Those are IOC dates; see above. Those are not delivery dates for jets. 29 production F-35s were delivered last year (11 A’s and 18 B’s), and roughly the same number will be delivered this year. DoD will probably have at least 60 full production, non-test F-35As on hand when the first squadron (of 24 aircraft, mind you) reaches IOC.
Faster with which engine?
This is such fanboy nonsense. Next you’re going to say that an A-10 can beat up Superman, the DU ammunition can power the world with safe and clean energy, and it shoots out unicorn farts instead of chaff. Your perception of military equipment is about as accurate as a GI Joe movie.
What is your point exactly? The Air Force’s version isn’t going to be online until 2019 if it keeps to it’s schedule. Again, this thread isn’t about which plane is first. The PAK-FA is the competition and it’s a formidable dog fighter.
The A-10 is designed to take hits. Designed for it as in take off half a wing and an engine. The marine version isn’t remotely close to the capabilities of the A-10. It’s fanboy nonsense to even suggest it can replace the A-10.
Can you advise why the claim that “The A-10 is specifically designed to take hits. If anything returns from a S-400 it’s going to be an A-10.” is fanboy nonsense? His cite certainly seems to support the resilient nature of the A10.
I worked on the JSF program at lockheed back when it was still the X35 (and right after). I have some cool JSF Swag I really should eBay.
About the who unmanned plane thing: When I was doing IT server work for the program, I got to talk to the engineers occasionally. No clearance so I didn’t get to see the really cool stuff, but on the walls there were artist renderings of the newer aircraft that was still in the design stages and all of them were un-manned. One of the engineers told me he didn’t expect them to be working on any manned aircraft after the JSF.
Take that for what it’s worth, but to say that we are just starting to work on unmanned fighters is not accurate. They were working on it a decade or so ago. We’re probably a lot closer than anyone knows.
Yes, it is. No aircraft survives a 150+ pound high explosive warhead.
Also, the whole reason the Israelis are buying a limited number of JSF is that they believe it is their only option to deal with the S-300/S-400 threat. Cite.
I too, agree with the statement, “If anything returns from a S-400 it’s going to be an A-10,” especially if we’re limiting the set of choices to tactical aircraft. The thing is, even an A-10 isn’t likely to survive a hit from a 24 kg warhead, when it was designed to take 23mm fire and the odd 57mm shell. 24kg is slightly larger than the warhead on an AIM-120 and much larger than the 9.5 kg of an AIM-9 warhead. It’s dwarfed by the 61 kg of the now out of service AIM-54 though. This assumes that a kg of one warhead type is the same as a kg of another, which may not be the case. Was an A-10 expected to take an AIM-120 hit and survive?
While trying to pin down the size of the warhead on the various missiles within the S-400 system, I did find this link, with the interesting material I’ll quote below:
So, if this pundit is correct, what does the F-35 get us over the F-18F if both types of aircraft are vulnerable to these modern SAM systems like the S-300 and -400? I get that the F-35 is less observable than the, e.g., F-18F, and therefore the range it can be detected will be shorter, but is that worth a 50%-100% price premium if both a/c are going to need the same sort of support packages to survive a modern IADS?
The comment from bdgr is also very interesting, and I wonder just when an autonomous air-superiority fighter will be in service?
Edit: And because we won’t sell them the F-22, Ravenman. Yet.
The F-35 available to Level II and below partner states is missing some of the EW tricks that the top-shelf versions will have. I don’t know if any of those tricks make a difference as to ASW survivability.
Missed the edit window, but a Congressional Research Service brief on the F-22, including discussion of the export restrictions (at pages 13-14) may be found here.
Gray Ghost: Air Power Australia is a very interesting NGO, however, their entire reason for being seems to be advocacy of Australia purchasing the F-22, which will never happen. I will bet you that every article that they publish will have some explanation why the F-22 is the answer to every problem – and that just isn’t the case. Edit – I see your edit now, but the F-22 line is closed and over. It’s done. Plus, sale of F-22 to other countries is prohibited by law. Australia will never buy the F-22, because even in Australia there are higher defense priorities, like getting a submarine that doesn’t suck.
You will note my previous cite (nearly simul-posted) in which the main reason the Israelis are buying the JSF is to deal with the modern Russian SAM threats in the region, principally the upgraded S-300.
And let me be clear to everyone: there are very legitimate knocks against the F-35: it is far behind schedule, there are substantive technical problems that have yet to be worked out, the program is threatened by sequestration, the cost savings for production will not arrive unless the production rate increases from the roughly 35 a year we have been building for the last 3-4 years, and so on. But a lot of the criticism heaped upon the program is simply wrong, and more importantly, we can’t switch horses in mid-stream. The idea of cancelling the F-35 and buying more fourth generation fighters would be a very, very stupid thing to do.
If we had to do it over, we’d have built a separate VTOL attack aircraft for the Marines and Royal Navy and conventional fighter for the USAF and USN. But that’s neither here nor there.
As it stands, the A, B, and C models are actually pretty different aircraft once you exclude the cockpit and the engine, even though the promise going into the program is that they would be much more similar than they actually are. Even today, it is almost like we developed three different aircraft programs.
Except for the fact that the Marine Corps could not afford to develop their own aircraft, I think this suggestion that each aircraft program should have been separate from the beginning is pretty much on the mark.
Nonsense. That isn’t what your cite says, and it isn’t true.
Hagel has said that sequestration – not performance, not threats, not anything else – would force a “modernization holiday” that would stop a significant number of programs, including the F-35B (not the whole program as you purport), the new Air Force bomber, and probably a handful of other programs as well.
Yes, the airframes are not all that common. The Navy variant is considerably larger than the others, for example – it has something like 40% more wing area so it can make the slower approaches for carrier landings, plus the airframe is considerably more robust than the others due to the arrested landings.
Cite. About a quarter of the parts are common across all three variants.
the chances of the F-35 being cancelled is close to zero. That’s a political fact of life. The chances of other countries buying something else is a different matter. Canada, Italy, Norway, Australia…
U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan warned Congress last month that the $396 billion F-35 program, the most expensive ever U.S. arms program, remained at risk of a “death spiral” in which cuts in orders drive up the cost per plane, leading to more cuts…
