China that can't build a jet engine and continues to use shit engines from Russia?  That China?

What else do you expect the USMC to ask for?  Aircraft that can't fly off the ships that support them?  Having a fixed wing aircraft that can fly off the LHDs massively increases the power projection capability of the MAGTF (as the good LTC says in the presentation above).  The only way to achieve that is with a STOVL aircraft.  The USMC has made do with the AV-8B for decades, and they desperately need a replacement.

There is 1.2 Zettabytes (1.3 trillion gigabytes) of information on the internet.  Im willing to take some risk to my internet fame over the idea that most of those watching this product think its not going to turn out as planned..  You can google the F35 for weeks and get all sorts of info from both sides.  You still dont seem to want to answer these questions.

1) Why do we need STOVL when it has never and likely will never be used?

2) Why do half the people involved in this aircrafts acquisition process think its a huge mistake?

Yes, that china.  Where they are now isnt where they will be when we start to rely on 5th generation fighters.  

The Marines have an entire naval unit to support them (The Navy......)  USMC wants aircraft for one reason.  CAS.  A function that doesnt require stealth, speed, or the ability to fight air to air.  Basically they want the F35 to be everything it isnt. They are trying to insist that they can fight as an independent element in warfare despite the fact that our entire strategic concept of warfare is based off of joint service operations involving all military components. USMC has dealt with the AV-8B for decades because they wanted their own special snowflake. Not because they need to provide their own air superiority or strike capabilities.  Harriers are awesome.  Iv worked with them before and marine pilots are fantastic (FAC/As for the win), but their services insistence on self reliance runs completely counter to how we run warfare as a nation.  If it was as simple as "send in the marines" then we wouldnt have an entire military planning process based around joint operations. Making the marines a staple of our already clusterfuck of an acquisitions process is giving us less capabilities instead of more.

I dont think people appreciate just how much of a positive thing it is to be able to launch a long range strike using 5th gen fighters from LHAs or LHDs. Harriers do a noble job at CAS for their Marines but the type of strikes the USMC will now be able to do were previously only done from NIMITZ class aircraft carriers. There are just all sorts of positive things that come from this. Enough to justify the cost? Ill let the procurement experts here debate that. But dont doubt the capability.

A lot of people tend to think of the F-35 being flown by US pilots against some enemy foe in the future.  The likelihood is that foreign customers are going to be flying the F-35 against customers who buy Russian garbage.  That is the real deal.  In line with Russian in the OP video, he complains of a brain drain in Russia during the 1990's Yeltsin years, and Russian aerospace simply was already beaten by US aerospace during the Cold War, proven repeatedly in many conflicts, to the point that foreign air forces were afraid to even take off against US-equipped forces.  Israeli's vs. Arabs, US vs. Iraq, US vs. Libya, etc.  F-15's and F-14's vs. anything the Russians had supplied and trained foreign air forces on got their pp's spanked repeatedly.

The F-22 exceeds those performance capabilities in such an overmatch, that it isn't even understandable to most.  F-35 is being advertised to bring even more to the table, not as a dedicated interceptor, but a new breed of multi-role 5th Gen Information Dominance Strike Fighter.  I don't know if the claims are true, but I do know that this was one of the main performance goals of the JSF concept dating back to the 1980's when this all started.  In Aviation Week & Space Technology, they had all kids of advertisements for JSTARS showing a solider on the ground with a concept ASIP radio (which we ended up with in the 1990's), a stealthy JSF in the sky, a satellite, a tank, and an artillery piece all linked together, able to share information in real time.

It has taken a long time to achieve that reality, but it looks like we're about to be there.

The Chinese are trying to contain a series of rebellions in their 1.350 billion populace, with a military and security structure that has 85% of its manpower and energy focused on internal security, with a history of failure when trying to project power beyond their borders.  They aren't going to produce a quality net-centric capability magically overnight, nor are they going to be able to pick up from where we are in terms of manufacturing their JSF, even with the TDP acquired.

Meanwhile, we'll be equipping Japan and Australia with JSF, with other SEATO potential buyers in the containment ring around China's coast.  These customers will have access to the US training and logistics packages, to include regular attendance of regional and other joint aerial exercises that have all of the lessons of aerial combat from US and other nation's history woven into the scenarios.  China has no such thing, and are in the very early stages of forming and storming their military capabilities.

A US-equipped neighbor of China could cause losses so grievous to the PLAF, that it wouldn't make a lot of sense for them to allow hostilities to break out between them and Japan, Vietnam, or Taiwan.  If those hostilities did break out, any of their enemies in the periphery could seize the opportunity to take disputed islands or territory, and spank the crap out of their Russian-built garbage like the Su-27, Su-30, or garbage Chinese copies of the Su-27.

Imagine a product made in China, copied from one made in Russia just to understand what kind of MTBF of critical components we're talking about.  That doesn't bode will with the small numbers the PLAF has.  We're looking at:

73 Su-30MKK
75 Su-27
24 J-16 (Chinese attempted copy of Su-30)
205 J-11 (Chinese attempted copy of Su-27)
205 J-10 (Chinese rough copy of the Israeli Lavi)

144 J-8  (Chinese evolution of the MIG-21, 1960's era fighter)
48 JZ-8 Tactical Reconnaissance variant of the J-8
528 J-7 Chinese MIG-21

120 JH-7 Strike A/C  (It's developmental history reads like a bad Chinese cartoon...rudder unexpectedly fell off, instrument panel vibrated itself apart on test flight, R landing gear tire exploded, etc.)
120 Q-5 Strike (Based on MIG-19 - a 1950's design)

120 H-6 (Maiden flight 1959) strategic bomber based on Tu-16

The above is what an F-22, F-35, F-15, F/A-18, F-16, **** force would call a target-rich environment, where they get to choose access to the threats, and the threats get to be targeted at will.  Raptors alone would have a field day against these types of threats, and a combat loaded Su-30 will not have the kinematics of a combat-loaded F-35.  The Su-30 will have drag that is not sustainable for long periods of the flight without serious reductions in combat radius or CAP box, so they will bingo much sooner if they try to hit solutions like that.  Use of AB to set up for a supersonic launch would also increase vulnerability due to IRST and other linked sensors over the battle space, and the Su-30 would most likely be firing on a target that wasn't really there.

To think of the F-35 as a stand-alone platform is a mistake.  Do I think using a common airframe that has evolved into something not so common was a bad idea?  Yes.  I think the services could have done better with separate airframes, and common avionics.  A long-range JSF would make a lot of sense for the USAF and Navy, whereas the smaller frame makes sense for the USMC VTOL/VSTOL from LHA's and LHD's.  Two other programs are going to make a lot of this argument negligible though, and at least one of them has been operational for a long time now.

Yep.  Keep investing and wasting time and money on that thing.

China's economic growth is not sustainable, and has flattened.  They face internal problems that simply don't have any viable solutions.  They face extremely ominous limitations geographically, demographically, economically, militarily, and therefore politically.  China would be foolish to base their military structure on countering the US.  They can only realistically try to deal with regional island and SEA nations who contain them and have historical disputes over mineral-rich territory.

They're screwed in almost every way you look at it.

That may be true but it is sunk costs at this point.  The aircraft has been designed, and despite its compromises in trying to fit three designs into one, it is a great aircraft.  Stealth is a game changer that not even our allies possess.  Once pilots learned to use the stealth on their F-22s they raped the competition.  F-35 will have the same advantage.  Stealth is speed on crack.  It used to be that speed let you set the terms of the engagement.  Now stealth lets you set the terms with the other guy not knowing of the fight until it is over.  Hell, if all we got out of it was the carrier version it would be worth it.  Let's not do our usual stupidity and decide to buy only 12 of them after spending 7 trillion in R&D.  

 

1 -- How else do you propose to launch and recover fixed wing aircraft off an LHD?  The platform the Marines have to use in the ESG is what dictates the fixed wing platform they have to use.  F35C models simply aren't capable of launching and recovering onboard an LHD or anything else that floats other than a CVN.  

We simply don't have the budget for ten more CVNs.  They cost a fuckton of money to build, crew, and operate.  The LHD and the JSF makes the MAGTF more capable and more relevant in the modern fight.  And the Marines would probably argue with you on the use of STOVL, since their AV-8Bs were used to provide them with support in Iraq.

And finally, the B model gives the UK a capability, it gives Japan a capability, and there are likely others who will buy it once they see it working.  Look closely at JS Izumo and tell me that "helicopter destroyer" was not specifically designed to operate JSF-B.

2 -- Where do you get your numbers?  The same place most of the other bullshit on the internet comes from?  I think your numbers are wrong.

It's where they've been for four decades, their inability to build working jet engines didn't start last week and isn't going to be fixed next week.  

I think you don't understand joint operations very well if you think we should relegate the USMC to the 1970s in order to further joint operations.

Yes, you are wrong.  

The F-35B hamstrings ... the F-35B.  The engine compromises for STOVL are more or less limited to the F135-600 engine, and don't affect the -100 and -400 for the A and C variants.  The envelope of the vertical lift fan resides entirely inside what is the main fuel tank of the A and C variants.  So, the B forgoes the main fuel tank capacity for vertical capability - and still meets range requirements.  The B also has slightly reduced weapon bay volume to accommodate air flow for the fan, limiting it to 1000# class munitions instead of the 2000# carriage stations of the A and C.

Because of the nearly even trade in lift fan weight vs fuel weight, nominal cg of the B is minimally shifted from that of the A and C, and cg is maintained through a different fuel flow pattern from the conventional models.

The cannon.  The B has to forgo the cannon to accommodate the fan, something understood prior to contract award.  The C eliminated the cannon for added fuel volume, reduced weight, and added range - a trade not done to meet requirements, but done to gain more desirable capability.

It's funny, because of all of the actual design wrangling and system decisions that were made, none of these, none of these ever get mentioned, ever.

As for "never having been actually used", I'll leave that call to the USMC and the Brits.

China building jet engines....what could go wrong?

Now imagine them trying to monkey-hump a football, and you get a picture of what the PALF looks like.

After years of buying Su-27's from Russia, they got this idea that they could cheat the Russians out of the contract, and reverse-engineer the Su-27.

You don't need an imagination to guess how that turned out.  Then they went back to the Russians demanding Su-30's, and the Russians laughed as they told them the price.

The biggest thing China has going for it is all the US military aerospace technology that was transferred to them during the Clinton Administration.  

Even with that, they are struggling to make sense of the aerospace world, and nothing about their spending can be trusted because it's China.

Imagine Chinese avionics, Chinese airframe, Russian engines, Chinese servo-pneumatic controls, Chinese metallurgy, and Chinese missiles.  Colossal abortion.

The F-35B model has at least a 450nm combat radius.

The A and C models are listed as 650nm +.

450nm for a STOVL USMC multirole Gen 5 strike fighter off of Amphibious assault ships just brings a lot of options to the table.  I'm not seeing the negatives here, unless we're talking about hardening the deck so the engine doesn't damage it.

That was taken care of years ago for the osprey.

I've heard on more than one occasion the pod mounted cannon built for the C model is easier to maintain and significantly faster to rearm than the internal gun as well.

How much of the issues with the F35 is just the natural growing pains associated with implementing something that is a step forward?

I know very little about it but it seems to me that anytime you try to move the bar higher there's going to be some difficulties. But in time all the kinks are worked out.

Yeah, the ones a profound earthquake away from having their country destroyed.

...

Exactly.  
Do not interupt your enemy while he is making a mistake.

F-35 Growing Pains in Context
Since the F-35 is one of the most ambitious aircraft designs ever undertaken by the military, growing pains are going to be a reality for several years.

I remember the stigma of the F-16 when it was first sent to operational squadrons, and the DFLCS wiring chaffing was an issue that got at least one guy killed, despite the USAF denials.

The F-14A's engine problems were never worked out until they went to the GE-equipped A+ and D models, and the casing for the variable geometry wings was a maintenance nightmare.

The F-22A has gone through a few teething issues that have been made public, but has been a overall highly successful and game-changing program.

The F-35 has a lot of newer technologies with regard to structural shaping for reduced RCS, coatings, heat-sinking with fuel like the F-22 but taken to an even higher level of efficiency to not only cool avionics, but cool the plane to reduce IR signature against IRST threat sensors.

It also has a fused electronics suite that is the first of its kind, as well as distributed sensor arrays integrated into aspects of the airframe that were only conceptual or existent on ELINT types of aircraft made or modified in very low production lots previously.

There is a lot of institutional knowledge and experience with all of these technologies exclusive to the US, so while China may have obtained a TDP, they can't duplicate the engineering and maintenance teams and the legacies they were built on.  Conversely, a lot of those people have retired in the US, and have handed it off to the current generation of children who inherited the combined fruit from the WWII and Baby Boomers.

It will be interesting to see all the problems that rear their heads as F-35 goes IOC, but I suspect these issues will be mostly worked out after the first 7yrs.  The F-16 wasn't fully mature when it went IOC, yet it was used in that configuration to change the world, especially when you look at what the Israeli's did with the Shah's F-16's (that were never delivered to Iran, and instead went to Israel after Reagan took office).  The Osirak raid was a strategic accomplishment in the region, with ripple-effect around the world in many ways.

Israel was put on a temporary ban list from US aid.

The French ended up with egg on their faces for helping Iraq build a nuclear reactor.

Everybody and their brother started asking for F-16's, especially as the BDA was openly advertised with Mk.84's falling through the same hole in the reactor containment shield from the previous bomb.

F-35 Capabilities in Context
When you combine the F-35 with some of the LO long-range AGM's that have been introduced in the past few years, the stand-off capability is something truly new, and I suspect this is one of the things the USMC pilot was referring to when he said F-35 erases the line between tactical and strategic capabilities.

If you are so far outside of the threat's CAP zones, then deploy a stealth cruise missile that can be independently targeted, carrying a substantial warhead, any of your IAD hubs and networks are going to face some extremely difficult challenges.

Do I keep painting, or do I shut down while we're being invaded?  How do we manage electronic signature when the balloon goes up, especially as we are being swarmed with autonomous stealth drones that are weaponized?

We're not even talking about Su-30MKK and PAK-50's at this point, as those would be reduced by F-22A.  From a threat air defense perspective, you could be manning your displays one minute, then in the blink of an eye, an over-pressure event wipes you off the face of the earth as a thermobaric warhead from a LO cruise missile detonates above your mobile station like the one the Israeli's did in Syria last year, remember that huge fireball/mushroom cloud?  SEAD takes on a whole new doomsday resignation if you are manning a Russian-built IADS.  Life is going to suck one way or another.



It won't help your morale any that you have no targets to deploy S-300 against, even if the S-300 is at the unrealistic 85% Mission Readiness status.  There are no bogies, other than the occasional ghost shadow of a UCAV.  Then start thinking about the EW aspect of all this, and it gets really nasty for the defender.  False positive returns all over the place, fried circuits, noise, deceptive back scatter, and stealth cruise missiles riding in with the wave of UAV's will simply overwhelm even the latest integrated multi-bandwidth Russian IADS.  From the stand-off ranges all our LO aircraft operate from, they can be in international airspace, where the long-range Russian radars have very fuzzy resolution and inability to discriminate even when working 100%.


This Australian Air Power diagram highlights why the F-35 combined with a certain weapon system makes those "Advanced Russian IADS" irrelevant.  The Aussie Air Power diagram is framed within the context of delivery of a GBU, which is a Vietnam-era technology used in Eldorado Canyon and Gulf War I.  JDAM's are an assumption many people make in their arguments, but are only one type of aerial delivered Precision Guided Munition with a large payload.  The Aussie Air Power diagram shows a theoretical delivery envelope for the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, not the real problem they face.  Notice the stand-off range in this diagram.  Now imagine the F-35 hundreds of NMI away.  There is no RCS of the plane or the weapon, and won't ever be for the plane.  Short story:  Pepper the angus.



Your full-time interceptor schedule has nothing to report other than international air flights as all this is going on, then starts getting hunted by Raptors, still with no radar evidence of their presence.

Combine the CJSOTF puzzle piece to this mix, and the preparations for establishing an air head have already begun, in conjunction with terminal guidance for SEAD and anti-TBM from the ground.  

Any of the big 3 armies of the world would have a nightmare trying to deal with this.  The F-35 is just one component of it, along with B-2, F-22, UCAV, and LO cruise missiles.  Every platform has stand-off capabilities that don't require them to even go into skirmish zones we have always gone into in prior conflicts.  The reality is that we have reached the crux of a technological overmatch so significant, it changes the options for the National Command Authority to the extent that confidence is extremely high for preemptive erasure of enemy defenses from a strictly offensive stance. None of the big 3 armies have the technology or scientific infrastructure to catch up with us by the time these systems mature-many of which already have done so, F-35 and another being the last ones.

That isn't necessarily a good thing for geopolitics.  It would be like sending a Predator-suited NFL to the Superbowl at night, against a little league team who has limited NV tech, and is stuck on the field, while the Pro team plays from the sidelines and spectator seats, fully capable of making touchdowns without having to skirmish.

I think this is the forest we miss when looking at the bark on one of the types of trees that is known as the F-35.

Thanks for the input, this is the type of debate and info I like getting out of these threads.  I was not aware of the differences between the different model engines.  More the compromises that had to be made around the entire engine system.   I would like to know more about the differences between the models and how much the B Models design restraints restricted the rest of the airframe, in respects to the A and C model engines.  From everything Iv read all models are under powered considering how heavy the aircraft is.  Weapons capacity is something else. Not so much the cannon, but the payload.  Again, much borne out of compromise and again it sounds like the systems best case (and overstated) estimates is a very small compared to the systems its supposed to replace.  

VTOL /SVTOL has been used in limited capacity for limited periods of time, but its not something that the US military has to rely on.  If the Brits want it, let them pay for it.  The USMC has the USN and USAF to provide CAS for it, it doesnt need a trillion dollar blunder to replace the Harrier.  

Getting back to my initial argument from everything Im seeing it sounds like the F35 is an insanely heavy aircraft with an underpowered engine.  The entire theory of the aircraft is that it will rely on its networking capabilities and awareness to keep it alive and relevant.  If you take that away, it becomes a very expensive target that will be out performed by the competition.  

Their growth is based off the same thing ours is.  Innovative capability, production capability, and faith in the economic system.  They have internal problems, but their economy isnt going to simply crumble and fade.  Even if they have a crash, it will be a temporary setback at most.  They are seizing resources all over Asia and Africa to feed their economy and expanding their economic and military influence every chance they get.  They arent looking at countering us now.  They are looking at countering us a half a century from now.  Any military or political capital that they can seize based off our weak leadership is just that.  An opportunity that they are taking advantage of.  Those regional islands and SEA nations are sitting on top of some of the most mineral and agriculturally rich areas in our planets oceans.  Not to mention the trade that flows through the area.  

Id love for China to be a paper tiger, but to plan off of it is foolish. They are the next best competitor and they are very capable.

Caught this Aussie bird going over the fence today

This.

1- What is the aircraft being launched from the LHDs purpose?  Is it really to fly hundreds of miles and bomb critical infrastructure? We have the USN and USAF for that, not to mention god knows how many other missile systems.  If so you better hope its fuel usage doesnt get burnt up by SVTOL.  No.  Its to provide CAS.  Same reason as every other Marine aircraft.  In which case it doesnt need stealth or the ability to get up to date info from the most current Link 16 systems.  It needs payload, loiter time, and situational awareness.  The current F35 can provide one of those assuming its godlike network is functioning perfectly.  

2- Following the project for the last few years and semi-regular discussion with USAF personnel.  When that much of the organization has a problem with it, its time to recognize and correct the shortcomings of the project.

Your "initial argument" is incorrect.  You are, again, comparing hollywood F16 and F15 numbers with a fully loaded F35.  None of the numbers you all keep throwing around for the F16 are relevant when you hang an external fuel tank (to match the JSF's internal fuel capacity), external bombs (to match the JSF's internal capacity), and external a-a weapons (again...) on them.  The people who know have said that the JSF flies just fine and is not underpowered.  Then again, if we're fighting F-16s we've really fucked up somewhere bad.

The USMC isn't buying a Harrier replacement, the Navy is buying the capability to use an ESG to project power in a similar manner to a CSG, or to integrate better with a CSG.  The ability to do organic CAS is a bonus.

And as I and others have already said, it's a done deal.  You don't have to like it, the program is sunk costs, the aircraft will be delivered, and history will prove the program just like it did the F16 (which had the same arguments against it), the F15 (which had the same arguments against it), and the F22 (which had the same arguments against it).

Garfield

1 -- you have heard of aerial refueling, right?  That's what we do with STOVL aircraft because of their takeoff limitations.  And no, CAS is not the purpose of the JSF.  It might be one purpose, but the future air battle is a whole different ballgame than what you're thinking.  If CAS were the only purpose, we'd just put helicopters on the ESG and call it a day.  There are things fixed wing aircraft can do that rotary wing can't.

2 -- So anecdotes.  The plural of anecdote is not data, sorry.  From my personal experience working with Naval air for the majority of the last two decades, the JSF is not looked at as a mistake.  I don't give a fuck what the USAF thinks personally, but I suspect they believe mostly the same.

Yes, I am aware of aerial refuling, its not something a CAS platform supporting guys assaulting a beach require. CAS isnt the purpose of the JSF, which is precisely why the Marines dont need it, and why designing significant portions of it around Marine demands is foolish.  Marines have insited that they need air capabilites based off the idea that they have to be a self sufficeint organization.  A concept that is largely irrelevant nowadays. Hell helicopters are probably a perfect compromise for the Marines, but your never going to get them to admit that what they need as a service component differs greatly from what they want in terms of keeping themselves involved in the acquisition process.

Your opinions are just that.  Opinions.  By the sounds of it neither of us are air experts.  Im concerned because there are a LOT of air experts saying this thing has serious problems.  And at the end of the day, no one in this thread has been able to counter this one point.  Is this fighter capable of competing in either an air to air or air to ground fight, absent the network it relies on?

When was the last time the Marines assaulted a beach?  Building future air capabilities around something that rarely happens or never happens is not a good plan.  Again, you're trying to fit the ESG concept into D-Day Normandy -- that's not what the ESG is.  Putting fixed wing aircraft capable of aerial refueling in the ESG gives the ESG the capability to not only increase their power projection capability, but also integrate with both USAF and other USN assets.

Having organic CAS is important to the MAGTF.  That's not the only purpose for the JSF, and not the only (or even the most important) reason we're building the JSF-B.

There are a LOT of experts saying this thing is just fine.  I'm not an aviator -- but I'm smart enough to listen to the guy who flies everything we have and says what he did in that video.

And you didn't watch the video.  Your final question is answered there.  "You are old, and you will lose"

Exactly!!!!!!!!  The Marines have a purpose in warfare, but its not one that should have a Trillion dollar aircraft designed off ot it.  More so compromising much of the project based off of Marine demands is even more foolish.  Im not going to get into the doctrine of the ESG as I dont admitedly know much about it, but they are not the ones that should be defning the next generation of American air supremacy.  I know that having organic air power is important to MAGTF.  Hell I would love to have organic CAS for my job, but designing our air supremecy concept around it is foolish and short sited.  If we want a strike fighter, build a strike fighter.  Dont compramise give us and under powered under performer that cant carry a half decent payload.  Take the extral half a trillion dollars and put it into developing a CAS aircraft to fill the obviously different role.

"Your old and you will lose" again is only releveant if everything works as planned, which is exactly the opposite of what happens in combat.  You still havent been able to provide me anything on my intial question.  Ill ask it again.  How can this thing compare against its adversareis if its unable to be linked into its all empowering network?  Chip saw this thing perform amazingly in an environment where the rule were defined.  Where it had amazing awareness and could bring everything together and make a decision for the pilot.  Take away that connectivity, and what happens?  If it cant gain the awareness it needs to dominate, can it still perform and be effective?  I havent seen anything concrete to say that it can, and you dont seem to want or be able to provide me with any of it.  If you can Ill retract my statement, but for now, your opinion is just that.  An opinion.

It's still going to be a motherfucker as a stand-alone fighter or bomber.
The old Mk1 Mod0 eyeball.
Switch to manual and go.

It's already been posted, the JSF can turn and fight just fine with fourth gen aircraft.  Given the fact that there are no fifth gen aircraft other than the JSF and the F22, I don't know what more you would want for it, but the "under powered under performer" schtick isn't accurate.  And btw it has double the range, infinitely more enclosed ordnance capability, etc, etc, etc.

The idea and concept that the aircraft is worthless without the network is also inaccurate, what he's telling you is no one is going to fight that way anymore.  We don't fly F16s out alone and unafraid, we haven't for decades -- we're certainly not going to do it with the JSF.  Network centric warfare is here to stay.  How effective do you think an F-18 is without situational awareness from the CVN, the E2-C, satellite communications, Link-16, etc?  It's not -- it's a worthless toy burning fuel to no purpose.  The old "knights of the sky" fantasy just doesn't hold water anymore.  It's not how we fight.

False.  Read the article I posted in this thread.  That piece of shit can sustain 4 Gs, about what an F-4 or F-5 could.  It can by no stretch of the imagination turn with fourth gen aircraft.  Link 16 is not exactly some fucking revolutionary force multiplier, it's been around for several decades.

What does a fully loaded f16 pull?  We all know it's nowhere near 9 Gs.

More.  Depending on altitude, fuel load, and lots of other factors, but on average about a full G more than the F-turdy-five.  An F/A-18 can sustain about a G more than a lawn dart.  Apples to apples the 35 is a turd, it will not be able to turn with fourth gen aircraft, let alone 4.5 gen like the Eurofighter, superbug, Rafale, SU-37. etc.  The Indian SU-30s gave us a few surprises when we hosted them at Red Flag the first time...

Even if that were accurate (and I suspect we're not doing apples to apples comparisons here, f35 detractors never do) - "you are old, and you will lose" - from the guy who flies all of them.

My Air Officer is one of the F35 pilots for LM, when he was on AD he flew FA-18s and did an exchange tour with the AF where he flew F16s.  When I asked him about how it compares to either platform he said it would kill either in ACM.

He may just be voicing his opinion based working for LM so the proverbial grain of salt may apply, but I think the F35 is today's Apache, Abrams and Bradley.  They were talked about by the (defense) press and experts as dogs until they went to war.

I agree. And the "it can't fight an f16 because an unarmed f16 with no fuel onboard can pull 9g" shtick is old and worn out.

Eh I'll take the 60 F-16 Block 60's I can buy for your 5 F-35's.

When strong appear weak. Our F35 sucks. Get it? Got it? Good.

Listen to what he stresses most. Integrated Air Defense and primarily Surface to Air Missiles and Radar.

I believe most the world is resigned to countering US Air Supremacy not with fighter jets, but with surface to air missile systems.  It may very well be that our aircraft face a bigger threat from surface to air missiles than from enemy fighters this day and age.  The F-16 may be slightly a better dog fighter than an F-35, but the F-16 is a much larger target for radar and I don't see how anyone can say that the F-35 doesn't have an advantage due its stealth.  Sure, the Russians and Chinese will work very hard to counter it, but they weren't resting on their current tech anyways and would be improving radar and missile system regardless.  In short, the world has turned and to keep pilots out of harms way we simply can't afford to have them flying 4th gen aircraft for much longer.

It would be more like 60 F-16s to 50 F-35s.  The spendy part is not the air frame, it is the electronic goodies that every plane needs.  

 

If China is so good at long term planning, and they've existed 10x as long as the USA, why the blue hell aren't they the globe's dominating power?

What if predator didn't have thermal and neat weapons when Ahnold and Co fought him? What if we didn't have food during a war with a near peer? (Oh, right, that would only put us as parity with them).

Didn't do a very good job at planning to have their ass kicked by Japan.  

Or at least the most expensive.



Give it time to iron out the bugs



 

Talking about "X.Y" G turn performance absent of context is silly.  It's a function of airspeed, altitude, drag index and weight.  To throw around numbers like "4Gs" or "9Gs" means nothing.