The USAF’s F-35A is supposed to. The F-35B STOVL is targeted for 7g capability, and the carrier-borne F-35C is targeted for 7.5g. No supercruise, no thrust vectoring, stealth declines to the sides and falls sharply at the rear.

Apples to apples comparison needs to compare that to a similarly equipped F-16, which would be 2 AMRAAM or AIM-9x missiles on the wingtips, in evaluating relative aerodynamic performance in dogfights. The F-35’s embedded sensors hope to make that an irrelevant question in short range fights, but are not proven against full spectrum countermeasures. Radar performance, and ability to both defeat enemy missile shots (you can’t outmaneuver them, but they might lose lock from their own seekers) will matter at medium ranges, and you’d have to evaluate both the F-35 and its opponents.

The comparisons aren’t as easy as some here would have you believe, but there are known facts to base them on. I do know that I am very, very skeptical of Lockheed Martin/ USAF studies and models. Those kinds of models have been very wrong before, and the incentives to be less than 100% honest are so large that they can be measured on the Richter scale.

Here is the quote from the F-35 section.

“Engine Unit Cost increase in FY10 reflects funding for F-136 Congressional Adds. FY11-15 program does not include funding for F-136 engine.”

Whats the problem with this? The problem is that the F-22 came first, setting the bench mark for air supremacy aircraft in the world to this date. And that bench mark stands, to be equaled by and surpassed if possible by other nations. We can’t take ten years of Raptor development and production, and now say to the rest of the world, well we really didn’t need it, stop production, and expect the that bench mark will go away. This flawed premise is the driver of the JSF program today, and independent of what Gates and the others think, the existence of the F-22 will continue to drive the fighter world long after production is stopped. How do we know that? From looking back through 50 years of prior fighter evolution and development leading to this point.

The PAK-FA is a natural product of the continuing fighter race that was started by the Raptor, and our leadership should have understood that this would happen. Some of the other comments about the lack of a Chinese stealth fighter program are completely unsubstantiated by the truth. There is not one, but two stealth fighter programs going on in China, one for a single engine fighter like the F-35, and the other for a two engined air supremacy fighter like the F-22.

The arrival of the PAK-FA is the beginning of a new 5th generation fighter race, that will be pushed by the competition for supremacy between China and India. The F-35 is already surpassed by many of the existing 4.5 generation fighters in performance, and will be dominated by the PAK-FA and the Chinese equivalents to come.

The F-35 needs to be the 2nd tier of our fighter strength, with the Raptor being produced to at least the 300 aircraft. We need to return to proactive planning to fight all different types of wars, not just the insurgent conflicts we are involved in now. Either we start making sensible choices regarding air power, or the US and or allies will be relegated to watching from the bleachers while the fighter world leaves us behind.

And BTW, Erin, the first production models go to the trainer squadrons, not the fleet or real combat units. That usually occurs in about the third production order. The point being that any engine problems can be fixed before they get to the fleet and combat units.

But what is troublesome is the recurring declaration that we don’t need the F-35, instead buying more of the same. That would be true if the threat never changed. It may not be an air superiority fighter in the Air Force white scarf mode, but as a stealth type aircraft it can sneek up on almost anyone and shoot them out of the sky before they realize they’ve been targeted. Otherwise, we do need to replace aging combat aircraft on a regular basis.

All this speculation on the F-35 is fine but nobody has answered the question why do we need the F-35, what will it do that we are not already doing?

Many if not most of you who post here are getting checks from the defense industry, I would like to see you names and employers identified here so that we all know who is paying who. With out that information what ever you have to say represents nothing.

I have nothing against industry giving their side of the issue it’s call debate and is very healthy but it should, no must be, done in a transparent way with accountability to be of any value to the issue.

Like poster Eric said he works for P&W, and he gives a reasonable well though out argument for their engine, that lacking any rebuttal by the builder of the alternate engine is rather persuasive. Why can’t other manufactures be so straight forward.

Speculation about both Russian and Chinese plans is fine and dandy but the truth is other then in press releases neither country is working on a 5th. Generation fighter.

The recent article out of Claremont Institute on the Chinese 5th. Generation Fighter being operational by 2018–2020 was pure fiction. and comes from an AFP story. The document that the Claremont columnist should have got his information from speculated on or a date sometime around 2025.

The most advanced fighter the Chinese has the J-12xxs, of which one was produced in 2008 was flown to Hainan Island, put in a hanger and not seen since. Note the J-12 is also the number China gave to another project in the 1980’s that, well didn’t fly.

The recent PLAAF release on the issue of the 5th. Generation fighter neglects to mention the J-12xxs at all, but did mention numbers J-12xx, J-13xx and J-14xx. What does this mean, so far nothing. The document mentions that China was working on developing a vectored engine, so far all of the jet engines in Chinese built “J” series F/A aircraft have been from Russia, but hey things can change. China also said the were working on stealth technology and advanced sensor based systems. again where is it?

The Russians efforts we have discussed here several times before so I won’t be redundant. Any 5th. Generation Russian aircraft will be made in India.

In short the current Hot Rod of the PLAAF hasn’t flown since October, a total of 120 will be built for the PLAAF. The Russian Federated Security Forces have said they were good for 48 of any Su-35 that may be built, their bread and butter aircraft are 194 Mig-29’s and 168 Mig-31’s.

Note of the Russian/Indian Su-35, India said the will take 160 but that still come up far short of a production run of 500 Su-35’s that India, who will build the aircraft says they need to break even. New customers have to be found but I doubt that Indian sales people will be knocking on doors in Beijing peddling the Su-35.

Like the F-22 the F-35 is simply something that the US doesn’t need. The dollars would be better spent on platforms and weapons systems that we can get now that will help slow down and hopefully stop the economic hemorrhage happening in Afghanistan.

The issues here are profits and jobs, which when national defense is concerned should not be issues. When Americans are being killed on foreign battlefields thinking about future needs and corporate profits is disgusting.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

The fact that the F135 engine is a derivative of the F119 engine powering the F-22 is a significant contributor to why the F135 is performing exceptionally well in flight test. It has achieved more than 13,000 test hours and the first production F135 has been delivered. The F119 is the most successful fighter engine ever fielded with an unmated safety record that offers a significant single engine safety advantage. This compared to the unproven alternate engine which is several years behind the F135 in development, has logged fewer than 100 hours of SDD testing and has yet to power a plane in flight.

Thanks,
Erin

You mentioned that the F135… “has technical issues that have not been surfaced yet.” Building the world’s most powerful, fifth generation fighter engine is a tall order. And indeed, there are challenges discovered along the way as both Pratt & Whitney and GE have experienced. In other words, having two engines also means having challenges with both. The alternate engine too has technical issues that have not yet surfaced. It’s the nature of building military propulsion systems that they are constantly improving when new and better materials, designs, manufacturing processes and technologies are discovered. Which leads me to your comments on the F135 Component Improvement Program. Why would we redesign the core of an engine that is performing exceptionally well and is built on a proven, mature platform?
Your statement is simply untrue. We are not just building engines.…we are delivering production engines. Will there be changes and improvements to subsequent F135 engines due to improvements.…absolutely! That’s true of every military propulsion program. The JSF is a 30 year program. If I was the customer, I would be pretty disappointed if the engines delivered 20 years from now were the same as the ones delivered in 2010.

Vsshooter: The F-25 is just the attack portion of the hi/lo mix of air superiority fighters and attack aircraft. I agree we need more F-22’s, but their early termination was driven by a magnified cost explosion of their own doing. And for which two parties are at fault — the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin. As to the F-35, we need it in bulk since once the skies are clear, ground attack is the main military mission.