UK F-35 First Flight

[Slater]

The F-18 seems to be having a reasonably successful career with the nations that adopted it as a land-based fighter (Australia, Finland, Spain, Kuwait). On the one hand,the beefed up structure and landing gear designed for naval operations does add a bit of weight. On the other hand, I would imagine it makes for a fairly durable and robust airframe.

[Jabba]

The F-18 seems to be having a reasonably successful career with the nations that adopted it as a land-based fighter (Australia, Finland, Spain, Kuwait). On the one hand,the beefed up structure and landing gear designed for naval operations does add a bit of weight. On the other hand, I would imagine it makes for a fairly durable and robust airframe.

Northrop, the original builder tried to market their original F-17 which had a different U/C as a land based aircraft with McDonnell Douglas marketing the F/A-18. No-one took up the F-17 and Northrop fell in with the F/A-18 programme.

[Mike Esposito]

I rather liked Boeing's X-32 in it's final (?) design configuration. It would appear to have a future in Sci-fi movies if some production company needed a design for some future F-XX design

I actually was rooting for this design to win the competition back when.....I actually like the F-35C carrier version. Greater wingspan looks cooler

Had a very spirited discussion from a Canadian buddy of mine, and a Canadian at Aeroscale forums regarding procurement of the F-35, he thinks its a waste of money, effort ect....."kill it!" he says.

I tried to explain that as an advanced aircraft, it is bound to be overbudget, late, and certain 'bugs' will crop up causing more delays. Much politics involved as well.

How do people in the UK think? With the new Flattops planned for the RN, I should think that any plans to kill the F-35 would be a big mistake.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Mike Esposito

[Speckled Jim]

So what next? The RAF merge with the USAF and creates a single bodied North Atlantic air arm, with a central command in the Pentagon. After months of negotiation this new air force is renamed as the, errr, USAF...

Actually it already exists its called USAFE, United States Air Forces in Europe and has bases in the UK, Germany, Italy as well as support facilities and aircraft every where from Bosnia and Turkey to Portugal and Norway, with a lovely selection of aircraft from F-15 to KC-135 and the BUFF's could return to Fairford within 24-48hrs.... we've already lost the invasion.

Now to the F-35 I think that aircraft is simply painted the same as the US Marine ones to keep uniformity amongst the aircraft, if I am not wrong at the moment they'll be on a dry lease to us until we have sufficient skilled crews to take the batch home and train them, with the yanks training us, however I have a funny feeling that when the land at Cosford, Marham, Lossie or whatever fighter stations we have left in the UK by then the fleet will find themselves being repainted to the RAF Barley grey with the RAF's own low vis markings (The ones we know and Love) being applied again to enforce uniformity amongst t the fighter force so they dont stick out like sore thumbs when their parked next to the Typhoon. Its very similar to what happened with the Typhoon when we got the first couple their arrived in a naff orange and green primer and had to be painted, don't really see much difference in situation.

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Better?

Not really Horrid aircraft!

I like ugly aircraft. Gannet... Phantom... but this monstrosity is just far beyond the pale.

[upnorth]

Had a very spirited discussion from a Canadian buddy of mine, and a Canadian at Aeroscale forums regarding procurement of the F-35, he thinks its a waste of money, effort ect....."kill it!" he says.

I tried to explain that as an advanced aircraft, it is bound to be overbudget, late, and certain 'bugs' will crop up causing more delays. Much politics involved as well.

I wonder how he felt about the Avro Arrow, being as he is Canadian.

The Arrow was testament to project mismanagement, cost spiraling and patriotism overriding common sense. It wasn't really as far ahead of it's time as many would have you believe either. The F-35 has a long way to go before it reaches that kind of wastage. Once you cut through the conspiracy theories, the Arrow's is a quite pedestrian and predictable story.

I'm sure there's plenty of people in the Canadian aerospace industry that have jobs because of Canada's involvement in the F-35 program who would be quite happy to disagree with your buddy. Canada is a first tier partner in the program as I recall, and that would create a lot of jobs in the country's aerospace sector.

On some other forums I frequent, there are members who are, or have been involved with the F-35 at one level or another. From things that they are able to say about it, particularly in regards to the level of systems integration the machine has, it really is no surprise it's taken a while to develop it. From what I understand, though it has taken a long time to develop, it is not grossly overbuget so far. Many other projects in the past have gone much further over buget and still met with success.

The more I read about the F-35, the more I'm reminded of the F-111. Under the skin of both aircraft are a huge amount of new avionics and systems that were truly being tried for the first time, nobody knew how well they'd work in real situations so a lot more development time was needed. The longer the development took, the more people took to bashing the aircraft and questioning it's worth. Unfortunately, too many people don't realise just how much goes on under the skin of a modern combat aircraft.

The well publicised teething problems of the F-111's early service took a long time to shake off in the public view and coloured perceptions of it for the bulk of it's career. However, the machine matured into a very effective and respected combat aircraft.

I have a feeling the F-35's career will probably be quite overshadowed by the perceptions that have formed over the length of it's development stages. It WILL have a career; too many people are involved, too much is at stake and it's come so far that only a fool would cancel it.

I'm certain that even after it's proven itself a very effective combat type in service and earned popularity and respect of those working with it, there will be those more than willing to kick it and dredge up how long it took to develop it.

[AV O]

Actually it already exists its called USAFE, United States Air Forces in Europe and has bases in the UK, Germany, Italy as well as support facilities and aircraft every where from Bosnia and Turkey to Portugal and Norway, with a lovely selection of aircraft from F-15 to KC-135 and the BUFF's could return to Fairford within 24-48hrs.... we've already lost the invasion.

What about the General Exercise of Joint Europeans Air Forces we were granted last year, enabling Northen Europe countries to practice "live" over areas they couldn't have dreamt of otherwise : desert.

Air refuelling, tactics, deployment, dropping and getting rid of their surplus or almost obsolescent armament (not spending but for a good cause !). Others experimenting new ones. Others promoting theirs. What a show !

Every day, detailled mission reports were issued as if it were Red Flag or any military manoeuver.

[rich2010]

Now to the F-35 I think that aircraft is simply painted the same as the US Marine ones to keep uniformity amongst the aircraft, if I am not wrong at the moment they'll be on a dry lease to us until we have sufficient skilled crews to take the batch home and train them, with the yanks training us, however I have a funny feeling that when the land at Cosford, Marham, Lossie or whatever fighter stations we have left in the UK by then the fleet will find themselves being repainted to the RAF Barley grey with the RAF's own low vis markings (The ones we know and Love) being applied again to enforce uniformity amongst t the fighter force so they dont stick out like sore thumbs when their parked next to the Typhoon. Its very similar to what happened with the Typhoon when we got the first couple their arrived in a naff orange and green primer and had to be painted, don't really see much difference in situation.

Fin flashes = RAF aircraft

No fin flashes = RN aircraft

I thought they were meant to be a joint asset. Or was that just until their light bluenesses got their mits on them.

[Bobski]

Now to the F-35 I think that aircraft is simply painted the same as the US Marine ones to keep uniformity amongst the aircraft, if I am not wrong at the moment they'll be on a dry lease to us until we have sufficient skilled crews to take the batch home and train them, with the yanks training us, however I have a funny feeling that when the land at Cosford, Marham, Lossie or whatever fighter stations we have left in the UK by then the fleet will find themselves being repainted to the RAF Barley grey with the RAF's own low vis markings (The ones we know and Love) being applied again to enforce uniformity amongst t the fighter force so they dont stick out like sore thumbs when their parked next to the Typhoon. Its very similar to what happened with the Typhoon when we got the first couple their arrived in a naff orange and green primer and had to be painted, don't really see much difference in situation.

Typhoon is delivered to the customer painted and always has been. The flights in primer are the initial test flights after the jet is built to iron out any little niggles before she gets her coat of RAF Camouflage Grey and her stencilling. The only thing the RAF adds are the squadron markings, which are decals, or any bespoke paint schemes, like the 3 Sqn Centenary markings.

As for the F-35 paint, I suspect it is more than simply a case of making sure the aircraft look the same. I suspect that it is 'special' (read: expensive) paint, most likely with radar absorbant properties. Note that the F-22 has similar, almost metallic paint.

I still don't like the markings though...

[Mike Esposito]

I wonder how he felt about the Avro Arrow, being as he is Canadian.

The Arrow was testament to project mismanagement, cost spiraling and patriotism overriding common sense. It wasn't really as far ahead of it's time as many would have you believe either. The F-35 has a long way to go before it reaches that kind of wastage. Once you cut through the conspiracy theories, the Arrow's is a quite pedestrian and predictable story.

I'm sure there's plenty of people in the Canadian aerospace industry that have jobs because of Canada's involvement in the F-35 program who would be quite happy to disagree with your buddy. Canada is a first tier partner in the program as I recall, and that would create a lot of jobs in the country's aerospace sector.

On some other forums I frequent, there are members who are, or have been involved with the F-35 at one level or another. From things that they are able to say about it, particularly in regards to the level of systems integration the machine has, it really is no surprise it's taken a while to develop it. From what I understand, though it has taken a long time to develop, it is not grossly overbuget so far. Many other projects in the past have gone much further over buget and still met with success.

The more I read about the F-35, the more I'm reminded of the F-111. Under the skin of both aircraft are a huge amount of new avionics and systems that were truly being tried for the first time, nobody knew how well they'd work in real situations so a lot more development time was needed. The longer the development took, the more people took to bashing the aircraft and questioning it's worth. Unfortunately, too many people don't realise just how much goes on under the skin of a modern combat aircraft.

The well publicised teething problems of the F-111's early service took a long time to shake off in the public view and coloured perceptions of it for the bulk of it's career. However, the machine matured into a very effective and respected combat aircraft.

I have a feeling the F-35's career will probably be quite overshadowed by the perceptions that have formed over the length of it's development stages. It WILL have a career; too many people are involved, too much is at stake and it's come so far that only a fool would cancel it.

I'm certain that even after it's proven itself a very effective combat type in service and earned popularity and respect of those working with it, there will be those more than willing to kick it and dredge up how long it took to develop it.

Excellent! Could not have said it better myself!

[bungynik]

I'm sure there's plenty of people in the Canadian aerospace industry that have jobs because of Canada's involvement in the F-35 program who would be quite happy to disagree with your buddy. Canada is a first tier partner in the program as I recall, and that would create a lot of jobs in the country's aerospace sector.

Who is going to pay them for their job? Whose money will be used for they pay checks? Well not Lockheed Martin or any Canadian manufacturer. Canadian tax payers!!!! At the end, making new jobs doesn't have absolutely anything with the F-35 performance and usability.

On some other forums I frequent, there are members who are, or have been involved with the F-35 at one level or another. From things that they are able to say about it, particularly in regards to the level of systems integration the machine has, it really is no surprise it's taken a while to develop it. From what I understand, though it has taken a long time to develop, it is not grossly overbuget so far. Many other projects in the past have gone much further over buget and still met with success.

"CNN reporting that The aircraft built by lockhead martin may be scrapped because of huge problems with design. cost overruns, oxygen problems that killed one pilot when oxygen was cut during flight that have claimed the pilots life, as that problem being fixed new major electrical problems causes Bios failures are also appearing. Pentagon also disappointed with radar detection problems that where promised not to happen. The new generation of planes where to be stealthy but the aircraft is being picked up easily on radar that even former soviet tech could pick up, the main concern is detection coming over horizons. Also the pentagon is reporting that the new fighters have short range and worries of armies like china and other nations with ballistic capabilities that could knock out airfeilds that support and house the aircraft in the field this eliminating usa air superiority

With billions spent and shipment delayed indecently, the defense department is considering crappy the whole program that would be the most costly since its XM infantry system."

"There’s a half trillion dollar price tag for both aircraft.

Andrew Krepinevich of Stategic & Budgetary Assessment says “The question is are you really getting the kind of combat capability that justifies that cost?

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, back on June 9th, told a Senate committee, “We cannot afford aircraft that double and triple the original estimated costs.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, also back in that June 9th committee issued a warning. “I think we have to watch it very carefully.”

The F-22 has never been in combat. The F-35 may go the same way. Both planes have serious limitations.

These aircraft are relatively short range, which means they have to be based fairly close to the area of conflict.

What we've seen in recent years is countries like China, countries like Iran building ballistic missile forces than can easily target the forward air bases.

Winslow Wheeler, a Pentagon spending critic says the planes are too expensive and not stealthy enough. “Against some radars it's detectable as soon as it comes over the radar horizon and some of the radars that are best at doing that are quite antiquated technology from the Soviets."

The future of the F-35 will be in the hands of congress when lawmakers deliberate budget cuts this fall."

Read this article: Lockheed F-35 Fighter Has ‘Design Flaw’ In Wing Part, Pentagon Tester Says

"The naval variant of the military’s fighter jet of the future arrived at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., on Nov. 6, a development that means the Navy and its industry partners are satisfied that the jet can safely perform basic flight maneuvers and is ready to tackle more demanding tests.

Behind the scenes, however, the Navy is struggling to remedy a significant design oversight that poses a major potential hindrance to its ability to successfully deploy and maintain the F-35C Lightning II, the carrier-based variant of the joint strike fighter: Its powerful single engine, when packed for shipping, is too large to be transported to sea by normal means when replacements are required.

“That is a huge challenge that we currently have right now,” said Capt. Chris Kennedy of the JSF Program Office, answering a flier’s question about JSF engine resupply following a public presentation on the state of the program at the 2010 Tailhook Symposium in September in Reno, Nev. He said the program office is working with the Navy staff and carrier systems planners to solve the problem.

Regular wear and tear, as well as mishaps such as an engine sucking a foreign object off a carrier deck, make the availability of replacement aircraft engines critical. High-tempo combat operations only increase the need. Carriers typically pack spares, but heavy demand can drain those stores, requiring at-sea replenishment.

However, the F-35C’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, contained in its Engine Shipping System, is too large for the cargo door on a standard carrier onboard delivery plane and for the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, the program office acknowledged in a response to a follow-on query from Navy Times. The engine can be broken down into five component parts, but just its power module and packaging alone won’t fit into the COD or the V-22."

So, do we have to debate about something that is well known???

The more I read about the F-35, the more I'm reminded of the F-111. Under the skin of both aircraft are a huge amount of new avionics and systems that were truly being tried for the first time, nobody knew how well they'd work in real situations so a lot more development time was needed. The longer the development took, the more people took to bashing the aircraft and questioning it's worth. Unfortunately, too many people don't realise just how much goes on under the skin of a modern combat aircraft.

The well publicised teething problems of the F-111's early service took a long time to shake off in the public view and coloured perceptions of it for the bulk of it's career. However, the machine matured into a very effective and respected combat aircraft.

Yep, it was developed and planed to be used as a US NAVY Fighter and at the end after so much money invested they were forced to find some role for F-111. And at the end it was proven that they were forced to start development of completely new aircraft for NAVY.

I have a feeling the F-35's career will probably be quite overshadowed by the perceptions that have formed over the length of it's development stages. It WILL have a career; too many people are involved, too much is at stake and it's come so far that only a fool would cancel it.

Are you aware how much will cost the maintenance and use of any crappy aircraft? Are you aware that potential expenses for maintenance, coerced upgrades and possible aircraft losses would be multiple time more expensive than money that is spent until now.

I'm certain that even after it's proven itself a very effective combat type in service and earned popularity and respect of those working with it, there will be those more than willing to kick it and dredge up how long it took to develop it.

First it have to be built, then he have to became problem free, then it have to have minimal peace time losses, then to go in REAL combat and then it have to have 1:5 kill ratio at least, because of its price and maintenance costs... then and only than you can say that it is "very effective combat type". But it will be impossible if he enter the service in 2025.

Just my 2 cents!

Edited May 18, 2012 by bungynik

[Tripehound]

If we're going to stick roundels on it, let's have one on each upper wing, and make them proper dark blue and red. Then paint the airframe fluoresecent pink with purple spots, because the way the economy and this procurement programme are going nobody's going to see it anyway.

[pigsty]

Yep, [the F-111] was developed and planed to be used as a US NAVY Fighter and at the end after so much money invested they were forced to find some role for F-111. And at the end it was proven that they were forced to start development of completely new aircraft for NAVY.

That's not true. The F-111 was initially developed as a strike aircraft by the US Air Force (there's a clue in the designation) and then the US Navy tried to develop a fighter variant of it at Robert Macnamara's insistence. The way you tell it, the F-111B came first and the F-111A was a conversion to try to find some use for the design.

[upnorth]

So, do we have to debate about something that is well known???

With respect:

That "well known" information comes through the media. You've quoted a CNN article and given a link to another article posted on the Bloomberg site. They may both be held up as more respectable and credible news sources, but they are both still businesses in it for profit. they have their shareholders and their shareholders have interests. Their reporting will be biased one way or another as such.

It is "well known" the way the media wants us to "know" it.

I made an example of the Avro Arrow in my previous post, that's a sterling example of what the media want people to "know". People "know" that the Arrow was "decades ahead of its time"......"killed by the Americans"........"purely Canadian" and so forth because that's what the media has fed them for so long; a media that panders to the conspiracy theorists because it strikes a patriotic chord in Canadians and sells papers and gets hits on web sites. The fact that the Arrow was not that advanced, The Americans had intent to buy them and a vested interest in seeing it succeed as there was a considerable degree of American avionics in the machine has never entered into it for the media.

As for your other comments:

The F-111's failure as a naval fighter did not mean they had to "find" a role for it. It was being developed for both the Navy and air force at the same time as a multiservice aircraft. It was not in any way a hand-me-down aircraft as your comment seems to suggest. The two services simply had vastly different roles in mind for it and it didn't work for the navy. History bears out that the air force's end of the F-111 story went much better.

Nobody knows if the F-35 will be "crappy" or not, you can judge very little about the production version of anything from the prototypes. As for maintenance issues, time will tell. Even a low maintenance, user friendly piece of technology will suffer and look like a piece of garbage if it isn't backed up with a solid support infrastructure.

As for what constitutes and "effective combat type", think about how many modern combat types got their baptism of fire in Desert Storm/Granby operations, but were having their praises sung well before hand. Most of them built their reputations in excercises.

An example of that is the F-14 Tomcat and the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. The fearsome reputation of the Tomcat was bestowed upon it long before it ever saw any degree of earnest combat.

Talk to a few who worked with it and you'll hear stories of the Tomcat being a maintenance pig and a hangar queen that didn't really come close to the aircraft it was intended to be until the re-engined D version entered service, which was fairly well along on the Tomcat timeline. That's a lot of years of hyping an aircraft that wasn't really meeting it's projected performance specs until the twilight of its career.

A lot of those same people will tell you that the Phoenix missile, a hand-me-down from the F-111B program, never set any records for accuracy and was a very expensive missile that came with a fairly low "probability of kill" rating all things considered.

Yet, despite it all, popular memory still holds that leaky hanger queen in high regard. I wonder if the Tomcat racked up enough kills over it's career to justify the effort and cost of the maintenance lavished on it.

[Mike Esposito]

I think upnorth's comments are spot on.

Too much time, money, and political capital have gone into this procurment project. Momentum is carrying this now.

[Slater]

It seems that, from the US perspective anyway, the F-35 is the only game in town. If the entire program is scrapped, then what is the alternative to replace all those F-16's, AV-8B's, and early model F/A-18's? You could start with a "clean sheet of paper" design, which would probably take another 20 years to see any results, modify a current design, or buy a foreign design (of which I don't think any meet the F-35's stealth and advanced sensors).

I don't know - maybe the US star-and-bar insignia would look fetching on the Rafale

[Bandwagon 106]

The way this program is being reported, a bug splattering against the canopy is a failure -"It should have picked up the beetle at 50 miles and should have evaded, but it is too slow / fat / expensive...." . It is the Arrow, F-111, A-12, TSR-2 all rolled into one. It is also the future. It has these teething problems, what aircraft doesn't?, it also the program which is under the microscope of the internet. Everybody from arm chair know-it- alls to engineers, pilots and people like me who don't have a clue can have an opinion-whether its "cancel it" or "keep it". I'm sure if the Internet had been around during the time of the F-111, F-104, even the Spitfire, there would have been discussions like this. Yes, in my rose tinted world, Tomcat 21s would be flying off carriers, A-7Fs, F-16XLs, A-6Fs, and so on would be around but they are not {Live in the now Joel !!!!}. Aircraft far more capable than those are in service and I hope this aircraft-the F-35- truly gets off the ground, all it's bugs worked out. It's not the one I want, luckily, nobody listens to me!!!

Joel

[bungynik]

You can maybe solve some "teething" problems, which are by the way very serious construction failures, but how you gonna solve the problem that Russian radars can easily see both planes F-22 and F-35? New coat of paints!

We were seeing F-117 on our radar screens in Serbia without any problems by using old long-wave Russian radars. And small modification on targeting radars and warheads made possible downing the F-117.

The problem is exactly the fact that you don't have any alternative and you will go with this , IMHO crappy plane, but not because you are not aware that it is crappy, but because you don't have nothing else to offer.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-140909-1.html

Media cited statements of US officials and Pentagon!

Edited May 18, 2012 by bungynik

[Slater]

As far as the "single engine risk for overwater operations", aircraft such as the A-4 Skyhawk, F-8 Crusader, and A-7 Corsair II all had single engines and they seemed to do all right.

[Calum]

You can maybe solve some "teething" problems, which are by the way very serious construction failures, but how you gonna solve the problem that Russian radars can easily see both planes F-22 and F-35? New coat of paints!

We were seeing F-117 on our radar screens in Serbia without any problems by using old long-wave Russian radars. And small modification on targeting radars and warheads made possible downing the F-117.

The problem is exactly the fact that you don't have any alternative and you will go with this , IMHO crappy plane, but not because you are not aware that it is crappy, but because you don't have nothing else to offer.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-140909-1.html

Media cited statements of US officials and Pentagon!

Using the nutbags at AusAirpower as a source does your arguement no good.

These are same people who wanted the RAAF to redesign the F-111 adding Super cruise engines, new avionics and describe this as simple sheet-metal changes. This along with F-222's and 747 tankers to defined Australia against hordes of Chinese or Indian Cruise missile carrying aircraft

They have a massive and F-35 agenda and they aren't taken seriously by any credible commentators.

And whilst Serbia may have been able catch glimpses of the F-117 they only managed to shoot down 1 of them. That was more down to poor tactics by by the USAF (by flying the same paths) than any technological defect in the aircraft

[bungynik]

Using the nutbags at AusAirpower as a source does your arguement no good.

These are same people who wanted the RAAF to redesign the F-111 adding Super cruise engines, new avionics and describe this as simple sheet-metal changes. This along with F-222's and 747 tankers to defined Australia against hordes of Chinese or Indian Cruise missile carrying aircraft

They have a massive and F-35 agenda and they aren't taken seriously by any credible commentators.

And whilst Serbia may have been able catch glimpses of the F-117 they only managed to shoot down 1 of them. That was more down to poor tactics by by the USAF (by flying the same paths) than any technological defect in the aircraft

Well, I suppose that Pentagon officials are also nut bags as well! Similar info came from their mouth.

As for F-117, we were able to see the F-117 ALL the way over the Serbia, but the problem that we have shoot only one is that NATO gained total air superiority and use of AA systems were very risky and safely could be used only for short time before dislocation. All AA crew had to follow specific operational procedures.

The same is for ground troops. We were conducted ground actions almost without losses by following specific operational procedures in order to protect weapons and lives. All that resulted in fact that more than 60% of NATO bombs were used on fake targets. Serbian army lost only three M-84 tanks (all three from my brigade, because of stupid error of a single person) and they were destroyed by A-10. One was hit and other two were close enough that after ammunition explosion they were caught by fire and burned. We have lost old T-55 tanks, but most of these were positioned as a targets.

It was very funny to watch the faces of the Challenger crew and officers when we formed miles long column of tanks and armored vehicles. They were informed that except few, all Serbian tanks were destroyed!

So no need to make any conclusions from attack on Serbia, because power ratio were 1:1000... or 1:10000 maybe? We waged the war with obsolete and faulty planes after long period of sanctions. And still you have lost two planes and numerous aircraft damaged beyond repair.

So question is, how it will perform against the Russians with high skills and large experience and superior training and who are sitting in modern and numerous aircraft with state of the art AA systems in form of S-300, S-400 and S-500 and state of the art counter-measure systems?

So I wondering what is the level of your competence to measure the credibility of commentators and to say who is credible and who is not... and who is just propagandist for Lockheed and lobbys that surround Lockheed?

[rustywelder]

I have to agree with Calum, AirpowerOz is about the worst possible source for info on the f-35. We are talking about the same people here who devote much space on their page to arguing for the purchase of f-22! a much more expensive airframe and as it turns out not quite as capable as was originally thought and a bit of a widow maker. Not to forget I'm pretty sure US law forbids selling them to anyone exept the us armed forces anyway. All this banging on about how bad the f-35 is/will be sounds very much like the same nonsense being spewed by the arm chair generals about the M1 Abrams. Oh its horrible! the gun is to small its not armoured enough, the Russian tanks will tear it to bits yada yada yada..... We saw how that one has turned out ( not a single M1 lost to enemy tank fire ). And to the point about the Serbs seeing the f-117 the whole time as i have always understood it, the SAM kill was total luck; a missile that simply collided with a nighthawk after being blind fired.

[Darius at Home]

So no need to make any conclusions from attack on Serbia, because power ratio were 1:1000... or 1:10000 maybe? We waged the war with obsolete and faulty planes after long period of sanctions. And still you have lost two planes and numerous aircraft damaged beyond repair.

Considering the way that your fellow countrymen behaved in that conflict and the fact that some of them were/are on trial in the Hague for crimes against humanity I would think twice about bragging about it, especially on this website.

Darius

As far as the "single engine risk for overwater operations", aircraft such as the A-4 Skyhawk, F-8 Crusader, and A-7 Corsair II all had single engines and they seemed to do all right.

...and the Sea Harrier.

Darius

[upnorth]

You can maybe solve some "teething" problems, which are by the way very serious construction failures, but how you gonna solve the problem that Russian radars can easily see both planes F-22 and F-35? New coat of paints!

We were seeing F-117 on our radar screens in Serbia without any problems by using old long-wave Russian radars. And small modification on targeting radars and warheads made possible downing the F-117.

The problem is exactly the fact that you don't have any alternative and you will go with this , IMHO crappy plane, but not because you are not aware that it is crappy, but because you don't have nothing else to offer.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-140909-1.html

Media cited statements of US officials and Pentagon!

You're still not taking the media out of your argument. Citing someone and quoting them are two different things. The media are notorious for misquoting and taking statements and removing them from proper context.

I share others' views on ausairpower; enough said there.

The F-117 was first generation stealth technology and quite crude compared to the F-22 and F-35, both of which represent second generation stealth. You can be assured that what held true for the F-117 will not hold true for the other two. As for the F-117 that got shot down over Serbia, you got lucky, they made a tactical error that could be capitalized upon by an observant anti aircraft battery.

The single engine safety argument doesn't hold water these days as engine technology and reliability has come a long way since the days when two engines were seen as required for harsher environments. Canada is part of the F-35 program and they have traditionally had a two engined fighter policy. Norway is a harsh environment and look how long they've been getting by just fine with single engined fighters. Good engine maintenance regimes win the day there.

As for Russian radars, please, the Cold War is over! The west isn't half as worried about Russia or Russian military technology as it once was. Right now the only two countries that have the industrial infrastructure to create military level threat technology that the west should worry about are China and maybe Iran. Currently, neither of them are engaging the west at a military level. China has enough of the world by the industrial nuts that they don't need to be a military threat and Iran has enough of it's own internal instability to keep it busy.

As for having "nothing else to offer" the F-16 lines are still open and new customers are still being found, including one former Warsaw Pact nation. Stealth is not in the mandate of every military that is allied to America and that lack of stealth does not stop them from participating in military actions alongside American forces.

[bungynik]

Considering the way that your fellow countrymen behaved in that conflict and the fact that some of them were/are on trial in the Hague for crimes against humanity I would think twice about bragging about it, especially on this website.

Darius

This is very political statement and unlike the Z5 I was hoping that this site will allow me to stay away from that. If we start argue about that and posting the photos and arguments about all this, it wouldn't be very nice. Tell me the forum where we can exchange arguments and opinions about all what was happened in Yugoslavia and Serbia and I'll be glad to present you the huge documentation in form of original video and photographic material as well as documents.

So, your statement is very unfair 'cause you made it on this forum where I can't give you any proper answer without braking all possible rules of this forum.

And why do you think that someone opinion based on personal experience and facts should not be presented on this forum? You are not aware how much I want to present you the different truth backed with strong arguments... but this is just not right place. And I do not see any problem until now with this website.

It is your statement which is totally inappropriate and that could lead to flaming the whole conversation and leading this topic in wrong direction, so in your place I would think twice about making such statements, especially on this MODELLERS site!

Edited May 19, 2012 by bungynik