http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/april/120416ae_uk-firs...

Ant the Dutch have orderd them too. How stupid can we be. Take a Rafale or a Eurofighter or somthing else.

wahubna wrote on Apr 17^th, 2012 at 2:51pm:


Don't believe everything corporate 'spokespersons' tell you. It's been a controversial airframe for years and years. Here's some of the major points of contention, from a back issue of the American Center for Defense Information briefs:

“Even without new problems, the F-35 is a ‘dog.’ If one accepts every performance promise the DoD currently makes for the aircraft, the F-35 will be: “Overweight and underpowered: at 49,500 lb (22,450kg) air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight ratio for a new fighter…. [F-35A and F-35B variants] will have a ‘wing-loading’ of 108 lb per square foot…. less manoeuvrable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 ‘Lead Sled’ that got wiped out over North Vietnam…. payload of only two 2,000 lb bombs in its bomb bay…. With more bombs carried under its wings, the F-35 instantly becomes ‘non-stealthy’ and the DoD does not plan to seriously test it in this configuration for years. As a ‘close air support’... too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire; and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces for sustained periods…. What the USAF will not tell you is that ‘stealthy’ aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft…. As for the highly complex electronics to attack targets in the air, the F-35, like the F-22 before it, has mortgaged its success on a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based air-to-air combat that has fallen on its face many times in real air war. The F-35’s air-to-ground electronics promise little more than slicker command and control for the use of existing munitions.”

Maybe not such a heck of an aircraft. RAND Corp. sims showed the Russian SU-30 fighter always winning against the F-35 in close aerial combat. The US Air Force had to do some fancy dancing and real spin control when that got leaked. And I wonder if the F-35's high-tech radar-absorbing coatings degrade in wet weather as fast as it does on the B-2 bombers, another dirty little secret you won't ever hear directly addressed in public.

1) The F-14 had a high wing loading pilots have said they could handle F-16s and F-15s which have lower wing loadings
2) Radar Cross Section and materials is only half the stealth battle. As I have said, the F-35 has the most powerful avionics package in the world, that is not disputed by any of the other powers...hence why the avionics upgrades in other fighters are trying to mirror the F-35's package.
3) Maybe the DoD wont test RCS of external stores because they already know it is not the greatest??? Point being it is known. HOWEVER, its RCS is still much lower than Rafales or Typhoons with external stores. Stealth is all about low-observable, in other words delaying being spotted. Which the F-35's systems will do very well.
4) The campaign profile for using the F-35 dictates using its low RCS and internal stores to attack air defense assets. Once those are down, then they will carry their full warload and go hunting for GROUND targets...GROUND...GROUND. Simple fact is un stealthy aircraft are easy meat against modern air defense systems like those of the Russian Fed and their clients (China, India). Point being, all 4th gen and 4.5 gen fighters WILL be slaughtered in a fullscale war scenario not by air to air, but by SAMs. F-35 is an attempt to rectify that dilemma.
5) Dont even try talking about the F-105. Remember that all combat aircraft have weak points. The F-105 and F-4 were forced to fight in a way they were NEVER intended to fight...along those lines, keep in mind that Europe leads the way in making fighters without guns again even after the debacle of gun-less F-4s in Vietnam. Most Rafales and Typhoons keep the gun purely for ballast, the feed mechanisms taken out. In some cases the gun is designed out in particular with 2 seaters.
6) The F-35 is a MULTI-ROLE aircraft!!! It was never intended to equal the F-22 or Flankers in dogfighting!! It is a weapons truck designed to carry air to air when needed but primarily hit ground targets. It can hit ground targets just like anyother striker out there now. If the F-35 is to fast for CAS, then so is the F-15E and F-16--oh wait, those have been used for CAS for 2 decades!!
7) Back to stealth. It really should be called low-observable which means exactly that. Yes no stealth aircraft is invisible to radar, it just delays detection albeit until it is way to late for the target. Again, this in the F-35 has much more to do with GROUND based air defense assets which are being called 'hyper lethal'. There is virtually no chance of a fighter that is not low-observable to survive in a high lethality air defense environment....enter the F-35. The F-35 ideally should serve WITH aircraft like the Typhoon and Rafale in Europe, not replace. Again, the F-35 is NOT a replacement for those dedicated air to air fighters, it is a multi-role aircraft designed to fill in other roles like strikers, CAS, SEAD, Recon, and do the mundane air to air missions if need-be

I think the Europeans should remember how the Tornado came about....it faced a high level of contempt yet it has proven to be one of the most effective low-level strike aircraft in history AND in the updated F.3 version, one of the most lethal long-range interceptors in history.

The aircraft the F-35 aims to replace are OLD F-16s, OLD F/A-18s, OLD Harriers, OLD F-15s, and any-other 4th gen fighter. The latest incarnations of F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s, and so on are extremely capable but still very observable and thus highly vulnerable against modern air-defense systems (SAMs). The current structure in the US calls for F-22s being the premier AA fighter, F-35s and B-2s with UAVs kicking down the door, then F-15Cs, F-16Cs, F/A-18C,D,E,&F's blasting in through the gap in the air defense system.

I should also note that the integrated and stealthy combination during combat exercises has proven to slaughter real Flankers left and right. Look up Red Flag and SU-30MKI.

Look guys, all I am saying is people would not be considering the F-35 if it was the turkey opponents like to say it is. You have to remember that there are things you may not know, so for now, just acknowledged the hard work put into designing and developing the F-35 by the engineers, test pilots, and manufacturing folks. The F-35 is a heck of a fighter, just not in the typical "Higher further faster" way that is no dead...I say dead because most fighters today are capable of much more, but the pilot is not  physically.

Keep in mind there is NO fighter in history that entered wide-scale international service that was bad. In the roles people bought them to fill, they were the best option based on their criteria...F-4 anyone?? F-105?? (the f-105 being designed for LOW level high speed nuking...not high level slow iron bombing which is what it was forced to do in Vietnam).

wahubna wrote on Apr 17^th, 2012 at 4:51pm:


It does, hence why the USMC is the perfect operator for it. Seeing as the USMC is about the size of the entire UK armed forces, it's a niche we can't really justify filling!

C wrote on Apr 17^th, 2012 at 3:39pm:


Don't forget that the Brits also invented the Steam Catapult. Still in service today. Great for hurling  America's lumps of steel I mean Planes into the air.

Quote:


Studies have shown that a 10% reduction in displacement means a 50% reduction in capability.