Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon say the F-35’s superiority over its rivals lies in its ability to remain undetected, giving it “first look, first shot, first kill.”

Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “a marketing and publicity gimmick” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.”

Other critics have been even harsher. Pierre Sprey, a cofounding member of the so-called “fighter mafia” at the Pentagon and a co-designer of the F-16, calls the F-35 an “inherently a terrible airplane” that is the product of “an exceptionally dumb piece of Air Force PR spin.” He has said the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21, a 1950s Soviet fighter design.

Robert Dorr, an Air Force veteran, career diplomat and military air combat historian, wrote in his book “Air Power Abandoned,” “The F-35 demonstrates repeatedly that it can’t live up to promises made for it. … It’s that bad.”

The development of the F-35 has been a mess by any measurement. There are numerous reasons, but they all come back to what F-35 critics would call the jet's original sin: the Pentagon's attempt to make a one-size-fits-all warplane, a Joint Strike Fighter.

History is littered with illustrations of multi-mission aircraft that never quite measured up. Take Germany's WWII Junkers Ju-88, or the 1970s Panavia Tornado, or even the original F/A-18. Today the Hornet is a mainstay of the American military, but when it debuted it lacked the range and payload of the A-7 Corsair and acceleration and climb performance of the F-4 Phantom it was meant to replace.

Yeah, the F/A-18 was trash when it first came out and it took YEARS and multiple changes/fixes to allow it to fully outperform the decades old aircraft it was designed to beat when it was released.

The F35 is not the best at anything it does, it is designed to fully be mediocre at all roles in order to allow it to be a single solution aircraft. That may change with more money, time, and data retrieved from hours spent in actual combat, but as it stands it is what it was designed to be. A jack of all trades and master of none, not something I would want to be flying in a role where I could encounter a master of that role.

As @ChaosEngine says, it is far beyond time that we move to a design where the pilot is not in the plane. There is no reason at this time that we cannot field a plane that could successfully perform it's role with the pilot in a secure location nearby. Such planes could be built cheaper, could perform in g-forces that humans cannot withstand, and would be expendable in a way that current planes are not. However, this would mean that our corporate welfare system for huge defense contractors would take a massive hit. We can't have that, can we?

For those like me who was kinda confused about what this was about:

(from YouTube)
In this video, two boys simplify the debate to a true value statement. They both received $10.00 from their grandfather. One bought an F-35, the other got 3 F-18's with everything needed to maintain it, and keep them flying.

This contentious debate in geopolitical circles is focused around joint strike fighter choices. Does a country procure the F-35 or the F-18 Super Hornet? The F-35 is an impressive new fighter, designed to meet the needs of all branches of the military. The challenge is in order to meet everyone's needs, you have to make compromises. For example, once loaded with weapons, the F-35 begins to lose it's stealth abilities. Is it really invisible to radar and how much foil area did they have to give up to maneuverability?

In the end we realize... it's really not that complicated.

Lockheed is the main contractor. They sub out some of the wings and tail section to Boeing. Pratt & Whitney make the engines. While the original order for the planes was over 200, I believe that has been cut in half (or more) since that. They usually have 3 engines per plane to make it easier to keep the plane going if an engine needs repair (there's 2 engines in the F/A 22, ones similar to the 1 engine in the Joint Strike Fighter). The F/A 22 project was the project before the Joint Strike Fighter, so a lot of the technology was shared between the projects.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^radx:
Ria Novosti had an article about it the other day. Didn't expect the US press to pick up up so soon, to be honest.

Well who makes the F-22 Raptor? It's Lockheed Martin right? Built in conjunction with Boeing too huh...hmmm I wonder if the two largest receivers of government military contracts will get a pass in the media.
That is until the horde because too loud to ignore.

> Romney in the White-House

As I have always said throughout the banking crisis, stock market collapse, mortgage scams, and banker buyout of Washington, you know what America needs? A scammity investment banker at the helm.

It makes me sick that, like Mitt says, we borrow $215 million a year from China so kids can watch PBS without commercials. That's just one sign of the Mitt Genius.

Hey if it weren't for that PBS deficit maybe we could have thrown that $215 million in with that other (1 million TIMES 1 million) dollars we spent on the F35 Joint Strike Fighter program alone (total estimated cost) and maybe the thing would be actually safe to fly by now.

True but,
the F35 is a Joint Strike Fighter. The JSF program is supposed to replace a wide variety of aging plane models (F-16, F-18, A-10, F117, etc.) It is one program that has two types of engines fitting in one plane. I think this is a better approach than updating one fighter/bomber/strike fighter at a time. Military programs like the JSF or UAV are used as a deterrent and we should always invest in them because they serve as a great political tool for Foreign policy, and as a great research tool for the our economy and the advancement of human achievement. It is because of programs like these that we have not used a Nuke or Dirty bomb in the last 50 years. Conventional warfare is still critical, whether you agree with it or not. If you want to blame our bullying around the world, then blame the politicians for that. That's a strategic failure, not an operational failure.

As for the space program. The U.S. is still spending tremendously into the space program through the U.S. Air Force. NASA has taken the passenger seat for all things critical when it comes to space, and I agree with that decision completely.

I support research programs like the JSF or the Air Force's GPS program among many other de-classified projects; however, I do not support the DOJ/DEA/ATF and 90% of the TSA. I think those departments are worthless and their funds could be used for education and healthcare.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^Jinx:
The Harrier is to the F35 as the Sopwith Camel is to the Eurofighter.
Ok, thats hyperbole, but the Harrier was pretty limited. I wasn't supersonic for a start, no stealth capabilities, fairly limited air to air/manoeuverability etc. No gun for ground attack either.
Personally I think its a pretty incredible feat of engineering. On the flip side its going to cost the US taxpayer $320billion.

It's a cool plane and all, but that number is absolutely insane.
$320 BILLION dollars.
Yeah, cut medical care, cut schooling, cut spending on space exploration, but don't touch the spending on making a fucking aeroplane for killing people.
And we wonder if countries have their priorities right when it comes to spending money.

"the pentagon is not stupid."


11 billion
"The F-22 is arguably the Pentagon's most useless weapon system. Not only is it the world's most expensive fighter jet, but it was conceived in 1985 to fight a Soviet fighter jet that was never built. As wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo show, U.S. air superiority is not in doubt." -Think Progress

or

"the $81-billion submarine pushed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, presumably to fight al-Qaida’s navy." -Truthdig

"Of the 72 programs GAO assessed this year, none of them had proceeded through system development meeting the best-practice standards for mature technologies, stable design, or mature production processes by critical junctures of the program, each of which are essential for achieving planned cost, schedule, and performance outcomes." - GAO report

Or how about...

"the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a program estimated to be worth $300 billion in sales to its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, the nation’s biggest defense contractor and most generous donor to lobbyists and politicians’ campaigns. The program to build what Lockheed boasts is “the most complex fighter ever built” is also the most expensive, with estimated acquisition costs having increased a whopping $55 billion in just the last three years.

Lockheed need not worry about future profits, because the procurement schedule on this troubled plane has been stretched out to the year 2034." -Truthdig again

Nah, the Pentagon wouldn't waste money on stupid things would they?

I actually worked on this project. Even before it was the F/A-22... (it was just the F-22 before that). It's unfortunate that the original order of planes was cut in half, but then again, too much of our national budget is spend on "defense".

I have a bunch of the promotional and training videos if you guys want to see them. Most of mine are from the engine perspective (since I worked for Pratt & Whitney). A revision of this engine went into the Joint Strike Fighter (the F119 being the engine in the F/A-22 and the F135 being the engine in the JSF).

This plane won the contest, becoming the Joint Strike Fighter known as F-35 Lightning II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II