Hope this is the appropriate place to post this. Lately, I've been following a little bit of news and updates regarding the F-35 Lightning II. I have a family member that works at Eglin, so I obviously heard about the fire during take off and the grounding of the F-35, although I think it was just lifted.

Is the F-35 really the 'do all' fighter plane? Seems like it's been nothing but a hassle and extremely costly. Why not that much love for the F-22 Raptor? What are it's deficiencies and where does the F-15 and F-16 stand during all of this? I would assume that our technology upgrades have kept them in the worldwide game for fighter and air superiority domination.

the sensor fusion will be the big game changer.  being able to find targets at long ranges and correlate information to be able to positively identify and engage long before the other side can do anything.

glossy brochure stuff here http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the-f-35-and-advanced-sensor-fusion/

it is not your typical fighter (F16); not designed for inclose fighting, the fight has changed.  I know we've said in the past we'd never dogfight and then in Vietnam we realized we were wrong.  We've learned a few things since then and improved missiles.  Same for the bad guy, and in reality I don't think two 4th gen opposing fighters would make it to the merge.  

air to ground has been improved significantly for precision long range strikes, again a bit to do with the sensor fusion.  

everyone can share data via the link, but the jet takes it a few steps further with MADL; again adding precision to target location.

stealth is not the end all, but it helps.  there are methods to defeat it; however that is understood and probably thought about.  legacy platforms (Super Hornets and Vipers for sure) have spent a great deal of effort to try to reduce signature, however the issue was the airframe did not start with stealth and mold lines can't be changed.

deficiencies - joint makes things hard (each service has their own needs/desires), being a big program brings bureaucracy and does slow things.  also, this jet has some many new technologies; usually things are implemented in steps (as in the one new technology at a time), they are trying to do it all at once; this probably also led to overruns in time and money.

If you have specific questions, I'll answer what I can/know.

It's designed to be a "Jack of all trades" aircraft.  Unfortunately, that usually results in the "master of none" being somewhat true as well.
It won't have the ground attack capabilities of the A-10 nor the fighter capabilities of the F-22, but it will bring a mix of both, along with some interesting new technologies (mostly sensor and integration stuff).  If we get to use it like we envision, it will be a very capable platform.  The concern of many, I think, is that we don't always get to use the tactics that best suit the equipment.  The enemy gets a vote.

Oh where to begin

I think in theory in some engineers wetdream it was a great idea/aircraft, however as anyone who has followed this as close as one can, can see its falling short, and not a gentle glide more like a combat decent into a shady outlying airfeild.

however the realities of budgets, software and moving parts took a big fat dump on that pipe dream. The aircraft wass supposed to be sold to many of our allies,albeit in a dumbed down export version,but as more and more countries pull out of the program the R&D costs go up as does the final cost per airframe for us, IMO they will be well over 120 million dollars per airframe. this program needs to die and save of military budget.

Oh where to begin

I think in theory in some engineers wetdream it was a great idea/aircraft, however as anyone who has followed this as close as one can, can see its falling short, and not a gentle glide more like a combat decent into a shady outlying airfeild.

however the realities of budgets, software and moving parts took a big fat dump on that pipe dream. The aircraft wass supposed to be sold to many of our allies,albeit in a dumbed down export version,but as more and more countries pull out of the program the R&D costs go up as does the final cost per airframe for us, IMO they will be well over 120 million dollars per airframe. this program needs to die and save of military budget.

It will IOC with more capability than the aircraft it is replacing had at IOC (Navy and USMC, not entirely sure on AF but I suspect it is the case as well).  I agree it has been a long drawn out process, with cost overruns and delays.  I don't know if the joint solution was the best, but given the times we live it; most likely it was the only solution that would allow all services something new.

F-35A is already under $120 mil, engine included.

For comparisons sake, IIRC, the Growler is around $100 mil, not sure if that includes engines.  If you figure that would be the cost of a new Super Hornet (Block III) then the F-35 will likely end up being cheaper, not to mention more capable.

Isn't the price tag on a Super Bug around $60 mil?

For the current iteration I believe so.  When you look at the cost of a new SH (Blk III, Advanced SH, whatever you want to call it) + support costs vs. what the F-35 will cost + support costs the F-35 is cheaper, and more capable.

Of course, since the JSF can't fly currently, that number is irrelevant.

There's a big diff between 60 million and whatever the JSF will finally end up costing, the Super bug is a capable aircraft, while not as "stealth" it does have some low observable features built into it and it has two engines, I can tell you as an aviator the security of two engines out at sea is big. Not only that the associated Maint with a Super big is less and all the support equipment is already fielded.

The hornet can turn, the JSF can't, the hornet has some of the same avionics the JSF has making it nearly as capable, can lug around quite a bit more ord to put on target and is carrier capable and proven.
About the only thing it doesn't do is VSTOL like the harrier. Which btw the marines have never used the harrier in the way it was intended to be used and sold to the Marines.

Pierre Spey did an interview with some Canadian TV show utterly destroying the JSF, look it up on YouTube.

ETA I can't stand the F-35 as you can probably tell

The biggest lesson to come out of the JSF is that no program should be too big to fail.

The best Hornets for BFM are the As and Bs.  Oddly enough, as the Hornet evolved it didn't get leaner and faster, it got fatter and slower, and it left something to be desired in the thrust category to begin with.  That being said it's excellent at slow speed/high aoa.  As a Hornet pilot, I'd tell you that if were talking about going against a competent, modern IADS I'd be hard pressed not to opt for the single engine jet with the APG-81, shit hot ALQ and RWR, network integration, IR reductions, and LO profile.

nope, without engines and an AESA.  If you add all the costs for a Super with all the bells and whistles it is on the order of 100 million.  It is slightly cheaper than an F-35, but in the end will be far less capable.  

nope, saw them flying yesterday.

None at Farnborough.

Again, your figures are off; the price difference is not that much.  It is somewhere around 10% different not 50%.  Having flown at sea single engine, and being "blue water" when you can see land I'd appreciate another engine.  I concur, I wish it had two engines.  I heard when this all started the analysis showed it would be cheaper to loose a few jets than make two motors.  Probably true if they had to remain within the constraints of all the services.  

The Super hornet can't turn compared to other current fighters, slow flight yes, but it lives with some pretty significant Ps.  You can sale the farm on the first pass and go slow, and still point the nose; but sustained g not so much.  The avionics on the Rhino are not the same as the F35; not even close.  Unless you mean it has a RADAR and radios, well then so did an F4.  The F35C will have a similar load out to the Rhino (max takeoff, and trap weight).  

".. Which btw the marines have never used the harrier in the way it was intended to be used and sold to the Marines."  This is an outright lie, or you are just uniformed.  I've landed on taxiways while other aircraft were diverting in combat.  It has been used for road ops numerous times in combat by Marines.  We've been floating with the MEU for decades.  Sorry if I sound like a jerk, but I've heard this to many times; it is just not true.  I spent about 2 minutes one day doing a google search and the history is on the internet (I knew about it prior to the search, just wanted to see if it was readily available to the public).    

Look at IOC for any of the platforms it is replacing, they all had issues and naysayers as well.  One of the big differences is the F35 is now the only game in town, all the focus is on it.  I completely agree it has its issues; concurrency really puts all the issues out there for all to see.   Imagine if we would have listened to all the naysayers when the hornet was coming out, still stuck with old broke F4s.  While I would love to fly the F4 (almost got to once), we need to progress.

correct, but they were the jets that were scheduled to go there.  sucks, was really bad timing.  I personally don't care if it makes it to an airshow (though some of the funnest flying I've done was at an airshow); it probably will have an impact on FMS.

Agreed. That is yet another indictment of the PM of the program, IMO. Our allies are simply losing faith in our abilities to sell them capability.

I don't know enough about the JSF program to adequately catalog the failures, but I do feel it's becoming the B-36 of our time.

You' ve landed an AV-8B on a taxiway when a runway was fouled was not how the Harrier was intended to be used, it was sold to the marines to base it close to the front lines, taking off from roads and parked under overpasses, as of now you've got Harriers operating off an assault ship with the MEU and taking off from a 10k foot runway at Camp Bastion in Helmand Province, they could have been based out at fobs close to the grunts but no they are on a big ass airfeild just like every other fixed wing aircraft, not that I recommend putting a Harrier Det on an outlying Fob in the middle of injun country.

Wow, great info here. Thanks to the guys that were able to share their knowledge.

So in a nutshell, what is the F-22 lacking that is a vital area of importance? In other words, what features of the F-35 outshine the 22?

They were on the front lines, being operated from roads in injun country.  Also, recently in Afghanistan they were hot loading and fueling at FOB Dwyer (not a big ass airfield).  My point with landing on taxi ways, was that the average Harrier pilot has probably seen non-traditional use of a fixed wing airplane; things that required VSTOL.  Same with operating off LHDs on a MEU; can't do that without VSTOL (or STOVL).  So yes, the Harrier has been operated in the ways you say they have not, there is a history of it.  


And this came out recently DSO

There are sensors on the F35 not on the F22, also the integration of sensors on the F35 will be more robust.  The F22 will still outshine the F35 in the long range air to air roll.  The F35 won't be able to do what it can do.

Contrary to what the tards spew, The F-35 is actually the fastest accelerating fighter we have at the moment. Faster than the Block-60 F-16 which was the previous record holder.

I believe it's camp Dwyer, and the runway there can land a c-130 so hardly a short runway. But I suppose that's about as "expeditionary" as it'll get. I want to like the F-35 but I think it compromises to much to meet the needs of the services.
I feel like the F-35 will also never be used the way it was designed, as a stealth or virtually stealth aircraft when they start strapping external tanks and armament onto it due to it's small load out. You'll need a tanker track close by to supply it gas just like every other fast mover bomb truck in Afghanistan.

I am not sure if it was still a FOB when they begun hot loading, that wa probably at least 5 years ago.  First thing, you seem to know some about aviation, so I'd think you are aware c130s are expeditionary.  They land at dirt strips, small airfields (3000x60); so to argue something is not expeditionary because a c130 lands there makea no sense.  Second thing, I guess you either did not see my link or didn't bother to go there.  I'll give you a direct quote since you missed it.

From the link above.
"The USMC signature role is of course amphibious assault. One of the main reasons for selecting the Harrier was the ability of the aircraft to deploy on smaller vessels allowing the Marines to deploy a CAS aircraft without relying on the US Navy’s “big deck” carriers. Interestingly, this was a capability which led to the first export order for the AV-8A."The AV-8 was the first USMC tactical aircraft to arrive in the Gulf and around 80 aircraft were deployed operating from land and sea bases. Initially, most aircraft were based at Sheik Isa Airbase in Bahrain, but this resulted in a 45 minute transit to Kuwait, meaning the Harriers required air-refuelling and had limited time on station.

Later in the conflict, during the ground campaign, the Harriers moved to King Abdul Aziz Airstrip, a 4000 ft runway much closer to the border with Kuwait. This somewhat austere airstrip was supplemented with AM-2 matting to provide a flightline and acted as a forward operating base (FOB) for some 60 Harriers for eight months. The FOB was much closer to the action and meant that AV-8s could react quickly to requirements from ground forces."

"The AV-8B squadrons have subsequently been kept very busy by Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan which followed the terrorist attacks on New York City in 2001. Once again, the flexibility of the Harrier allowed units to operate from FOBs – during the early stages of the conflict in Iraq, AV-8s were able to operate from captured Iraqi airfields where the runways had suffered damage, preventing conventional tactical aircraft from using them. They were also able to operate from roads very close to the forward edge of battle. Additional Harriers flew from the decks of assault ships, providing an extra 60 tactical aircraft for mission planners without putting additional burden on overstretched coalition airfields and “big-deck” carriers.".

They have gotten what they paid for, there are many more examples agao this was my 30 second Google search.

We can feel how ever we want about aircraft, as many folks do, but feelings often miss the truth.

Removal of the VSTOL capability from MEU's adversely effects what they bring to the fight.  Without them they are essentially over strengthed and well provisioned Army Assault Battalions

Thanks for the info, I knew the Harriers operated out of ISA in Bahrain but didnt know they moved them closer to the action.
Anyways Ive spent a few months at Camp Dwyer and the runway there can accomodate a 737 so its hardly a small feild it is at least 6,000 ft long,I used to run the perimeter for PT in the early mornings. Dwyer isnt some austere FOb, they have an exchange and a greenbean for gods sake. The Marines are still runnning rolling takeoffs with them whether its hot loading at dwyer or at Bastion.

So I guess your and my definition of "moneys worth" is different. BTW what VMA were you in? 2 of my coworkers are former jumpjet pilots from Cherry point and Yuma

I was in 223,542, and 203.  

I realize it is a Camp now, it was a FOB

There are many more examples of Harriers operating in austere environments.  Like I said when they started there it was not what it is today.

Here is a link,

From the link in case you can't get to it
"The setting up of the expeditionary airfield at Dwyer to support USMC combat operations in Afghanistan has highlighted the expeditionary airfield capability of the USMC.  General Walsh, USMC, Commanding General of the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing Forward deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom and now back at Cherry Point, NC, underscored the synergy between the STOVL aircraft and the expeditionary airfield:

We decided to build a runway called Dwyer 20 miles away from Marjah. We built that thing right in the middle of the enemy’s battle space, right there in the Helmand River Valley and, like I said, right there 20 miles away from where this major operation was going to take place.  So by doing that, we put those AV-8s 20 miles away from where the ground combat element was going to be operating right there at Marjah. And it was, again, a Marine Wing Support Squadron that was able to build this austere runway of 4,000 feet, which the Harriers were able to operate out of, in the middle of the enemy’s battle space. Since then, we’ve grown that runway out to 6,000 feet, and low and behold, the enemy is probably watching this thing get built, just like we did in a lot of cases with our FOBs in Iraq, watching this thing get built."

Sounds exactly like you were talking about as far as your definition of expeditionary.  Even at 6000 how many tacair do you see flying out of there now?

I am not choosing to use my own definition, I provided you the definition of the Marine Corps, showed examples of it.  If you choose not to like something or feel strongly against it I can't change your feelings.  I can only provide you with the information.

The history of Dwyer is not really captured in the General's words.  Early fall of 2008, 24 MEU was designated first at the bridge force and later as SPMAGTF-A.  We were additional directed to provide the initial planning for what the follow on SPMAGTF was to look like and where it should be bedded down at.  

FOB Dwyer was the staging base for 24 MEU's operations in Garmsir that spring had undergone limited improvement to handle the RCAS and Assault Support aircraft of the MEU's ACE.  The air planners (WTIs) from HMM-365 determined that it should be further improved as a future airfield to support operations from the snake head south through both the desert of death and red desert to the Pakistan border.   Around late Sept to early Oct of 08, some airfield construction WOs were flown in to KAF and transited down Dwyer to conduct surveys prior to putting in the airfield. Previously there was a combination of a small concrete pad and mobi matting.    Trust me when I say Dwyer started out as no where with burn shitters and no running water

Ah, yes... But can it turn? And does anything else about it work?

It does accelerate fast, but doubt it could out accel a 22 or a 15.  The AV8 seemed faster on the intial roll, but I think the 35 is faster to accel.

I think one of the biggest issue with the F35 is the program and LM didn't educate folks that we don't need f16 turn performance.  Hell any gen 4 , to include the viper, doesn't need turn perf, you are dead prior to the merge if not dead before the first 90 degrees of turn.  It can turn, it ain't a viper but it can make it around the corner.  And yes there is quite a bit on it now that works, and even more to come.  Another issue not educated to the public is concurrency; it sucks.  It puts it all out there, cost more, takes longer, etc.   However probably helped the program from being cancelled.

Having an extra */s of sustained turn doesn't mean dick if you can't make a merge because you get shot from a billion miles away by a PL-12.  There's a long list of things that will be important in the future, and specs like sustained G and turn rates aren't near the top.

gold star for you my friend.  

I had to get up and correct a briefer the other day about the turning ability of the F35; made me look like a naysayer.  I don't think everyone in the room realized that it didn't really matter, but I'd rather folks know the truth.    

All aircraft have issues in the early stages...

I bet if this happenned to the F-35 all of arfcom would be bitching how its a POS and a waste...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gpIWXYX_6s[/youtube]
yep happened with the Viper as well, this was only supposed to be a high speed taxi.

here is an early hornet causing issues for a poor unassuming A4 in chase.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZmoVXW-l2M[/youtube]

First Tomcat ever built crashed on it's second flight (hydraulic failure).

Looks like the helmet is finally ready to go.

Testing starts soon on it.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398

author obviously knows very little about acquisitions or is a liar.  I'll assume he know little, I like how he tries to argue against economy of scale.  Somewhat illogical, but gave me a laugh.  While there is a general lack of knowledge of the acquisitions process presented in the article, and has very little bearing on reality I'll be sure to sure to give my Navy buddies crap about how much more their version costs than the B.

I know right, I always figured the VTOL was gonna be the pricey one

Can the Chinese or Russian get track quality VHF radars?

Define track quality.  Many nations have lower frequency radars that can see conventional stealth aircraft.  I'm definately not a radar expert, but I don't know of any that can guide a weapon.  The ones I know of are warning systems and enable routing of interceptor aircraft close enough to allow picking up the stealth aircraft with radar/eo/eyes.  

The antenna size and frequency will determine the angular resolution and thus position accuracy.  Range accuracy will be unchanged, so a network of radars could trinagulate position very accurately, but I suspect data lag would make weapon guidance a significant obstacle.  

Probably, however don't always need the RADAR to see.

Funny you should ask that today as I received my morning USNI News Daily email and this article was front and center:  Chinese and Russian Radars On Track To See Through U.S. Stealth

A lot of us in the know, have known about low wave radar systems for a while, effectively rendering stealth, unstealth, as was stated earlier they are not fire control radars they are all search radars as of now.
It would be interesting to see if a few SU-27's vectored in on say a flight of F-22's could sneak up on them and get either a gun or a missile kill. I'm betting the Raptors detect them either through ESM or IRST or something besides radar and get the jump on them.

Some of those folks in the know include Lockheed and Boeing.....

Yup