The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II has been widely debated over not only since its first flight in 2006. The project has cost over 1 trillion dollars so far and is expected to reach over 1.5 trillion during its lifetime. But an aircraft costing this much money can hardly be what people say about it: Rubbish, Lemon, can’t do what airplanes did 50 years ago etc. The reason for this is that it may have been reviewed in a questionable way; when people are comparing it to other aircraft they might not compare it in the right way. This article will try to outline what the F-35 really is and why it might be better than some critics say.
What is the F-35 about?
F-35B Performs a vertical landing
First of all, we will explain what the idea of the F-35 really is and why it has gotten so tremendously expensive. The F-35 was an entirely new idea of building an airplane. It features the generation five characteristics such as top modern weapons, stealth, and super advanced avionics. But it was also built with a special idea in mind. That idea was to use a single airframe for the F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C, which will all be used in different parts of the US military – among others the Marines and the Navy. The idea behind that strategy was economies of scale – if they produce many of the same things it would be kind of like a mass production, which would massively lower the unit cost. But the problems started to pile up when they started to work on the engine for the F-35B which is supposed to be able to take off and land vertically, to be used on aircraft carriers. To design that new engine and fit it into an already super advanced aircraft was a tricky task. It required thousands of engineers and a huge budget to be built.
A Canadian documentary about the F-35 buying process:
The characteristics of a fighter
One of the main features of an airplane is obviously lift. Without enough lift, the airplane will simply fall to the ground, or it can use extra engine power to keep it flying, however, this decreases both the fuel efficiency and the range of the aircraft. What many critics complain about with the F-35 is that it has too small wings (in order to be stored compactly on an aircraft carrier), which gives the aircraft little lift. The critics say that small wings give the F-35 bad lift because the wing area is crucial for an aircraft to achieve a good lift. But what they seem to underestimate is that actually, the body of the fighter increases the lift a lot, which was tested with the Martin Marietta (now a part of Lockheed Martin) X-24A. It had its first flight in 1969 and was basically only a fuselage with an engine. The shape of the body, rather than the wings (which it didn’t have) gave it the lift to fly, which makes the small wing area of the F-35 a number that does not really matter (but big wings can still improve the lift). One of the most aggressive critics is named Pierre Sprey. Sprey is a former aircraft designer and defense analyst, he uses – among other things – the small-wing argument to explain that “the F-35 is a lemon”.
The internal weapon bays of the F-35
Another thing that is important is the drag. The drag is the air resistance that an airplane faces when it moves through the air and essentially a sleek, small body form reduces the drag. Now, the F-35 is big and not as aerodynamic as for instance the Eurofighter Typhoon, but the thing that reduces the Lightning II’s drag compared to it, in the end, is that it has enormous internal weapon bays. The Eurofighter in comparison has extremely little drag without any weapons/fuel tanks mounted on its hardpoints, but as soon as it loads external fuel tanks (which it usually does) and missiles, the drag increases tremendously. It is still smaller than the drag of the F-35, but the difference of having 6 Air-to-air missiles internally (like the F-35) or to have them externally like the Eurofighter is quite a difference in drag.
How expensive is it?
The super complex engine of the F-35B, one of the main reasons why the project got so expensive
The one thing that usually downrates the F-35 the most is its huge price tag. The unit cost is currently about $150 million (for the VTOL version) and a maintenance cost of about $31 000 per flight hour is extremely expensive compared to the very capable 4.5 generation fighters out there. For instance, the Eurofighter Typhoon costs about $110 million dollars per unit, with a much lower maintenance cost ($18 000 per hour). So the price is currently very high, but we must remember that the cost is (partially) this high because the engineers basically developed three different aircraft in the project. The price per unit will be reduced when all the planned fighters have been built – currently 2400 to the US and a couple of hundreds more to foreign buyers. This was the original idea of the F-35; produce many, giving it a lower unit cost.
How does it compare to other fighters?
But there are many other factors that determine the skill and usefulness of a fighter. Below is a table that shows some other important figures.
| Aircraft: | Radar cross section (without any external load) (in m^2): | Afterburning Thrust (in lbs): | Top speed (Mach): |
| F-35 | 0.0015 | 43 000 | 1.6+ |
| F-22 | 0.00015 | 70 000 | 2.25 |
| Eurofighter Typhoon | 0.75 | 40 000 | 2 |
| Su-35 | 1 | 63 800 | 2.25 |
| MiG-35 | 1 | 36 900 | 2.25 |
| Rafale | 0.75 | 34 000 | 1.8 |
| JAS 39 Gripen | 0.5 | 18 100 | 2 |
| F-16 | 1.2 | 28 100 | 2+ |
The F-35 is not mainly built for high speeds, it is built as an attack aircraft (as well), like the A-10 Thunderbolt II and therefore needs low speeds to be able to shoot at the enemy on the ground for longer times before passing it. The radar cross-section is one of the world’s smallest even in a clean loadout, not to mention when the others start loading weapons on their wings which further increases the radar cross section of them compared to the F-35. It does not have the best dogfight capabilities due to its big size (Sprey calls it “fat”) and the big engine fan behind the cockpit which limits the sight backwards, but modern air-to-air battles are supposed to be mainly BVR (beyond visual range) engagements which means that all fighters will depend on their radar- and IR missiles rather than they depend on their dogfighting skills.
What do the engineers and pilots say?
Everyone has different opinions about it as can be seen both above and in the media. What in the end makes it really difficult to know to one hundred percent if it is a good airplane or not is that even the pilots and (very) knowledgeable engineers have split views on it.
– Peter Wilson, a longtime British Harrier driver, said flying the F-35B was simply “magic”.
– “With the F-35B, he pushes a single button, and the jet can slow from 200 knots to a hover by itself, as the airplane looks after you”. – Peter Wilson
– “Even before the downgrades, some analysts questioned the F-35′s ability to defeat newer Sukhoi and Shenyang jets.” David Axe, military correspondent
– “It’s as if Detroit suddenly put out a car with lighter fluid in the radiator and gasoline in the hydraulic brake lines: That’s how unsafe this plane is…” Pierre Spray
This is how spread the views are of that trillion dollar jet project, and who can we really believe? In the world of these super expensive top modern defense projects, there are a lot of hidden information and experiments that will probably never see daylight. We simply have to look at the information we have and from that make our own opinion in the matter. And experience will shed some light on questions that many now have.
To conclude this article we would like to say that the F-35 has gotten in windy weather. People compare it in ways that don’t fit the purpose of it and it has therefore gotten the name of “the trillion dollar disaster”. But it can’t be compared to the F-22 Raptor (that is also often criticized mainly due to the even higher cost), as the F-35 is a multirole jet that can be used for a big variety of missions while the F-22 is primarily an air superiority fighter with limited ground attack and electronic warfare capabilities. As we outlined above, it is not the best of the world’s jets in every aspect but it is not as bad as many people say. It fits the purpose, although it is at least questionable if it is worth the $150 million price tag. However, when the price gets lower with the increased number of jets built it might actually turn out to be not as bad an investment for the buyers. But no one can really tell how it pays off in the longer run, there might, for example, be a new surface-to-air system being developed which endanger fighter jets that count on stealth technology.
Additional reading:
- Which fighter is the best – The F-22 Raptor vs The Eurofighter Typhoon
- Read more about the trillion dollar project: 5th generation fighter jets too expensive?
- Read about the SR-71, the fastest air-breathing aircraft ever flown here.
Sources:
- Motherboard.com
- Defensetech.org
- Af.mil
- Globalfirepower.com
Good article, all you ever hear are Russians saying the Migs are better, but they are comparing the wrong categories. Of course the Migs have higher top speeds, this article will tell you that the F-35 clearly wasn’t built for that. And they will tell you it’s too expensive, the article explains that too. You can’t compare a Mig to the F-35, it’s like comparing fish and birds on their ability to swim
I disagree, the F – 35 was designed to be the replacement for F-16, F-18, A-10 and the Harrier. F-16 is supposed to be a cheap high performance dog fighter to be deployed in large numbers. F-35 is neither cheap nor an excellent dog fighter, it doesn’t have the same endurance as the A-10 and when it comes to strike missions it can carry only two bombs internally. It makes a good replacement for the harrier but falls short when compared to the rest of them.
the f-35 is the biggest load of sh1t that has ever flown or what ever the f-35 does
even just saying f-35 makes me want to get sick
sucha laod of rubbish
it cant fly in rain or at high or cold tempertures
cant fly in some clouds(very very afraid of thunder)
wings so tiny with a fat body—-
cant “get down in the weeds” like the a-10
it can carry barley any weapons
cant get in a good support position to suport the troops ad well as the a-10 can and has
the load of sh1t cant fly at high speeds so scrambling we
ill be a problem but if they are lucky there might be a f-22 or if they are even luckier a f-15 to save the f-35s ASS
i think we know how bad the software is
guys the american air power domence will fall in the comming years
getting rid of the a-10s was strike 1
thanks to republicans (im democrat) they are safe a little while longer
plans to scrap the amzing and best fighter plane ever and I mean it the buetiful f15 wil be the killer
and replacing it with that bag of sh1t is going to break my heart
the well repected prowler and f18 are thinking what to pack first but to prowler already has his right foot out the door
like how much futher will they go to save this cow sh1t
sell all the plans and sell almost what ever you can and upgrade f-15 and f-16 and f18 and f22 i guess as well
America will lose its power unless this rubbish is bined
i doubt it will be dealt with do 1.5 trillion to far to go back
just keep some f-15s cos we will need something to defend us
the marines and airforce actually dropped thier expections after testing
he Defense Department’s annual weapons testing report reveals that the military actually adjusted the performance specifications for the consistently-underperforming line of F-35 fighter jets. In other words, they couldn’t get the jets to do what they were supposed to do, so they just changed what they were supposed to do.
he program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by eight seconds
this is a national disgrace
devloping a new fighter should not cost 1.5 trillion
FOR THIS PIECE OF UTTER BULLSH1T
and the worst part is the want to replace f-15s and f-18s for it
to all other nations involved pull out know buy a griphen if you struggle with money as a result
of this national scandle
I´m a Swede and I see how stupid our neighbour is about J35. It is not a mystery for me because my best friend and I always joke that the mother of all stupids is consistently pregnant.
The f35 has a radar cross section smaller than a golf ball. It is “fat” because it has the capacity to hold 2 internal bombs and the stovl version can land vertically. It has such advanced avionics that the pilot has a full 360 degree view through the aircraft using his/her helmet. The weapons system is so advanced that it can use ground based assets to launch attacks. It can track friendly forces on the ground automatically. It has supercruise… Making it one of the most fuel efficient/ highest thrust outputs of any single engine ever made. It has thrust vectoring capability. Oh and btw, like any plane (including the f15) the air force/navy puts night and weather restrictions on any new plane to mitigate possible pilot errors while the aircraft is still new. Did I mention that it has the most advanced long range radar systems ever put into a fighter….. Or the fact that it has the most advance electronic warfare system ever conceived? Did you know that it can upload and download satellite images in real-time, allowing the pilot and ground forces to have real-time tracking of friendly forces as well as potential threats. Naval destroyers can launch missile attacks using the f35’s sensors.
This plane is a force multiplier well beyond anything we have could imagine. Everyone complains about the fact it can only carry two bombs in its internal bays but honestly who cares after learning that the pilot is able to launch missiles from ground based assets and direct them to targets using the pilots helmet controlled tracking and radar systems. The list of capabilities is stunning. It is now projected that the cost of 1 Air Force version preferred in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will only cost $78 million dollars. The euro fighter by comparison is $110 million. This plane isn’t perfect but it’s amazing!!!!!!
Some inaccuracies here…
The f-35 has neither thrust vectoring (unless you are considering the VTOL variant, which while technically correct is not consistent with the colloquial use of the phrase)
Nor does it posses super-cruise in any meaningful definition of the term ( but then again, neither does the f-22 in the strictest and most useful sense of the term, IE the ability to cruise for the majority of the mission profile at supersonic speeds, but I digress)
The rest of the capabilities are avionics related, which are intrinsically modular in nature, and could be fitted to many current airframes. This is not a unique capability of the airframe itself.
The Flyaway cost figures are pipedreams to lull congress and the gullible public into continuing support for the program. when we get to 2020, the planes will still be costing 130+ million a piece. They are already playing accounting tricks to game the numbers, IE counting the engine as a separate item and not computing it in the cost of the fighter.
My opinion is that it will continue to be a maintance-intensive hanger queen with low-readiness rates, that will suck up funding and support for more effective and necessary weapons systems. This position is heavily supported by the history of the program and all available facts, and I have seen no convincing reasons that it will change in the future.
Charles, F-35 has thrust vectoring ? You must be high on coke and smoked too much weed…go get your brains scanned.
i think the F-35 have a lot of flaws. The F-35 guns are not accurate
Marks comment on unit price did not age well
False! No supercruise. EW is not known to be the best. This is secret, so no one knows which is the best. But to do an electronic attack, F-35 need pods, which compromise stealth. Gripen E have everything built in, except recce pod. It even have 360 degree spherical EW with GaN, as the only fighter. Avionics in Gripen E is more powerful and works better, compared to F-35. And it have supercuise, high speed, fast climb, high agility, stol, fast operational tempo, low logistical footprint, capability to use carriers, 360 degree awareness for the pilot, and radar that detect stealth at long distance. To 1/6th or less the cost for F-35.
Thin from a 60 degree cone in front by radar. It’s IR output is large and can be spotted by IR detectors in both SU, Gripen and other planes out to 100km. Your nationalism is getting in the way of the facts.
Exactly right. I have been following the F-35 debacle as a contractor since the inception of the project. It’s an unmitigated DISASTER! Trump even said that he was told that it was not a good aircraft.
well i don’t support the F-35 but ur right about carring small numbers of weapon but F-22 and F-35 both can carry nuclear weapons. wait a minute. why America use f-35? the planning for the F-35 is that for selling i don’t think America will use it on a Dogfight.
Dogfighting is outdated concept. The biggest of advantage of the F-35 is it’s radar cross section. It can attack any enemy aircraft or ground target with missiles and retreat before the enemy even knew it was there.
Russian and Chinese stealth fighters can’t even compete on the same level, allowing the 5th generation F-35s to make an early impact on a fight. If it ever came to, we still have a huge amount of F-15 F-16s and F-22s that could easily maintain air superiority and are still competitive with Russia and Chinese 4th gen fighters
The idea that dogfighting is no longer important is the exact reason the US had a 2:1 ratio in. Vietnam, and why TOPGUN was created.
They will swat F-35s like baby seals. Our pilots deserve better.
True. As stated in the comment below, it is suppost to replace fighters like F-16, while it can’t. I think Lockheed screwed up a bit. But indeed, it is an awesome aircraft, but not the best.
OK, and, what about the Russian PAK.FA? and the 5fth. generation Chinese fighter?
“aircraft designer “
Sprey designed the F-16 ffs!!
Didn’t they say the era of the dog fight was over before Vietnam ? Learned a lesson there . Why do they have to learn it again ? Fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me
I may be wrong , but the F-35 in my understanding is a strike aircraft first with decent maneuvering to fight its way out. Its probably not intended to be the sole type used in some attack missions. It might be good to compare it to more attack aircraft, such as the A-6, A-7, A-4 and F-111, Brit buccaneer., and some attack SAAB types. If I remember correctly identifying some ground targets you need slow speed, so the low speed capabilities stall characteristics would be good to look at too. Granted the cost of F-35 may be high, but all these acquisitions seem to be over budget, behind schedule and poor readiness 1st out similar to C-17 , V- 22, F-22. It seems govt needs to change there process of acquiring military goods and services going forward
“stealth”
Only against a monostatic active X-band radar. If it encounters multistatic radar, VHF radar, IRST… it can forget about stealth.
“But what they seem to underestimate is that actually the body of the fighter increases the lift a lot,”
Most modern fighters – F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35, Gripen, Rafale, Su-27/30/35, MiG-29/35 – have huge amounts of body lift in level flight, and many of these (basically all except maybe the F-15) – have large amount of it even when turning. Further, wing area as calculated includes a large percentage of body lifting area as well.
“One of the most aggressive critics is named Pierre Sprey. Sprey is a former aircraft designer and defense analyst, he uses – among other things – the small-wing argument to explain that “the F-35 is a lemon”.”
And he is correct. Because wing area in aerodynamic terms is not the same as wing in structural terms, and even with body lift included, F-35 still has high wing loading.
This is how wing area is calculated:
https://defenseissues.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/0wingarea.jpg
“The Eurofighter in comparison has extremely little drag without any weapons/fuel tanks mounted on its hardpoints, but as soon as it loads external fuel tanks (which it usually does) and missiles, the drag increases tremendously.”
Typhoon can cruise at Mach 1,4-1,5 with 6 external missiles and Rafale at Mach 1,4. F-35 can cruise at Mach 0,95 with 4 internal missiles. That is quite a large difference in drag, and not in the F-35s favor.
“This was the original idea of the F-35; produce many, giving it a lower unit cost.”
And is a false premise, seeing as in most modern weapons large numbers bought did not typically reduce acquisition cost unless you count fixed expenses (such as R&D).
“The F-35 is not mainly built for high speeds, it is built as an attack aircraft (as well), like the A-10 Thunderbolt II and therefore needs low speeds to be able to shoot at the enemy on the ground for longer times before passing it. The radar cross section is one of the world’s smallest even in a clean loadout, not to mention when the others start loading weapons on their wings which further increases the radar cross section of them compared to the F-35.”
F-35 is not a CAS aircraft, however. For CAS aircraft, most important things are long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, heavy precision firepower (especially from the gun), heavy armor, low visual and IR signatures and good cockpit visibility. F-35 has none of these characteristics.
What F-35 is made to do is to bomb fixed targets deep in heavily defended airspace. It can do that job very well thanks to its low RCS and high wing loading (which enables it high-speed flight even at low altitude), but it is the only thing it *can* do. It is very much a single-mission aircraft.
“but modern air-to-air battles are supposed to be mainly BVR (beyond visual range) engagements which means that all fighters will depend on their radar- and IR missiles rather than they depend on their dogfighting skills.”
Key word: supposed to. BVR engagement is dependant on identification capability, and BVR IFF is only reliable if done visually, either via long-range optical camera or IRST. F-35 having an IRST is a plus for it in that regard, but is not an advantage compared to Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen NG. As for radar, it will be used either very sparingly or not at all where air combat is concerned.
Picard, your comment on whether future engagements will be actually done at BVR is an interesting one. The old Phoenix had a range that exceded that of the EOTS of the time, and the US never really got the use of that longer range because the F-14 usually had to close in to positively ID the enemy aircraft. But the F-35 with its new EOTS (and its DAS) is able to ID enemy aircraft visually at much longer range. How long? No one outside the industry really knows but I would bet that it is in excess of 50 miles and probably more than 75 miles.
One other thing that I would note is that the F-35 at Mach 1.6 seems kind of slow, until you remember that an SU-35 can only fly at Mach 2.25 if it is un-armed, while the F-35 flies at up to Mach 1.6 both fully loaded out and empty/heading for home. The F-35 will still be able to deny the engagement of either the SU-35 or the newer MiG’s because not only will the F-35 see/lock on to the enemy aircraft earlier, but its top speed isn’t reduced due to the carriage of air to air missiles, fuel tanks or ECM pods.
Your comments are mostly correct. But the Rafale M1.4 super cruise is not with 6 missiles or droptank. Gripen E M1.2+ is.
Dogfights WVR will not be possible to avoid in a modern battlespace, contested with high amounts of electromagnetic radiation, drones and fighters flying supersonic in passive mode. The argument used by LM is only a way for them to deny a major weakness of their product. Pierre Sprey was right and will be proved right when american pilots die.
The new technology to detect stealth and guide missiles to against it will make VLO airframe a low value asset and the operator stuck with only the problems.
Hello everyone!
Let me start by saying one thing before all else. This jet is unnecesesery, at least two versions of it(airforce and navy).
I honesly can’t see the need for it right now. Ok, US marines do need a replacement for their aging harriers, but why replace perfectly good air force and navy f16s and f18s? They can both be modernized, as much as a Su27 can be to Su35.. Even more dumb decision is to even think of replacing A10(perfect plane imo)..I think other than being a great moneymaker for it’s builders, their partners and some birocrats, it is a bad f16/f18 replacement plane for air force and for navy. Why, because other than stealty features, it’s worse in every aspect than f16/f18, in price, in aerodynamics, in weapon load, in durability, and even in survivability..
Both Navy and Air Force will need new planes in about 15-20 years, but at least 30% better planes in their roles than F16 is for Airforce, and F18 is for Navy. Anything else is a stupid waste of valuable resources that should be used elsewhere. Radar, rocket and space technologies come to my mind first.
Mr. Spray might be a little extreme in some of his statements, but he is right in most of them. F 35 is completely unsuitable replacement for at least two of it’s future roles, and it will fail at them for sure. At least in comparison with performance of f16 and f18 had in their roles. I am completely sure of that.
I can only see it as an ok replacement for Harriers, nothing else. But that alone is why it fails. It has failed before it’s commissioning, simply because it is super expansive.
As for using F35 for close support, i mean like,wtf?!
The problem is most critics are correct on the F-35. While a common frame may be a good idea for cutting down production costs, if your fixed cost per unit gets too high due to R&D as in this case, what`s the point?
Also, going for a single design still leaves the although small but existent possibility for some fatal flaw in it that would make your entire fleet incapacitates if explored by the enemy. Thats a serious risk taken.
The F-35 bothers me the most when it comes to two things:
– internal bay capacity greatly limits the weapons available in aerial engagement and from all conflicts so far we see the story – initial success of a new weapon, reprogramming of opposite force equipment, negated success. Having that few shots is really questionable.
– it has small fuel tanks and needs aerial refueling. The actuall weakness in the US tactics is not in its fighter jets but in its operations structure – the refueling tankers are slow to build, easy to shoot down and easy to detect. Same for AWACS.
As a general idea, I believe it would be a failure due to its liited tactical role – it is designed to fit several roles and that make it good at nothing. As a comparison for example, the PAK-FA is designed not to gain superiority over comparable aircraft as often argued but to act like a sniper. I believe it has a very strict role in the Russian tactics and is intended to shoot down AWACS ( its bay is clearly designed to carry anti-radiation missiles ), Tankers and ground radars. The F-35 is the boy for everything and I think it will fail because of this. And stealth is not that big of an advantage – the moment the aircraft has to shoot in aerial combat, it will become detectable due to weapon bay doors opened. Most modern ground SAM tactics involves the use of a large team that provides visual data real time, most SAM`s would switch off radar emitter and wait for the aircraft to fly over them, it is then very vulnerable and the stealth won`t help, also hard to fire back. Common soviet tactics was to shoot two missiles at the same time, IR and radar, the F-35 has not addressed the IR threat yet and has large thermal signature. It also lacks a rear radar/jammer as on the PAK-FA. Add to this the slow speed – it can be easily outrun in a dogfight by more powerfull Chinese, European and Russian aircraft and would have issues escaping a radar guided variable speed missile.
I think it is generally a big failure and the money that went into it need marketing support to convince the tax payer it i a good aircraft and critics are not right, with the hope that it would never be used against capable enemies.
harriers will need replacing indeed
but the best replacement would be an f-18
harriers have done some great jobs over the years
it would be a discrace for them to be replaced but that rubbish
other wise know as the f-35 JSF
but we cant fly in clouds and o yea if its to hot or a little cold
o wait cant get down with to weeds ao know close support
sorry get an f15 to do it i am out of shape to fat and therfore very slow so cant intercept that long range bomber
proberly couldnt even carry enough to deal with does two bombers
id run out of fuel by around 10 minutes in anyway
any body want lemon juice ?
wait how do you guys see any planes i dont see aaannnyyyttthhiing(software glitch)
sure i only have a little radar
I don’t see much wisdom in this project. If the technology is becoming so advanced, why do we even need to put humans inside of combat airplanes like this ? Without a person inside, a plane with these roles could fly faster, longer, harder and carry more ordinance. The money that we are spending on this plane is money we are taking away from future projects. By the time the bugs get fixed, this plane will be obsolete.
I have lived long enough to see the kind of design – by – committee, disconnection from practical considerations, political pork and bureaucratic inertia play out in various defense projects over the years. The crowning stupidity of this project is hanging ordinance off the wings. Why not just use an upgraded. F – 15 or F – 16 ?
History repeats. There is a ship called the Vasa in a Swedish museum. Designed by the King at great cost ignoring the experts. It sank 600m into its maiden voyage. The F 35 started with a dumb idea by bureaucrats with an all in one plane that doesn’t do anything well at great cost. This plane has already lost the war. Russia, China etc don’t need to trade in petrodollars because of air superiority minimising military reaction (“Axis of evil” countries coincidentally were those opposing the petrodollar) and it will impact the greenback which up until now, thanks to the Petrodollar, is nothing but an IOU which never gets paid back thus funding expensive colossal military programs. Without the Petrodollar, the USA won’t afford military spending with massive budget blowouts. In hindsight, a good thing on a global scale because the USA isn’t owned by its people any more anyway.
Not small fuel tanks, but high drag that gobble up the fuel very fast.
When fiering, no aircraft can hide. The fire is detected from long distance. But there is a lot of propaganda lies about that.
Yes! History have repeated itself with 3 sunken F-35.
Only in America will you see trillions worth of tax dollars spent on tools for murder. How about some infrastructure, healthcare, education?
The Americans and Russian have a Co cet of high and lo. The f 22 r the high end and f 35 is the low end. Fro. Which angle is it low end. And it can carry just 6 missile s internally. As soon as it open the bomb bay door it’s so called stealth ks gone. Besides Russians have a head start in finding stealth do its useless.
No manuverable . No speed . No weapons how will it fight .
I find it interesting that Mr. Sprey in the accompanying video speaks of his resistence to the F-15 and his opinion that it too was a mistake. I wonder if all of the pilots who have flown her to well over 100 kills without a single loss of a single F-15 think he knows what he is talking about? I know I don’t!
https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/27/f-15e-strike-eagles-unable-to-shoot-down-the-f-35s-in-8-dogfights-during-simulated-deployment/ . Well meanwhile this happend 🙂
what u expect from a 4 generation fighter?
Your comments are mostly correct. But the Rafale M1.4 super cruise is not with 6 missiles or droptank. Gripen E M1.2+ is.
Dogfights WVR will not be possible to avoid in a modern battlespace, contested with high amounts of electromagnetic radiation, drones and fighters flying supersonic in passive mode. The argument used by LM is only a way for them to deny a major weakness of their product. Pierre Sprey was right and will be proved right when american pilots die.
The new technology to detect stealth and guide missiles to against it will make VLO airframe a low value asset and the operator stuck with only the problems.
I believe i was reading in popular mechanics that the Air Force/Air Wings were shifting to a strategy of using The F-35s in conjuncture with updated F-16s in an actual air superiority battle. The F-35s being observers/command control/stealth force multiplier and the F-16 receiving updated avionics essentially act as missile boats and dogfighters.
I’m no expert but I think You guys just don’t fully undedstand what is the idea of a 5th gen. multipurpose jet fighter. I doesn’t really fight, It destroys before the enemy even knows what’s hit them. Besides one person here mentioned Its tracking/locking, exchange intel capabilities but it’s more than just that. Is is going to be only one part of coordinated net of assets of the global scale battlefield not to mention electronic warfare. No more dogfighting, forget TopGun.
well how about this. F-35 vs F-22 without ground assets. 100 nml radius
Propaganda lies! Where are your factual arguments?
Every airplane have those kind of avionics today. Swedish airplanes have had them for 44 years. VLO airframe have limited value against an advanced adversary. F-35 will soon be obsolete.
This is a Turkey plane. The US are already armed to the teeh and absolutley do not need fleet of F35,s nor even one. Lockheed Martin are jusr raiding the tax payers. Do u ever ask where that over 1 $Trillion went? How about to réal exotic blsck budget technologies like Ufos the TR3B black triangles
It cannot run, it cannot climb, it cannot turn.
But that’s only the beginning.
The unit price is higher than promised.
The expected number of hours it can fly is lower than promised. It’s availability was so far dismal. The maintenance time and costs are higher than promised. Simply put, F35 is just not there when needed.
It cannot fly fast, we’ve said that, but it also cannot fly slow to perform ground attach duties. Worthless as fighter, worthless as attack plane.
It cannot carry weapons into combat, it’s too heavy without any. Navy changed plans and it’s keeping the F18s, with the F35 now only meant to lead F18s into combat, acting as reconnaissance and comm platform.
This plane is a light bomber, the spiritual successor to the Lockheed F-117A. As a first-strike aircraft, I’m sure that it’s quite capable. As a single type for an entire air force, it is a complete disaster if that country wants to defend their sovereign airspace with any degree of efficacy. Please note that every instance of “combat” that it has seen has been dropping bombs on static land targets. That’s not combat, that’s dropping bombs. I have NEVER seen an instance in which this plane has been successful in air-to-air combat with another plane. The most I have seen is it losing to an F-16 (which they later called invalid) and some absurd 20-1 score at red flag with the actual parameters of the engagements kept secret. For all we know, Red Team could have been ordered to fly like they were a bunch of Cessnas so we learned nothing from that. The secrecy of it’s success, coupled with the publicity of its failures speaks volumes to me about just how NOT WORTH IT this plane is.
The one thing that this plane does best is the thing that it was primarily designed to do. Its primary purpose was to help Lockheed-Martin rake in as much money as possible from various governments. In that respect, this plane could be considered legendary as it has no equal. With other factors involved, I’d take one of the Eurocanards over it seven days a week and twice on Sunday.
f35 are bad project am sorry no support
We’ve all been there. You buy the BBQ set and try to put it together yourself in the backyard. At the end of the day, you’re doing well if you don’t finish up with a piece of contemporary art on your hands a la Homer Simpson (bless him). Now try making the most complex piece of military avionics ever developed. There are going to be headaches.
Most of the negative talk on the F-35 is coming from one of two camps. Bean counters don’t tend to like it but how many wars were won by penny pinching? WWII put government debt over 100% of GDP.. Would anyone do that one different? Speaking in bean counter talk, ‘the F-35 is a supreme investment in military hardware which will pay dividends for decades’.
The other folks who don’t like it don’t seem to understand the advantage being a 5th generation fighter will confer. Comparing the F-35 to a 4th generation aircraft is most definitely the apples and oranges thing.
The F-35 was expensive but that cost is now in the past. Let’s continue to upgrade all jets in service and perfect the maintenance systems in order to optimise our use of this magnificent aircraft.
americans inc for me bad or not succes tech
Issue is this. 1991 us military showed its mean face to the 4th largest military in the world, and it crumbled instantly. The generals doesn’t care of the flaws of f35, they just need something silly up in the sky which shoots pin point acurate missiles. But the problem is this, what if enemy su35 s attacks you, what can f35 do. It can do nothing. F35 is a post air superior fighter.
I read these comments about hardware. One aspect of an air war is the quality of the pilots and in that area the US cannot be matched. I spent 26 years in the USAF and our pilots are untouchable when it comes to air to air combat. AC&W systems are excellent and Air to Air combat training tactics and training are supreme.
I am an Indian and I do apologize here for some cynical arm chair pundits especially from India who are either spamming here or on Quora working full time to prove F-35 is horrible and the stinky sukhois or the Rafale jets acquired by the Indian Air Forces are the best. Su-27 and the flanker family are good as they have great airframe , capable radar, avionics and missiles and can be considered better than Rafale jets. Su-35 could be the best 4th generation that can compete with the mighty F-15 Eagle but all those criticizing the F-35 forget that it’s a 5th generation jet and in this doctrine the dog fight is obsolete. The F-35 with it’s radars, avionics, missiles is unmatched even by the F-22. Just having speed is not enough and the F-35 are meant to be slow killers and as said they are of-course meant to replace the F-16 and the A-10s and act as force multiplier. A F-35 will spearhead it will destroy the SAM, dominate the sky collect details that no one else can see and pass it to it’s helper jets mostly a F-15EX and then it will orchestrate a dooms day with hundreds of 4+ gen jets like a ring master. That is the power of the 5th generation jet. This arm chair pundits should wake up and please do mention that the USD 30K flight hours cost is now 27/28K and will come down to USD 20K by 2025. It’s a 5th gen and it needs coating, engine checks a lot of things to work and the author should have also mentioned the red flag results where it anhilated all other jets.
The F-35 like the F-22 is the only real deal unlike paper jokes like the Su-57 and Chengdu 5th gen jets that Russia and China claim to have.