Those other aircraft are less aerodynamic, have slower cruising speeds, shorter endurance/range, bleed energy faster when carrying weapons and external fuel in their normal mission configurations, and lack the ability to accelerate or maintain speed at altitude compared to the F-35.

Viper and Hornet pilots who have 3000hrs in them and have now converted to the F-35 say it cruises much faster, is way easier to fly, and is far more lethal and survivable.

I initially went looking for opinions from legacy pilots who would say what a piece of garbage the F-35 was, how easy it was to defeat it in BFM in the Hornet or Viper, how much hype it is, etc.

Instead, everyone from original Viper pilots from the 70s and early 80s, to the latest Super Hornet and senior F-15C pilots say it's a game-changer, while laughing at how inferior the legacy jets are compared to it, even when you take away VLO.

In my experience, fighter pilots will tell you what works and what doesn't, what is hype and what isn't.  "Oh the XYZ system!  Ha!  What a piece of sh*t.  It never works.  We just do such and such and never count on it, so it's not a factor for us."

Young and old guys who converted from legacy birds to the F-35 all speak praises to its vast capabilities over what they came from, and it crosses over to Brits, Aussies, Canadians (who don't even have them yet but have flown it extensively), Norwegians, Marines, Navy...doesn't matter.  They unanimously sing its praises.

I have one buddy who's a retired Viper driver who has his heels dug in, but he's involved in the F-16 program still on the civilian side and refuses to succumb to the F-35 "hype", though not being close to the program nor having ever flown it.

DARPA is trying to develop a Flying Missile Rail for the F16/F18. Looks like a cool idea. Yet another option for killing A2A stuff while remaining stealthy.

I'm sure an F35 could control and command it as well. So like a Missile Rail on a Missile Truck as I understand it. Allows the legacy guys to be further away.

I don't think this happens without the F35.

Even if that plane did things twice as well as what would become the F35, I can't see anyone in their right mind selecting it.   I big pat of the current mission of the Air Force is force projection and PR.   Can you imagine the LOL's when flying that thing on the airshow circuit, or doing a "show of force" by parking them near the boarder of a potential enemy.

There is something to be said about an attack plane looking like an attack plane.   I think that is one of the reasons the F22 was selected over the F23 as well.

Damn I thought we had more F35Cs than that

Finally starting to see the F-35C over Fallon.  Taken from my back yard.

Attached File


Attached File


Attached File

It smiled on us all. As a nation. And as a world.

I know they're IOC but have we actually deployed any C variants yet?

That's incredibly interesting.  Drone swarms with AIM-120Ds.  Ouch.

Problem is if they have released this as open source info, it seems the Chinese are probably working on their own missile rail drones to carry their PL-21s.

When carried by an SU-35S their reach in the pacific and threat to US tankers and AWACS is pretty substantial.

Because no secrets are revealed by it.   The secrets of the F-35 aren't things you're going to see by just seeing the assembly line at work.

I do confess, I'm just ever so slightly surprised that the fuselage construction method still uses clecos and rivets.  Same as B-17s were made before WWII started.

If only they could bring the same production practices to the F22 again.

No, not wasted at all.  Those that remain in their non upgraded form will still serve in training roles.  Pilots DO need training, you know.

Wouldn't an AWACS be able to turn around and run away from a subsonic drone? I'm surprised I haven't heard of a big ass air breathing Mach 3+ missile being built for that purpose. Hell, I bet the SS-N-26 would do the trick if retrofitted with a new seeker, fuse, and warhead designed for anti-air work.  I bet they could even make it a dual purpose missile that is still useful vs ships.

@cone256 nevermind sorry but I see others have answered my ?

more info please

You guys don't even know how much Hysol is used for filler on this plane. It's quite scarry the amount they use. They slap it on and sand it down.

Definition of a "turd" A Taper at each end with a Painter in the middle.
I guess yours could be A LM plant worker at each end with an F35 in the middle
or an F35A at one end and a F35C at the other with an F35B in the Middle. I like that better.

I always found it odd that, with exception to the F16, every other aircraft its replacing had twin thrusters/engines?

Harrier only has one engine.

As does the SU22 which it would be replacing in Polish service.

Is good engine. More thrust per squeeze.

Attached File

These drones appear to be low observable / semi stealthy types.

With the ranges of something like a PL-21 the drone could well cruise in missile firing range before it gets seen on radar.

The Chinese do have a missile specifically designed to go after AWACS and Tankers, the PL- XX.

Not yet.

Harrier has a single engine

LOL.  Production line looked nothing like that.

They working out the bugs yet?

Can you imagine, China sinks a carrier and some of its support ships tomorrow morning...

then we get to see more like WW2 production numbers. Ya, not 1000 per week probably, but many more.

Ohh.

No.
There are only two F-35C squadrons, VFA-125 (the RAG - school) and VFA-147 "Argonauts".
As far as I know the Navy still hasn't selected the second F-18 transition squadron.
https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=108746

The Marines will have more operational F-35C squadrons than the Navy will for a while.
https://navaltoday.com/2019/03/01/f-35c-ready-for-operations/

The aircraft is made of composite materials.
Of course your going to use composite materials to build it and fix it.

And, like many before you, you're using the manufacturers name "Hysol" and not the name of the actual product, like EA 9303 NA or EA 9394 AERO...

You probably use fucking "double bubble" to fix everything and use "Turco" to wash the planes and use "gorilla snot" and "elephant snot".
Bet you wish you could still use 8802 cherry max rivets and "Scotch Weld" to work on them.

So you're saying that was a dog and pony show picture?  

If that design had beat all the competition in every category, I think it still would’ve lost the contract on appearance alone

“If it looks good, it will fly good.” — Bill Lear

“What the fuck is that?” — Ghost of Bill Lear

Maybe we will build as many as we did of the F-4, but I doubt it.

if it works, does it matter?

They're getting ready to transition from single year contracts to multi-year contracts in 2021, starting with the USAF.

Right now, everyone is on single year contracts, which will then bump to 3 year contracts, which lowers the price while creating more stability for the contractors.

F-35 Fleet Multiyear procurement strategy

Okay, retard alert.



I never knew the Marines had the C model. What's up with that? Do Marine aviators launch from carriers? I thought that was all Navy.

As I understood it, the Marines wanted the B because amphib and other kinda non ideal launch situations that they might run into.

That's one hell of a production line.

Because the marines aren't just replacing their Harriers, they are replacing their Baby Bugs.

Marine squadrons are sometimes deployed on fleet carriers, but even if they weren't the marines still have a long tradition of flying from land bases... Like so.

Attached File


Probably with a little less sand in the jet era.

Crazy to think that the F35 is going to be the inheritor of this many mechanical traditions.

I had no clue Marine aviators operated from carriers. I thought that was all Navy guys.

USMC has been operating fixed-wing, catapult-launched fighters dating way back.







Instead of investing in Super Hornets (F/A-18E/F) to replace Baby Hornets (F/A-18A/B/C/D), the Marines plan for many years has been to replace their CVN carrier-borne capable squadrons with F-35Cs, so they are the only service so far in the US that is getting both the STOVL model and one of the others.

I had no clue.

What's the difference? Do Marines only support Marines or since the services are kinda married both services do both missions?

Twas brought up here in some detail.

Before they can deploy F-35Cs in the US Navy, they're working the whole tactics angles for it at the US Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor Course (TOPGUN) up at Fallon.

It's a platform that really opens up a clean slate approach to their whole POI for 5th Gen, since you can do so many different things that weren't possible in 4th Gen birds.

It's interesting to look at the generational changes that have taken place at TOPGUN as a result of different platforms.  The F-35C is the most drastic leap in capability over any previous fighter transition if you look at the F-8 to F-4 era, followed by the F-4 to F-14A era, then F-14 to Hornet/Super Hornet, and now the Super Hornet/F-35C mix.

I saw a F-35 at an Edwards AFB airshow circa 2007.

Hillary Clinton had power until 2013.

We are putting all of our chips in the F-35 as are many allied nations.

I bet dollars to donuts Hillary and her cronies gave the Chinese sensitive info before she left office in 2013.

For when we were to go to war, our wonder weapon would be compromised from the beginning.

The wife's command, NAWDC, hosted them.

Kinda ironic seeing F-35s then Draken International A-4 Skyhawks overhead.  Talk about generation changes.

A few weeks ago a young friend who is an Eagle driver got to bring his F-15C down and play with the TOPGUN class.  He had a blast.

The USMC sends all their aviation candidates through the Navy's training pipeline.  They are designated Naval Aviators.  Yes, they fly with Navy Carrier Strike Groups and support Navy missions.

The JSF-B is being flown from the amphibs, which remember, are US Navy ships run by US Navy crews.

VSTOL is the only way to really do that mission, but that's not the entire USMC mission for aviation.

Never knew that.

Thanks to both you and the other guys for pointing it out.

Senior, hand-selected F-15C Fighter Weapons School Instructors from Nellis actually helped the Navy build their single seat Fighter tactics training syllabus in the F-16N back in the late 1980s, which cross-pollinated over to the F/A-18 tactics as the Navy transitioned from decades of a Pilot/RIO relationships (from the F-4B/J/N and F-14A/D) to the Hornet and SH.

They needed a 4th Gen threat simulator for the MiG-29 and Su-27, and selected the F-16N over the F-20A.  The F-16N was equipped with the APG-66 radar likely for cost purposes (F-16N was basically an early small mouth Block 30 airframe with the GE engine without a gun or the newer APG-68 that USAF F-16Cs got), and instead of going to the USAF Viper community (who were focused on mainly Air-to-Ground missions culturally and in training), they went to the F-15C FWS Instructors, who focused heavily on employing a BVR-capable radar and weapons system from detection through tracking, TGT prioritizing as a flight, dealing with offsets and optimum angles, speeds, altitude band searches and evasive techniques, for ultimate employment of weapons in parameters.

F-14 pilots were almost useless for this, since they took cues where to steer the bird from the RIO so the RIO could set the aircraft up for best intercepts, and F-14 RIOs didn't have any experience with a more modern pulse-doppler radar interface via MFDs like in the F-16C and F/A-18A-D. The F-14 didn't have HOTAS or a more modern Radar-HUD interface like the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 did either.

Since the F-16N had a modern radar, MFD interface, and a great HUD that automatically reflected relevant radar mode and weapons symbology, with HOTAS interface, and was being used as an interceptor threat simulator, it made more sense to tap into the F-15C FWS Instructors to help them develop their POI.

The TOPGUN instructors who did F-16N conversion said the radar was the biggest enabler for them, as they had no real radar capabilities in the A-4 and F-5 adversary aircraft.  The F-16N could also be used to fly MiG-29, Su-27, MiG-23, MiG-21, and MiG-17 performance profiles with regard to speed, altitude, turning, and climb rate.

The flew it to full envelope when simulating the 4th Gen A/C, limited it to 4Gs when doing MiG-23, and kept it out of burner when simulating MiG-17.  They wore the F-16Ns out really quick though.

It all makes sense when you realize the Commandant of the Marine Corps, along with the Chief of Naval Operations, reports to the Secretary of the Navy.  The Marine Corps is a Naval Infantry service.

Marines have been deploying on Navy carriers for a long time.
In modern times (F-18 era) the Navy never had enough F-18 squadrons to fill out the Wing/CAG's.

The Marines were ordered to supplement the Wing/CAG.

When I deployed on board the Stennis for OEF in 2001 we had one F-14 squadron, VF-211 Checkmates, two Navy Navy legacy F-18 squadrons, VFA-146 Blue Diamonds / VFA-147 Argonauts and one Marine legacy F-18 squadron - VMFA-314 Black Knights.
Also included in the wing were E2's - VAW-112 Golden Hawks, EA-6B'S - VAQ-138 Yellowjackets, S-3's - VS-33 Screwbirds, H-60's - HS-8 Eightballers and the COD squad - VRC-30 Providers.

The Marine aircraft that deploy on board the carriers are set up just like the Navy F-18's.
They may have some Marine specific equipment on-board their aircraft when they are operated from land based bases and when they are directly and only supporting Marine assets.

Interesting about the F-16N.  I could be wrong but seem to remember they were originally slated for Pakistan.  That deal was canned when Pakistan developed their nukes so the Navy somehow ended up with them.  I know they fly the shit out of them.  They are overhead almost every day.