F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

[B3LA]

One cent ?

As far as I have understood it, the majority of the JSF problems, delays and
cost increases comes from the very complicated STOVL version.

If I'm correct in this assesment, well....Lift the F-35b completly out of the project
and let it stand on its own wobbly legs.

There are not any alternative jet on the shelf that the Marines can purchase
anyways, so let them pay the direct costs if they are so eager to get the function.

That way the F-35a might be less costly and possibly avoid the spiral of death.

 

[Bonza]

I love how all of you soldiers and airmen and so forth get on these forums and none of you sound very intelligent at all . I have flown the f18 super-hornet for the navy for years and this f35 was just introduced and people just go right along with the dumb-ass media . So I have been assigned to Lockheed Martin's facility in California to further test the aircraft. After Numerous flights, including stovl and ctol I realized that this aircraft has so much potential and my initial assignment is to test not fly, so I cannot say much but what I am authorized to say is everyone on this forum are completely wrong and have their facts based on pure media hype. We as naval pilots will have the greatest aircraft in the sky when all the upgrades to the f35 take place within the next 10 years. This aircraft is not going to see budget cuts but budget increases. Stop listening to the media , as it demoralizes the military. As a pilot I'm wondering why some are so misinformed! the issue about thrust to weight ratio is still not being released and the information is being washed over to stall the media. Its still classified as to the true thrust potential of the aircraft. No one will ever know except Lockheed and the Pilots.

You seem very keen on telling other posters how unintelligent and media-manipulated they are - kindly reconsider how you engage with others on this forum. How about you extend some respect, and discuss the issue with specifics and details rather than a catch-all assertion that "everyone on this forum is completely wrong" - especially in light of the varied and wildly differing opinions illustrated in this thread and others.

Additionally, on these boards if you wish to infer credibility on the basis of personal military service, you will be expected to provide some additional information to the Webmaster, which can be used to verify your service. Please contact the Webmaster to begin this process, as the main thrust of your post (that no one but Lockheed-Martin and the pilots themselves are in a position to comment on the F-35) is implicitly tied to your claims of military service.

 

[dragonfire]

Now i dont know if this has been discussed here, but i happened to come across a capability comparison chart let out by the Eurofighter consortium stating that how the Typhoon is a 5th Gen aircraft except for VLO features, anyways i thought i will introduce the checklist pic here

p.s - i know without VLO features a fighter cannot be claimed as 5th Gen - so pls dont waste ur energy there, but what about the other factors ?

 

[Grand Danois]

Hi Dragonfire,

Nice graphic, mirrors the APA checklist. I'll take a wild guesstimate and predict that the JSF will surprise us and will be able to supercruise on par with the Typhoon. The Typhoon does own the high and fast regime, though.

As for missile loadout: it should only be an issue for OCA and only until a 6 x internal missile loadout comes online for the JSF - then they should be on par.

And the Typhoon is netted and the F-22 is not???

Btw, looks like a newspaper fact box, what's the source?

 

[Scorpion82]

Btw, looks like a newspaper fact box, what's the source?

The source is the latest eurofighter world issue from the manufacturer itself. The graphic is just part of a larger article and gives some food for thought, next to hard F-35 bashing in APA style, but that's marketing and not to dissimilar to what LM comes up with in its brochures, let alone other customers.
http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef_world_2-2010b_Low.pdf

 

[Aussie Digger]

The ONLY place where both F-35A and F-35B have done ANY testing simultaneously from the same base at this point, is NAS Fort Worth, Texas...

I have my suspicions about the 'Colonel' and his authenticity..

 

[Grand Danois]

LM and Eurofighter should not be asked to sell their product short. However, as far as the reference export customer market is concerned, the JSF is the Armageddon meteor headed for Eurofighter World. So going on the offensive seems quite natural.

At least they avoid the most obvious pitfalls of APA (and Sweetman).

I've bookmarked it for reading next week.

 

[moahunter]

The source is the latest eurofighter world issue from the manufacturer itself. The graphic is just part of a larger article and gives some food for thought, next to hard F-35 bashing in APA style, but that's marketing and not to dissimilar to what LM comes up with in its brochures, let alone other customers.
http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef_world_2-2010b_Low.pdf

Thanks, that is an interesting read, of course, biased for sales of eurofighter. I can't help agreeing with the "stealth is not everything" suggestion (F35 - "Low Observability only on front aspect and with X-band radar") and also the sugestion that F35 is no more 5th generation than eurofighter is, looking at those criteria. I found this statement interesting:

So, the inclusion of a tactical strike and
attack platform in the fighter generation
concept is a mistake. Simply put, the JSF is
not a fighter and the two classes are not
comparable.

And then it goes on to say:

Overall, military capability must
meet a nation’s needs. If you cannot
have the F-22, you need something
of similar air-to-air
capability to support
your attack aircraft
at the same time.

 

[Grand Danois]

Thanks, that is an interesting read, of course, biased for sales of eurofighter. I can't help agreeing with the "stealth is not everything" suggestion (F35 - "Low Observability only on front aspect and with X-band radar") and also the sugestion that F35 is no more 5th generation than eurofighter is, looking at those criteria. I found this statement interesting:



And then it goes on to say:

Yeah, and it goes on to say that the F-16 is more expensive than EF and Rafale!

COUNTRY DATE NUMBER COST UPC
Greece 2005 40 $3.1-billion $78-million
Pakistan 2006 36 $3.0-billion $83-million
Turkey 2006 30 $2.9-billion $97-million
Romania 2008 24 $4.5-billion $188-million
Morocco 2008 24 $2.4-billion $100-million
Egypt 2009 24 $3.2-billion $133-million

Precious!

 

[moahunter]

^another interesting quote on the F35 (not pulling punches):

The troubled American aircraft has just
started the test phase and could become a
good ground support aircraft when it has
matured, however, because it was designed
from conception as a ground support aircraft,
it will never reach the level of fighter
capabilities that many of its competitors
have already reached.

 

[Grand Danois]

^another interesting quote on the F35 (not pulling punches):

The air-air mission set was part of the JSF spec from day 1. The argument is a variation of the bomb-truck theme.

I find the snipe at the F-16 more interesting, since the F-16 crushed the Rafale (similarly priced to the EF) bid on cost! And Romania end up the same, though on used F-16 airframes.

Great many .

 

[Bonza]

Now i dont know if this has been discussed here, but i happened to come across a capability comparison chart let out by the Eurofighter consortium stating that how the Typhoon is a 5th Gen aircraft except for VLO features, anyways i thought i will introduce the checklist pic here

p.s - i know without VLO features a fighter cannot be claimed as 5th Gen - so pls dont waste ur energy there, but what about the other factors ?

Personally speaking I look at that chart and find a lot more questions than I do answers. A yes/no checklist doesn't sufficiently describe capability - particularly given that a number of those metrics could be interpreted subjectively (the meaning and real-world significance of "extreme agility", for example), and given that no context is established for any of them. I think to make a definitive judgement call on what a given aircraft can offer, you'd need not only a great deal more specific information, but also a broader picture in terms of requirements, capability to support the aircraft, future sustainability of the platform and onboard systems, projected operating environment and threats - and given that I'm just an enthusiast I'm sure there's a long list of factors I've never heard of and don't understand.

The joys of marketing eh?

 

[aussienscale]

Personally speaking I look at that chart and find a lot more questions than I do answers. A yes/no checklist doesn't sufficiently describe capability - particularly given that a number of those metrics could be interpreted subjectively (the meaning and real-world significance of "extreme agility", for example), and given that no context is established for any of them. I think to make a definitive judgement call on what a given aircraft can offer, you'd need not only a great deal more specific information, but also a broader picture in terms of requirements, capability to support the aircraft, future sustainability of the platform and onboard systems, projected operating environment and threats - and given that I'm just an enthusiast I'm sure there's a long list of factors I've never heard of and don't understand.

The joys of marketing eh?

I am currently studying for an Advanced Diploma in Marketing, it does not matter what the product, when you sniff an opportunity you go for it. Eurofighter obviously sniff an op with the JSF program at the moment. So as you have said it is a very subjective comapro with no real definitions to make their product shine. One of the oldest and most basic marketing tools there is based on your own criteria. Technically what they have done is correct, the Eurofighter flogs the JSF, but here is the catch........you use your products FAB's (Feature's and Benefit's) as the quantifier benchmark for the test or comparison so no matter what competition goes up against it, be it superior or not it will never have a chance it could never beat your product because by your own definition it is perfect. Great tool because most people believe what they read. So the question is ??????
Do you believe me ??

 

[Bonza]

I am currently studying for an Advanced Diploma in Marketing, it does not matter what the product, when you sniff an opportunity you go for it. Eurofighter obviously sniff an op with the JSF program at the moment. So as you have said it is a very subjective comapro with no real definitions to make their product shine. One of the oldest and most basic marketing tools there is based on your own criteria. Technically what they have done is correct, the Eurofighter flogs the JSF, but here is the catch........you use your products FAB's (Feature's and Benefit's) as the quantifier benchmark for the test or comparison so no matter what competition goes up against it, be it superior or not it will never have a chance it could never beat your product because by your own definition it is perfect. Great tool because most people believe what they read. So the question is ??????
Do you believe me ??

Haha well mate, whatever pays the bills I guess. I understand that it's an angle, but it's when the marketing information migrates into online articles or gets offered up as evidence of a certain platform's superiority that it can sometimes become frustrating (not directed at you Dragonfire ).

 

[aussienscale]

Haha well mate, whatever pays the bills I guess. I understand that it's an angle, but it's when the marketing information migrates into online articles or gets offered up as evidence of a certain platform's superiority that it can sometimes become frustrating (not directed at you Dragonfire ).

Yeah well as you know reporters and media tend to believe there own BS ! Because if it has appeared in an article or a powerpoint presentation it must be true becaues I am a reporter and I report the truth ?? Either that or you never let it get in the way of a good story !! right ??

Maybe what we could do is start a thread on how fantastically superiour the F35 is to anything else out there and then send a link of the thread to some reporters they may believe it and do some fantastic write ups on the program

As far as paying the bill's, these are the sacrifices you have to make to live in paradise !!!
IE: Ballina Northern NSW, could never live in the city again

 

[parvas24]

A fighter is a combat aircraft whose aerodynamic characteristics, sensor suite and weapon capabilities are optimised to achieve the control of the air. Fighters actively
look for and engage the opponent's fighter force. Strike aircraft generally avoid
engagements with other fighters

check out the link below http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef_world_2-2010b_Low.pdf

Page 9 Eurofighter world magazine actually takes on the F 35 ......:gun



KEY ATTRIBUTES 5TH GENERATION F-35/JSF
(AS DEFINED BY LM)
1 - VLO stealthiness (all aspect / multispectral) Low Observability only on front
aspect and with X-band radar
2 - Supercruise NO
3 - Supersonic performance focus NO
4 - Extreme agility NO
5 - High altitude ops (more than 50,000ft) NO
6 - Missile load-out for fighter performance NO
7 - Integrated sensor fusion YES
8 - Net enabled operations YES

 

[Bonza]

Parvas24, this same information was posted by Dragonfire on the previous page, about a day ago. You might want to have a look at recent thread activity before you post, to avoid doubling up on links.

As far as the content of the link goes, it has been commented on above by Grand Danois, Scorpion82, moahunter and myself, so you might want to read those responses if the subject interests you. What do you think of Eurofighter's claims?

 

[Grand Danois]

KEY ATTRIBUTES 5TH GENERATION F-35/JSF
(AS DEFINED BY LM)
1 - VLO stealthiness (all aspect / multispectral) Low Observability only on front
aspect and with X-band radar - claim is based on what?

2 - Supercruise NO - based on what? F-35 is likely to supercruise on par with the EF.

3 - Supersonic performance focus NO - based on what exactly and what does "supersonic focus" mean? Is this a LM term? I thought this was per LM/DOD terminology?

4 - Extreme agility NO - in the subsonic realm, yes, supersonic is poor return on investment.

5 - High altitude ops (more than 50,000ft) NO - based on what? And where is high-alt ops part of the LM definition?

6 - Missile load-out for fighter performance NO - yes, on par from block 5. And where does LM missile loadout is part of 5th gen definition?

7 - Integrated sensor fusion YES - F-35 better than EF.

8 - Net enabled operations YES - F-35 better than EF[/QUOTE]

If they use LM criteria, then they must accept LM data

 

[parvas24]

Parvas24, this same information was posted by Dragonfire on the previous page, about a day ago. You might want to have a look at recent thread activity before you post, to avoid doubling up on links.

As far as the content of the link goes, it has been commented on above by Grand Danois, Scorpion82, moahunter and myself, so you might want to read those responses if the subject interests you. What do you think of Eurofighter's claims?

EF is aggressively marketing its fighter ... but in reality I will go with what LM says

 

[Grand Danois]

EF is aggressively marketing its fighter ... but in reality I will go with what LM says

Tongue in cheek, indeed.