What's new

The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed - Forbes

dbc

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Feb 1, 2009
4,235
11
4,536
Country
United States
Location
United States
F-35 hater or not, what Dav is saying implies that Pakistan is right on JF-17 program, it's cost and where it stands on the technology curve. Some people made fun of the JF-17 program for it being a low-end fighter and not being equal to Rafale or Block-72 etc, but what our program has actually achieved is what the USA was hoping to achieve with their F-35 program... i.e. to replace their ageing fleet with a new work-horse that is inducted in larger numbers and is flown "every day to work". Guess what! We have not just met that requirement, but now with satisfaction we are making it a medium to high-end fither in our inventory.

For Pakistan, JF-17 is a tick ✓ and a tick ✓.
At best the JF 17 can protect Pakistani airspace and interdict while with in range of PAF electronic support assets - Erieye and Iqbal. If the PAF had the F-35 or equivalent quarterbacking the JF-17, the JF-17 will be able to engage and destroy any enemy air or ground asset deep inside India without the need for support from slow lumbering ESMs such as the Erinye or Dassault Falcon.

Plus with Pakistan's lack of strategic depth and with India's acquisition of long range meteor, ARM and SAM it is unlikely the Erieye and Falcon can go about its business unmolested even in Pakistani airspace.

So to conclude Pakistan is lucky it has an incompetent India next door. If Israel was your neighbor instead of India, the JF 17 would be hopeless ineffective.
 

GumNaam

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 23, 2016
9,870
-2
12,807
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
You are 'assuming' that Syrian A2/AD assets are poorly maintained and incompetent.

The missile in question functioned very well while it struck a Russian aircraft over Syrian airspace: https://www.defenseworld.net/news/23356/Russian_IL_20_Aircraft_Shot_Down_by_Syrian_S_200_Missile

But same class of missile malfunctioned while engaging F-35?

The F-35 have sufficient sensor fidelity and complexity to detect and track movement of virtually any missile in real-time from vast distance(s), and keeps the pilot informed in visual format. A missile that is coming towards the jet will be certainly noticed, and the pilot will have the option to use AIM-120D AMRAAM to intercept the incoming missile and/or employ other methods to counter it.

The videos I shared with you, what did you learn from them? You found them to be 'subjective' in fact. Good going, bro. I really hope actual soldiers do not think like you.

Now take a good look at the sheer size of the S-200 missile.



That thing can kill a jet fighter irrespective of the warhead used.

Now shall WE talk about an Israeli mission over Damascus in which 'modern' A2/AD arrangements failed and one of the most impressive LF radar systems were knocked out among others?
actually that further strengthens my point...not just the missile, but their entire network or radars are piss poorly maintained to where it couldn't even identify a friend from a foe. and there is lousy training of the Syrian military personnell.
 

GumNaam

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 23, 2016
9,870
-2
12,807
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
At best the JF 17 can protect Pakistani airspace and interdict while with in range of PAF electronic support assets - Erieye and Iqbal. If the PAF had the F-35 or equivalent quarterbacking the JF-17, the JF-17 will be able to engage and destroy any enemy air or ground asset deep inside India without the need for support from slow lumbering ESMs such as the Erinye or Dassault Falcon.

Plus with Pakistan's lack of strategic depth and with India's acquisition of long range meteor, ARM and SAM it is unlikely the Erieye and Falcon can go about its business unmolested even in Pakistani airspace.

So to conclude Pakistan is lucky it has an incompetent India next door. If Israel was your neighbor instead of India, the JF 17 would be hopeless ineffective.
rest assured, india will neither out gun nor out range us. they may have the meteor, we have the PL15 that has greater range. Plus, with cruise missiles and stand off long range bombs, hitting indian assets deep inside indian territory anywhere from 60 to 800 miles is a nonissue for us...india maybe incompetent, but our military trains as if their enemy is as well trained as the u.s. forces so even if isrealis were our neighbors, they would be very unpleasantly surprised. don't forget, india's dirty little shame is that Pakistan was able to bomb them in 6 different locations which were under the cover of the isreali phalcon awacs and isreali spyder sams...they couldn't get a single shot off except one that ended up killing their own helicopter. indians maybe incompetent, but they aren't that incompetent. give credit where its due and except it, PAF was successful in jamming all the isreali made sensors.
 

dbc

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Feb 1, 2009
4,235
11
4,536
Country
United States
Location
United States
rest assured, india will neither out gun nor out range us. they may have the meteor, we have the PL15 that has greater range. Plus, with cruise missiles and stand off long range bombs, hitting indian assets deep inside indian territory anywhere from 60 to 800 miles is a nonissue for us...india maybe incompetent, but our military trains as if their enemy is as well trained as the u.s. forces so even if isrealis were our neighbors, they would be very unpleasantly surprised. don't forget, india's dirty little shame is that Pakistan was able to bomb them in 6 different locations which were under the cover of the isreali phalcon awacs and isreali spyder sams...they couldn't get a single shot off except one that ended up killing their own helicopter. indians maybe incompetent, but they aren't that incompetent. give credit where its due and except it, PAF was successful in jamming all the isreali made sensors.
Let's be practical please , which platform has a better chance of evading a long range BVR missiles?
The Erieye or the Rafale, the answer is fairly obvious. The rest of your post is laughably out of touch with reality, PAF vs Israeli Air Force is a not even a contest.
 

GumNaam

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 23, 2016
9,870
-2
12,807
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Let's be practical please , which platform has a better chance of evading a long range BVR missiles?
The Erieye or the Rafale, the answer is fairly obvious. The rest of your post is laughably out of touch with reality, PAF vs Israeli Air Force is a not even a contest.
you can believe what you will based on your national pro isreali narrative bias but it doesn't change the reality that the same can be said about the isreali phalxon against the PL15 where the PL15 has a much longer range that the meteor. but your bias stops you from seeing that. and frankly, your claim is laughable since up till now, isreali air force has not been able to shoot down a single PAF pilot in spite of our pilots flying the poorly maintained Arab aircrafts while they have shot down multiple isreali aircrafts. Also, let's not forget, the isreali made phalcons & ground radars of the indians were jammed on Feb 27th in spite of being in the air. don't mind me disregarding your point of view on account of regularly seeing americans who are convinced that even the usaf & us navy pilots don't stand a chance against the isrealis. gotta give em credit, they have thoroughly subdued the mind of the average american.
 
Last edited:

dbc

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Feb 1, 2009
4,235
11
4,536
Country
United States
Location
United States
you can believe what you will based on your national pro isreali narrative bias but it doesn't change the reality that the same can be said about the isreali phalxon against the PL15 where the PL15 has a much longer range that the meteor. but your bias stops you from seeing that. and frankly, your claim is laughable since up till now, isreali air force has not been able to shoot down a single PAF pilot in spite of our pilots flying the poorly maintained Arab aircrafts while they have shot down multiple isreali aircrafts. Also, let's not forget, the isreali made phalcons & ground radars of the indians were jammed on Feb 27th in spite of being in the air. don't mind me disregarding your point of view on account of regularly seeing americans who are convinced that even the usaf & us navy pilots don't stand a chance against the isrealis. gotta give em credit, they have thoroughly subdued the mind of the average american.
oh boy! Once again, you don't seem to realize the PAF Erieye does not have much airspace to retreat into to avoid long-range shots. Unless you believe the Erieye can retreat into Iran and Afghanistan to evade Indian BVR or ARM shots? India, on the other hand, has territorial depth. Do the math genius, a missile flying at MACH 5 at 20,000 ft gives the IAF plenty of reaction time. Enough time, to disengage and fly deeper into Indian territory. But where does the PAF Erieye go?

The world has moved on since the Arab-Israel war. Israel has left Pakistan in the dust in every metric worth measuring. Be it economy, industry, scientific accomplishments and military industry. You seem hopelessly out of touch with reality.
 

GumNaam

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 23, 2016
9,870
-2
12,807
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
oh boy! Once again, you don't seem to realize the PAF Erieye does not have much airspace to retreat into to avoid long-range shots. Unless you believe the Erieye can retreat into Iran and Afghanistan to evade Indian BVR or ARM shots? India, on the other hand, has territorial depth. Do the math genius, a missile flying at MACH 5 at 20,000 ft gives the IAF plenty of reaction time. Enough time, to disengage and fly deeper into Indian territory. But where does the PAF Erieye go?

The world has moved on since the Arab-Israel war. Israel has left Pakistan in the dust in every metric worth measuring. Be it economy, industry, scientific accomplishments and military industry. You seem hopelessly out of touch with reality.
I am obviously talking to an amateur who isn't aware of how 1. AWACS with EW capabilities work and secondly, has this misconceived notion that the rafale and the isreali made phalcons some how have unlimited radar range. there rafales and phalcons will have to fly well 300 kilometers away from the border if they want to remain safe from the PL15s. Now I'm not gonna waste time explaining how it all works so you should do your homework before making ridiculous claims. I'll drop some hints for you to research on:
Screen Shot 2021-02-26 at 4.12.54 PM.png
Screen Shot 2021-02-26 at 4.14.35 PM.png
Screen Shot 2021-02-26 at 4.14.11 PM.png

And I haven't even begun to talk about capabilities of the ZDK-03 yet...

just do the math. I know, I know, math is not the american public school system's strong point but still, give it a try, don't worry, it won't hurt, maybe a lil' headache tops, but that's it, promise. ;)

and suffice it to say, if the indians couldn't shoot down lungering, unmaneuverable mirages carrying heavy stand off weapons with either the french super 530s nor the russian r77s with their mirage2000s and su30s. they are more than welcome to try out the meteor any time, any day, any night, any weather. 😎

as for isreal...don't gimme that load horse crap about "isreal leaving Pakistan in the dust"...isreal literally lives on the annual aid of $4 billion per year and that's just from the u.s.
Screen Shot 2021-02-26 at 4.24.16 PM.png

not to mention, the nearly free technical & higher level educational assistance they receive right outta the box. they also receive free money in the billions from various european countries including the richest european country, germany, recall that "repatriation agreement" where germany is paying damages to this day in the billions per year. all this cash while isreal has a population of less than 10 million, heck, a small city in Pakistan has a larger population. of course it would appear that they are economically and technologically well off, I mean...duh, not rocket science.

And yet, here we are, Pakistan, having surviving multiple sanctions and embargos from the u.s. with little to no money given that actually didn't get gobbled up by politicians and yet, we here, we are strong, we are growing, we are nuclear and we increasingly becoming assertive even though the u.s. tried so hard to prevent it that the pompeo and his predecessors pooped themselves in their underwear/panties. recall back in 2012, when the u.s. channels like fox news were up in arms about having one of their "shock n awe" adventures against Pakistan to forcefully secure the supply route to afghanistan after Pakistan suspended all assistance to the u.s. following the salala incident...how did that work our for ya? who ended up issuing an official apology? why do you think that happened in spite of multiple u.s. and nato carrier fleets being stationed right outside in the arabian sea? may wanna do some homework on that as well. your get a very unpleasant surprise that the pentagon realized that they just won't be able to win. lemme know how your homework turns out. :enjoy:
 

dbc

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Feb 1, 2009
4,235
11
4,536
Country
United States
Location
United States
I am obviously talking to an amateur who isn't aware of how 1. AWACS with EW capabilities work and secondly, has this misconceived notion that the rafale and the isreali made phalcons some how have unlimited radar range. there rafales and phalcons will have to fly well 300 kilometers away from the border if they want to remain safe from the PL15s. Now I'm not gonna waste time explaining how it all works so you should do your homework before making ridiculous claims. I'll drop some hints for you to research on:
View attachment 720514 View attachment 720515 View attachment 720516
And I haven't even begun to talk about capabilities of the ZDK-03 yet...

just do the math. I know, I know, math is not the american public school system's strong point but still, give it a try, don't worry, it won't hurt, maybe a lil' headache tops, but that's it, promise. ;)

and suffice it to say, if the indians couldn't shoot down lungering, unmaneuverable mirages carrying heavy stand off weapons with either the french super 530s nor the russian r77s with their mirage2000s and su30s. they are more than welcome to try out the meteor any time, any day, any night, any weather. 😎

as for isreal...don't gimme that load horse crap about "isreal leaving Pakistan in the dust"...isreal literally lives on the annual aid of $4 billion per year and that's just from the u.s.
View attachment 720518
not to mention, the nearly free technical & higher level educational assistance they receive right outta the box. they also receive free money in the billions from various european countries including the richest european country, germany, recall that "repatriation agreement" where germany is paying damages to this day in the billions per year. all this cash while isreal has a population of less than 10 million, heck, a small city in Pakistan has a larger population. of course it would appear that they are economically and technologically well off, I mean...duh, not rocket science.

And yet, here we are, Pakistan, having surviving multiple sanctions and embargos from the u.s. with little to no money given that actually didn't get gobbled up by politicians and yet, we here, we are strong, we are growing, we are nuclear and we increasingly becoming assertive even though the u.s. tried so hard to prevent it that the pompeo and his predecessors pooped themselves in their underwear/panties. recall back in 2012, when the u.s. channels like fox news were up in arms about having one of their "shock n awe" adventures against Pakistan to forcefully secure the supply route to afghanistan after Pakistan suspended all assistance to the u.s. following the salala incident...how did that work our for ya? who ended up issuing an official apology? why do you think that happened in spite of multiple u.s. and nato carrier fleets being stationed right outside in the arabian sea? may wanna do some homework on that as well. your get a very unpleasant surprise that the pentagon realized that they just won't be able to win. lemme know how your homework turns out. :enjoy:
Wikipedia? It is plain to see who the amateur is .... let me debunk your source with a simple logic. The service ceiling of the Erieye is 24,500 ft. Wiki claims a detection range of 450 Kms for the Erieye. The horizon at 24,500 ft is 300 kms, and yet wiki claims the Erieye can see over the horizon. ..and you believe it.

Next, the Meteor max range isn't 100 km, the max range is classified MDBA claims a modest 100 plus km but I can guarantee the Meteors ramjet engine will outrange any solid fueled dual pulse motor of the same internal missile volume. The difference is 4 to 5 times, a ramjet missile will go 4-5 times further than a solid fueled missile of the same size. The reason is simple the ramjet missile carries fuel, warhead and sensor. The solid fuel missile carries fuel, oxidizer, warhead and sensor. The oxidizer occupies the bulk of the internal volume of the missile.

Please don't waste you valuable time responding.


“The combination of range and speed is an absolutely enabling technology for the warfighter that they need now,” said Matt Walker, head of the Airbreathing Propulsion Section at NAWCWD.

In a traditional rocket motor, oxidizer can make up roughly 90 percent of the rocket’s propellant, Walker said. Meanwhile, a ramjet engine—a technology first conceived in Europe in the 1910s—uses its vehicle’s forward motion to draw in oxygen from the surrounding atmosphere, allowing more room for fuel and making it four-to-five times more fuel efficient than a solid rocket motor, he said.

 

GumNaam

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 23, 2016
9,870
-2
12,807
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Wikipedia? It is plain to see who the amateur is .... let me debunk your source with a simple logic. The service ceiling of the Erieye is 24,500 ft. Wiki claims a detection range of 450 Kms for the Erieye. The horizon at 24,500 ft is 300 kms, and yet wiki claims the Erieye can see over the horizon. ..and you believe it.
do you honestly believe the service ceiling of the Erieye is 24,500 ft only? 🤦‍♂️ oh, but wait ,when you don't have any arguments left then question the validity of wikipedia, nice! :lol: okay man whatever rocks your boat, but rest assured, we can look deep inside indian territory and shoot down what we want at will with the only limiting factor being the range of the missile which now has gone up to 250 km for fighters and drones to 350 km for bigger aircrafts. do yourself & look up anomalous propagation. That's all I'm gonna say on this subject matter.
Next, the Meteor max range isn't 100 km, the max range is classified MDBA claims a modest 100 plus km but I can guarantee the Meteors ramjet engine will outrange any solid fueled dual pulse motor of the same internal missile volume. The difference is 4 to 5 times, a ramjet missile will go 4-5 times further than a solid fueled missile of the same size. The reason is simple the ramjet missile carries fuel, warhead and sensor. The solid fuel missile carries fuel, oxidizer, warhead and sensor. The oxidizer occupies the bulk of the internal volume of the missile.
oh okay, its classified so we must have no way of finding out what can it really do now can we? Rest assured, when I say that the range of the meteor is no more than 120 km (150 km tops with good weather) I know what I'm talkin' about. ;)
Screen Shot 2021-02-26 at 5.38.52 PM.png

20200801_142615.jpg

seriously dude? what type of an amateur are you?

Please don't waste you valuable time responding.


“The combination of range and speed is an absolutely enabling technology for the warfighter that they need now,” said Matt Walker, head of the Airbreathing Propulsion Section at NAWCWD.

In a traditional rocket motor, oxidizer can make up roughly 90 percent of the rocket’s propellant, Walker said. Meanwhile, a ramjet engine—a technology first conceived in Europe in the 1910s—uses its vehicle’s forward motion to draw in oxygen from the surrounding atmosphere, allowing more room for fuel and making it four-to-five times more fuel efficient than a solid rocket motor, he said.

:omghaha: okay I'll let you re-read this portion above and figure what is fatally wrong with what you just said including the quotes that you made. Pretty sure that you either never took basic physics and if you did, you royally bombed it...run along now you silly, silly little amateur. :lol:
 

Ziggy1977

FULL MEMBER
May 3, 2019
109
0
56
Country
United States
Location
United States
so the F35 failed because it cost a lot it does everything else the US Military wants. it just costly and weighs a lot. LOL

so the article writer thinks that means it is a failure.

no a failure would be if it was cheap and light and didn't work.

and his idea to do the exact same thing from 20 years ago will likely do the same thing.

all us systems cost a lot. the stealth coating is one of it's biggest maintenance costs.

we don't want to use it for our low in stuff. well duh.

news flash the F15s, F16s, F18s were all built for high end combat vs Near Peer foes. but the US Military has used them vs all types of low end foes.

come on.
 

Deino

INT'L MOD
Nov 9, 2014
10,091
14
16,180
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
The U.S. Air Force’s top officer wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated—but costly and unreliable—stealth fighters.

The result would be a high-low mix of expensive “fifth-generation” F-22s and F-35s and inexpensive “fifth-generation-minus” jets, explained Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown Jr.

If that plan sounds familiar, it’s because the Air Force a generation ago launched development of an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s and complement a small future fleet of sophisticated—but costly and unreliable—stealth fighters.

But over 20 years of R&D, that lightweight replacement fighter got heavier and more expensive as the Air Force and lead contractor Lockheed Martin LMT +1.7% packed it with more and more new technology.

Yes, we’re talking about the F-35. The 25-ton stealth warplane has become the very problem it was supposed to solve. And now America needs a new fighter to solve that F-35 problem, officials said.

With a sticker price of around $100 million per plane, including the engine, the F-35 is expensive. While stealthy and brimming with high-tech sensors, it’s also maintenance-intensive, buggy and unreliable. “The F-35 is not a low-cost, lightweight fighter,” said Dan Ward, a former Air Force program manager and the author of popular business books including The Simplicity Cycle.
The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday. “You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our ‘high end’ [fighter], we want to make sure we don’t use it all for the low-end fight.”

“I want to moderate how much we’re using those aircraft,” Brown said.

Hence the need for a new low-end fighter to pick up the slack in day-to-day operations. Today, the Air Force’s roughly 1,000 F-16s meet that need. But the flying branch hasn’t bought a new F-16 from Lockheed since 2001. The F-16s are old.

In his last interview before leaving his post in January, Will Roper, the Air Force’s top acquisition official, floated the idea of new F-16 orders. But Brown shot down the idea, saying he doesn’t want more of the classic planes.

The 17-ton, non-stealthy F-16 is too difficult to upgrade with the latest software, Brown explained. Instead of ordering fresh F-16s, he said, the Air Force should initiate a “clean-sheet design” for a new low-end fighter.

Brown’s comments are a tacit admission that the F-35 has failed. As conceived in the 1990s, the program was supposed to produce thousands of fighters to displace almost all of the existing tactical warplanes in the inventories of the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

The Air Force alone wanted nearly 1,800 F-35s to replace aging F-16s and A-10s and constitute the low end of a low-high fighter mix, with 180 twin-engine F-22s making up the high end.

But the Air Force and Lockheed baked failure into the F-35’s very concept. “They tried to make the F-35 do too much,” said Dan Grazier, an analyst with the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.

There’s a small-wing version for land-based operations, a big-wing version for the Navy’s catapult-equipped aircraft carriers and, for the small-deck assault ships the Marines ride in, a vertical-landing model with a downward-blasting lift engine.

The complexity added cost. Rising costs imposed delays. Delays gave developers more time to add yet more complexity to the design. Those additions added more cost. Those costs resulted in more delays. So on and so forth.

Fifteen years after the F-35’s first flight, the Air Force has just 250 of the jets. Now the service is signaling possible cuts to the program. It’s not for no reason that Brown has begun characterizing the F-35 as a boutique, high-end fighter in the class of the F-22. The Air Force ended F-22 production after completing just 195 copies.

“The F-35 is approaching a crossroads,” Grazier said.

Pentagon leaders have hinted that, as part of the U.S. military’s shift in focus toward peer threats—that is, Russia and China—the Navy and Air Force might get bigger shares of the U.S. military’s roughly $700-billion annual budget. All at the Army’s expense.

“If we’re going to pull the trigger on a new fighter, now’s probably the time,” Grazier said. The Air Force could end F-35 production after just a few hundred examples and redirect tens of billions of dollars to a new fighter program.

But it’s an open question whether the Air Force will ever succeed in developing a light, cheap fighter. The new low-end jet could suffer the same fate as the last low-end jet—the F-35—and steadily gain weight, complexity and cost until it becomes, well, a high-end jet.

If that happens, as it’s happened before, then some future Air Force chief of staff might tell reporters—in, say, the year 2041—that the new F-36 is a Ferrari and you don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day.

To finally replace its 60-year-old F-16s, this future general might say, the Air Force should develop an affordable, lightweight fighter.

Source

That's plain wrong ... the Pentagon never said the F-35 has failed, but it noted it is too expensive to replace all types required and even more there is no need to have only stealth fighters in service. IMO the most important reason however is to gain money ...
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom