From the comments section in the SLD forum linked a few posts above:

"Aussie Digger wrote:
September 20, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Probably should have asked Bill if he’s ever received payments, any other sort of gratuity, a free lunch or “press pack” from Boeing, SAAB or the Eurofighter Consortium…

PS. Good work btw. Keep it up!"

Sounds eerily familiar.

Engines,

I don't doubt that the F-35 is no longer destined to be an 'out and out' dog fighter in any configuration, but back in the day that was the objective, particularly for the biggest customer (USAF).

The ORD called for the specific performance requirements required of such high-agility fighter aircraft and to remove all doubt the requirements made repeated references to both the F/A-18C and F-16C for the KPP threshold/objectives. Indeed, I cannot recall a single parameter in the requirements set that allowed for an F-35A performance envelope that was less than currently achieved by the F-16 & F/A-18, with the exception of supersonic-dash speed.

When the ORD (JORD) for the USAF called for a +9/-3G aircraft when configured for A/A at 60% fuel, with a minimum threshold corner-speed of an F-16C, an objective corner-speed of an F/A-18C and excess mil power to sustain a 45 AOB turn above 30,000 ft or 2,500 fpm+ climb in this altitude block it was pretty clear to everyone in the program that this was not to be just a self-escorting strike fighter.

Again, I don't doubt that the end result is considerably less and that the self-escorting strike fighter description is now a good one, but this was not the objective and the new mantra regarding air-to-air capability was only adopted once the actual performance numbers fell short of the agreed threshold and objective requirements.

I'll get off my horse now, but revisionist history pulls on my chain.

my opinion and I'll leave you to google and confirm..If you don't like revisionist history, I'd look at the early SAR's that said all the non KPP of the ORD (JORD) will not be met. the plane that flew in 2006 was far different that the one envisaged in the early ORD (JORD) it was well know then that all the specs were not going to be met.

the + and - points..in fact the preceding platform design sim'd numbers specs were released years ago showing this very early in the piece. That and in the student report where the 60% for the A came from...was what the cries of 'it's a pig' came from.

I'd look at the early SAR's that said all the non KPP of the ORD (JORD) will not be met. the plane that flew in 2006 was far different that the one envisaged in the early ORD (JORD) it was well know then what the specs were going to be. they threw specs away to get range and navy want of ~18,000lb stores

They do know what they are doing most of the time. they released it publicly when all 3 models were flown to confirm what was already known and publicly then stated. this is with the end of life degraded specs by the way.

JTO,

Thanks for coming back.

I sincerely apologise if I've 'pulled your chain' - that certainly wasn't my intention. However, i do have to gently maintain my understanding of the programme as I saw it back around 2002 to 2006. I certainly wasn't trying to be 'revisionist'. Sorry again if I appeared to be doing that - it pulls my chain too.

The F-35 was not ever designed as a 'dogfighter', and certainly not 'out and out'. i don't know what KPPs you are referring to, but the KPPs that I was very familiar with didn't include specific agility performance requirements. The JORD certainly included requirements such as max 'g', but these were all available for trading off during development - only the KPPs were fixed. I can certainly tell you that a number of agility 'corner points' (e.g. max AOA) were traded off during the weight reduction programme in 2004.

I'll stress that I'm not a pilot, just a slightly experienced and interested retired aircraft engineer. It's my view (and that's all it is) that modern fighters (or 'strike fighters') need to strike a balance between agility, signature, sensors and weapons. A really good weapon/sensor suite plus good data links can, have and will enable aircraft that aren't 'out and out dogfighters' to be very effective. F-35 has struck a balance, time will tell whether they got it right.

Again, sorry if this sounds revisionist - it's certainly not my style to try to rewrite history. If my recollection doesn't square with yours, sorry again.

Best regards to all those posting here

Engines

If this is not defamation far worse than casting doubt on the financial independence of an individual's opinion, I don't know what is. I rest my case and will leave it at that.

Pffffft. Clearly another bought and paid for LM stooge.



And for those who missed it yet again, yes, that was sarcasm.

In your own words Ken what is your opinion of the F35 programme?

Given how many of his posts you have read on this very mega thread, I doubt the sincerity of your intent in posing this question.

Can we please stop this never-ending baiting ... please? It's noise, and not the glorious noise of jet exhaust.

@Engines: Thanks for your look from inside the program. That design goals are subject to trade off is -- wait for it -- One Of The Facts of Aircraft Design from about the time Orville and Wilbur tried to make that bugger fly in 1903. Who'd have thought that such uncomfortable constraints sustain into the 21st century? Well, anyone familiar with the process. (Like yourself).

The F-35, my perspective: "Let's see just how much stuff we can try to jam into that ten pound bag."
(Stuff = features in case anyone missed the point)

Just stop the bickering, please. This thread is becoming a joke and even the decent posts are now being totally devalued by the rubbish going on around them. I'll be back when there's something worth reading.

P.S. Well said, LoneWolf.

@Engines, just to clarify, in no way did I mean to infer your post was revisionist, I was actually reply to JTO, as I saw his post about revision was in itself revisionist from what I understood the facts to be.

@CM, there was a pilot's statement on the last page. that may be of value.

I don't think its just one program and any attempt to characterize it as a single program is short sighted. So I'll try by answering your question as follows:
1. A very ambitious development program with ambitions never before contemplated, never mind attempted.
2. A moderately badly managed program. In my opinion the bad management lies primarily at the feet of the government who never allowed the requirements to fully stabilize.
3. A pretty well executed engineering program with an exceptionally steep learning curve
4. A well planned and executed test program that is precisely defining the real performance of the aircraft and its systems, expanding the envelope of the aircraft and its systems, and enabling significant improvements in both hardware and software.
5. A struggling production program saddled with unrealistic government requirements for concurrent engineering, test, and production.

Overall, the above has resulted in an expensive aircraft delivered much later than anticipated with impressive capabilities in multiple areas that is literally redefining modern air combat, with those redefinitions still a work in progress. I'm reasonably confident the price will drop as the industry climbs up the learning curve and the build numbers climb. I'm also reasonably confident that as the pilots and other operators get more experience with all its capabilities, that tactics will be developed that will take full advantage of those capabilities and make the F-35 a very effective strike aircraft, and yet damned tough to beat in an air-to-air environment.

Did that satisfy your query?

KenV,

That was a nice summary of the F-35 program and the question you were asked. The only thing I would add is requested/demanded changes by the customer as the program progresses. Often, changes lead to problems because of the dislocation, disruptions that result. Changes also add significantly to costs. The US DoD is famous for demanded changes after the fact and it isn't limited to aircraft programs either.

TD, see KenV point 2? Goalpost changing isn't new but is very expensive.

Lawmakers: Give US Navy More F/A-18s

WASHINGTON —The US Navy is planning to request 12 more F/A-18 Super Hornets than the two it was allocated in the president’s 2017 defense budget, according to a House lawmaker.......

There are only two F-18s in the president's fiscal 2017 request, both funded in through the Overseas Contingency Operations account, with plans to buy 14 of the aircraft in 2018, reversing a decision to end US procurement of the Boeing-built aircraft. Wagner called for Congress to add 12 aircraft to the Navy future-years defense program, an increase from 16 to 28..........

As the article points to, the shornet/hornets are getting a flogging, they need gap fillers.
I also read where the growlers aren't getting the frame life they wanted too

I saw this on the same site
Interview: Gen. Frank Gorenc, Commander, US Air Forces in Europe and Africa
...When are you going to get the first squadrons of F-35s in Europe? What unique capabilities will the F-35 bring?

It looks like we will get our first F-35 squadron in 2021. It is going to bring the ability to strike. It is going to be able to deliver air superiority. The beauty of the F-35 is for the first time ever we have an airplane that literally can do four out of five core competencies. It can do air and space superiority, it can do strike, it can do intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and it can do command and control. I personally can’t wait. I wish it was higher in the priority to come here, but I am accepting of that. It is soon that we begin the process of laying down the infrastructure needed to work that airplane. I think we are in good shape.

"for the first time ever we have an airplane that literally can do four out of five core competencies"

Well it can't can it - it's totally unproven and has been in development trouble for years

The ISR capability is pretty much zero as aside from the ability to record what the pilot has selected on the head down there is zero ability to download and exploit anything.

:\

.............

Thanks for that ken, quite pleasant to have someone's thoughts as opposed to reams of c and p.

We need to be careful not to jump to conclusions. The F-22 is out of production. That's a fact that is not going to change. The number of F-22s produced may not be (probably won't be?) sufficient for the future threat (Gen 4.5 and up adversary aircraft.) Something needs to fill the gap and it cannot be more F-22s. ONE possible answer is to press the F-35 into the air superiority role even though it was not primarily designed for that role. That does not mean "we don't need the F-22 anymore." It means we don't have enough F-22s and the F-35 MAY be the best available substitute to fill the gap created by a lack of F-22s. The bottom line is that filling a perceived F-22 gap is very different than replacing the F-22. And using the F-35 to fill the F-22 gap may be the best solution only for now. Who knows, maybe after the T-X comes on line they can build an air superiority version of the T-X to fill the F-22 gap. Nothing is static.