US has accepted 36 upgraded F-35s since lifting delivery pause
The Pentagon is withholding $5 million per jet from its payments to Lockheed Martin until the new F-35s can fly in combat.
www.defensenews.com
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
www.defensenews.com
please post the official LM link that supports the above claim. The French hive mind has been convinced of the above list and whenever anyone asks to see it, they can never find it, yet "everyone" says they remember it. 5th generation is an officially recognized government term, how LM defines it is irrelevant anyway-- even if you could find them saying it.
show your work. I want a source from LM, but you have never been able to find one. so we are clear, a source from LM. not another French person proclaiming in something they heard, or another iteration of the same rumour, but an actual official LM source saying it.
spoiler alert: even if you can find LM saying this, which I doubt, its irrelevant anyway.
watching the French dismiss marketing while obsessing about marketing is endlessly funny. F-35 beats the Rafale in Switzerland, and the French want to talk semantics LOL
F-35s are competitive with late block F-16s in terms of agility, and an F-35 can pull more alpha than an F-16, and has far more controllability in slow speed and post stall, F-35s when loaded for combat greatly exceed the F-16 in its test and airshow load outs.
more weight was given to technical specifications than the political or economic consequences
All is said indeed!!
so the French claims of "diplomacy" are a complete falsehood because no one bothered to correct you and your friends.
the problem for the French is the inability to get beyond their own narrow minds. Since the Rafale so often wins on diplomacy. herciv:
Exactly for the same reason that f-35 failed in UAE and not The Rafale : Geopolitics.
since the Rafale doesn't win primarily on cost or performance but instead on the "independence" of French sourced material from outside interference, the French assume everyone wins for the same "geopolitical reasons" as has been proven time and again the F-35 doesn't need "politics" or "diplomacy" when F-35 is sweeping competitions and tenders. diplomacy is surely a factor, but its not the primary factor, and is essentially unnecessary. in other words, the F-35 doesn't need to "bribe" or "threaten" the swiss, it need only sit back and wait for the F-35 to win. Which F-35 does.
The French also refuse to think with switzerland, instead focusing on simulators or diplomacy. They tend to lock onto one thing and then ride it years later. Lets imagine that the F-35 and the Rafale are the same cost, but the Swiss say the F-35 is still the better performer. the F-35 would still win. here is another alternate, the F-35 is the best performer, but costs more than Rafale. Then the Swiss have a choice to make, but the F-35 probably still wins depending on what is prioritized. Since the F-35 came in under the Swiss budget still, it might have just won even if Rafale cost less, it would be in the end a tougher decision, but F-35 would likely win.
three 3 scenarios where the Rafale loses to F-35 on technical capabilities. The french are so busy obsessing about one thing in order to dismiss the evaluation, that they never bother to think about exactly what it would take for the Rafale to win, and it was far more than the simulators. The issue for the Rafale was that it did not beat the F-35 on cost OR capability, losing on both. Diplomacy is not the problem.
The Federal Council is set to propose that Parliament approve the procurement of 36 F-35A fighter aircraft from US manufacturer Lockheed Martin and five Patriot fire units from US manufacturer Raytheon. An evaluation has revealed that these two systems offer the highest overall benefit at the lowest overall cost.
Rafale can't top either of those categories and the French call this "diplomacy"
now you want sources? LOL what happened to just making wild claims? like "diplomacy" or inventing things LM said? several times in this thread you have been called upon to show your work about what LM actually said and you never give us anything official from LM. we get French hive-mind hearsay. no matter how many times you are told you have invented the "but LM said" rebuttal, you've never been able to back it up. you have it wrong, but keep persisting in the lie.
in summary:
Bonplan claims something LM said he has never been able to prove
Bonplan claims "diplomacy" while the evaluation and follow up claim the exact opposite, that f-35 won on merit first and diplomacy was an afterthought.
source for HX:
F-35A is HX – The Winner Takes It All
Back in 2017 I was fortunate enough to travel to RAF Lossiemouth together with a bunch of Finnish media courtesy of BAE Systems to get up and close with the Eurofighter Typhoon group operating ther…
corporalfrisk.com
Having passed the gate checks – something that the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale proved unable to do – the F-35A then went on to beat both the Super Hornet/Growler and Gripen/GlobalEye offers in both the combat evaluation and when it comes to the future development potential.
I didn't remember as well as I should have. F-35, Super Hornet, and Gripen were the survivors. Rafale and Typhoon were quickly disqualified and didn't make it to the final round. I should have been more clear.
No TR-3, no juice. Ask the Americans (DoD).
And B4 beyond requires MLUs. Again, ask the Americans yourself.
They don't think it's trash. They don't have Rafale as an option either. Anyway, it's an Erdogan problem, not an S-400 problem.
There has to be trust in what OEMs say when they say something.
This is just a repeat of people being led to believe Rafale F4 by 2025 will actually be F5; GaN, new architecture, 360 deg radar, new passive localization techniques, drones etc.
Quite a few years ago, when we still believed F4 will be next gen, I was told that AMCA will be a generation ahead compared to the Rafale, F3R or F4. It will have far more advanced passive localization capabilities for example, very advanced multilateration capabilities. But in my mind, compared to today's Rafale F5 (operational by 2025), AMCA would have fallen short, so I assumed whatever AMCA will have Rafale will too, and almost a decade earlier than AMCA. My assumption was AMCA (in 2035) will be a more stealth version of Rafale F5 (in 2025). Time proved me completely wrong and proved them (about AMCA) completely right. But today we know, at least on paper, AMCA's avionics are a full generation ahead of the F4, and more in tune with matching the capabilities of F5 (2035).
So what I've learned is the hype is more fiction than fact when it comes to the West, no different than the Russians, never mind the Chinese or Indians. It doesn't matter who, only when something is fully operational can we say it's real.
yes the Australians should have just done all these things. including buying squadrons of non existent NGADS. its just so simple! maybe when you are done running the Indian Air Force you can run the RAAF. Canada is basically doing what you suggested above and its cost us greatly, not just in money but lost time and personnel. The AESA upgrade for the F-18s is indeed a capability addition, but despite it the USMC is still planning to retire their hornets in 5 years. the AESA upgrade is not being used to extend the combat usefulness of the Hornets, it is because their radars are so old there are no longer spare parts to sustain them until 2030. Canada joined this upgrade to keep the F-18 force viable at all. meanwhile Australia has already divested their hornets, has F-35s, and has overhauled their entire Air force with tankers, AEW, Growlers etc (only a fool thinks fighters and fighters alone compose a modern air force) and yes, they do plan on doing block IV F-35 and Australia is directly involved in Block IV F-35 and may be doing the conversion themselves. Australia is its own model that is worth looking at in a positive way. The comparison for F-35 should be Canada. We are a decade behind and can not magically make that time up. Australia is in a much stronger position in nearly every way.
your whole post is glib and shows no understanding of the situation as it is. even the idea of "spending billions to upgrade F-35s is a sad waste, but spending billions to upgrade decades old hornets with no future is smart!" don't let your desire to complain about the F-35 cloud basic logic please.
and don't try to convince us that a decades old hornet with a new AESA is superior to a not block IV F-35. Australia and Finland for that matter were smart enough to not throw more money into an aircraft that was on its way out the door, unlike Canada which is doing exactly that. We are upgrading aircraft (and the upgrade is not cheap) that we plan on scrapping anyway because they have no future in the end. its extremely difficult to look at the CF-18 replacement debacle and endorse something like that for Australia. Australia has multiple squadrons set up Canada is upgrading hornets and hopes to get their first F-35 in 2026, and retiring their old hornets by 2032. the AESA upgraded wasn't even announced until 2018. Didn't start until 2020, and the RAAF retired their hornets in 2021. so your timeline doesn't work either. Canada is finally getting their first batch in 2024.
Canada’s CF-18 Hornet fighter upgrade programme reaches IOC - Airforce Technology
Canada is upgrading its legacy CF-18 fleet in a two-part programme to bridge the gap until the arrival of new F-35 fighters later this decade.www.airforce-technology.com
Wow, good job comparing Canada to Australia. Both countries are not in the same situation.
You have a very poor understanding of the dangers both countries are facing as of right now. Canada is under threat from Russia and Australia from China. But the difference is Canada is today within reach of Russia, but China isn't yet within reach of Australia.
Given the threat environment, Australia has time, Canada doesn't. So Canada pursuing both Hornet upgrades while buying F-35s (and at the right time may I add) is the correct course of action. Canada is part of NORAD, and any heavy-lifting will be done by the USAF anyway, so whatever assets can back up the USAF will help.
Given the fact that Australia does not have Canada's advantages under NORAD, ie, a massive USAF force right in its backyard, they are facing a major issue. I don't think you have kept up with the news, but as per the Pentagon, every single F-35 in operation today is incapable of fighting the PLAAF. B4 capabilities are what make the F-35 and initial B4 capabilities are not expected until 2025 or 2026. And this is only to deal with the threats from China today, not the kinda threats China will bring to the table post 2030. And it has been discovered that most of the F-35s delivered today cannot receive the upgrades necessary to deal with a post-2030 threat without a major ridiculously expensive rebuild of the F-35s which can happen only after 2040 for the already delivered RAAF jets.
Right now, China isn't a direct threat to the RAAF. Why? Distance. That could change within 10 years 'cause of PLAN's new carriers, and perhaps with China introducing a 6th gen jet too, alongside a stealth bomber. And unlike Canada, having to deal with Russia, the Australians aren't dealing with any real threat today. An upgraded Hornet with its life extended by 10 years is not better than a pre-TR-2 F-35, but would have bridged the gap between the time they bought the F-35 to the time they actually need the F-35, ie after 2030, so a 2031 retirement instead of 2021. And had they placed F-35 orders this year or the next, almost like Canada did, they would have directly received B4 jets right from the start, the version that's expected to match China.
Btw, Canada's set to operate its Hornets until 2032, with sufficient room to make up for delays. Canada's basically doing what I said Australia should have done. Ironically, they would have the anti-PLAAF fleet while the Australians wouldn't.
Brainchild of the Pentagon.
And yeah, why don't you figure out why RAAF has still not awarded FOC to the F-35?
A very large chunk of the F-35's actual capabilities have been locked away due to lack of TR-3 and very slow Block 4 software testing. So all the good stuff you hear about the F-35, most of that doesn't work.
So TR-3 introduces Block 4, and Block 4 is what gives the F-35 the ability to fight China. And even the RAAF agrees with me.
Did I forget to mention they are cleared for the F-35 too? They are the new Qatar.
@Spitfire6
In Switzerland, they compared paper F-35 via a simulator to the real Rafale. And to get to the paper F-35's capabilities in the real world, as the JPO and DOT&E have discovered, the F-35 needs massive upgrades including a new engine. These upgrades are effectively the cost of buying a new aircraft. That's why the RAAF is screwed.
In Finland, the Rafale was rejected before the tech round, so only Gripen and F-35 were compared.
In both competitions, costs were manipulated to favor the F-35. What's funny is in the UK, the Typhoon is cheaper to operate than the F-35B, and in turn Rafale is cheaper than the Typhoon. But somehow the F-35 was cheaper in Switzerland and Finland.
In Switzerland, they compared paper F-35 via a simulator to the real Rafale. And to get to the paper F-35's capabilities in the real world, as the JPO and DOT&E have discovered, the F-35 needs massive upgrades including a new engine. These upgrades are effectively the cost of buying a new aircraft. That's why the RAAF is screwed.
In Finland, the Rafale was rejected before the tech round, so only Gripen and F-35 were compared.
In both competitions, costs were manipulated to favor the F-35. What's funny is in the UK, the Typhoon is cheaper to operate than the F-35B, and in turn Rafale is cheaper than the Typhoon. But somehow the F-35 was cheaper in Switzerland and Finland.
It's not complicated for those that can google. Try : RAAF FOC F-35
We were going FOC in 2023, but with the delay. We are waiting for the delivery of the other 10 to award FOC 2024/5
wrong again, you don't have much luck, do you
wrong again. The typhoon is dearer. Again the CPFH is available on Google
Lol. And why the delay? 'Cause TR-3 is not ready. So the Pentagon had refused to take deliveries of new F-35s which could then be supplied to the RAAF.
It was restarted after a year.
Pentagon to accept deliveries of Lockheed F-35s after yearlong pause
The decision will allow deliveries of the latest F-35s to resume after a roughly year-long halt.
www.defensenews.com
F-35 Tech Upgrade Slips to 2025; 'Truncated' Version in the Fall
Complete Tech Refresh 3-equipped F-35s, previously expected this year, now won’t come until 2025, Lockheed Martin officials said April 23.
www.airandspaceforces.com
TR-3 will unlock capabilities meant to be acheived for Block 3F which was supposed to have become operational in 2019. This has now "tentatively" moved to 2025. Then comes the Block 4 upgrades starting in 2026, apparently, originally supposed to be 2021, but could take until 2030-35 to fully finish.
So now RAAF's plan is to declare FOC in 2025. And remember, these dates are tentative.
Check again.
Check again. Look up what RAF has to say about it.
F-35 Shown Carrying Stealthy Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles For The First Time
Work is now underway to integrate the low-observable AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) on the F-35. Work is now underway to integrate the low-observable AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) on the F-35 stealth fighter.
www.twz.com
Yeah, carrying this low-observable missile would make F-35 itself very observable, lol.F-35 Shown Carrying Stealthy Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles For The First Time
Work is now underway to integrate the low-observable AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) on the F-35. Work is now underway to integrate the low-observable AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) on the F-35 stealth fighter.
The missile and the pylon is stealthly and the missile has 1,000km range, soon 1,200km range in the D-variant upgrade, and then 1,900km range with the elongated -XR version.
@Rajput Lion
It's very difficult to cover 1,000km out from ships with patrols. As the radius increases, the area you need to cover increases in proportion to radius squared. The F-14 with extrenal tanks could only cover out to 450km for instance and the Phoenix increased that to 600km theoretically. You have to cover 4x the area at 900km as 450km. I don't believe there's currently any carrier-fighter combo that can cover out to 1,000km.
It's very difficult to cover 1,000km out from ships with patrols. As the radius increases, the area you need to cover increases in proportion to radius squared. The F-14 with extrenal tanks could only cover out to 450km for instance and the Phoenix increased that to 600km theoretically. You have to cover 4x the area at 900km as 450km. I don't believe there's currently any carrier-fighter combo that can cover out to 1,000km.
Netherland declare FOC for F-35:
www.defensie.nl
F-35 neemt taken van F-16 nu volledig over
Of het nou bewaking is van het Benelux-luchtruim, het uitvoeren van operaties om bijvoorbeeld terrorisme in te dammen of om het bijdragen aan de nucleaire afschrikking van de NAVO. De F-35 kan het allemaal. Met ingang van vandaag is dit type gevechtsvliegtuig officieel onder alle omstandigheden...
www.defensie.nl
That right there is confirmation DoD thinks by the time the F-35 achieves FOC counter systems detecting stealth would've evolved considerably.
The rest of the article is all fluff to give the F-35 apologists like Paddy & Sweetie their little fig leaf to argue here which incidentally reveals more than it conceals.
Ja ? @Innominate
It falls short, in a clean config, against a dual seat F16 with 2 pendular tanks.....
So no.