want something as incredibly over-elaborate and over-expensive? And if the Obama regime supposedly hates Israel as much as some people make out, why would they force their sell their very latest and most super hardware to them? Or maybe it is a sly way of getting back at Bibi; foisting such enormously expensive turkeys on them is a great way of weakening their economy!  (Even at the no doubt very cut price that they were offered.) 

 

The F-35 is incredibly complex, maybe too much so.  But it is also stealthy and has complete battle-space awareness.  The S-400 is capable of shooting down the F-15,-16 or -18.  I cannot imagine the IAF ordering dozens of these aircraft unless they feel confident in its performance.  Time will tell, but as to Obama's wishes, even HE couldn't get between arms giants and their customers    

[Timothy]

4 hours ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

They do claim that On 2 August 2016, the U.S. Air Force declared its first squadron of F-35A fighters combat-ready.^[ , although I suspect that's probably only if it isn't cloudy and the enemy doesn't do anything unsporting like not staying still. 

Sounds like the current Aus Defence Force. Their Hawk trainers and F-18's call PAN-PAN every second time they fly through my airspace, and that's when the weather is fine. So the F-35 may fit right in.

[Yamato]

On 12/23/2016 at 5:47 PM, Captain Risky said:

The F-35 program is too big to fail regardless of how good or bad the fighter is. Trump is just blowing hot air. 

I agree and the cancellation doesn't logically confer with his new role as job creator/savior.  When you're already creating jobs in 44 states or whatever it is, that's quite a plug to pull.   It's too big to fail to remain a money pit, but that will be viewed as yet another aspect of its failure when historians look back at it.

The F-35 is a wonderful test bed of technology to see what's possible.    It should be the X-35E/F/G, not the F-35A.    It's a fine technology demonstrator for the development of future pilotless aircraft but recooking the F-35 to be unmanned would be an even more massive waste of money on top of an already overbloated program.   It's way too fat with the pilot on board, it's so overfat without a pilot it shouldn't even be considered as a valid progression of the weapon.  Take lessons learned and incorporate them into a much smaller and cheaper package.  But yup it's "too big to fail", so there's still that.

 

On 12/23/2016 at 6:06 PM, Captain Risky said:

I think Trumpie just wants to knock down the price. The F-18 just cannot compete with the Russian 4 plus fighters like the SU-35, SU-34 and PAK-FA. It will die a horrible death every time. If he was serious IMO he would go with the development of an upgraded F-15 and F-22 incorporating F-35 tech and move the F-35 into a armed drone program. But that would take more money than he plans on saving. What do you think about the F-18 replacing the F-35?

Maybe he thinks something else other than a horrible death every time?   Kindof a loaded question with an opening like that isn't it?  

Since we divided up the air duties into High vs Low, Flankers are the "High" adversaries of the F-15, not F-18 or F-35.  The T-50 is subsequently analogous to the F-22.   Super Hornet's contemporary counterpart would be the MiG-35, a glorified MiG-29 akin to the Super Hornet glorifying the F-18.   Whatever head-to-head results we do have, we do know that US F-18s made good showings of themselves against Polish 29s.   Otherwise the combat simulator results seem to flip both ways depending on who's funding the simulation.  But yeah Canada won't be challenging Chinese air superiority over the South China Sea any time soon FWIW.

 

[Yamato]

12 hours ago, and then said:

The F-35 is incredibly complex, maybe too much so.  But it is also stealthy and has complete battle-space awareness.  The S-400 is capable of shooting down the F-15,-16 or -18.  I cannot imagine the IAF ordering dozens of these aircraft unless they feel confident in its performance.  Time will tell, but as to Obama's wishes, even HE couldn't get between arms giants and their customers    

Everyone who ordered felt confident in its performance.  Regarding your imagination, sorry but Israeli confidence doesn't validate performance any better than Canadian or Australian confidence.

[+and-then]

5 minutes ago, Yamato said:

I agree and the cancellation doesn't logically confer with his new role as job creator/savior.  When you're already creating jobs in 44 states or whatever it is, that's quite a plug to pull.   It's too big to fail to remain a money pit, but that will be viewed as yet another aspect of its failure when historians look back at it.

The F-35 is a wonderful test bed of technology to see what's possible.    It should be the X-35E/F/G, not the F-35A.    It's a fine technology demonstrator for the development of future pilotless aircraft but recooking the F-35 to be unmanned would be an even more massive waste of money on top of an already overbloated program.   It's way too fat with the pilot on board, it's so overfat without a pilot it shouldn't even be considered as a valid progression of the weapon.  Take lessons learned and incorporate them into a much smaller and cheaper package.  But yup it's "too big to fail", so there's still that.

 

Maybe he thinks something else other than a horrible death every time?   Kindof a loaded question with an opening like that isn't it?  

Since we divided up the air duties into High vs Low, Flankers are the "High" adversaries of the F-15, not F-18 or F-35.  The T-50 is subsequently analogous to the F-22.   Super Hornet's contemporary counterpart would be the MiG-35, a glorified MiG-29 akin to the Super Hornet glorifying the F-18.   Whatever head-to-head results we do have, we do know that US F-18s made good showings of themselves against Polish 29s.   Otherwise the combat simulator results seem to flip both ways depending on who's funding the simulation.  But yeah Canada won't be challenging Chinese air superiority over the South China Sea any time soon FWIW.

 

 

Where are you getting this info, Yam? I'd like to find a piece that sums the relationships and capabilities as succinctly. 

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, Yamato said:

Everyone who ordered felt confident in its performance.  Regarding your imagination, sorry but Israeli confidence doesn't validate performance any better than Canadian or Australian confidence.

No, it doesn't, but the IAF is a far superior force to either of the aforementioned.  If the F-35 truly is as bad as I keep hearing (here) then it will be shown to be quite soon now.  I just prefer to watch how the IAF employs them before I make a judgment.  The US Navy wanted squat all to do with the Corsair in the early 40's.  Some Marines showed them how to use it properly and the rest is history.  Basically, the same issue arose for the B-29, initially.  Until the aircraft has gone through shakedown and is used in combat, it's just too early to call it a waste.

[Space Commander Travis]

9 minutes ago, and then said:

If the F-35 truly is as bad as I keep hearing (here) then it will be shown to be quite soon now.  I just prefer to watch how the IAF employs them before I make a judgment.

But bombing the Palestinians would hardly be a great test, would it. You could do that with anything. Unless you really do think Bibi is insane enough to completely unilaterally decide to attack Syria or Iran or somewhere, in which case I might have a greater opinion of his sanity that you do since I doubt he'd be mad enough to do that. 

[Yamato]

26 minutes ago, and then said:

No, it doesn't, but the IAF is a far superior force to either of the aforementioned.  If the F-35 truly is as bad as I keep hearing (here) then it will be shown to be quite soon now.  I just prefer to watch how the IAF employs them before I make a judgment.  The US Navy wanted squat all to do with the Corsair in the early 40's.  Some Marines showed them how to use it properly and the rest is history.  Basically, the same issue arose for the B-29, initially.  

That's not a but.  Their confidence doesn't mean more because they're far superior.   The IAF, whatever they do, will be using airfoils designed to incorporate lift fans, without lift fans.  That's compromise on top of compromise.  

It's already shown it can't turn or run.  The bells and whistles arguments ensue from there, but just put the bells and whistles on a plane that can turn and run.   As other powers narrow the technology gap the longevity of the F-35's advantages will decay.

 

Quote

Until the aircraft has gone through shakedown and is used in combat, it's just too early to call it a waste.

Then start any program and build any aircraft and nothing is a waste until it's used in combat.   This wasteless approach could be where the IAF is actually relevant, they're a lot more likely to use their new jets in combat a lot sooner.   Still, bombing Palestinian civilians per usual won't be much of a test for the F-35's astonishing capabilities.

[kartikg]

I  would congratulate all who were involved in development of the aircraft. It may or may not be the best and that's because somebody tried to do something different and extraordinary. The technology developed will be useful in future projects. I compare this to my first cake baking experience, the cake was not the best and it certainly didn't beat taste of bakery cake but it was the start and experience. 

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Yamato said:

That's not a but.  Their confidence doesn't mean more because they're far superior.   The IAF, whatever they do, will be using airfoils designed to incorporate lift fans, without lift fans.  That's compromise on top of compromise.  

It's already shown it can't turn or run.  The bells and whistles arguments ensue from there, but just put the bells and whistles on a plane that can turn and run.   As other powers narrow the technology gap the longevity of the F-35's advantages will decay.

 

Then start any program and build any aircraft and nothing is a waste until it's used in combat.   This wasteless approach could be where the IAF is actually relevant, they're a lot more likely to use their new jets in combat a lot sooner.   Still, bombing Palestinian civilians per usual won't be much of a test for the F-35's astonishing capabilities.

 

You can't kill what you can't sense or aim at.  I didn't say the F-35 had no serious problems, I said it was too soon to judge.

 

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

But bombing the Palestinians would hardly be a great test, would it. You could do that with anything. Unless you really do think Bibi is insane enough to completely unilaterally decide to attack Syria or Iran or somewhere, in which case I might have a greater opinion of his sanity that you do since I doubt he'd be mad enough to do that. 

 

Russian and Iranian higher tech weapons are being made available in Syria.  Israel has already attacked convoys several times to keep those weapons out of Hizballah's reach.  Should Russia decide to cover such a transfer with their S-400 system, Israel would have no choice but to try a stealth approach.  IF that occurs and that S-400 system is shown to be vulnerable it will be quite embarrassing to Putin.  If they lose an F-35 instead, we'll have some confirmation of the rumours.

[Yamato]

17 hours ago, and then said:

Where are you getting this info, Yam? I'd like to find a piece that sums the relationships and capabilities as succinctly. 

Other than referring to US air doctrine and what we can easily find online, not sure what you're asking for specifically?   Wikipedia would be a good first stop for specs and quick comparisons.

The F-18E isn't so outclassed by its adversaries to make a blanket statement that it is, yet there's some truth in what Risky said as it won't have the high altitude performance (range, speed, service ceiling) to fulfill air superiority requirements against Su-35s.  Even intercepting one is a tall order.  Ditto with the F-35.  

[aztek]

On 1/4/2017 at 2:42 AM, and then said:

Israel has taken delivery of a couple and pilots are in training on them now.  I think it's slightly comical that people are still concerned with the aircraft's agility and ability to dogfight.  The whole concept is to never allow the enemy to be close enough to worry about such problems.  

lol, yea that is why F4 was build without guns, at first, however as reality showed it was very bad decision. the line of thinking "they wont get close" is big fallacy.

i see same line of dumb thinking with auto manufacturers now, they do not include spare tire, but give you a can of green stuff and a compressor,  dumb idea, sidewall punctures do not get fixed by green slime,  and cars do not only get flats where there is a cell service.

Edited January 5, 2017 by aztek

[+and-then]

34 minutes ago, aztek said:

lol, yea that is why F4 was build without guns, at first, however as reality showed it was very bad decision. the line of thinking "they wont get close" is big fallacy.

i see same line of dumb thinking with auto manufacturers now, they do not include spare tire, but give you a can of green stuff and a compressor,  dumb idea, sidewall punctures do not get fixed by green slime,  and cars do not only get flats where there is a cell service.

Stealth is the name of the game.  If a squadron of these slip in and light up their target from over the horizon then when they turn for home I suspect they'll have some cover for help. If you hear of a deep strike of targets protected by S-400 sites then we can call them a success 

[aztek]

16 minutes ago, and then said:

Stealth is the name of the game.  If a squadron of these slip in and light up their target from over the horizon then when they turn for home I suspect they'll have some cover for help. If you hear of a deep strike of targets protected by S-400 sites then we can call them a success 

lol, you assume radar tech is not improving. and there are no other means of detection.  

btw no doubt  Russia has means to detect targets beyond horizon, their first attempts (duga 1, duga 2 aka woodpecker) was actually a success, but it was shut down due to it disrupting  communications all over the world, but it is naive to think they just abandoned the idea, they also own space now. like i said it is very naive to think "it wont happen"., "they wont get close enough".

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by aztek

[Space Commander Travis]

22 hours ago, kartikg said:

I  would congratulate all who were involved in development of the aircraft. It may or may not be the best and that's because somebody tried to do something different and extraordinary. The technology developed will be useful in future projects. I compare this to my first cake baking experience, the cake was not the best and it certainly didn't beat taste of bakery cake but it was the start and experience. 

I admire the salesmanship of Lockheed Martin for convincing so many Valued Allies that an experiment that they may not have quite got right yet is the only thing they'll ever need to satisfy all of their requirements they might ever have. That or Washington said to them "unless you buy this thing we won't be your friend any more and Vladimir Putin and/or Iran will invade you, you just wait and see". 

[Unusual Tournament]

10 hours ago, aztek said:

lol, you assume radar tech is not improving. and there are no other means of detection.  

btw no doubt  Russia has means to detect targets beyond horizon, their first attempts (duga 1, duga 2 aka woodpecker) was actually a success, but it was shut down due to it disrupting  communications all over the world, but it is naive to think they just abandoned the idea, they also own space now. like i said it is very naive to think "it wont happen"., "they wont get close enough".

 

I'm inclined to agree with aztec on this one. Stealth technology is quickly being made obsolete by new powerful radars and more importantly radar signals that can bounce on and off different levels of the stratosphere and even the ground in order to get a reading on the upside and undercarriage of the stealth plane. 

...but I think we're getting side tracted, assuming that the F-35 is just about stealth... it's not. The biggest selling point and advantage is the interconnectivity with other F-35's and command centres, whether they be fixed bases or air assets the F-35 has no rival. 

[DarkHunter]

16 hours ago, aztek said:

lol, you assume radar tech is not improving. and there are no other means of detection.  

btw no doubt  Russia has means to detect targets beyond horizon, their first attempts (duga 1, duga 2 aka woodpecker) was actually a success, but it was shut down due to it disrupting  communications all over the world, but it is naive to think they just abandoned the idea, they also own space now. like i said it is very naive to think "it wont happen"., "they wont get close enough".

 

Radar tech is improving but a lot of it isn't in helping it detect stealth, more of making it smaller and less power intense, but there are a handful of areas where it is trying to get better at detecting stealth.  Radar as an idea is rather simple, just fire out a radio wave and wait for it to bounce back if it hits something.  The problem is that stealth technology keeps making what bounces back smaller and smaller.  To combat this radar technology has got really good at detecting small things but as radar technology gets better at picking up smaller objects it starts to pick up all small objects such as birds, large insect swarms, ect, which doesn't help in detecting stealth aircraft since they just hide in the thousands of false hits.  That is one area where radar technology is improving and its computer systems that are getting better and quicker at sorting out these false hits from actual stealth aircraft but it takes a lot of processing power still to sort through the thousands of hits constantly and each time stealth makes the plane a little smaller the exponentially more false hits radar will have to pick up to just even detect the aircraft.  Ultimately computers as we know them have a limit to just how much data they can process in a certain time with certain power and certain amount of processors and more then likely stealth is going to keep a hold of the advantage for the foreseeable future.  

While the duga was shut down it wasn't because it was disrupting communications.  The duga radar system was started in the late 1960's to detect the early launch of ballistic missiles towards the USSR and the first detection of it operating was in late 1976.  There was sporadic detections before 1976 which were extremely similar to the interference caused by the duga system and were more then likely smaller scale testing of the system.  When the duga system was operating thousands of complaints from various countries and groups were filed against the USSR but the USSR ignored the complaints, I can't even remember if they even officially claimed to having the duga system, but those most affected by it eventually put in blankers in the circuit designs of radios and televisions to filter out the interference caused by duga.  Starting in the 1980's detection of the duga system started to become less frequent and in 1989 was the last detection of the duga system.  The main reason it seems that duga was ultimately shut down had nothing to do with complaints over interference but because in the early 1980's the USSR had a complete satellite early detection system in place which was more accurate, quicker, more secure, and wasn't jammable which was one of the main drawbacks of duga.  Amateur radio operators often attempted to jam duga themselves by playing back continuous signals at the same pulse rate of the duga system.  While there was no reporting on how successfully the amateur radio operators were at jamming the duga system it does highlight one of the major flaws in over the horizon radar in that they are really easy to jam by playing back the same signal at the same pulse continuously.  Also it didn't help that one of the duga systems was within the 30 kilometer exclusion zone around Chernobyl.  

Not quite sure what you mean by them now owning space, quite a few nations now have satellite detection systems and a few have shown the capability of shooting down lower orbit satellites but currently no one really has a distinct and clear advantage in space.

Historically offensive technology has always ended up beating defensive technology, guns outdid plate armor, cannons outdid forts and castles, and I see no reason to believe why stealth won't outdo radar.

Since this is already a long post might of well post my views on the F-35.  I have absolutely no evidence or proof for any of this and it is all my opinion on the F-35 but I keep having this feeling that there is much more with the F-35 program then what is currently being told or even hinted at, that the plane itself is just the very tip of a significantly larger project.  The plane itself seems to focus, at appearance overly, on stealth and communication.  Having multiple planes being able to communicate and use each other does have clear benefits, like having a plane being able to fire a missile at some target out of its detection range but within the detection range of another F-35 and being able to hide from basically anything supposedly has clear advantages, can't shoot down what you can't detect, but it just seems odd those two things in particular were focused on so heavily.  This is just a theory with absolutely no proof what so ever but I do believe the F-35 was designed with being a drone operator in mind and when considered it does make sense for this to be done.  Arguably the largest weakness drones have is with staying in communications with them, against second and third rate nations that isn't a problem cause they aren't able to really interfere with the satellite signals but a nation like Russia or China could interfere with the communication in any number of ways.  One way you could combat this is by having the drone operator being local instead of half a world away relying on satellite communication.  Realistically the weakness in drones is the satellite connection and having a local, and potentially multiple local connections, removes their one major weakness.  Then it brings up the question of why focus on drones anyway and I believe the reason is cause drones are in most cases are simply better then piloted aircraft.  Drones are smaller, making them harder to detect and cheaper, you don't need to design them around the physical needs of a pilot, allowing more weapons to be put in and cutting a lot of weight, they can be costumed designed for very specific or general roles, having air superiority fighters that can do maneuvers no human can or bomber drones that can carry massive amounts of bombs or close air support that is basically a flying tank or counter measure drones designed to be targets for air to air or surface to air missiles or anything else an engineer can imagine.  Given what is known about the F-35 I can easily see it going up with multiple drones as the pilot directs them while being hidden by stealth as the enemy is forced to deal with the drones instead of look for him.

[+and-then]

12 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

The biggest selling point and advantage is the interconnectivity with other F-35's and command centres, whether they be fixed bases or air assets the F-35 has no rival. 

That was the point I was trying make.  It represents total situational awareness and maximized coordination of response to it. I can say ONE thing for sure, if it IS the pig everyone else seems to believe, Lockheed Martin is toast.