Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

ST21 said:
Iran has (or rather had) four batteries of S-300PMU-2 and plenty of other Soviet, US and indigenous systems (S-200, Kub, Tor, MIM-23 HAWK, etc).
Click to expand...
And one of the few nations to have demonstrated a HTK capability, loitering SAM, plus decades of cloning Crotales and leftover Chinesium. If that's low tech and barebone, your standards must be incredibly inflated.
 
Ainen said:
Any american fighter other than F-35 has such options

it isn't some problem with the west
Click to expand...
Still limited options in comparison to what China or Russia fields. Russia and China both field air launched supersonic, hypersonic or ballistic missiles in addition to an equally wide complement of subsonic weapons. The west's standoff munitions are, for the most part, subsonic like JASSM, LRASM, or JSOW.

Given the weapons currently in development, there clearly is a problem the west is trying to address now, and that is that there needs to be a larger complement of stand-off munitions with much greater range and fits inside weapon bays of fighters which is why stuff like HACM, AGM-88ER and the derived SiAW is under developement. Had there been this urgency earlier, some varient of these would have been in service already and maybe even an air launched PrSM or something.

Instead, even the small set of subsonic stand-off munition types we currently have went into service really not that long ago. JSOW and JASSM went into service in the early 2000's. During the desert vacation we took fighting the enemies of Moses, there wasn't any need or vision for stand-off weapons. LRASM, JASSM-ER went into service only in the mid 2010s, right alongside the first introduction of the F-35. SiAW and AGM-88ER were even more recent.

Integrating those weapons onto existing 4th gen fighters is already non-trivial let alone integrating them into the F-35. Which is what I was trying to argue originally - that the "problem" of integrating these things onto the F-35 isn't as out of the ordinary as it might seem.
 
Reddington777 said:
Still limited options in comparison to what China or Russia fields. Russia and China both field air launched supersonic, hypersonic or ballistic missiles in addition to an equally wide complement of subsonic weapons. The west's standoff munitions are, for the most part, subsonic like JASSM, LRASM, or JSOW.
Click to expand...
I think it isn't right way of looking at things. What matters is capability.

I.e., let's do checkboxes, every check box - contested/uncontesed. Contested means stand-off or survivable, unconsted - stand-in bulk(somehow surviving Brezhnev era weapons don't count, as they provide neither bulk nor capability). I.e. "uncontested" isn't worse than contested.

Checkboxes:
Air combat(stand off, stand in; 2 points);
stand off deep strike(LACM)(stand off only, 1 point);
tactical strike(stand off, stand in; 2 points);
cas/interdiction(stand off, stand in; 2 points);
anti-shipping(stand off, stand in; 2 points);
SEAD(stand off only; 1 point).
6 boxes, 10 points.

For example, let's begin with su-35s as a basic example.
Air combat: check, contested/uncontested. 2 pts.
Stand off deep strike(LACM): check(Kh-59MA), but missile itself is short ranged and quite obsolete. 1 pts.
tactical strike: check, contested(grom, umpb series, Kh-38), but without bulk capability(UMPK/UMPB unavailable, JDAM doesn't exist). 1 pts.
CAS/interdiction/DEAD: nothing.
anti-shipping: check, contested(Kh-31a). 1 pts
SEAD: check(Kh-31pm). 1 pts.
=6 pts out of 10, with missing 4 in all tactical applications.

What it means in practice: su-35 can deliver strikes against fixed valuable targets at different ranges, including ships; it can suppress air defenses; and of course it can engage air targets.
But it can't perform any meaningful CAS and it can't exploit air superiority. Almost to stupidity - it can't effectively engage small surface craft over black sea.
As you can see, Russiabad.

Then, Rafale (which i consider is a near-perfect example).

Air combat: check, contested/uncontested. 2 pts.
Stand off deep strike(LACM): check(SCALP). 1 pts.
Tactical strike: check, contested/uncontested(AASM series cover everything, all sizes, use cases and seekers) 2 pts.
CAS/interdiction/DEAD: contested/ucnonctested (AASM series, again, cover everything, all sizes, use cases and seekers). 2 pts.
anti-shipping: check(exocet), though 1 missile per plane only. Stand in through AASM. 2 pts.
SEAD: nothing.

=19 pts out of 10, with very supportive missing piece (i.e. significant part of the same role is covered by CAS). But the key ones, with exception of asuv, are covered thoroughly to extreme. Shame that no nuance pts for that, but we keep things simple.

For US 4th gen, F-18E:
Air combat: check, contested/uncontested. 2 pts. Note that in modern age and era, APKWS probably should add another point, and that's not mentioning AIM-174...
Stand off deep strike(LACM): check(LRASM now can do it). 1 pts.
Tactical strike: check, contested/uncontested(Jdam/Pw; JSOW; Agm-84h...and so on). 2 pts.
CAS/interdiction/DEAD: check, contested/uncontested (Jdam/Pw; JSOW; Stormbreaker...and so on). 2 pts.
anti-shipping: check(LRASM, Harpoon; stand -in - JDAM-L, Maverick etc.). 2 pts. (honestly should've been 2 when compared to previous two, but let's stick to my own rules lol).
SEAD: AGM-88 series. 1 pts.

Score: 10/10, with honest assesment more like 12/10. Shame that no pts for that, but we keep it in mind.

Then, say, Eurofighter (i'll take British ones; german members of forum, feel free to apply to yourselves).
Air combat: check, contested/uncontested. 2 pts.
Stand off deep strike(LACM): check storm shadow. 1 pts.
Tactical strike: check, uncontested(paveway/jdam). No stand off options at all. 1 pts.
CAS/interdiction/DEAD: check, uncontested/contested(paveway/jdam; spear-2). spear-2 is unique stand off interdiction capability. 2 pts.
anti-shipping: nothing for stand off(italians only), but in stand-in, Paveway will work. 1 pt.
SEAD: nothing.

Score: 7 pts. Barely better than Su-35s(courtesy of JDAM/paveway mostly), but different combination. Eurofighter can in fact do uncontested bombing and contested/uncontested interdiction, but it's outright bad at striking anything defended with anything other than few expensive LACM (and even its LACM capability is range-limited, but this is beyond the scope).

Finally, F-35A. Note that caveat applies, that F-35 in many cases use uncontested munitions in contested scenarios, but still.
Air combat: check, contested/uncontested. 2 pts. Note though, that uncontested is really stand off(only 2 sidewinders and at expense of stealth), which is major downside in current age.
Stand off deep strike(LACM): nothing.
Tactical strike: check, uncontested only(JDAM/Pw/gbu-39). 2 pts. Navy ones have JSOWs, but we speak about A.
CAS/interdiction/DEAD: check, unconstested(Jdam/Pw). Note that Stormbreaker is still not integrated. 1 pts.
SEAD: nothing.

Yes, F-35 can really blur the border between contested and uncontested, and so on and so forth (more so for countries that can afford to risk them). Yes, it's overall by far the most capable aircraft on the list. But still, you don't throw advancedness onto enemy, you execute a mission. And until they finish current weapon integration effort, F-35 by itself scores just 5 points out of 10. Someone else has to do much of the carrying and prosecuting.

Overall, take that "west is bad at stand off" doesn't hold, it's wrong; west is good at it, Russia isn't(and i won't be able to do China without book by my side). But weapon integration is bitch, and it isn't finished.
Reddington777 said:
Had there been this urgency earlier, some varient of these would have been in service already and maybe even an air launched PrSM or something.
Click to expand...
The urgency for F-35 program is here for quite a while. LM just struggles to deliver.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
First Belgian AF, in country, flight:

View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9EPg_IwUDvs
Click to expand...
Title of the video is a bit misleading. They arent in Belgium... yet. ;) The first will land on Belgian soil in October.

What LM meant is that the first BAF F-35 to be based in the country has flown. Unlike those based at Luke for training purposes that will stay there (for the time being).
 
Ainen said:
I think it isn't right way of looking at things. What matters is capability.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying. Compared to other western fighters, yes it does lack standoff capability.

I could have worded it better and qualified what I said, but when I think about what standoff munitons mean today and for the future, supersonic/hypersonic and subsonic LACMs/AShMs/HARMs make up the more useful standoff weapons for a peer conflict. Of the land attack options, both Russia and China fields air launched ballistic and hypersonic weapons in addition to LACMs that are fighter borne.

So to me, even if SCALP, HAMMER, JSOW and JASSM are integrated, the F-35 and other 4th gen fighters still lacks the higher speed/range weapons Russia and china both already field on their fighters (kinzhal, zircon, yj12s etc). The range and speed to me seems more important in a peer conflict than the shorter ranged options. Again - not that we are bad at it, but categorically, our employable options in terms of stand off in the categories I was thinking about are limited to subsonic LACMs and shorter ranged options compared. That's why theres a push to develop higher speed stand off munitions as well as upgrading existing ones.

Im also not sure that the F35 should be measured against 4th gen fighters similarly for delivering long range munitions of the LACM size. You have a stealth aircraft for a reason and if you have carry those options externally, that may or may not nullify the advantage they have vs a well upgraded 4th gen fighter at delivering munitions onto target. An F35 should still be able to carry externally, but why would that be a priority when its doesnt offer much beyond a 4th gen doing the same thing? Even larger stealth fighters like the J20 or the Su57 arent carrying those cruise missiles internally. Most of the LACM sized weapons are all carried externally or by 4th gen fighters.
 
ST21 said:
Iran has (or rather had) four batteries of S-300PMU-2 and plenty of other Soviet, US and indigenous systems (S-200, Kub, Tor, MIM-23 HAWK, etc).

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Still, not a country with any meaningful opposing Air Force.
ST21 said:
The Houtis managed to shoot down several combat aircraft from the Saudi-led coalition including at least two RSAF Tornados, a UAEAF Mirage 2000 and a RMAF F-16 as well as plenty of UAVs (including a LOT of USAF MQ-9s) so i wouldnt take their air defense capabilities lightly.
Click to expand...
Saudi led coalition has been bombing the Houtis for years now, would have been surprising if they had not lost anything by now anyway.
While there have been comparatively few F-35s raids only recently.
 
DWG said:
I suspect environmental clean-up, plus costs of the investigation and corrective action. Plus having to do it in the Alaskan winter.

If Eielson's record keeping was as bad as this implies, they'd potentially have to drain the hydraulics of every aircraft there, and maybe even the ones that had just passed through.
Click to expand...
All -

As regards operating F-35 hydraulically-actuated systems on the ground, without operating the engine…..

I forgot to mention previously, that another potential accumulation point for contamination in Eilson’s aircraft hydraulic mules:
- beside mobile diesel-powered hydraulic “ Mules “, Eilson AFB likely has electric
“ Mule(s) “ for operating safely in an enclosed indoor space… like a hangar.
“ Phase Maintenance “ docks that perform scheduled & repeat maintenance, and other maintenance functions needing to apply hydraulic pressure to the aircraft… would need to operate indoors safely w/o concern for carbon monoxide poisoning from deisel exhaust.


With regards,
357Mag
 
ST21 said:
Title of the video is a bit misleading. They arent in Belgium... yet. ;) The first will land on Belgian soil in October.

What LM meant is that the first BAF F-35 to be based in the country has flown. Unlike those based at Luke for training purposes that will stay there (for the time being).
Click to expand...

How many F-35As will Belgium receive in its first batch in October?
 
Reddington777 said:
TIL. Guess it's easier when you aren't kneecapped by the requirements of three branches one of which needs an STOVL variant....
Click to expand...
It's a matter of chicken and the egg in stealth aircraft design.
F-35, as well as most other american stealth aircraft, are built around existing munition sizes.
Russia designed entire weapon family to a selected bay size. Note that almost none pre-existing russian weapons fit inside the su-57.

Same is possible for F-35, and sich weapons of course exist(JSM, SOM). But they indeed are somewhat smaller due to F-35 bay size, and tied down by the weapon integration procedures.
 
From Key Aero:

A report by the National Audit Office (NAO), the UK’s independent public spending watchdog, has delivered strong criticism of the UK F-35 programme, citing cost overruns, delays, and shortfalls in operational capability.


In 2024 the UK F-35 fleet had a mission capable rate, defined as the ability of an aircraft to perform at least one of its seven possible required missions, approximately half of the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) target. It had a full mission capable rate, defined as the ability of an F-35 aircraft to perform all required missions, approximately one-third of the MoD’s target. Notably the MoD’s targets are themselves lower than global programme targets.


Maintenance delays, inadequate infrastructure and shortages of spares have seen flying hours reduced by 20%, compounded by unexpectantly high corrosion in the maritime environment. The MoD is heavily dependent on the performance of the Joint Program Office (JPO) in Washington DC for cost-effective delivery of aircraft, engines and provision of support, but is fully responsible for all other elements of capability, including providing pilots and other personnel, infrastructure, weapons, and logistics.


The NAO noted important capabilities have been delayed by the MoD into the next decade, most significantly the Spear 3 air-to-surface standoff weapon. Nor will the UK have a sovereign Aircraft Signature Assessment Facility to assure that aircraft retain their stealth characteristics until the 2030s, much later than originally planned. A critical shortage of engineers has exasperated RAF Marham’s lack of adequate facilities for both maintenance and operations. The report cites that between October 2024 and January 2025 no aircraft were available ‘to perform any mission’ due to maintenance. Shortages of cyber professionals, pilots and flying instructors partly reflect MoD-wide gaps, but the F-35 force is also seen by some RAF personnel as an unattractive posting because of long Carrier deployments.

UK F-35 launching from carrier
An F-35B gets the signal to take-off from the Flight Deck Officer aboard HMS Prince of Wales MOD Crown Copyright
Insufficient stocks of spares and munitions have further impacted on operational effectiveness, a situation worsened by global supply chain issues and a reliance on US partners. The Global Support Solution, run by the global programme, has not been able to deliver spare parts at the rate the UK and other partners require because the global spares pool has not grown as quickly as the global F-35 fleet.


The official MoD line remains that the UK will acquire 138 F-35s ‘over the course of the programme’. The MoD’s early £1.7bn commitment to the global programme helped bring industrial and other benefits, including 25% voting rights on design and development, and secured UK freedom of action as a ‘Tier 1 Partner’. That status has quietly disappeared from official communications but the contribution of UK companies to the programme remains significant, with £22bn of contracts secured by UK companies to date.


The programme’s public forecast of whole-life costs of £18.76bn assumes only 48 aircraft will be procured with an out of service date (OSD) of 2048. Following NAO prompting, the MoD forecast that the cost of 138 aircraft to an OSD of 2069 would be just under £57bn. This figure does not include non-equipment costs, such as personnel, fuel, and much infrastructure, leading the NAO to estimate a full whole-life cost of £71bn.


The report concludes with a call for urgent action with better forecasting, improved spares management and infrastructure upgrades. It states: In our view, the capability achieved for the estimated £11 billion spent to date is a disappointing return so far compared with MoD plans, even if other programme benefits have been significant.
Click to expand...
 
At least they did not say anything about canceling the order which was what I was fearing when I initially heard about the report and the MOD is sticking with the 138 F-35s.
 
Ozair said:
The video was available on the day of the crash here
Click to expand...
It needed to be shared again with a clever zinger for that sweet sweet rage bait.

At least they haven't been doing the same thing all week. Oh wait...
Mr.T said:
Lets screw over our allies ,let them buy , unfinished jets instead of us :eek: let Turkey buy some lemons;))
Click to expand...
Mr.T said:
Imagine barely scraping together funds to buy F35 only to get some half-developed jet for which they will offer you a super expensive refit of near new planes in a couple of years because you bought them before they finished basic development.
Click to expand...
 
EmoBirb said:
Su-57S carries the Kh-69 ALCM internally
Click to expand...
And the number of working 57s can be counted on one hand with fingers to spare. Still basically in its prototype phase and with how Russia is doing... Going to stay that way.

As is the F35 is doing decently for itself despite the requirements it was built under and its management.

Its a solid do all with a solid set of capabilities that out does what it replaces that can and has face combat returning victorious.

There is not many fighters that can say the same.

Its good, it works, it has it sets of issues like EVERY OTHER BUILT PLANE, and by no means a failure like some paint it to be.
 
Firefinder said:
Still basically in its prototype phase and with how Russia is doing...
Click to expand...

It's stuck in the LRIP phase due to a severe lack of funding.

Firefinder said:
Going to stay that way.
Click to expand...

That will only change if Russia can get an export customer to help with the funding issue, so far Russia has had no luck getting an export customer.
 

Program officials stated that they are accepting non-combat-capable TR-3 aircraft because having potentially over 100 aircraft parked at contractor facilities waiting for delivery of TR-3 combat-capable software was too risky, among other reasons.[24] Lockheed Martin continued production while storing aircraft in long-term parking as they awaited TR-3 software. As of May 2025, program officials stated that they had accepted 174 non-combat-capable TR-3 aircraft, which includes all aircraft that were in long-term parking due to TR-3 delays.
Click to expand...

174 F-35s have been delivered that are not combat-coded. Separately, we know that mission-capable rates hover above 50%, and FMC rates are even lower. And pilots are barely getting enough flying hours to maintain proficiency, partially because spare parts are few and far between.

It's outrageous.
 
Screenshot_20250904_135359_Chrome.jpg

Yikes.
Screenshot_20250904_135656_Chrome.jpg

www.cbo.gov

Availability, Use, and Operating and Support Costs of F-35 Fighter Aircraft

At a Glance In this report, the Congressional Budget Office analyzes the recent availability, use, and operating and support costs of stealthy F-35 fighter aircraft. Programwide operating and support costs exceeded $5 billion in 2023. The F-35 has three variants: the F-35A, operated by the Air...
www.cbo.gov www.cbo.gov
 
It is important to read the aligned suite of characters printed with the images. Usually, they are the ones that give sense to the exposed depictions.
As a reminder:

Availability Rates of F-35s​

CBO measures fleet availability rates by dividing the number of hours that aircraft are both mission capable and in the possession of operational squadrons by the total number of aircraft hours for the entire fleet. (A mission capable aircraft can perform at least one of its primary training or operational missions.) The measure that CBO uses typically produces lower availability rates than the measure used by DoD. That is because CBO’s measure has a larger denominator that includes aircraft in depot maintenance status, whereas DoD generally only reports the availability rates of aircraft in the possession of operational squadrons.
Click to expand...

And the, said so, terrible annual flying hours per airframe that will compromise pilot training...

Screenshot_20250904_093554.jpg

Screenshot_20250904_094907.jpg

The surge for the 35C is probably due to operations with carriers at sea for months in the last years (we can see that all variants show the same increase in the same period).

And to compare what's relevant (see F-22 curve as a reference) :

Screenshot_20250904_100602.jpg

It's a similar result for the Navy variant (graph not included in this post).

On overall, we can only say that the aircraft performs well, probably better than comparable programs around the world, despite the huge drain in data analytics resulting from the ill-chosen concurrency.
 
Last edited:
Firefinder said:
And the number of working 57s can be counted on one hand with fingers to spare. Still basically in its prototype phase and with how Russia is doing... Going to stay that way.
Click to expand...

You have over 30 fingers on one hand with fingers to spare? If I were you I wouldn't post online but seek out a doctor instead tbh.
 
NMaude said:
I do believe that figure includes ALL of the prototypes, pre-production units and LRIP aircraft.
Click to expand...
Wrong, the 10 Prototypes (9 if the one hit by Ukraine was actually beyond economic repair) are counted seperately. Otherwise we'd be talking of over 40 airframes by now which would be over half of the initial order completed with just S models and Prototypes (of which the earliest couldn't even be brought up to a standard comparable to the Su-57S). The +30 number of deliveries is always wholly associated with serial models.

Can a mod move these posts to the appropriate thread?
 
www.bloomberg.com

F-35 Continues to Over-Promise, Under-Deliver, GAO Says In New Review

A blistering new assessment of the F-35 stealth-fighter program said the Pentagon is rewarding Lockheed Martin Corp. with on-time payment bonuses even when it delivers planes as much as two months late, and with many of the delivered jets beset by flaws that could take years to fix.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
www.bloomberg.com

F-35 Continues to Over-Promise, Under-Deliver, GAO Says In New Review

A blistering new assessment of the F-35 stealth-fighter program said the Pentagon is rewarding Lockheed Martin Corp. with on-time payment bonuses even when it delivers planes as much as two months late, and with many of the delivered jets beset by flaws that could take years to fix.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
We have the GAO report already posted in the thread, so the primary source. D we really need to post every single subsequent news article on the same topic?
 
FighterJock said:
Five Years past the original target? What is going on with the F-35 block four upgrade?
Click to expand...

There are a few things going on including some new news and some rehashing of things already known. For example, the December 2023 program SAR recognized that the Block 4 incremental software capability development is scheduled to be completed by December 2030 (at the time this was contingent on the abbreviated plan being approved). The Engine Core Upgrades were recognized as a post 2030 capability (they sat on awarding contracts and were still trying to finalize / gather requirements) and now appear to have set a rough 2031 estimate for them. A delay is a delay, but they have not delayed by five years from the last expected timeline since most following block 4 knew it was at best a 2030 delivered capability..
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom