The F-35 Is Now the World’s Most INSANE Stealth Fighter: Here's Why

[FLYBOYJ]

Wow - what I wrote, above, has no political content at all. It violated no forum rules. It was a direct response to the opinions offered in previous posts. And I never referred to people who disagree with me as "ill-informed naysayers," which is much more political than what I wrote.

This is clearly not the community for me. I apologize to all for politely offering a viewpoint that is apparently not welcome here.

As my last post, I offer the following facts for whomever has a mind open enough to consider them: The alleged $80 million cost per F-35 is not at all close to what each aircraft actually costs the taxpayers. That's the cost of only the engine and airframe. It excludes the R&D costs (many billions), the costs of initial sets of spare parts for each aircraft, the costs of the flight training simulators, the costs of the ALIS support system, and other accessories. It also excludes the costs of fixing the problems still associated with the aircraft, and the approximately $2 billion a year Lockheed Martin is paid to keep the fleet of F-35's flying. Finally, it should be acknowledged that the F-35 costs $44,000/hour to fly.

Foreign aid was brought up by another poster, which seems a lot more political than my comments directly addressing the subjects in previous posts. The return on the investment the USA gets from foreign aid is huge. The US spends less than one percent of its budget on foreign aid. In return, the goodwill generated helps the US accomplish all of its foreign policy goals, keeps many countries stable and helps ward off military conflict that would be bad for our country, and keeps diseases and other problems at bay before they can afflict the citizens of the US.

The average percentage of GNP from western industrialized nations devoted to foreign aid is 0.4%. The US gives 0.2%, ranking the US near the bottom.

We don't know what the return on the investment will be for the F-35 program.

You also fail to mention how much of that is based on FFP, contractor penalties and bugeted operating costs which are in a completely different funding bucket.

The average percentage of GNP from western industrialized nations devoted to foreign aid is 0.4%. The US gives 0.2%, ranking the US near the bottom.

And how does that compare in actual dollars?

This is clearly not the community for me.

Yea, you're right, perhaps this isn't the place for you.

 

[GrauGeist]

I believe into the late 2030's, possibly 2040's. Here is why. The previous re-wing contract was to extend the life into the late 2030's. The new Boeing contract is for an additional 112 sets of wings and support and runs into the 2030's.

I'm glad that they're extending the A-10's service life, to be honest.

In this day and age of hyper tech like the F-35 and UCAVs, there will always be the need for down and dirty brute force, which is right up the Fairchild's alley

 

[Zipper730]

Regarding the F-23 vs F-22

This was after and I think the program office for this was at Edwards. As mentioned, it died on the vine

What year would this have been?

Growth doesn't always mean size - the ability to place more systems and capabilities on the airframe.

So, greater internal volume to fit new electronic systems to the aircraft, not increased ordinance capacity?

Regarding the F-35

It does but it's primary purpose was/ is to drop bombs

Okay, so it could be coupled to more conventional planes and missile trucks to swamp the enemy with air-to-air missiles?

I've worked on government contracts a great portion of my 40 years in aviation, I've asked myself that questions many times!!!

Lots of head-scratching -- I can understand that.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Regarding the F-23 vs F-22
What year would this have been?
So, greater internal volume to fit new electronic systems to the aircraft, not increased ordinance capacity?

IIRC around 2010/ 2012 and yes to the second question.

Regarding the F-35
Okay, so it could be coupled to more conventional planes and missile trucks to swamp the enemy with air-to-air missiles?

among other things in concept

Lots of head-scratching -- I can understand that.

Yep!

 

[Zipper730]

IIRC around 2010/ 2012

That was after it was introduced to operational service. I'm surprised they didn't build more air-to-ground capability in earlier.

yes to the second question.

I think I kind of see the point: While the eyes can be deceiving, YF-23 might very well have had less internal volume.

Here's an interesting series of images based on some proposals of the pre-production (or terminological equivalent) of the F-23A: It does seem to match other images I've seen before such as the following.

I think all are under 1500 pixels in width...

 

[nuuumannn]

We don't know what the return on the investment will be for the F-35 program.

It's kind'a hard to quantify the return in investment of a weapons system of any sort, but the old maxim goes that you get what you pay for. If you throw money at something for long enough it'll eventually do exactly what you want it to do. That is in itself a return. Not only that, but in the case of the F-35, the fact that it has been bought and in service with a number of nations around the world offers evidence that there is return on the government's investment in the programme. Let's also not forget that the F-35 is an international venture, not just American. Much British research and tech has gone into the aircraft, for example; more than 30 percent of the finished product is British equipment and technology. The following is an old article, but gives a breakdown of how much of the F-35 is British.

How much of the F-35 is British?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It was kind of cool to be be sitting at the Golf Course Club House having lunch and seeing them zoom by overhead.

Those words look awfully familia. Where did I hear them?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Those words look awfully familia. Where did I hear them?

Did he pick up the tab?

 

[Torch]

So you UNDERSTAND, it's going to be "none."

There will always be criticism of the press by many on this forum because 9 times out of 10 they (the press) report WRONG (either by ignorance or on purpose) information with regards to aviation matters. This has been shown on this forum many times by those of us close to the source or in industry. This is not political, but a fact.



Now it's my call and I told you to carry on once. There will not be a third time!!!

hahahhahaha first time I've seen that,flux capacitor.......

 

[GrauGeist]

hahahhahaha first time I've seen that,flux capacitor.......

That's a classic, for sure!

 

[gpacchia]

I think the propaganda of the video is too much optimistic, seen costs very overwhelmingly which brought a lot of nation chosen to cut the numbers, a lot of cuts.
Probably costs are gone so high to oblige the nations to cut great percentage of their projects

 

[gpacchia]

in this field i must tell there are a lot of lies which actors spread with no shame, from all directions obviously. From Usa, Cia, Russia, China and the reality of things are very different from what we are capable to know

 

[Schweik]

I'm glad to see some positive news about the F-35 and happy to hear that they have made some improvements to the design and fixed some of the problems.

I think it's wrong to assume that all negative press coverage of any weapons procurement or weapon program is either wrong or based on an evil agenda. Some of it definitely is wrong and some of it is from agendas which will never be happy with any military spending. There are even some which are sponsored by foreign countries or corporate rivals.

But others are of the type we definitely need to have: sharp eyed scrutiny to root out mistakes before they become too big. Even when news comes from not such friendly sources it should be evaluated for accuracy rather than just being dismissed on the premise of 'dissent=treason' which is so popular in all walks of life these days.

I'm glad to hear that the author of the article talked to pilots who liked the plane. I didn't have this experience myself.

I spent a week in Tuscon a couple of years ago in a hotel which was also occupied by a large number of fighter pilots who were in town for an exercise. I guess USAF is short on barracks space? Anyway I chatted with them on the elevators in the mornings and on two occasions, had breakfast with them. They were friendly and entertained my various questions. One question I asked everybody was what did they think of the F-35. Most just said one or two disparaging comments and changed the subject. Two guys went on at some length anout the problems. Only one guy, who was a full bird colonel, spoke in praise of the F-35. Of course there is nothing scientific about any of this. Most of these guys were F-18 pilots and generally pilots tend to like the aircraft they are flying. Most of them hadn't actually flown the F-35 they had just followed the news about it (both officially and unofficially, within military context and outside of it). A couple of the more talkative guys I had breakfast with had flown it and they both had grave concerns.

United States has had problems with weapons procurement for a long time. We never really know if a given program is going to turn out to be fantastic very soon after development, a promising design which suffers through a long teething process which eventually leads to something good (ala P-38), or a boondoggle which wastes a fortune in taxpayer money and never amounts to anything with a real mission (I could name a bunch of examples here but I don't want to start a lot of side arguments - but I'll mention one - how about the B-70 Valkyrie?).

It behooves us to stay on top of these problems and that is something we need a press for. Anyone who has ever worked with or for a defense contractor (as I myself have done both inside and outside of the military) knows that they can be helpful and part of the cause, and they can also be grifting at a rate that would shock a Visigoth warlord and raking in taxpayer money for substandard work, or worse. It's not unheard of for lines of malfeasance, extortion and bribery to be crossed.

In recent years we in the US have gone through what seems like another phase of serious problems with procurement. The video in the OP mentions the challenges imposed when there is a monopoly of only a single contractor on a project. "No incentive to reduce costs" is a polite way to put it. The large number of companies which used to make major military weapons systems like warplanes has dwindled to a small number. This may need to be rectified. Sometimes companies get bogged down and lose their way. If we had relied exclusively in Curtiss aircraft in WW2 instead of throwing a bone to some small upstart companies like North American, WW2 might have lasted a bit longer.

Of course you have to contextualize criticism of weapon production. It is possible, and has happened, for a very promising and potentially useful weapon system to be cancelled. It is also possible for something near-useless to be built wasting billions of dollars and leaving our troops in a bad situation on the battlefield if they ever had to be used.

Sometimes the major problem with a particular project isn't even mainly with the contractor or company making the weapon system, it's with the specs. I think one of the issues if the F-35 is that it was made to do too many things. Like some of the issues with the He 177. It may not be realistic to have a carrier capable, VTOL, Stealth, Air Superiority, CAS drone integrated and tactical fighter-bomber all in one package.

Some of the comments in the OP video and subsequent discussions were misleading. Few of the original Allied nations who were supposed to buy the F-35 still want it. It does seem like there is still need for the (all too few) F-22 fighters we have. There are cost overruns and pretending older 4th Gen fighters can't operate without pods while F-35 won't have to carry any is disingenuous.

I'd like to know who made the video in the OP and who they are affiliated with precisely.

 

[BlackSheep]

So, the F-22 is about 50% more expensive? As for multi-role capability, I'd almost swear that there were proposals early on to enlarge the bays to carry the desired payload -- why was that never implemented, if it's not classified?

Why was the F-23 passed over in favor of the F-22?

When I hear someone say enlarge the bays of a fighter to carry the desired payload ie bombs/ground attack missiles....I have a flashback to a guy with a questionable style when it comes to mustaches adding bombs to what may have otherwise been a game changer in the Me-262...

 

[GrauGeist]

When I hear someone say enlarge the bays of a fighter to carry the desired payload ie bombs/ground attack missiles....I have a flashback to a guy with a questionable style when it comes to mustaches adding bombs to what may have otherwise been a game changer in the Me-262...

When asked if the Me262 could be made into a Schnell Bomber, Willy said "Yes!" and I suspect this was more because no one dared to say No to the guy even though the Ar234 (which was nearly ready) could have done the job better.

 

[SaparotRob]

That's a classic, for sure!

An engineer on the LIRR pulled the same stunt. A newbie dispatcher questioned an engineer as to why he was losing time. He adjustment to the 4Q2 valve reset the flux capacitor. I know both parties.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Some excellent points but a few comments...

I'm glad to see some positive news about the F-35 and happy to hear that they have made some improvements to the design and fixed some of the problems.

I think it's wrong to assume that all negative press coverage of any weapons procurement or weapon program is either wrong or based on an evil agenda. Some of it definitely is wrong and some of it is from agendas which will never be happy with any military spending. There are even some which are sponsored by foreign countries or corporate rivals.

But others are of the type we definitely need to have: sharp eyed scrutiny to root out mistakes before they become too big. Even when news comes from not such friendly sources it should be evaluated for accuracy rather than just being dismissed on the premise of 'dissent=treason' which is so popular in all walks of life these days.

I'm glad to hear that the author of the article talked to pilots who liked the plane. I didn't have this experience myself.

Agree 100%!!!

I spent a week in Tuscon a couple of years ago in a hotel which was also occupied by a large number of fighter pilots who were in town for an exercise. I guess USAF is short on barracks space? Anyway I chatted with them on the elevators in the mornings and on two occasions, had breakfast with them. They were friendly and entertained my various questions. One question I asked everybody was what did they think of the F-35. Most just said one or two disparaging comments and changed the subject. Two guys went on at some length anout the problems. Only one guy, who was a full bird colonel, spoke in praise of the F-35. Of course there is nothing scientific about any of this. Most of these guys were F-18 pilots and generally pilots tend to like the aircraft they are flying. Most of them hadn't actually flown the F-35 they had just followed the news about it (both officially and unofficially, within military context and outside of it). A couple of the more talkative guys I had breakfast with had flown it and they both had grave concerns.

Some issues here - FIRST the USAF doesn't fly F-18s! Did you mean F-15s??

Yes, an 0-6 and above will never throw a negative light on a major weapons system, especially if they are remotely involved with it. Up until 2018 I worked out of the Air Force Academy and we had former cadets that went on to F-15s and F-16s and eventually to the F-35 and even in the earlier stages had nothing but praise for the aircraft and the potential seen within the program.

Right now the F-35C is the least loved of all 3 models (if you were speaking to F-18 drivers). I do know many F-18 drivers who are not convinced and will want to stay with their Hornets.

United States has had problems with weapons procurement for a long time. We never really know if a given program is going to turn out to be fantastic very soon after development, a promising design which suffers through a long teething process which eventually leads to something good (ala P-38), or a boondoggle which wastes a fortune in taxpayer money and never amounts to anything with a real mission (I could name a bunch of examples here but I don't want to start a lot of side arguments - but I'll mention one - how about the B-70 Valkyrie?).

And again good points but I disagree with your comments about the P-38, an aircraft that was never designed for a war in Europe and never planned for mass production. Considering when the US went to war, when issues were identified and then fixed (2 years) and the logistics involved during that era, (let alone the red tape) this was nothing short of a miracle considering this aircraft was developed before the war and still in production on V-J day!

It behooves us to stay on top of these problems and that is something we need a press for. Anyone who has ever worked with or for a defense contractor (as I myself have done both inside and outside of the military) knows that they can be helpful and part of the cause, and they can also be grifting at a rate that would shock a Visigoth warlord and raking in taxpayer money for substandard work, or worse. It's not unheard of for lines of malfeasance, extortion and bribery to be crossed.

100% but this will always be an issue - human nature

In recent years we in the US have gone through what seems like another phase of serious problems with procurement. The video in the OP mentions the challenges imposed when there is a monopoly of only a single contractor on a project. "No incentive to reduce costs" is a polite way to put it. The large number of companies which used to make major military weapons systems like warplanes has dwindled to a small number. This may need to be rectified. Sometimes companies get bogged down and lose their way. If we had relied exclusively in Curtiss aircraft in WW2 instead of throwing a bone to some small upstart companies like North American, WW2 might have lasted a bit longer.

But in this day and age you're not going to have a start up company with the means to compete with the current major prime contractors.

Of course you have to contextualize criticism of weapon production. It is possible, and has happened, for a very promising and potentially useful weapon system to be cancelled. It is also possible for something near-useless to be built wasting billions of dollars and leaving our troops in a bad situation on the battlefield if they ever had to be used.

and again, agree 100%

Sometimes the major problem with a particular project isn't even mainly with the contractor or company making the weapon system, it's with the specs. I think one of the issues if the F-35 is that it was made to do too many things. Like some of the issues with the He 177. It may not be realistic to have a carrier capable, VTOL, Stealth, Air Superiority, CAS drone integrated and tactical fighter-bomber all in one package.

And there I disagree - you have to think outside the aluminum and rivet box and understand that you now have a flying supercomputer. If you would have told someone 30 years ago that you can build a 128G computer that can take 12 megapixel photos, 2436 x 1125 video, has a built in GPS, can stream full length movies and is also a telephone that can fit in your pocket, you would have been laughed into oblivion. It's this same type of technology jump that is now going into an airframe and most people cannot conceptualize this as they still see a conventional jet fighter when they look at the F-35.

Some of the comments in the OP video and subsequent discussions were misleading. Few of the original Allied nations who were supposed to buy the F-35 still want it.

Look at the original team partners on the program and those still wanting the aircraft. Not very many have jumped off the bandwagon. You also fail the mention the Italian and Japanese production lines

It does seem like there is still need for the (all too few) F-22 fighters we have. There are cost overruns and pretending older 4th Gen fighters can't operate without pods while F-35 won't have to carry any is disingenuous.

It depends what "pods" and systems you're talking about. There is no doubt there are a lot of conventional systems that are external now built into the F-35, something that I think will be the trend in the next generation of combat aircraft

I'd like to know who made the video in the OP and who they are affiliated with precisely.

Me too - but having friends who worked on the X-35 and are still on the program, there isn't too much fluff there

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think the propaganda of the video is too much optimistic, seen costs very overwhelmingly which brought a lot of nation chosen to cut the numbers, a lot of cuts.
Probably costs are gone so high to oblige the nations to cut great percentage of their projects

in this field i must tell there are a lot of lies which actors spread with no shame, from all directions obviously. From Usa, Cia, Russia, China and the reality of things are very different from what we are capable to know

So I'd like to hear specifics and references to justify these comments and do your comments/ feelings apply to the F-35s being produced in Italy??

 

[davparlr]

Does it mention how they don't dare go supersonic or is it just more propaganda to justify the Trillion dollars wasted on the failure?

Apparently it is an issue with stealth coatings wearing away under heat conditions of extended supersonic flight. It's probably not much of a problem. I not sure that the F-35 is expected to supercruise very much. Originally the B-2 had coatings that could wear away in rain. Doesn't seem to impede it, though.

With my lack of aviation knowledge as a given, I would've preferred they appropriated funds for a metric butt load of F-22's. It makes more sense to me to have the best possible weapon in quantity. Yup, taxes go up. Still cheaper than tribute.

You still have a problem, and market, of providing allies with modern affordable stealthy fighter. The F-22 does not fit that bill and is probably NOFORN (not for foreign release) anyway.

he problem with the heads-up display is maybe less critical, but it was supposed to be a big benefit of the aircraft. Hope they get it working well soon.

Helmet mounted display, not head up display. They are different technologies.

They even want to make B-52s into "arsenal planes," just to have something to carry enough missiles for the F-35s' targets.

I suspect we are nearing the end of the line of using manned fighters for airspace domination. Darpa is already running simulated dogfights between automated fighters and experienced piloted fighters. Needless to say who would win. AlphaDogfight Trials Go Virtual for Final Event. Piloted aircraft could never outperform a fighter drone with much higher "g" limitations, e.g., a missile, and the weight of pilot, ejection seat, cockpit/canopy, and environmental equipment is extensive. In addition, the cost of men and equipment of retrieving a downed airman is excessive.

[QUOTE-FLYBOYJ]
I've said this many times - cost overruns are not just accepted by the government, they have to be approved and many of those overruns were due to the customer wanting to add things on to the aircraft or contract, the press conveniently never mentions this.[/QUOTE]

And I have supported this position many times. In addition, unrealistic schedules and poor contract discipline and other things, contribute to significant cost, and schedule overruns for military programs.

IIRC, production cost, sustainability and growth capability was what pushed the F-22A ahead of the F-23 despite the F-23 being the better performer in many cases. People say the decision was political based, I know this is BS.

The F-23 was the technical selection but the F-22 was selected due to the perception that Lockheed Martin had a better program management system, which turned out to be a disaster, not soley LMs fault. An example was that avionics board spacing for the F-22 avionics was such that just about every component on the board needed to be redesigned, incredibly expensive . Do to this, the F-35, which I worked on, had a requirement that board spacing would be a minimum of half an inch allowing commercial components to be used.
As far a political input, I have to disagree a bit with Flyboy. My opinion is that there is a cabal of military, Department of Defense, Congress, and big business that affect just about every large subcontract. Some are reasonable like trying to keep a manufacturing data base, for instance Northrop Grumman dropped out of the TX program and I am sure they could have dusted off F-20B drawings (two seater) which is almost identical to Boeings wining Red Hawk aircraft. Of course Northrop Grumman got the B-21 contract and Boeings was closing out most of its military aircraft programs. Some are strictly political with big states politicians with a lot of pull.

I've seen that,flux capacitor

Back in the '80s, all the major aircraft manufactures were toying with the applying the flux capacitor concept to their aircraft design. Almost all rejected the idea as unworkable. The only exception was Boeing. After much study and thought, they applied the flux capacitor concept to their JSF design. You can see how that turned out![/QUOTE]

 

[SaparotRob]

Wait a minute, flux capacitor is a thing?