F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Daryl Hunt]

Exclusive: Pentagon, Lockheed near deal on $9 billion F-35 contract - sources

The U.S. Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) are close to deal for a contract worth almost $9 billion as negotiations are poised to bring the price per F-35 below $100 million for the first time, people familiar with the talks said Wednesday. The F-35, the Pentagon's costliest arms program, has drawn fire from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump who has made lowering prices for military equipment a pillar of his transition into office. Talks are still ongoing for the tenth batch of stealthy fighter jets with a deal for 90 planes expected to be announced by the end of the month, three people said on condition of anonymity. A Lockheed representative declined to comment and a representative for the fighter program said negotiations are ongoing.

A new F-15 costs 110 mil. The intent was to get it down to 85 mil (the A model) all along. And even without trump meddling, it will still happen. A block of 90 costs less per plane than when you are buying blocks of 10 or less.

 

[DrainBamage]

More talk on F-35's performance, via 'One our adversaries should fear': US Air Force General describes how the F-35 is above and beyond the competition

At what point do we start believing pilots who fly the plane, instead of people looking at performance specs to determine how well the plane can fight? It seems almost delusional to think all the pilots, from difference branches of service and different countries, some polled anonymously, are wrong on how well F-35 performs, all from looking at a spec number in a vacuum and assuming all air combat relies on that exact spec.

So I followed up, asking him, as one of the few people who have flown both an F-16 and an F-35, what's it like to engage an F-35?
"You never knew I was there," he said with a smile. "You literally would never know I'm there. I flew the F-35 against other fourth-generation platforms and we killed them and they never even saw us." "If you were to engage an F-35 in say, a visual dogfight capability," he added, "the capabilities of the F-35 are absolutely eye-watering compared to a fourth-generation fighter." "The airplane has unbelievable maneuvering characteristics that make it completely undefeatable in an air-to-air environment. So if it's a long-range contact, you'll never see me and you'll die, and if it's within visual-range contact you'll see me and you're gonna die and you're gonna die very quickly," said Pleus, who has 153 flight hours in the F-35.

I'm assuming the maneuvering characteristics he's referring to are the superior angle of attack and control of airspeed that the Norwegian pilot was talking about.

 

[DrainBamage]

A new F-15 costs 110 mil. The intent was to get it down to 85 mil (the A model) all along. And even without trump meddling, it will still happen. A block of 90 costs less per plane than when you are buying blocks of 10 or less.

I know. That dullard, in truly dogmatic fashion, is rejecting actual published contract costs of F-35 for LRIP-9 then sourcing a higher number from some blogger three years ago.

He then claims a new F-16 would cost 55 million, despite that figure being published way back in 2009 for the F-16IN. The last actual F-16 sale proposal (Pakistan 2016) was for 8 F-16 Block 52s at 87 million each.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A new F-15 costs 110 mil. The intent was to get it down to 85 mil (the A model) all along. And even without trump meddling, it will still happen. A block of 90 costs less per plane than when you are buying blocks of 10 or less.

I know. That dullard, in truly dogmatic fashion, is rejecting actual published contract costs of F-35 for LRIP-9 then sourcing a higher number from some blogger three years ago.

He then claims a new F-16 would cost 55 million, despite that figure being published way back in 2009 for the F-16IN. The last actual F-16 sale proposal (Pakistan 2016) was for 8 F-16 Block 52s at 87 million each.

The Avionics that goes into the new F-16/15/18 directly can be attributed to the F-35 program. There has been some upgrades to the F-22 from the F-35 program as well. These upgrades have not been factored into the F-35 program at all. Yet they are there.

As for the F-35A, Israel is hot to get as many as they can get. They may be in a Ground to Air rich environment any day now as they see it. The fact that they can't get the F-22, they need to F-35A to penetrate those umbrellas.

As for Russian SA300/400, we are seeing a few of the SA300 sites but they don't have very many SA400 missiles to man them. In fact, they are mounting older missiles on them. While the F15/16/18 may be in jeopardy, the F-22 and the F-35 can take them out at will.

The SU-35 looks great on paper but it's not in any kind of numbers and it's turning into a dog until they get things ironed out. The PAKFA is a joke right now.

For air and ground attack, the US is looking pretty secure right now.

Been hiding something. If you notice the tag, I am known in more than a few areas as a Military Historian. You have a question about military history, ask it. Chances are, I can answer it. If not, I know of others that can.

 

[Manonthestreet]

F'35 heading to Red Flag. Hopefully we can get some accurate reportage not propaganda designed to rescue it from Trump. Sustained g turn reduced.....Acceleration reduced......Think they are only sending A version.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

F'35 heading to Red Flag. Hopefully we can get some accurate reportage not propaganda designed to rescue it from Trump. Sustained g turn reduced.....Acceleration reduced......Think they are only sending A version.

Yes, only the A since Red Flag is AF only. I think Trump is just shaking the tree to keep us all entertained.

But if it's like the exercises the A has been in, it's gonna raise some real hair. Maybe the F-22 can contain it. It should be interesting. The problem is, the AF may not release all the information.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I'd settle for just holding its own considering its performance deficit vs every other machine.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'd settle for just holding its own considering its performance deficit vs every other machine.

You have 3 year old info on that. Yes, it was limited in early 2015 to 6Gs. But in 2016, it was released to 9gs. The original AF versions were kept to Mach 1.3 and below but the F-35A that went into service was mach 1.6.

Plus, it's proven to be easier to maintain than the other V4 fighters. Meaning, it's sortie rate is better. It may cost more but when you actually get it flying, it costs less. That just came out.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I'd settle for just holding its own considering its performance deficit vs every other machine.

You have 3 year old info on that. Yes, it was limited in early 2015 to 6Gs. But in 2016, it was released to 9gs. The original AF versions were kept to Mach 1.3 and below but the F-35A that went into service was mach 1.6.

Plus, it's proven to be easier to maintain than the other V4 fighters. Meaning, it's sortie rate is better. It may cost more but when you actually get it flying, it costs less. That just came out.

No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'd settle for just holding its own considering its performance deficit vs every other machine.

You have 3 year old info on that. Yes, it was limited in early 2015 to 6Gs. But in 2016, it was released to 9gs. The original AF versions were kept to Mach 1.3 and below but the F-35A that went into service was mach 1.6.

Plus, it's proven to be easier to maintain than the other V4 fighters. Meaning, it's sortie rate is better. It may cost more but when you actually get it flying, it costs less. That just came out.

No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently

Based on old information. It was based on the AF-2 not the F-35A that went operational. They are two completely different aircraft. They just look the same.

The AF is pretty closed mouthed about what's under the hood right now. Just like they are about the F-22.

BTW, the gun works just fine on the F-35A.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I'd settle for just holding its own considering its performance deficit vs every other machine.

You have 3 year old info on that. Yes, it was limited in early 2015 to 6Gs. But in 2016, it was released to 9gs. The original AF versions were kept to Mach 1.3 and below but the F-35A that went into service was mach 1.6.

Plus, it's proven to be easier to maintain than the other V4 fighters. Meaning, it's sortie rate is better. It may cost more but when you actually get it flying, it costs less. That just came out.

No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently

Based on old information. It was based on the AF-2 not the F-35A that went operational. They are two completely different aircraft. They just look the same.

The AF is pretty closed mouthed about what's under the hood right now. Just like they are about the F-22.

BTW, the gun works just fine on the F-35A. The AF-2 didn't have one.

No it's not......Current

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'd settle for just holding its own considering its performance deficit vs every other machine.

You have 3 year old info on that. Yes, it was limited in early 2015 to 6Gs. But in 2016, it was released to 9gs. The original AF versions were kept to Mach 1.3 and below but the F-35A that went into service was mach 1.6.

Plus, it's proven to be easier to maintain than the other V4 fighters. Meaning, it's sortie rate is better. It may cost more but when you actually get it flying, it costs less. That just came out.

No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently

Based on old information. It was based on the AF-2 not the F-35A that went operational. They are two completely different aircraft. They just look the same.

The AF is pretty closed mouthed about what's under the hood right now. Just like they are about the F-22.

BTW, the gun works just fine on the F-35A. The AF-2 didn't have one.

No it's not......Current

You stated that it could go no faster than M1.3 yet the Production F-35A is locked at 1.6. You stated that it could do no more than 6 Gees yet the production F-35A is limited to 9 gees. Those figures come from the F-35A-AF-2 birds which are still flying but were never intended to go into production. That's like saying the XP and YP from the old days had the same capability as the P version. You are going to lose this one, you know. Stick with what comes out of Red Flag.

 

[DrainBamage]

No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently

If you mean the article from John Venable, it is indeed almost four years old info.

Here is something from April 2013 addressing it: Elements Of Power: The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change

That goes into details on F-35 sustained G.

 

[DrainBamage]

Hopefully we can get some accurate reportage not propaganda

I get the sense that if it doesn't conform to your views the information will be called propaganda, but if it does it will be called facts. Am I right?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Hopefully we can get some accurate reportage not propaganda

I get the sense that if it doesn't conform to your views the information will be called propaganda, but if it does it will be called facts. Am I right?

Think I said I'd settle for hold its own. Seems like a pretty minimum standard.

 

[Manonthestreet]

No I just posted brand new piece on this just recently

If you mean the article from John Venable, it is indeed almost four years old info.

Here is something from April 2013 addressing it: Elements Of Power: The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change

That goes into details on F-35 sustained G.

No......It's current.....They were discussing the aircraft's weight gain which they said is normal for all platforms and that perhaps an updated engine was necessary to overcome the loss of acceleration especially in Navy model which is just terrible. I don't post things twice.

 

[Geaux4it]

Oops. That seems to be the general opinion.
The Royal navy are going to be serious miffed. Question is, what would possess the British MOD to but a possibly dodgy bit of kit?

PS - terrific avatar. The F4 has a rugged charm that few aircraft can match.

Someday I'll share some stories about my days flying back seat (Photo Chase) in the F4. Simply an awesome fighter.... HInt..... We left F/A-18's in the dust lol.

-Geaux

 

[DrainBamage]

Think I said I'd settle for hold its own. Seems like a pretty minimum standard.

Right but that gets to my point, by all accounts it has been dominating other aircraft and pilot after pilot has said that their opponent never even sees them or how well it dogfights. That survey they did showed overwhelmingly pilots would rather be in an F-35 in almost every situation.

Yet you dismiss it all as propaganda and point to blog posts with specs. That is what I don't understand, it sure seems that you've got a conclusion and are going to discount any information to the contrary. All the pilots are lying, and these bloggers are right.

At what point do you take pilots who have actually flown F-35 at their word, instead of bloggers who have never flown it?

 

[DrainBamage]

Someday I'll share some stories about my days flying back seat (Photo Chase) in the F4. Simply an awesome fighter.... HInt..... We left F/A-18's in the dust lol.

Woah there you might raise Westwall's hackles, and he'll come back with some story about how he saved the United States by hanging onto the wing of an SR-71 at mach 3. He worked in third world countries don't you know, and has been attacked by bandits in every decade and every continent.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Think I said I'd settle for hold its own. Seems like a pretty minimum standard.

Right but that gets to my point, by all accounts it has been dominating other aircraft and pilot after pilot has said that their opponent never even sees them or how well it dogfights. That survey they did showed overwhelmingly pilots would rather be in an F-35 in almost every situation.

Yet you dismiss it all as propaganda and point to blog posts with specs. That is what I don't understand, it sure seems that you've got a conclusion and are going to discount any information to the contrary. All the pilots are lying, and these bloggers are right.

At what point do you take pilots who have actually flown F-35 at their word, instead of bloggers who have never flown it?

A pilot .......You now will true test with motivated opposition nice try with bloggers comment cept it all comes from defense and tech and news sites. Llmmmaaaaooko