Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

Rafale is a high end jet, Gripen is not. Goes back to high end performance. Twin engine, supercruise, 11G performance etc. Gripen is more along the lines of an improved Mirage, pretty much a generation behind when it comes to performance.

And Rafale has a better development roadmap, Gripen's at the end of its lifecycle.
I was just told Gripen E/F was 6th generation. then Picdelamirand-oil changed his mind when he realized that Rafale is second place. this is ironic given how this entire generation conversation started when bonplan complained about changing definitions for generations. When I pointed out that the 6th generation Gripen E/F actually outmatched the Rafale and that there is a 20 year seperation in advancement, Picdelamirand-oil suddenly changed his mind and declared the Gripen E/F not 6th generation but suddenly a dated Mirage 2000 instead!

Yeah, LM never liked the 5th gen moniker until the Russians came in. Then LM flew to ridiculous lengths to market it when Gates was busy trying to shut it down in lieu of the F-35. So LM pushed the narrative that a 5th gen jet needs supercruise to keep the F-22 line open. Then they had to tone it down 'cause it was impacting the F-35 program, after their great screw up, and switched over to the narrative that only sensor fusion and stealth are enough, supercruise is secondary.

LM "flew to ridiculous lengths" to say such things, and everyone here "remembers" LM saying it but no one can produce a single shred of proof of this statement that was everywhere, and then suddenly it was no where? For something that everyone dismisses as invented and arbitrary marketing to begin with, they sure do fret over it. This is the concern after losing in Switzerland and Finland? after placing behind the 6th generation Gripen E/F
 
  • Like
Reactions: Innominate
Supercruise is a must since F22. They tried to with F35, but as it is shape as a sugar piece, despite 12T of thrust it can't.

LM remove "supercruise" from the later communication because F35 fails. And the older publication are no more reachable.

older one (scratch from 2010) :

one recent but not directly from LM :

This is a wikipedia extract where Supercruise is :
View attachment 27283
you did the same thing again. not only did not produce what you promised, but you posted something else that proved the opposite:

"The characteristics of a fifth-generation fighter are not universally agreed upon and not every fifth-generation type necessarily has them all"

still cant prove that "LM said" what you claimed and instead give us wikipedia? please post the proof that was promised. Thank you. Its a simple task. Find the quote everyone here says they heard and remember. I can find things on the internet that predate the year 2000, I'm sure you can too.

Supercruise is a must since F22. They tried to with F35
Supercruise was never a JSF requirement. JSF failed in an area that was never necessary outside the marketing you claim is meaningful while also claiming is invented and arbitrary. Pedantic is French word.
 
I was just told Gripen E/F was 6th generation. then Picdelamirand-oil changed his mind when he realized that Rafale is second place. this is ironic given how this entire generation conversation started when bonplan complained about changing definitions for generations. When I pointed out that the 6th generation Gripen E/F actually outmatched the Rafale and that there is a 20 year seperation in advancement, Picdelamirand-oil suddenly changed his mind and declared the Gripen E/F not 6th generation but suddenly a dated Mirage 2000 instead!
I don't like to be made to say or think things that I haven't said or thought.
For me, the Rafale has never been in second place, and it is not what is said on the forums that will change my point of view.
Being 6th generation is a philosophy of the weapon system, but there can be more or less efficient 6th generation aircraft and the Gripen is much less efficient than the Rafale, so much so that I can compare it to the Mirage 2000 (which is not a shame).
The fifth generation is a dead end because the emphasis on stealth is too dominant on these aircraft. I mean, if the Americans had spent the same budget on designing a more balanced aircraft, they would have got a more efficient and useful aircraft.
 
Thank you! and very well said!

Half the engines means half the engine matinatince! And Gripen has pretty impressive kinematics, goes over Mach 2 and can supercruise like a 5th generation fighter F-22! It also has that movable radar that increases its field of view. not to mention Gripens ease of maintance overall and rough field and roadside capability.

I do understand why Rafale was picked in India though easily. There is the Naval option Rafale of course, and Rafale was more mature at the time of India's selection. it really made sense. Gripen NG was still in its infancy. I think Gripen E/F has really matured and it showed being a finalist in Canada and Finland while beating Rafale in Brasil. while Rafale either dropped out or placed further down. for as much as people talk about adaptability of Rafale going into the future I don't see it. Same old engines, same old cockpit. its one thing to talk about evolution its another to actually engage in it. Gripen is 20 years improved just like the Picdelamirand-oil said its a shame that when we pointed out the superior 6th generation fighter he suddenly changed his mind. Taking 2nd place is hard and some people struggle or 3rd in brasil
Gripen winning in Brazil is less to do with its performance and more to with the industrial package the swedes were offering. They are offering to us too and to be fair the gripen has one of the best ew's in the game. But it's single engine status and small size leads to it essentially being an aircraft with limited range and payload compared to the other eurocanards. The gripen E is superior to the block 70 but it still loses out to the SH blk3, Rafale, typhoon(only after tranche 5 though) and f-15EX. The gripen E (like tejas mk2) fills up the same role as the mirage 2000, j-10C and f-16.
 
Gripen winning in Brazil is less to do with its performance and more to with the industrial package the swedes were offering. They are offering to us too and to be fair the gripen has one of the best ew's in the game. But it's single engine status and small size leads to it essentially being an aircraft with limited range and payload compared to the other eurocanards. The gripen E is superior to the block 70 but it still loses out to the SH blk3, Rafale, typhoon(only after tranche 5 though) and f-15EX. The gripen E (like tejas mk2) fills up the same role as the mirage 2000, j-10C and f-16.
its a sixth generation fighter on par with the Rafale. seemingly someone made such a claim and then when someone else pointed out that the Gripen E/F is indeed a cut above including the Rafale, suddenly the knives came out for the superb little swedish airplane. At the very least we can say that the Gripen E/F deserves a high place and has come out ahead of Rafale in some recent contests and does indeed include more modern features and more sophisticated areas while costing significantly less. luckily for us Mirage 2000 is now 6th generation too according to the same poster. it is as if he is allergic to conceding any ground even on an aircraft he briefly promoted as equal. which is not a surprise because the same poster just told us

"For me, the Rafale has never been in second place, and it is not what is said on the forums that will change my point of view."
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Rajput Lion
1680885222037.png

 
Gripen winning in Brazil is less to do with its performance and more to with the industrial package the swedes were offering. They are offering to us too and to be fair the gripen has one of the best ew's in the game. But it's single engine status and small size leads to it essentially being an aircraft with limited range and payload compared to the other eurocanards. The gripen E is superior to the block 70 but it still loses out to the SH blk3, Rafale, typhoon(only after tranche 5 though) and f-15EX. The gripen E (like tejas mk2) fills up the same role as the mirage 2000, j-10C and f-16.
Our Tejas MK2 is going to be superior to Gripen-E almost every which way. That's why only plane that will come via import/license manufacturing is going to be Rafale and in future Su-57M, period.
 
Actually, the Russians first gave the F-22 the 5th gen designation. LM simply took it to the next level in their marketing.
can you please post that?

Rafale is a high end jet, Gripen is not. Goes back to high end performance. Twin engine, supercruise, 11G performance etc. Gripen is more along the lines of an improved Mirage, pretty much a generation behind when it comes to performance.

And Rafale has a better development roadmap, Gripen's at the end of its lifecycle.
Gripen is faster than the Rafale, supercruises, and is not only comparative to the Rafale in terms of performance but often exceeds Rafale on the "high end" you say it suffers in; like Mach 2 is faster. we both know that 11G is not typical and 9G is considered very good. even if someone has not taken gripen E to 11G yet. Gripen is not at the end of its lifecycle it is just getting into service and production.

how is Gripen a "generation behind" when its more sophisticated and even outperforms Rafale in some regimes? They are both 6th generation fighters which is what I was told. amazing how quickly things changed!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
you did the same thing again. not only did not produce what you promised, but you posted something else that proved the opposite:

"The characteristics of a fifth-generation fighter are not universally agreed upon and not every fifth-generation type necessarily has them all"

still cant prove that "LM said" what you claimed and instead give us wikipedia? please post the proof that was promised. Thank you. Its a simple task. Find the quote everyone here says they heard and remember. I can find things on the internet that predate the year 2000, I'm sure you can too.


Supercruise was never a JSF requirement. JSF failed in an area that was never necessary outside the marketing you claim is meaningful while also claiming is invented and arbitrary. Pedantic is French word.
(crs.gov, 27 nov.2009)
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
page2: "(...) Fifth-generation fighters combine new developments such as thrust vectoring, composite materials, supercruise (the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds without using engine afterburners), stealth technology, advanced radar and sensors, and integrated avionics to greatly improve pilot situational awareness.(...)"

Are the US Congress serious people or are they:
stan-laurel-oliver-hardy.gif
 
(crs.gov, 27 nov.2009)
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
page2: "(...) Fifth-generation fighters combine new developments such as thrust vectoring, composite materials, supercruise (the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds without using engine afterburners), stealth technology, advanced radar and sensors, and integrated avionics to greatly improve pilot situational awareness.(...)"


why did you not include the entire footnote?

"Fifth-generation aircraft incorporate the most modern technology, and are considered to be generally more capable than earlier-generation (e.g., 4th-generation and below) aircraft. Fifth-generation fighters combine new developments such as thrust vectoring, composite materials, supercruise (the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds without using engine afterburners), stealth technology, advanced radar and sensors, and integrated avionics to greatly improve pilot situational awareness. Among fighters currently in service or in regular production, only the Air Force F-22 air superiority fighter and the F35 are considered fifth-generation aircraft. Russia and China reportedly have fifth-generation fighters under development."

The report clearly notes the F-35 is a 5th generation fighter multiple times, including at the start of page 2 that references the footnote you used (after cutting off the end.)

I also asked for the original quote from Lockheed Martin which is what I am more interested in. Congress has always considered JSF to be "next generation" and later "5th generation" Which doesn't help the people who tell me it is all marketing, so thank you for your assistance. feel free to post more CRS reports that have been saying the same thing since before LM even won the F-35 contract back in the 1990s.

you ignored the entire report that states the F-35 is a fifth generation fighter several times and then partially cherry picked a footnote?
 
Last edited:
why did you not include the entire footnote?

"Fifth-generation aircraft incorporate the most modern technology, and are considered to be generally more capable than earlier-generation (e.g., 4th-generation and below) aircraft. Fifth-generation fighters combine new developments such as thrust vectoring, composite materials, supercruise (the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds without using engine afterburners), stealth technology, advanced radar and sensors, and integrated avionics to greatly improve pilot situational awareness. Among fighters currently in service or in regular production, only the Air Force F-22 air superiority fighter and the F35 are considered fifth-generation aircraft. Russia and China reportedly have fifth-generation fighters under development."

The report clearly notes the F-35 is a 5th generation fighter multiple times, including at the start of page 2 that references the footnote you used (after cutting off the end.)

I also asked for the original quote from Lockheed Martin which is what I am more interested in. Congress has always considered JSF to be "next generation" and later "5th generation" Which doesn't help the people who tell me it is all marketing, so thank you for your assistance. feel free to post more CRS reports that have been saying the same thing since before LM even won the F-35 contract back in the 1990s.

you ignored the entire report that states the F-35 is a fifth generation fighter several times and then partially cherry picked a footnote?

You're getting it all wrong as far as defining Generations of FA are concerned . Do OEMs define it or do the respective armed forces & governmental bodies define it ? The Chinese consider J-20 to be a 4th Generation FA. They define generations of FA differently.

Su-57M & J-20 are stealth fighters too just not in the same bandwidth as the US FAs as far as stealth is concerned.

Similarly both - the Gripen & the Rafale have their own pros and cons as far as their performance goes. What the Gripen lacked in the previous decade the Rafale took advantage of & vice versa in this decade.

I can understand French insecurities regarding the Rafales . I'm really trying to understand US insecurities with respect to the F-35 & comparing it to the Rafales or using the Gripen as a counter to the Rafale.

The JSF is the most ambitious & the most disappointing FA program conducted by the DoD which is still to reach fruition. That in a nutshell describes the program irrespective of how advanced or promising it is. Both, the Rafales & Gripens are mature products & formidable FAs . So is the F-35 in it's class.

Besides , since when does the performance of a FA determine it's success. Especially when the US is involved. Doesn't geopolitical heft play a role ? The operational performance of the F-35 is there for all to see . Are you seriously telling us that in spite of all these glitches the USAF is mighty pleased with the F-35 AS IT IS , leave aside foreign AFs in whose force the F-35 provides service .
 
You're getting it all wrong as far as defining Generations of FA are concerned . Do OEMs define it or do the respective armed forces & governmental bodies define it ? The Chinese consider J-20 to be a 4th Generation FA. They define generations of FA differently.

Su-57M & J-20 are stealth fighters too just not in the same bandwidth as the US FAs as far as stealth is concerned.

Similarly both - the Gripen & the Rafale have their own pros and cons as far as their performance goes. What the Gripen lacked in the previous decade the Rafale took advantage of & vice versa in this decade.

I can understand French insecurities regarding the Rafales . I'm really trying to understand US insecurities with respect to the F-35 & comparing it to the Rafales or using the Gripen as a counter to the Rafale.

The JSF is the most ambitious & the most disappointing FA program conducted by the DoD which is still to reach fruition. That in a nutshell describes the program irrespective of how advanced or promising it is. Both, the Rafales & Gripens are mature products & formidable FAs . So is the F-35 in it's class.

Besides , since when does the performance of a FA determine it's success. Especially when the US is involved. Doesn't geopolitical heft play a role ? The operational performance of the F-35 is there for all to see . Are you seriously telling us that in spite of all these glitches the USAF is mighty pleased with the F-35 AS IT IS , leave aside foreign AFs in whose force the F-35 provides service .
I'm not trying to define anything I am asking for the source. there seems to be severe disagreement on the exact origin of the "fifth generation"
I asked for something unbelievably simple, Please post the source of LM saying the thing that "everyone" here "remembers" them saying. Not a Narrative summary, not a Wikipedia page. not a story from their uncle, not from some half remembered webpage. That would be a start. in the meantime I am getting sources from anything but LM and am pointing out that often those sources largely contradict the largely French cohort.

I agree with you that its a largely an argument of irrelevant semantics anyway. but for some reason the "Rafale Cabal" has an obsession about this I want to see what this is all about. It is not unreasonable to ask for proof of claims, especially easily found proof that everyone seems to remember yet no one can find. Isn't that strange? meanwhile we have official sources (congress, UK, DoD) that call JSF a "Next generation" aircraft even before LM was selected to compete in the competition. I am very curious about the origins and how everyone "remembers" this
 
  • Like
Reactions: Innominate
(crs.gov, 27 nov.2009)
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
page2: "(...) Fifth-generation fighters combine new developments such as thrust vectoring, composite materials, supercruise (the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds without using engine afterburners), stealth technology, advanced radar and sensors, and integrated avionics to greatly improve pilot situational awareness.(...)"

Are the US Congress serious people or are they:
stan-laurel-oliver-hardy.gif
I got in touch with the author of the report:

"The reference to supercruise was removed from the footnote somewhere in the last 24 years, in part to avoid this kind of confusion. As written then, though, the footnote clearly stated that fifth-generation fighters included technologies such as supercruise, but it was not stating that an aircraft had to have supercruise in order to be considered fifth-generation"

he is correct about "such as"

such as

preposition​

  1. for example
  2. like, of the kind mentioned
  3. thosewho

Its not exactly meant to be precise its more of an "estimate" in using it he is essentially "hedging" and leaving it broad. if we really want to split hairs we can point out that Supercruise is not a new development either having happened with the English Electric Lightning and other aircraft. LM even specifies the B-58 in one its stories about the F-22 from the 1990s. Ironically not even LM is claiming that they invented Supercruise or that it was unique to the F-22 in the history of all aircraft.
 
I got in touch with the author of the report:

"The reference to supercruise was removed from the footnote somewhere in the last 24 years, in part to avoid this kind of confusion. As written then, though, the footnote clearly stated that fifth-generation fighters included technologies such as supercruise, but it was not stating that an aircraft had to have supercruise in order to be considered fifth-generation"

he is correct about "such as"

such as

preposition​

  1. for example
  2. like, of the kind mentioned
  3. thosewho

Its not exactly meant to be precise its more of an "estimate" in using it he is essentially "hedging" and leaving it broad. if we really want to split hairs we can point out that Supercruise is not a new development either having happened with the English Electric Lightning and other aircraft. LM even specifies the B-58 in one its stories about the F-22 from the 1990s. Ironically not even LM is claiming that they invented Supercruise or that it was unique to the F-22 in the history of all aircraft.
They go nuts when I point out that Rafale's top speed in clean configuration is mach 1.8 however that top speed was done with the A model, and then tell them that the Rafale has gotten really heavy (F3) and has never gotten a thrust upgrade so there's no way in hell it can super cruise with a tanks and 6 missiles or reach mach 1.8 clean. Even Safran CEO said Rafale has gotten heavy and never gotten a thrust upgrade...

-French company Safran, which manufactures the M88 engine of the Dassault Rafale fighter aircraft plans to increase its thrust from 7.5 tone to nine tons.

La Tribune newspaper said yesterday quoting CEO of Safran, Philippe Petitcolin that, the engine upgrade in terms of thrust was necessary as the Rafale had grown heavier over the years due to addition of weapons and other systems.

He said that the original thrust of the Rafale engine was the same since the launch of the French fighter. The Rafale was designed over two decades ago.

However, the upgrade issue had not been discussed with Dassault Aviation, the Safran CEO added.

"It is time to ask the question whether it is appropriate to launch a study that would increase the engine thrust. Technically we can do. We are in discussion with the relevant authorities to see if possible. and if so, under what conditions and at what level of performance, it would be desirable to improve it, said Philippe Petitcolin (the quote has been translated from French).

Rafail fanboys are the worst. Rafail's so-called super cruise is never mentioned by Dassault when courting customers.
 

F-35 has certainly been a disaster​

ByDesk Blitz

However, while the F-35 has certainly been a disaster, it might prove to be a major contributor to improving global security, as diminishing the political West’s ability to wage war is by far the best way to preserve peace across the world. Writes Drago Bosnic

Last year, NATO officially declared that Russia is its primary adversary, officially restarting the Cold War. Since then, the belligerent alliance’s war machine has started revamping its strategic posturing towards Moscow, but after decades of numerous wars of aggression against relatively helpless opponents, NATO’s conventional fighting capabilities have atrophied significantly. This seems to be affecting all branches of major NATO militaries, including their air forces, particularly those operating the deeply troubled F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Fighter), a pan-Western effort to unify all NATO and NATO-aligned countries into “a well-oiled joint fighting force with near flawless coordination and battlefield information sharing”. At least that was the original idea.

However, the reality is much different. Publicly, the Pentagon is quite happy with “the best fighter jet ever made”. Privately, the situation is starkly different. For at least a decade, numerous reports on the F-35’s countless flaws have turned out to be not only true, but even overoptimistic, as the actual scale of issues plaguing the program is much worse. This has resulted in repeated delays in deliveries, as well as serious issues with modernization efforts. By the time many of the reported issues are resolved, the US Air Force already has new mission requirements that essentially nullify all the previous work and force the developers “back to the drawing board”. In short, the F-35 has proven to be unable to adapt to new threats despite being devised (and marketed) to do exactly that.

According to media report, over 900 F-35s have been completed and delivered by April this year, but the fleet is still suffering from much of the same issues as when the jet was inducted into service nearly a decade ago.

A plethora of maintenance issues and performance defects are causing disastrous availability rates. Back in February, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) revealed that the F-35 fleet not only failed to meet the requirements for improving readiness, but has even managed to make them a lot worse than in previous years. Availability rates for both the conventional F-35A and STOVL (short take-off, vertical landing) F-35B fell by 11% in 2022, with only the naval F-35C variant making small improvements in this category.

“Between 2021 and 2022, F-35As’ availability fell by 11 percentage points, from 65 to 54”, CBO stated in a report, adding: “F-35Bs’ availability also fell, by 7 percentage points, from 61 to 54, while F-35Cs’ availability rose by 5 percentage points to 58”.

And yet, even these reports turned out to be overoptimistic as Lockheed Martin once again resorted to using semantics to make the performance of its products seem better than they actually are.

According to Bloomberg, the percentage of F-35s capable of flying any mission at any given moment, otherwise known as full mission-capable rates, was just over 29%, manager of the program Air Force Lieutenant General Michael Schmidt said in written testimony for the March 29 hearing of the House Armed Service Committee’s aviation subcommittee.

This is nearly 10% less than the full mission-capable readiness in 2020, which stood at 39% at the time. Such a drop effectively nullified possible advantages provided by deliveries of new jets.

“This is unacceptable and maximizing readiness is my top priority,” Schmidt said in his prepared remarks, adding: “[Our] goal is to increase readiness rates by at least 10% in the next 12 months”.

This is just the latest in a series of now well over a hundred scathing reports issued over the years by both military and civilian US officials. As there are currently close to 540 F-35s in service with the US military, the latest readiness figures indicate that no more than 160 are fully mission-capable, meaning it’s among the very lowest, “bested” only by the F-22 “Raptor” jets and the atrociously maintenance-heavy B-2 strategic bombers. Ironically, F-35s were designed to have low maintenance requirements and operational costs to replace F-16s and A-10s for USAF, F-18s for USN (Navy) and AV-8Bs for USMC (Marines). The jet’s many issues resulted in a spending “death spiral”, as the program’s overall cost is getting ever closer to the staggering $2 trillion.

A major issue with the F-35 is its troubled F135 engine prone to overheating, resulting in issues with its ability to fly supersonic, a feat considered standard practice for fighter jets ever since WWII. Defense Secretary under the Trump administration, Christopher C. Miller, was so frustrated with the jet that he referred to it as “a monster” and “a piece of… (well, you get the idea)”. Even the late John McCain, well known for anything but enmity towards the US MIC (Military Industrial Complex), called it “a textbook example of our broken defense acquisition system”, stating in one of his Senate briefings that “the F-35 program’s record has been both a scandal and a tragedy with respect to cost, schedule and performance”.

US vassals and satellite states have also found numerous issues with the F-35. For instance, during 18 months of operational testing (from January 2021 to June 2022), South Korea reported findings about nearly 250 critical flaws in the jets it acquired from the US in 2019. As late as December, Israel (one of the first F-35 operators) had to ground its entire fleet during preparations for a possible war with Iran. Others, such as Japan and the UK, have also suffered similar issues, even resulting in crashes and deaths.

However, while the F-35 has certainly been a disaster, it might prove to be a major contributor to improving global security, as diminishing the political West’s ability to wage war is by far the best way to preserve peace across the world.
 
why did you not include the entire footnote?

"Fifth-generation aircraft incorporate the most modern technology, and are considered to be generally more capable than earlier-generation (e.g., 4th-generation and below) aircraft. Fifth-generation fighters combine new developments such as thrust vectoring, composite materials, supercruise (the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds without using engine afterburners), stealth technology, advanced radar and sensors, and integrated avionics to greatly improve pilot situational awareness. Among fighters currently in service or in regular production, only the Air Force F-22 air superiority fighter and the F35 are considered fifth-generation aircraft. Russia and China reportedly have fifth-generation fighters under development."

The report clearly notes the F-35 is a 5th generation fighter multiple times, including at the start of page 2 that references the footnote you used (after cutting off the end.)

I also asked for the original quote from Lockheed Martin which is what I am more interested in. Congress has always considered JSF to be "next generation" and later "5th generation" Which doesn't help the people who tell me it is all marketing, so thank you for your assistance. feel free to post more CRS reports that have been saying the same thing since before LM even won the F-35 contract back in the 1990s.

you ignored the entire report that states the F-35 is a fifth generation fighter several times and then partially cherry picked a footnote?
Two things:
the question was, I think: is the supercruise an attribute of the fifth generation? That's why in the congress report I isolated the relevant part. And the part I did not quote does not contradict my selection.
In any case, I gave the whole report.

On the other hand, do you despise footnotes? You shouldn't. On the contrary, before signing any contract I invite you to read them very carefully.
You know what they say: Der Teufel steckt im Detail