The F-35 Lightning II Thread

[Weaver]

While the F-35 is billed as multi-role, it doesn't do any of those roles particularly well.

Adopting F15s, F16s or F/A-18s would give good enough capability at the multi-roles of modern fighters - particularly F15s, which, when outfitted with modern pods, are still pretty stunningly capable aircraft.

Cancelling commitments to the F-35, and establishing contracts for F-15E variants (perhaps even the lower-radar signature Silent Eagle) could keep production lines open past 2019, and give highly capable aircraft able to actually fulfill mission requirements.

[mrjonno]

While the F-35 is billed as multi-role, it doesn't do any of those roles particularly well.

Well 'particularly well' may be good enough.

For the UK we need a STOL/VTOL aircraft or we are going to have to scrap 2 multi-billion aircraft carriers (which would almost certainly scrap the government who made that decision)

[Pragmaticthinker]

I used the Gripen E as a comparison as an option for Canada in contrast to the high risk unknowns and concerns of F-35 since Gripen is a single engine jet as well. There is a huge difference in capability compared to the current Gripen C and new Gripen E offered to Canada. Gripen E will carry 40% more internal fuel without any performance loss and an increase of 25% more thrust with the F-414 engine yet the empty fuselage weight is only 3% greater. Better performance, range and payload with a very advanced avionics suite with low heat and radar signature. A very smart and cost effective approach to offer a competent fighter with a proven platform. How much would nations like the UK and USA save with such a competent and capable jet mass produced in their service?

As far as the single engine issue for arctic or over water operations the Gripen has proven that issue to be myth when considering Gripen's service record. The same certainly cannot be said for F-35. There has never been a loss of a Gripen due to an engine issue of any kind technical, bird ingestion or fuel in the entire Gripen program of around 1/4 million flight hours. . Nor has there ever been a structural or fatigue issue with the Gripen program. This record is from a jet that is designed to and proven to require much less ground support then other options. A very low logistical footprint and costs. Gripen has the best reliability and safety record of any in service fighter in the world single or twin engine.

Gripen is full NATO compliant with Hungary,Czech and NATO partner Swede service. Sweden is now active at NATO exercises. The last NATO two week exercises in Slovakia and Scotland the Gripen Cs of Sweden had 100% reliability at both . Even in Australia the leased Gripens of Thailand had a better reliability record at Pitch Black 2014 over the Australian F-18A, F-18E and the USAF jets. Make no mistake the Swedes designed a tough and rugged little jet that is very capable both as a air defense fighter and as a multi role jet with minimal ground support and cost effectiveness. Other nations and jet makers could learn a lot from the Gripen concept.

Having such a jet as part of a fighter tender process certainly puts the fire to the feet of it's competition to justify the much higher purchase and operating costs of the larger options.

[Warren Dew]

While the F-35 is billed as multi-role, it doesn't do any of those roles particularly well.

Well 'particularly well' may be good enough.

For the UK we need a STOL/VTOL aircraft or we are going to have to scrap 2 multi-billion aircraft carriers (which would almost certainly scrap the government who made that decision)

I actually tend to agree that the F-35 makes more sense for the UK for this exact reason. The reason doesn't presently apply to Australia or Canada, though.

[mrjonno]

Just a general point about arms procurement I get the feeling those with military connections understandable what the best kit to allow them to do their job and come out of a conflict alive.

However for governments and tax payers its a bit more complicated. If tank/plane costs $10 billion allows the military to kill all the baddies without casualties is that really better for the country if the same job come be done for $5 billion but a couple of dead pilots/20 dead soldiers. That extra $5 billion could build several new hospitals that could save 1000's of lives or even more harshly giving 2 million low paid public sector workers (and voters) a significant pay rise.

The lives of the military do not have an infinite 'value' . To be honest I put the cash value of a civilian higher as by volunteering to join the military you've basically accepted you are a lot more tolerant to getting killed on the job that 99% of us.

The above is harsh but these are real decisions that often reasonable politicians have to make

[Made of Stars]

I think you're giving politicians too much credit...

[mrjonno]

I trust your average politician more than I trust your average member of the public. Both can be highly dishonest but a politician is likely to be more intelligent and better educated than the people electing him (UK at least anyway)

[Calilasseia]

The trouble with this being of course, that an educated and intelligent crook is better equipped to shaft you and get away with it.

[mrjonno]

But at least they will do it for a rational reason

[Teague]

I think people are ignoring one important feature is most nations cannot afford to dedicated to a single role aircraft. If an aircraft can do a multiple roles to a level that is 'good enough' the that is sufficient. Few if any countries can afford the best aircraft that can only do a single role.

Can it deal with cut down versions of Chinese/Russian exports to the 3rd world (likely) or the full versions (unlikely short of WW3) is the question that needs to be asked

Errrr you mean like how we've been affording it for decades and suddenly we have no money - what?

[Pragmaticthinker]

mrjonno, if one takes a quick look at the games that are going on and who is promoting the F-35 it becomes very obvious the best interests of Canada are not being considered or the decision to support F-35 is based on informed and fair facts. Canada like the USA politicians and in some cases members of the military have been quoting the sales talk of the F-35 with no basis of facts. They quote the slick F-35 sales brochure talk in the attempt to make it look like they have a clue what they are talking about. They have bought the sales hype of the F-35 that can prove none of the claims and promises of what the F-35. Especially if the F-35 has to be compared to it's competitors.

Allan Williams was the top Canadian civilian on the F-35 procurement at the time of the decision and he was pushed to the side when he raised concerns over the costs and capabilities without any comparisons, budget or defined mission requirements. Why? Well that was because they picked the F-35 and then went on to create a budget and mission requirement to fit the F-35 and not the needs of Canada. Then Dan Ross replaced Williams who seems to be all pro F-35 when he should be a prudent administrator with a keen eye on costs and capabilities problems and issues of the F-35 instead of pushing it along without concern. http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... e=E&Mode=1

Now Ross runs his own "defense consulting" company Ssord in Ottawa . If that does not stink enough the ex head of the RCAF General Bouchard almost to the day of a required one year retirement delay from the RCAF announced he is now heading the marketing of the F-35 to Canada. Was he pushing the F-35 while in the RCAF all part of his employment plan to Lockheed Martin?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/24 ... 83232.html

The fact Lockheed Martin spends more on lobbying and consulting groups to market to and within governments is also a factor and the USA government is also much involved. Wikileaks shows USA embassy requesting blocking non F-35 USA company's systems to F-35's competitors in Europe to help the F-35 win sales in Europe by raising questions if aircraft like Gripen will have a comparable radar. That has backfired now as Saab then teamed up with UK Selex to provide a better radar then the system in F-35. This same embassy worker in the Wikileaks documents was then transferred to the USA embassy in Ottawa. To help secure F-35 in Canada?
The entire F-35 program stinks at every level. F-35 is not about providing a competent fighter to western nations but for the USA to secure the and own the fighter market in the west with great returns for Lockheed Martin share holders. As one Australian aviation writer said; "the F-35 is designed to rape, pillage and plunder tax payers of the western world for the next 40 years."

[Teague]

How much would nations like the UK and USA save with such a competent and capable jet mass produced in their service?

I think the F16 proved itself. Small, competent and cheap, relatively speaking - I'd love to see an F16, gripen, eurofighter go up agaisnt an F35 once it's finished (if it ever is)

[Teague]

While the F-35 is billed as multi-role, it doesn't do any of those roles particularly well.

Well 'particularly well' may be good enough.

For the UK we need a STOL/VTOL aircraft or we are going to have to scrap 2 multi-billion aircraft carriers (which would almost certainly scrap the government who made that decision)

I actually tend to agree that the F-35 makes more sense for the UK for this exact reason. The reason doesn't presently apply to Australia or Canada, though.

I would have preferred they developed the harrier further - at least the US Marines have them now so they're not mothballed yet

[Weaver]

Harrier is a crap aircraft that's been used far beyond its useful lifespan. Just because the Marines use them doesn't mean they're any good - this is the same force that brought M-60 tanks to the Gulf War.

[Teague]

The entire F-35 program stinks at every level. F-35 is not about providing a competent fighter to western nations but for the USA to secure the and own the fighter market in the west with great returns for Lockheed Martin share holders. As one Australian aviation writer said; "the F-35 is designed to rape, pillage and plunder tax payers of the western world for the next 40 years."

This. I was watching a few youtube Vids about the F35 and a lot of them are about Canada's bid and how they're ignoring all fact and just going with it - obviously fingers are in the pies and it's about time people started saying no to this turd of a plane. It's already had its performance requirements dropped because it can't fly and the cost is astronomical.

Maybe it's advanced technology can save it by from what I've read, it won't be the airframe which is massively vulnerable. It also takes away support for critical roles like CAS as we've discussed already in this thread. The F35 can't do it (unless it has an ace up it's sleeve we don't know about) which means The A10 - a vastly cheaper aircraft and 10 times as capable, will be scrapped in favour for this monkey and that means more dead and injured soldiers (yes u could argue less dead and injured enemy I suppose, lol)

[Teague]

Harrier is a crap aircraft that's been used far beyond its useful lifespan. Just because the Marines use them doesn't mean they're any good - this is the same force that brought M-60 tanks to the Gulf War.

LOL oh dear me!

No I meant develop the airframe further - if the UK require a stovl aircraft, couldn't we have developed something for the same cost or less?

[Pragmaticthinker]

The VTOL F-35B has issues the F-35A does not. F-35B uses 2x the fuel of the AV8B and the excessive downward heat cannot be used as it ruins landing surfaces and causes crackling of runways' surface and particles stick to the F-35B underside creating a totally non stealth situation. A special surface to handle the F-35B vertical operations is required on ships and land. F-35B has suffered from tires requiring replacement 4x then expected. So much for crude forward basing operations with minimal support! F-35 does not have the range of the F-35A or F-35C. It does have an advanced control system for easier vertical control landings which could have been used on a new AV8B upgraded design. If the VTOL option was not part of the JSF program the F-35A/C may have been much better and capable program.

[Warren Dew]

F-35 is not about providing a competent fighter to western nations but for the USA to secure the and own the fighter market in the west with great returns for Lockheed Martin share holders.

I think it's more about Lockheed Martin than about the U.S. There are doubts about the F-35 in the U.S. that seem as serious as those in Canada or Australia. This is well illustrated by recent congressional action prohibiting the Air Force from retiring A-10s as early as the Air Force wanted to.

Harrier is a crap aircraft that's been used far beyond its useful lifespan. Just because the Marines use them doesn't mean they're any good - this is the same force that brought M-60 tanks to the Gulf War.

The Marines use them because they will fly from amphibious ships and have some advantages over helicopters. They like the F-35 for the same reason. That's a pretty specialized niche, though.

[Weaver]

The Marines use them because they insist on having their own pocket aircraft carriers (amphibs) and because they are desperate to maintain the myth that they are a do-it-all service. But they still tend to use old, outdated, nearly obsolete equipment, and to claim perversely that it is the best thing around - much as they refuse to spend the money to buy all their troops optical sights, but insist that iron sights are superior because they rig their qualification standards to give advantages to iron sights, rather than to replicate actual combat conditions, and they keep full-length fixed buttstocks on their rifles even when mostly operating out of vehicles and wearing armor, requiring some real contortions for use, because the long fixed stocks are superior when doing armor-less position shooting - which, again, doesn't happen in actual combat.

[Warren Dew]

The Marines kind of need amphibious assault ships given their whole reason for existence is amphibious assault.

That's also why they are trained primarily to operate on foot rather than out of vehicles - which in turn is why they were better than the Army at breaking through urban locations in the initial invasion of Iraq. It did make them less than perfectly suited to the long term occupation duties that we ended up with in Iraq and Afghanistan, but had we known we were going to end up doing that, we really should have had more Army troops to do it with.