F-35 Pilots Compare it to the Jets of Yesteryear

FARNBOROUGH, England — How does flying the F-35 Lightning II stack up against older-model fighter jets? We asked two of its most experienced pilots that very question after their presentation this week at the air show.

20 Comments on "F-35 Pilots Compare it to the Jets of Yesteryear"

  1. Comments about how these guys are shills in 3…2…1…

  2. .8… .7….. .5…. .2 ……. .05….. .025….

    ok I'll bite, reminds me of new car salesmen that say:
    "with a single push of a button this car will parallel park itself"
    "with car is so self-aware, with camera's everywhere, that it will brake automatically for you if it see a hazard and it'll even know if you are feeling drowsy…when it does the a n al probe will activate"

    I wonder if the F-35 will have the anti-drowsy feature they obviously left off on the F-22 ;-D

  3. The title of the article is a bit misleading. Except for the guy saying he had to do more work in the Harrier, they didn't really compare the F-35 to other planes. The first pilot spent his entire soundbite talking about the situational awareness systems and the second pilot about the push-button landing system. Nothing really controversial to discuss. You couldn't give the guy an umbrella while you made him talk in the rain?

  4. I think all of the technologies that these pilots are talking about are great. Boeing is already proving that the F-35-style sensors and systems are able to be added to the Super Hornet. They already added a detailed glass ****pit as well as IR sensors about the aircraft for spherical scanning and missile/laser warning. My question is how difficult would it be to add the software from the F-35B to an upgraded Harrier III?

  5. Boeing's upgrades have never even flown on an airplane before, after all this talk of not believing Lockheed's "sales brochures" you sure are quick to believe Boeing's. You would see a huge spike in cost if you start putting that stuff on a legacy airplane because you aren't just upgrading whats already in there, you're putting things on the airplane that were never there. Add the cost of an advanced targeting pod (ATFLIR, SNIPER XR, whatever), all your IR sensors, and the most advanced passive detection suite in the world (which would be next to impossible) to the airframe cost of the Super Hornet, and you'd end up with a hefty pricetag. There's a reason that the new versions of the Strike Eagle (F-15K, F-15SG, F-15SA, etc) cost over 100 million dollars, and that reason is electronics. In my aircraft design courses back in school, we used the rule of thumb that per pound, avionics are 6 times the cost of the airframe and twice the cost of the engine. I'm also skeptical that they will be able to fit all the supporting equipment into the Super Hornet to run all of that fancy new stuff, the Super was criticized during development for its lack of expansion room and I imagine the problem hasn't gone away.

    The reason why you see the most recent F-35's costing so much is because the original LRIP-5 order was for 42 jets, with all the long term lead items associated with their construction, however the contract was reduced to only 32 airplanes, so you get a spike up relative to the LRIP-4 numbers, which were coming down. The realistic costs for an F-35A right now sit a little above 100 million dollars per jet. Yes it is more expensive than a vanilla Super Hornet, but as I've said before, you get what you pay for. And that $54,000 dollar per flight hour is a guess from Winslow Wheeler, not an actual number. While the F-35C will probably cost more money per flight hour than the SHornet, I doubt it will be that dramatic of an increase. Also I highly doubt that the F-16 costs more to fly than the SHornet, I wouldn't mix each service's accounting methods there.

    I'm not sure if you linked me to the right article on the whole Harrier III thing, I didn't see anything in there about BAe actually doing any serious design work, it read more like a thought experiment. Irregardless, sure you could make a Harrier III, but that's just what it would be, a slightly higher performing Harrier. If you want something that can lift more and still go fast and maneuver, you won't do any better right now than the Lift-Fan system and the F-35B. And before you say that the Lift-Fan doesn't work or whatever, left me point out that in the 791 flights of the B-model so far, 70% percent of them started with a short takeoff, and over 40% ended with a vertical landing.

    I'm not a huge fan of Lockheed these days or how the JSF program seems to be playing out, but as it stands, the whole program is still a way better alternative in terms of performance and capability than upgrading 4th generation fighters. As much as I would like to see some new Vipers or Eagles to freshen up the fleet, its time to move on.

  6. The great jessmo | July 13, 2012 at 1:30 am | Reply

    Japan’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced that it has agreed to buy 4 Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) at a cost of $128.61 million each, an increase of $3.7 million over the $124.83 million price negotiated last December. The four aircraft are scheduled for delivery in Fiscal Year 2016.

    A formal letter of offer and acceptance (LOA) was signed in Japan on 29 June and includes four conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variants of the F-35, spare parts, and two simulators for a total of $756.53 million. Although the base price of the aircraft itself increased, the cost of the spare parts and two simulators dropped from an initial estimate of $258.48 million to $240.83 million, a significant savings for Japan.

    It feels so good sometimes, destroying F-35 haters.

    Copy and paste the link before the anti-F-35 guys bann or sensor me http://defense-update.com/20120704_japan-formally

  7. I wish we would stop pissing away so much money on tacair period. If anyone read Greenert's piece about how he sees all the parts fitting together the role of the F35C in the USNs eyes is very different. Bottom line is the 2400ish # the DoD keeps quoting isn't going to happen. The damn this is too expensive to buy and the cost per flight hour is ridiculous. We are going to buy the F35, just a hell of alot less than 2400ish when its all done.

  8. This plane is old news. If the public has seen it. Its been flying for 15-20 years. Your not paying for the f35. Your paying for the next gen that you have not seen yet. Figured all you guys would know this by now.
    If not come back in 15 years and we will talk some more. Need proof? Go google earth NAFB and see 25 F35's sitting out on the tarmac on ready status.

  9. The great jessmo | July 13, 2012 at 4:03 am | Reply

    Okay, here’s the first BIG DIFFERENCE between the Hyper Hornet and the F-35C. The Hyper Hornet has had very little money actually put towards it because Boeing wants a customer to fund the upgrades. That’s why no version of it has flown. The F-35 has had obscene amounts of money pumped into it by us and our allies and it still doesn’t work. It doesn’t trap a wire or fly vertically without breaking apart. The software doesn’t work, the helmet doesn’t work. It hasn’t even done live weapons testing or spins yet.

    Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/07/12/f-35-pilots-com

    The F-35 Lightning II is making good progress through flight testing this year, a top Lockheed Martin official says. Most of the biggest challenges faced by the programme should be well on their way to being fixed by the later part of the year.

    One major issue that has recently popped up on the US Navy's F-35C variant is that the aircraft's tail-hook has had to be redesigned. That is because the existing design has failed to catch an arresting cable during trials. Lockheed is working on a new improved hook design that should fix the problem.

    "We have modified the hook pointwith a lower center of gravity," says Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's vice president for F-35 programme integration and business development. Additionally, "we've redesigned the hold-down damper."

    I will also add that so far the fix is working and the new design has caught a land hook.
    No falling apart here. Your making this to easy

  10. it would help if the right prices are used

    BY2012 $M
    The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $134.5 M
    The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $109.1 M
    Average F-35A Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $78.7 M
    Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $106.5
    Average F-35C Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $87 M

  11. No doubt old F-105 thunderchief pilots will tear up with the F-35 because the performance of the two is about the same.

    Buts it's good to the the F-35 is so easy to fly. You dont want to waste an expensive highly trained pilots in an aircraft where a SAM lockon is a death sentance because the aircraft kinematics are so poor.

    Oh yea I forgot no SAM will ever lock onto a F-35 no AAM will ever be fired against one because they are magically INVISIBLE. LOL

  12. the F-35 is the most advanced jet on the face of the earth
    but it broke the bank, and it'll be outdated in less than a decade

    either way the West will be bankrupt very soon, the F-35 will be ancient history, and it'll be the rise of the machi… er, drone

  13. I am thumbing up all the pro-F-35 comments and thumbing down all the anti-F-35 comments.

  14. It's no secret that the F35 is a larger chunk of change than we'd like it to be. F35B, for example, is looking to replace the Harrier, correct? I'd venture to say that replacing the Harrier with a brand new platform is worth the cost.

    Marines are having to buy other countries old stocks of Harriers for parts. That's not good. Harriers are, what… Vietnam era? There's no way a Harrier can be combat effective on the modern battlefield. And I'm not talking about OEF. I'm talking if we got into a fight with a legit Mil instead of fighting pissed off farmers.

  15. For that price it better be easier to fly than the Harrier.

  16. As far as the F-35 replacing the A-10, AV8B, F-16, & F-18 – The A-10: No way anything could replace that except an upgraded A-10. The AV8B – Yes, I can see it replacing that. The F-16 & F18, not sure the jury's still out on that.
    I would like to see the Air Force do away with their version and adopt either the B or C model. They need to get away from fighters that need long runways to take off, all the enemy has to do is take out the runway and the whole squadron is grounded.
    I do know that the F-35 is progressing and I would like to see them test it at the next level – which is against other aircraft.
    Here's what they have so far: https://f35.com/building-the-f-35/testing/f35b.as

  17. I revel in what BRASS had to say – I was around the SKUNK WORKS when the F-35 was being developed. He is right on target in every aspect. This aircraft is designed to make the pilot's job easier when evrything about him is turning into a personal nightmare regarding bogies. It allows him to concentrate on the job at hand, eliminating the bad guys, while not having to worry about constantly scanning his guages for aircraft problems. …as far as the comments about a black box or the display failing and everything is lost, there is something called redundancy – and at the SKUNK WORKS we didn''t work to the 3 sigma level of probability we worked to 4. ….as for the didplay, you don't think we put redundancy into that also – – that if it went out the pilots would be blind as to their guages and such, give me a break. This gives the pilots the abilityt to, and please BRASS allow me to quote you "I wonder how we keep essential skills and the split second decision making skills that are necessary. We live in an age where our defense and government computer systems suffer millions of attacks in one day

  18. so the only difference between the F35 and platforms like the F16 18 and 15 are the avionics? Why are we spending so much money on a new platform again?

  19. The cost is the last item on the table will this aircraft fufill the need's of all the service's which the military has asked for as I can't see the gov't going back to the drawing table.
    The US. has more at stake then their other member's as the fleet of plane's they plan on replacing is overwhelming to say the least.
    I as a Canadian feel our view's are of no importance for the amount of plane's our country is talking about are less than a drop in the bucket soo if they decide to opt. out so what. I have no idea what these aircraft will be used for aside from having the same type if in another conflict make's it easier to service at that time.JSF.is the program.we will be part of.I don't envey you america's.

  20. I'd really love to get an idea of how the F-35 actually handles compared to other fighters. Ive never seen it doing anyting all that impressive in videos ect. Not even a minimum radius turn. Just want an idea of how maneuverable it is.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.