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

EmoBirb said:
There is no European alternative to the F-35.
Click to expand...
If SCAF manages to get pushed quickly, it could conceivably replace F-35s.

Newer stealth, I'm assuming twice the ground-attack capacity, and as a side result carrying legendary amounts of AMRAAM-sized weapons. You can pack 4x AMRAAMs into a 25" square box, so you could be looking at something packing 18 or 20 BVRAAMs internally. Or, if the quad launcher is too complex, you're still carrying 10-12 BVRAAMs internally. And that's without going to HalfRAAM weapons.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If SCAF manages to get pushed quickly, it could conceivably replace F-35s.
Click to expand...
Nothing operationnal before 2035 AT BEST even in a hurry mode (as it takes 10 years to fine tune a brand new radar and a brand new engine). But it will takes more time because 6th gen seems a difficult goal, and a weapons made in collaboration always takes more time than studied by a sole country. Expect now 2040, or 2045.
 
BonPlan2 said:
Only if stealth is alfa and omega for you.

Strangely I see US Navy purchasing more and more Arleight Burke destroyers, not specially stealthy....
Click to expand...
The combination of relatively low purchase cost, potent ECM suite and stealth on top of being able to use a vast array of US munitions and being single engine is what makes the F-35 the alpha and omega on the export market.

Strangely you're comparing warships to aircraft. But if we want to keep with strange comparisons, the USN is desperate to get more and more Virginias and get the Columbias into service, the absolute pinnacle of naval stealth.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If SCAF manages to get pushed quickly, it could conceivably replace F-35s.
Click to expand...

FCAS isn't an alternative to the F-35, it aims to offer something entirely different and is still decades away, if it doesn't get (hopefully) canned. For example the Luftwaffe plans to operate the F-35 and FCAS NGF simultaneously, with the F-35 being a dedicated strike fighter to replace the Tornado. While the Eurofighter will be replaced by the NGF and mostly remain in the fleet in it's electronic warfare variant.
 
mokahete said:
For all major export customers of f35 they don't have another *stealth* fighter option to consider.
Japan, korea, Europe

There's only Russians and chinese offering.
Click to expand...
Korea is planning to turn their KF-21 into a proper stealth aircraft, the Turks bought F-35s (which were withheld from them) and developed the indigenous KAAN regardless of that purchase.

The F-35 has many advantages, especially when you want a dedicated strike fighter.
 
EmoBirb said:
The combination of relatively low purchase cost, potent ECM suite and stealth on top of being able to use a vast array of US munitions and being single engine is what makes the F-35 the alpha and omega on the export market.

Strangely you're comparing warships to aircraft. But if we want to keep with strange comparisons, the USN is desperate to get more and more Virginias and get the Columbias into service, the absolute pinnacle of naval stealth.
Click to expand...
Low purchase cost ? Ask Switzerland....
And what about the huge cost per hour as the low availability?

USN is truggling to have more Virginia (a little prayer for Australia... :p ), but they continue to order Arleigh Burke destroyer. Not oblige to.
 
EmoBirb said:
Korea is planning to turn their KF-21 into a proper stealth aircraft, the Turks bought F-35s (which were withheld from them) and developed the indigenous KAAN regardless of that purchase.
Click to expand...
Both are years to a decade away from development completion.
Then LSP, then IOC then FOC.

So not really a comparision.
EmoBirb said:
The F-35 has many advantages, especially when you want a dedicated strike fighter.
Click to expand...
Yeah except kinematic performance.
J35's design for example is a better "platform" than the current design of f35.
 
EmoBirb said:
There is no European alternative to the F-35.
Click to expand...
There are 3 fighter jets currently in production in Western Europe. All more than modern enough to face what the main potential enemy, Russia, is fielding nowadays or even 15 years from now.
Yet you, and west europeans countries are falling for the "5th Gen" Uber fighter because their peoples in charge are incompetents in defense stuff and persuade themselves they need the "latest iPhone" on case of war, but when in reality, they mainly purchase F-35s either because they are completely tied to the US in terms of defence via NATO and convince themselves that they can keep the status quo and ‘benefit’ from this by purchasing US equipment.
Or, in the case of Switzerland, because their economy relies heavily on exports to the US and on banking transactions with the US.

So these west europeans countries take the bet of spending their money in the US on the latest "iFighter", hoping that would help keep the current US admin committed to NATO, when they could spend that money supporting and funding their own defense industry for future products by buying their own products currently in production (!) .

But yeah... reality hurts, so "there is no alternative to the F-35."
 
galgot said:
There are 3 fighter jets currently in production in Western Europe. All more than modern enough to face what the main potential enemy, Russia, is fielding nowadays or even 15 years from now.
Click to expand...
According to the doctrine, they need to overwhelm to achieve air superiority.
And its not just european fighter jets vs russian fighter jets, its also involves air defense networks, it also involves for example airfield destruction,
its multidomain warfare.
Europe needs a fighter jet that can overwhelm combined russian might and quickly destroy significant high value military assets for then second line of european assets to take over.
None of the 3 european produced fighters are capable of this.
With russian non stealth fighter jets are also catching up lacking areas and further surpassing their dominant areas, like standoff strike capability of russian jets is miles ahead of European ones.
 
galgot said:
There are 3 fighter jets currently in production in Western Europe. All more than modern enough to face what the main potential enemy, Russia, is fielding nowadays or even 15 years from now.
Yet you, and west europeans countries are falling for the "5th Gen" Uber fighter because their peoples in charge are incompetents in defense stuff and persuade themselves they need the "latest iPhone" on case of war, but when in reality, they mainly purchase F-35s either because they are completely tied to the US in terms of defence via NATO and convince themselves that they can keep the status quo and ‘benefit’ from this by purchasing US equipment.
Or, in the case of Switzerland, because their economy relies heavily on exports to the US and on banking transactions with the US.

So these west europeans countries take the bet of spending their money in the US on the latest "iFighter", hoping that would help keep the current US admin committed to NATO, when they could spend that money supporting and funding their own defense industry for future products by buying their own products currently in production (!) .

But yeah... reality hurts, so "there is no alternative to the F-35."
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see F-35 in Switzerland....
Accident rate (because so many mountains ans single engine), availability, costs for support.....
 
mokahete said:
According to the doctrine, they need to overwhelm to achieve air superiority.
And its not just european fighter jets vs russian fighter jets, its also involves air defense networks, it also involves for example airfield destruction,
its multidomain warfare.
Europe needs a fighter jet that can overwhelm combined russian might and quickly destroy significant high value military assets for then second line of european assets to take over.
None of the 3 european produced fighters are capable of this.
Click to expand...
Sure... That's why we see Ukrainian slow drones regularly hitting targets in Russia, including airfields or air defenses... sight...
"Russian might"... Yeah, the one that took Ukraine in 3 days (a country WITHOUT F-35s, OMG) . Please.

mokahete said:
With russian non stealth fighter jets are also catching up lacking areas and further surpassing their dominant areas, like standoff strike capability of russian jets is miles ahead of European ones.
Click to expand...
There were no recent confrontations between the two to give any credence to that affirmation. The Uber Su-57 isn't even used in the current war. Their MiG-31s and Su-35s carried long range AA missiles are a threat to Ukrainian fighters because Ukrainians don't have comparable AA weapons. In fact sending Rafales or Typhoon armed with Meteors would solve that, but Europeans 1 ) don't have the balls to do that, 2 ) haven't bought enough of these for themselves so are scared of being short of good fighters/long range missiles if shit hits the fan.

In fact Russian aerospace industry is kilometers backward of West European one. They have no capability to make their own advanced enough avionic components which are the key things to be in the race. All the small progresses made before the war was by buying/importing western/Chineses components and adapting it to soviet era stuff. With the sanctions now they can only rely on what the Chineses agree to give them, what they can smuggle from the west, and hope to play enough the current US admin for it to ease the sanctions.
 
Last edited:
galgot said:
All more than modern enough to face what the main potential enemy, Russia, is fielding nowadays or even 15 years from now.
Click to expand...

I'll just address the whole thing with a single point, one of these European offerings wasn't even able to stand against a Chinese, single engine export fighter and it's half Pakistani cousin. If you believe that a Su-57S, MiG-31BM or Su-35S with R-37Ms and R-77Ms wouldn't maul the Rafale, Gripen and Eurofighter, I can't help you either.

It amused me however how the French brigade once again is out in full force (in the F-35 thread lol) to defend the honor of Dassaults offering.

But all of this was morphing into off topic bickering.

Back to the topic:

There is no F-35 equivalent outside of Russia and China and there certainly isn't one in western or central Europe. The F-35 offers various significant advantages over the Eurocanards and unlike the Rafale for example, has a flawless combat deployment history despite having been deployed by various users against various threats. If a country needs these decisive advantages offered by the F-35 or not is a different question, but trying to argue that last generation jets, one with an underpowered engine, the other having a teeny tiny radar and recently blemished combat record, while the third is a very pricey aircraft to buy and maintain, especially when you want the newest radar, IRST and what not, are somehow comparable to the F-35 is disingenuous. The F-35 has penetrated restricted air space in several countries in the middle east and who knows where else in secret. It has been leveraged to conduct precision strikes while various kinds of air defense systems were active, non were shot down by GBAD or other aircraft in it's entire service history. The Eurofighter has no impressive service history to show for, same applies for the Gripen if we ignore the Thai incursions against a Cambodia without an air force and very limited surface-to-air capabilities. The Rafale has been used the most out of these and the first time it was used offensively by a large, high profile export customer, one or perhaps even multiple jets of the type were lost against Pakistani forces.

So how can you, in the face of this, claim that any of the Eurocanards is a viable alternative to the F-35? They are not a viable alternative because they don't come close to offering what the F-35 can deliver while the Eurofighter and Rafale operate in a comparable price bracket. They're only viable if you don't want to buy US products for political reasons, if you are prohibited from buying the F-35 or if you're not interested because you don't require such a fairly expensive (to maintain) high performance aircraft. But with regards to the last point, if that's the case the Rafale and Eurofighter aren't viable either because they're very expensive to purchase and operate and still very capable last generation aircraft. So that niche belongs to F-16s, Gripen Cs, J-10CEs and other cheaper, medium weight, single engine designs.

You also seem to insinuate that I somehow have a vested interest in pushing the F-35, but being from Germany (one of the major Eurofighter partners and users) I have no bias towards the F-35. It's just an infinitely better offer than anything in Europe for the price. It's that simple. As you said, reality hurts.
 
Last edited:
red admiral said:
How is it better?

Unless number of engines is your metric ;)
Click to expand...
From the available info.

Supercruise capable.
More maneuverable.

shape wise its Much Cleaner with very less surface protrusions, clean like f22.
Unlike f35 which has so much stuffed in its compact size( which is impressive in its own away, so much was able to be put in the airframe of this size, given according to public knowledge f35a has mtow of 30tons).
 

Attachments

  • images (21).jpeg
    images (21).jpeg
    9 KB · Views: 37
  • images (22).jpeg
    images (22).jpeg
    18.3 KB · Views: 35
BonPlan2 said:
Nothing operationnal before 2035 AT BEST even in a hurry mode (as it takes 10 years to fine tune a brand new radar and a brand new engine). But it will takes more time because 6th gen seems a difficult goal, and a weapons made in collaboration always takes more time than studied by a sole country. Expect now 2040, or 2045.
Click to expand...
Trappier said in 2022 that he doesnt see SCAF entering service before... 2050.
 
galgot said:
There are 3 fighter jets currently in production in Western Europe. All more than modern enough to face what the main potential enemy, Russia, is fielding nowadays or even 15 years from now.
Yet you, and west europeans countries are falling for the "5th Gen" Uber fighter because their peoples in charge are incompetents in defense stuff and persuade themselves they need the "latest iPhone" on case of war, but when in reality, they mainly purchase F-35s either because they are completely tied to the US in terms of defence via NATO and convince themselves that they can keep the status quo and ‘benefit’ from this by purchasing US equipment.
Or, in the case of Switzerland, because their economy relies heavily on exports to the US and on banking transactions with the US.

So these west europeans countries take the bet of spending their money in the US on the latest "iFighter", hoping that would help keep the current US admin committed to NATO, when they could spend that money supporting and funding their own defense industry for future products by buying their own products currently in production (!) .

But yeah... reality hurts, so "there is no alternative to the F-35."
Click to expand...
Yeah i would really like to see non-stealthy Rafales with no ARMs trying to take out Russia's IADS... :rolleyes: I think it would not end well.
 
ST21 said:
Yeah i would really like to see non-stealthy Rafales with no ARMs trying to take out Russia's IADS... :rolleyes: I think it would not end well.
Click to expand...
there are ARM capacity, even not dedicated.
A friend of mine saw a french air force training made in front of the then defence ministry, JY Le Drian, in which they knock a S400 (protected by medium and short range others batteries) with SCALP and Hammers.
 
Last edited:
BonPlan2 said:
USN is truggling to have more Virginia (a little prayer for Australia... :p ), but they continue to order Arleigh Burke destroyer. Not oblige to.
Click to expand...
You sure about that? because on this side of the pond the fact that we only have Burkes available to produce at a snail's pace of 1.5 ships a year and DDG(X) doesnt even exist in the plastic model kit world let alone anywhere close to being built.

So no - we are absolutely obliged to keep buying Burkes because our idiot politicians of the left and right decided to spend the last 20 years wandering the desert with Moses and feeding the 5000 with fat welfare checks instead of actually building anything useful for a near peer fight. If we had a choice, we'd be buying stealthier destroyers too.
 
BonPlan2 said:
there are ARM capacity, even not dedicated.
A friend of mine saw a french air force training made in front of the then defence ministry, JY Le Drian, in which they knock a S400 (protected by medium and short range others batteries) with SCALP and Hammers.
Click to expand...
AASM Hammer is a PGM with limited DEAD capabilities and not a ARM... (wow four acronyms in a single sentence, must be a personal record :) )

As for the "dog and pony show" for the minister, this is hardly a proof than Rafales can perform the SEAD mission effectively against a modern IADS. Lack of true SEAD capabilities has been identified as one of the Rafale's deficiencies for years. The IFRI report released earlier this year (which, unsurprisingly, was quickly forgotten by French posters) was highlighting this. And if France was so confident about its current SEAD capabilities, it would not have launched the development of a ARM namely the AASF for the Rafale F5. When the AASF enter service maybe in 2035 then the French AF will finally have true SEAD/DEAD capabilities but until then it would have to rely on allied air forces for that mission especially the ones equipped with *gasp* F-35s.
 
galgot said:
"No alternative to" and "most advanced multirole fighter, why not" doesn't mean the same thing...
Click to expand...

Define 'no alternative?' One side is arguing that there is no alternative to the F-35 if one wants to penetrate adversarial A2AD. The other is arguing that the F-35 enterprise is an unwise investment for the health of Euro-MIC. You are both correct.

Is there an alternative to penetrate A2AD? No. Would it be wiser to invest domestically? Yup.

[This is entirely rhetorical. I shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.]
 
While these talks of IADS and SEAD are very nice, and as you like to fantasize on a Rafale shot down, could you remind me what SAM shot it down during these Indian strikes on the IADS protected Pakistani airspace ?
Oh right... it was a PL-15E AAM, linked to a Saab Erieye, a missile and capability the Indians had no idea the Pakistanis had.
Too bad Rafale has no SEAD capability, that would have saved it...:rolleyes:

Oh btw... I remember F-35s fanboys were not impressed when Rafale made first strikes in Lybia, or in Syria, or very long flights strikes in Mali. Typically dismissing that as "easy attacks on second tier air defenses systems", or just "insignificant Toyota bombing"...
Well, now them pointing strikes on Iran and Syria by F-35s as an example of how it's the panacea of fighter jets doesn't impress me either, sorry. One is a country under 20 + years of embargo, without any meaningful Air Force, bombed by two of the most powerful air forces in the world not using only F-35s for it btw, and the other is a pile of ruins.
Talk about sober analysis of capabilities.
 
Last edited:
BonPlan2 said:
Low purchase cost ? Ask Switzerland....
And what about the huge cost per hour as the low availability?

USN is truggling to have more Virginia (a little prayer for Australia... :p ), but they continue to order Arleigh Burke destroyer. Not oblige to.
Click to expand...

(Almost) daily reminder that the F-35 was the cheapest bidder.
But cost increase you say... another reminder that inflation also happened in Europe.

BonPlan2 said:
It will be interesting to see F-35 in Switzerland....
Accident rate (because so many mountains ans single engine), availability, costs for support.....
Click to expand...

Seriously? You want to push a twin engine jet for safety reasons? Funny, when it was time to replace the single engined French Mirage IIIS, the French thought the single engined French Mirage 2000 was the perfect choice. What changed? :p
 
EmoBirb said:
FCAS isn't an alternative to the F-35, it aims to offer something entirely different and is still decades away, if it doesn't get (hopefully) canned. For example the Luftwaffe plans to operate the F-35 and FCAS NGF simultaneously, with the F-35 being a dedicated strike fighter to replace the Tornado. While the Eurofighter will be replaced by the NGF and mostly remain in the fleet in it's electronic warfare variant.
Click to expand...
SCAF is primarily a striker with some air-to-air capability, I'm guessing primarily BVR.

I wouldn't be surprised if SCAF and FAXX end up looking similar in their specifications. Similar size, weapons capacity, etc.
 
mokahete said:
From the available info.

Supercruise capable.
More maneuverable.
Click to expand...
F-15 supercruise capable ? Not according to own LM definition (able to cruise > mach 1.4 or 1.5 without reheat).
In fact F-35 can supercruise to mach 1.15 or 1.2, but in a slight descent !

More maneuvrable : once again according to LM when F-22 was released, 5th gen ask the jet to ba as agile as a F-16. It is not the case (several exercices made between F-35 and a dual seat with external tanks F16 bk30 saw the victory of F-16).
 
www.flightglobal.com

Contaminated hydraulic fluid caused Alaska F-35A crash

A US Air Force investigation has determined that water-contaminated hydraulic fluid froze in extreme cold conditions, causing an F-35A to become uncontrollable before crashing in Alaska.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

TLDR: F-35 took off from Eielson AFB, Alaska, but the nosewheel jammed part way through the retract cycle, at 17 degrees off the straight and narrow. After 50 minutes of pootling around while base engineering rang Lockheed Martin for help, they decided to try bouncing it loose with a touch and go. On the second try, the main gears both froze in the part compressed position, and the aircraft decided that meant weight-on-wheels was true, and switched to on-ground flight laws, leaving it unflyable, and the pilot ejected.

The cause was water contamination of the hydraulic fluid, leading to the fluid literally freezing. And not just a little water contamination, the barrel it came from was one third water.

I've coded the weight-on-wheels decision in the past, there's lots of protection against a false value, but this would do it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom