Can you point me to the part of the NAO reports that deal with the actual threat?

The belief that the NAO reports can be relied upon is touching but I’m sure many understand why they usually fail to provide a balanced view. Surprised this is not a more widely held view.

I hinted at it in my email - e.g. is a balanced view being taken of the cost and difficulty of an LO solution, and how that difficulty could have been seen three times in three bespoke aircraft etc.

And to what extent is the LO worth it? Looking at open source info, if it’s a “metal marble”, then is it useful to have an aircraft costing £100m that is detected/tracked at a range of tens of Km if they other side are lucky, vs a £80m F18 which is seen & tracked and shot down by the same systems at 200+km. Of course its more complex but you rarely see articles recognising the benefits of LO.

Other questions are could it have been done quicker and cheaper through better mgt, or are the signs there that de-risking was comprehensive enough whilst never likely to capture & remove every dev problem in such a bold project, and broadly it does do what it should. It’s no F111B with flaws that would drive cancellation for instance. I suspect they possibly did overlap dev and prod too much, but who is to say what is right - wait too long and obsolescence is an even bigger challenge.

My request is simply based on the fact that a google pulls up loads of what I suspect are pretty ill informed castigations of F35, with stuff about EO tracking and stealth not working etc. It’s simplistic drivel quite often and obviously not so simple.

I read the latest GAO report and found it quite amusing - they sound quite like the NAO! :) Their recommendation to delay the latest development investment in batch 4 in case its takes longer than expected is a particular gem. When you look at the meat of their concern it can sound like they are not practitioners. You can almost see the eyebrows raising as the DoD wrote its response.....

I have no experience of the F35 programme so could be completely mistaken of course.

There is more to the F35 than it ‘simply’ being an LO fighter.

The sensors and other clever wiggly-amps are what really set it apart.

Now, I am not the person to discuss those capabilities on here but there must be something on google to highlight what I am talking about.

BV

I’m sure thats the case Bob, I touched on the SA aspects too. I’ve heard the radar and ew suite are quite something.

I’d have thought there would be something balanced out there - and felt sure the contributors here would know if there was.

I’ve already parked the GAO - their focus is actually quite narrow it seems. Shame.

More fuel, but a bigger wing and more drag, ending up with a much longer transonic acceleration, lower thrust to weight ratio and no greater range than the F-35A. That’s before you add in that it won’t benefit from the proposed conformal tanks etc being looked at by LM for the F-35A.

Thats before you consider the total planned production run of the F-35C is about 320, assuming the USN doesn’t cut its order, as opposed to several thousand planned F-35As, meaning the cost of spares and support will be even more eye watering than the A or B.

Complicated innit?

Tricky. The F35C is the best looking variant - does that carry any weight? :)

Is it a totally crazy non-starter to put the probe into an F35A?

Do the A and C really have the same Combat Radius?