F-22 / F-35 5th Generation jets | News & Discussions.

[Esc8781]

While the program continues to evaluate fixes for problems already identified, and to test multiple blocks of mission-system software concurrently, it is pushing ahead into new areas of testing. “From a flight-test perspective, there are two priorities this year: complete weapons verification and high alpha [angle of attack],” says Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin F-35 program integration executive vice president and general manager.

“We are using 18 aircraft to conduct the equivalent of three development flight-test programs and one mission-system program,” says J.D. McFarlan, F-35 test and verification vice president. “We expect it to eventually include 8,000 flights and 60,000 test points. So far we've collected 22,000 of those, so we are around 36% through the test program.”

Across the three variants, there are 12 aircraft in the flight-sciences test fleet. Another four are assigned to mission-systems testing, with two more—Stovl production aircraft BF-17 and -18—about to join and complete the flight-test stable based at Edwards AFB, Calif., and NAS Patuxent River, Md. Together they had logged 4,243 flight hours by Jan. 7, with the Stovl aircraft logging 1,309 of those hours and conducting 381 vertical landings.

Tests to clear the F-35A “clean wing” flight envelope for the Block 2B initial combat capability—to Mach 1.6/700 kt airspeed, 9g maneuvers and 40,000-ft. altitude (see F-35 Capability Plan table)—are wrapping up. The next step will be to clear the envelope with internal weapons-bay doors open, he says. Release of the Block 2B envelope is planned for mid-2015. Expanding the flight envelope to 50,000 ft. for the Block 3F full combat capability is planned for 2016, when development testing is scheduled to finish.

The flight-sciences sortie rate is ahead of plan for the F-35B and C, but behind for the A, says the ***&E. There are high-speed/high-altitude restrictions on all three variants caused by the tail scorching. New surface coatings have been flown unsuccessfully, so a new skin design will be tested on CTOL aircraft AF-2 early this year, according to the report.

High angle-of-attack testing is underway at Edwards AFB using aircraft AF-4 equipped with a spin-recovery parachute. Where the F-16 is limited to 26 deg. alpha by its fly-by-wire flight-control system, the F-35's limiter is set at 50 deg. and the aircraft has been flown to 73 deg. to ensure there is sufficient pitch authority. “We have to really slow down to get those pitch conditions—100 kt at 40,000 ft.,” says McFarlan. “Pilots are pleased with the ability to get the nose down from high angle of attack.”

The control system is designed to prevent departure from controlled flight at high alpha. In tests now beginning, the prevention feature is turned off, the aircraft forced to depart and the system turned back on to ensure it recovers the aircraft. The ultimate goal is to demonstrate safe recovery from a flat spin, with the chute as a backup. After completing these tests, they will be repeated with the spin chute removed. High-alpha testing on the F-35B will begin this year.

Test flights to investigate transonic roll-off, caused by slight differences in left and right wing stalls during maneuvers, have shown that control-law software changes are sufficient to mitigate the phenomenon, says Burbage. As a result, pop-up spoilers added to the larger wing of the F-35C have been removed in production aircraft.

The ***&E report says alternative trailing-edge flap settings are being explored to improve flying qualities during the approach to the carrier. Pilot surveys show handling qualities improve with 15-deg. flap deflection, but flight tests indicate 30-deg. flaps are needed to meet the 145-kt. maximum-approach-speed requirement. Burbage says the F-35C's flight-control system uses the flaps to keep the aircraft stable on the approach glideslope, taking out the lag from the pilot's inputs.

A new tailhook for the CV will undergo its critical design review within a month and is scheduled to be installed in test aircraft at Pax River by year-end. After the F-35C had problems catching the arrester cables, the hook point, shank and dampers were redesigned. The concept was demonstrated last August at NAS Lakehurst, N.J., when aircraft CF-3 made five successful engagements, McFarlan says.

F-35 JSF Testers Report Progress, Problems

 

[SajeevJino]

IN FOCUS: Lockheed claims F-35 kinematics ‘better than or equal to’ Typhoon or Super Hornet​

Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

"The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission," says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed test pilot who is responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for all three variants.

But the Lockheed claims are strongly disputed by other sources, including one veteran Super Hornet test pilot with thousands of hours in that aircraft. "These claims are technically inaccurate from my point of view as a professional test pilot," he says. "An aircraft with small control surfaces intended for stealth cannot produce such fantastical results in maneuverability; a little wing cannot produce a lot of lift period."

Flynn says "that the F-35 can go out on any given day, and we have, gone to the red line of the airplane" with a full internal weapons load. Going to the limits of the aircraft's envelope with a full load of weapons is "inconceivable in any of the other fourth-generation airplanes, including Typhoon, which most would say has the best performance of those four fourth-gen jets," says Flynn, who is a former test pilot for the Eurofighter and Lockheed F-16. All variants of the F-35 are capable of flying at Mach 1.6 and 50° angle-of-attack, he says. The A and C models have a maximum speed of 700 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS-1296 km/h) while the F-35B can fly at 630 KCAS (1167 Km/h). The A, B and C variant are rated at 9g, 7g and 7.5g's respectively.

But at issue is exactly what constitutes a combat load out. An F-35 loaded up with two 2000lbs bombs and two air-to-air missiles internally is not carrying an equivalent payload to a Eurofighter Typhoon with four 2000lbs bombs and five air-to-air missiles or a Super Hornet armed with a mix of bombs and air-to-air missiles. "What was the combat load out?" the Super Hornet pilot asks. "If you compare apples and oranges --you can make claims like that." One highly experienced pilot flying the Lockheed F-22 Raptor adds, "They need to compare the performances based on similar amounts of ordnance carriage."

Another point that must be considered, however, is that the F-35 will only be relying on its internal weapons payload during operations against a very robust threat environment. "Internal carriage is only required if you need the stealth," another F-22 pilot says. "At which point a fourth generation jet may not even be able to deliver on the target."

Stealth is a point that Lockheed emphasizes. "The game-changer is stealth," Flynn says. "No one is going to see us coming or going." But exactly how many targets an F-35 could attack with its internal payload versus a non-stealth platform during a campaign is debatable. "There is a whole other story on how many targets the F-35 could hit with the limited internal carry versus the fourth-gen plus jets," the second Raptor pilot says.

Asked to address the issue of transonic acceleration compared to the best performing fourth-generation machines, in this case an air-to-air configured Typhoon, Flynn reiterated that the F-35 was better than or equal to that aircraft. Even with the reduced transonic acceleration times mentioned in the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation 2012 report, the F-35, including the C-model which had its specifications reduced by 43 seconds, still out accelerates competing aircraft in a combat configuration, he says.

But others are skeptical. "Forty-three seconds tells me there is a massive decrease in the expected performance because of some serious shortcomings," the Super Hornet pilot says. "How that's parlayed into 'we're better than the rest of the world combined' on every measure, I don't know, and I don't believe it." More important is the question of how the reduction in performance impacts aircraft survivability. "So what if you can accelerate better than a [F-16] Viper or Typhoon, can you live against an SA-20?" asks the second F-22 pilot.


If one were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35's, "It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there," Flynn says. That applies even to the F-35 B and C models with their respective 7g and 7.5g limits. "You're not going to see any measurable difference between the aircraft," Flynn says. In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter, he says.

The first F-22 pilot says he is surprised to hear that there are already E-M diagrams available. "The reality is that I would be floored if they had accurate E-M diagrams right now," he says. "They are probably computer generated, and very inaccurate. Also, 'real' E-M diagrams come from OT/DT [operational test/developmental test], not the contractor."

In terms of high angle of attack (AOA) performance, Flynn says the F-35 is better than the Boeing F/A-18E/F, even though the Super Hornet is capable of reaching higher angles than the JSF's limit of 50°. "We are better than any airplane out there," says Flynn, a veteran Canadian Forces CF-18 Hornet pilot who has also flown thrust-vectored prototype variants of the F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet at NASA. "You can go to higher degrees of angle-of-attack in the F/A-18, the flight control system will not limit you, but that's not necessarily controlled flight." In the F/A-18, Flynn says that past 50° there is a lot of very violent buffeting.


"You maneuver the airplane much like an F-22 or a lot like I maneuvered the prototype F-16 20 years ago with thrust vectoring," Flynn says. "You maneuver the airplane back and forth with amazing controllability at the highest degree of angle-of-attack, and that is not the case with the only other Western airplane that can go to high AOA, the F/A-18." The one other exception is the Raptor, which Flynn does acknowledge as having better high AOA performance than the F-35 due to its thrust vectoring capability. The Typhoon, by comparison, has a 25° AOA limit. In the F-35, Lockheed made the decision to limit the AOA to 50°, but test pilots have flown the aircraft well past that.

The high AOA limit gives the F-35 "great" instantaneous turn performance. "We knew that 50°, from our years of research, is about as far as you need to go to take advantage of the aerodynamic performance" of the jet, Flynn says. "There is no reason to be there [at extreme AOA]; you're not going to get much more capability at 75° than you would at 50°." The limiter will allow an F-35 pilot to fly with "reckless abandon", which Flynn says is not possible in a Hornet because an F/A-18 can depart from controlled flight.

Both Raptor pilots take strong exception to the phrase "reckless abandon" that Flynn uses. The same terminology was used in the F-22 Dash-1 manual until one particular incident where a Raptor pilot experienced an "inverted spiral". Both say using the phrase is a serious mistake.

Lockheed declined to compare F-35 performance to clean configuration fourth-generation fighters saying such comparisons are irrelevant. "This comparison doesn't mean much, because a clean fourth-gen isn't carrying weapons," the second F-22 pilot says. The assumption for such a comparison would mean that a fourth generation fighter was forced to jettison its weapons and, if taken literally, its weapons pylons too. "Losing pylons is not a good thing during a protracted air campaign," he says.

IN FOCUS: Lockheed claims F-35 kinematics

 

[SajeevJino]

“No way an F-35 will ever match a Typhoon fighter jet in aerial combat” Eurofighter test pilot says ​

In an interesting piece by Flight’s Dave Majumdar, Bill Flynn, Lockheed test pilot responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for the F-35 claimed that all three variants of the Joint Strike Fighter will have better kinematic performance than any fourth-generation fighter plane with combat payload, including the Eurofighter Typhoon (that during last year’s Red Flag Alaska achieved several simulated kills against the F-22 Raptor) and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

“In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter,” Flyinn said.

According to the Lockheed pilot, (besides its stealthiness) the F-35 features better transonic acceleration and high AOA (angle-of-attack) flight performance than an armed Typhoon or Super Hornet.

As Majumdar says in his article, such claims are strongly disputed by other sources. Among them an experienced Eurofighter Typhoon industry test pilot, who tried to debunk all Flynn’s “theories” about the alleged superior F-35 performance.

Here’s what he wrote to The Aviationist:

No doubt the F-35 will be, when available, a very capable aircraft: its stealth design, extended range, internal carriage of stores and a variety of integrated sensors are definitely the ingredients for success in modern air-to-ground operations.

However, when time comes for air dominance, some other ingredients like thrust to weight ratio and wing loading tend to regulate the sky. And in that nothing comes close to a Typhoon, except an F-22 which has very similar values. The F-35 thrust to weight ratio is way lower and its energy-manoeuvrability diagrams match those of the F/A-18, which is an excellent result for a single engine aircraft loaded with several thousand pounds of fuel and significant armament.

But it also means that starting from medium altitude and above, there is no story with a similarly loaded Typhoon.


Dealing with the transonic acceleration:

Transonic acceleration is excellent in the F-35, as it is for the Typhoon and better than in an F/A-18 or F-16, but mainly due to its low drag characteristics than to its powerplant. That means that immediately after the transonic regime, the F-35 would stop accelerating and struggle forever to reach a non operationally suitable Mach 1.6.

The Typhoon will continue to accelerate supersonic with an impressive steady pull, giving more range to its BVR (Beyond Visual Range) armament.



For what concerns AOA:

Angle-of-attack is remarkably high in the F-35, as it is for all the twin tailed aircraft, but of course it can not be exploited in the supersonic regime, where the limiting load factor is achieved at low values of AoA.

Also in the subsonic regime, the angle-of-attack itself doesn’t mean that much, especially if past a modest 12° AoA you are literally going to fall of the sky! Excessive energy bleeding rates would operationally limit the F-35 well before its ultimate AoA is reached.

Eurofighter superb engine-airframe matching, in combination with it’s High Off-Bore-Sight armament supported by Helmet Cueing, has already and consistently proven winning against any angile fighter.

Last, the F-35 is capable of supersonic carriage of bombs in the bomb bay, but the fuel penalty becomes almost unaffordable, while delivery is limited to subsonic speeds by the armament itself as is for the Typhoon.


Concluding


it is in the facts that while the Typhoon can do most of the F-35 air-to-ground mission, vice versa the F-35 remains way far from a true swing role capability, and not even talking of regulating the skies.

Provided that the F-35 will be able to solve all its problems, and that the raising costs will not lead to a death spiral of order cuts, both the British RAF and the Italian Air Force will be equipped with both the JSF and the Typhoon.

Mock aerial combat training will tell us who’s better in aerial combat.


The Aviationist » “No way an F-35 will ever match a Typhoon fighter jet in aerial combat” Eurofighter test pilot says

 

[Esc8781]

 

[Esc8781]

 

[Safriz]

A couple of weeks ago, an experienced Eurofighter Typhoon industry test
pilot wrote to The Aviationist to reply to a Lockheed F-35 test pilot
who, talking to Flight’s Dave Majumdar, had claimed that all three variants of the Joint Strike Fighter will have better kinematic performance than any
fourth-generation fighter plane with combat payload, including
the Eurofighter Typhoon. Now the same Typhoon pilot has once again chosen this blog (and I’m
honored for this) to explain why thrust vectoring, considered one of the
most important F-22 features, is not essential when you are involved in an
air-to-air engagement WVR (Within Visual Range). RAF Typhoons and U.S. Air Force F-22s are currently operating together in
the U.S.: the joint mission started with a training exercise called Western
Zephyr and will continue next week at the Red Flag 13-3 at Nellis Air Force
Base. As reported in an interesting Defensenews article, the agility of the American 5th generation fighter plane is among the things that impressed British pilots
the most. According to the piece, the commander of the RAF XI Sqn Wing Commander
Rich Wells, said: “Raptor has vector thrust: Typhoon doesn’t,” he said. “What the aircraft can
do, it’s incredible. The Typhoon just doesn’t do that.” Even if it is a matter of fact that the European top class fighter jet lacks thrust
vectoring (TV) our source believes that this is not a big deal. To be honest, the points he raises were already discussed in the article about the outcome of the dogfights between the U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors and the German Air Force Eurofighter Typhoons during last year’s Red Flag – Alaska, when Americans said the F-22 performance was “overwhelming” while Germans said the costly stealth fighter was “salad” for the Eurofighter’s pilots lunch. At that time, we said that the F-22 tends to lose too much energy when
using TV and unless the Raptor can manage to immediately get in the proper
position to score a kill, the energy it loses makes it quite vulnerable. Anyway, here’s what he wrote to us: We have all been around long enough to recognize there is not a single
sensor able to turn the night into day, nor a unique aerodynamic design feature capable
of ensuring by itself air dominance if implemented. The effectiveness of an air superiority fighter relies on the successful combination of a
range of design elements including thrust-to-weight ratio, wing loading, avionics and
weapons integration. Furthermore, appropriate tactics and valuable aircrew training
must be developed to exploit the full potential of the weapon system. Typically, when time comes to decide how to achieve the required “nose pointing
capability” for high thrust-to-weight ratio airplanes three solutions are on the table: - extremely high short term sustained Angle of Attack values (characteristic of twin
tailed airplanes);
- High Off-Bore-Sight Weapons, preferably supported by Helmet Cueing; - Thrust Vectoring. Thrust Vectoring is one of the design elements that can contribute to create a certain
advantage during close air combat by generating impressive pitch and yaw rates, but
only in a limited portion of the flight envelope at velocities well below “corner speed”. However, Thrust Vectoring can also transform in a few seconds an energy fighter in a
piece of metal literally falling off the sky, making it an easy prey for those who have
been able to conserve their energy. Moreover, Thrust Vector operation requires the pilot to “create the opportunity” for its
usage, spending valuable time in manoeuvring the aircraft to achieve a suitable
condition and managing the activation of the Thrust Vector Control. If you are “defensive” and your aircraft has Thrust Vectoring, you can possibly outturn
your enemy, but that most likely won’t prove to be a great idea: an energy fighter like
the Typhoon will conveniently “use the vertical” to retain energy and aggressively
reposition for a missile or gun shot. Also the subsequent acceleration will be extremely
time (and fuel) consuming, giving your opponent the opportunity to tail chase you for
ever, exploiting all its short range weapon array. If you are “neutral," when typically vertical, rolling and flat scissors would accompany
the progressive energy decay, similarly performing machines would remain closely
entangled, negating the opportunity for Thrust Vector activation. If you are “offensive," probably stuck in a never ending “rate fight," Thrust Vector could
provide the opportunity for a couple of shots in close sequence. Make sure nobody is
coming to you from the “support structure”, otherwise that could be also your last
move. Talking of twin tailed aircraft, Angles of Attack in excess of 30-35 degrees are capable of creating drag conditions unsustainable no matter the engine/airframe matching, and
developing energy decays intrusive of the tactical flying but also of the flight control
system protections. Roll rates would also deteriorate at the higher values of AoA and
target tracking ability would quickly decay. Eurofighter has decided to develop for the Typhoon High Off-Bore-Sight Weapons,
supported by Helmet Cueing, to retain energy and target tracking ability while manoeuvring WVR (Within Visual Range) at relatively high but sustainable Angles of
Attack. For those who may require some additional AoA, the “Strakes” package is
progressing well and soon it will be offered to Typhoon’s Customers. Nevertheless,
Strakes is not purely about extreme AoA, but also suitable Roll Rates and manageable
energy characteristics. Because in the European way of doing things, an all around
balanced solution counts more than a single eye opening performance. It is a fact that against Eastern produced fighters provided with Thrust Vectoring,
throughout the years the Typhoon has showed an embarrassing (for them) kill-to-loss
ratio. It is a fact that after some initial encounters between the Raptor and the Typhoon, the
situation appears of absolute equity. Too early to say if it is the Helmet Cueing or the
Thrust Vector, or how much tactics and training are a player in all this. For sure, we are
facing two impressively capable machines. The typical answer to any critics to the F-22 air dominance is: “since it is stealthy, you
should not even consider the possibility of a close encounter with another jet.” Even if this can be true, the risk of coming to close range is still high. At a distance of
about 50 km the Typhoon IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system could be capable to
find even a stealthy plane “especially if it is large and hot, like the F-22″ as a Eurofighter
pilot once said. Furthermore, Raptors are not always stealthy as one might believe: for instance, when
they carry external store, rejoin with tankers or talk on the radio (secure or unsecure ones) they become more vulnerable to detection. But this is another story, that we will discuss in the near future…

http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-wont-win-a-dogfight-thrust-vectoring-raptor-typhoon-eurofighter-2013-2

 

[SQ8]

Precisely what I keep saying.. TVC is highly overrated in WVR fights..

The Raptors TVC however.. has an entirely different purpose available to it altogether.. and that involves maneuverability at super-cruise without compromising RCS.. A look at @gambit 's post in the Saudi thread regarding the B-2 should highlight what I refer to.

 

[sancho]

Precisely what I keep saying.. TVC is highly overrated in WVR fights..

That depends on which fighter design you take for comparison, I would say! So far only highly maneuverable like the delta canard EF and Rafale, the Mirage 2000-9 (if I'm not wrong also the F5) proved themself to be comparable to the F22 in dogfights. The US teen series instead are mostly regared as inferior and don't forget that stealth fighters are not shaped for the best aerodynamical design, but for a very low RCS, which again compromises the maneuverability, without such features to improve them again. Pak Fa/FGFA and J20... should have advantages here compared to designs like F35.

The EF consortium has developed 3D TVNs as well, but the fighter is already designed for high maneuverability, which makes the addition of TVNs not necessary at the moment, which is why Eurojet tries to sell it with fuel reduction arguments and why none of the partners wants to fund it.
On the other side, Russia has deleted canards from their early Su 35 versions for reduced RCS reasons, but added improved TVN instead.

So overrated is possibly not correct, unless you have a highly maneuverable fighter that can counter these advantages.

 

[SQ8]

That depends on which fighter design you take for comparison, I would say! So far only highly maneuverable like the delta canard EF and Rafale, the Mirage 2000-9 (if I'm not wrong also the F5) proved themself to be comparable to the F22 in dogfights. The US teen series instead are mostly regared as inferior and don't forget that stealth fighters are not shaped for the best aerodynamical design, but for a very low RCS, which again compromises the maneuverability, without such features to improve them again. Pak Fa/FGFA and J20... should have advantages here compared to designs like F35.

The EF consortium has developed 3D TVNs as well, but the fighter is already designed for high maneuverability, which makes the addition of TVNs not necessary at the moment, which is why Eurojet tries to sell it with fuel reduction arguments and why none of the partners wants to fund it.
On the other side, Russia has deleted canards from their early Su 35 versions for reduced RCS reasons, but added improved TVN instead.

So overrated is possibly not correct, unless you have a highly maneuverable fighter that can counter these advantages.

I would reiterate.. and I see bias against the US teen series for reasons unknown when the Mirage-2000-9 is outmatched by the F-16 in a sustained turning fight.. the performance match with the F-22 you are claiming I cannot fathom either.. If you are going by ATLC accounts I would take them with a pinch of salt..
This gentleman is family to me(and this particular shot is from his Fb profile for the doubters).. and its his wing that took part.. so I can give quite a clear indication that the AFM reports do not reflect what actually went in the game.
At no point was the M2K a "Match" to the F-22.. at best it performed equal to the US F-16s ,EF and Rafale participating.. and playing OPFOR it found itself on the wrong side of the scoreboard several times.

Russian philosophy for Air combat cannot be taken as proof that TVC has been a silver sword in Air combat..
Testimonies to the contrary exist all over from western sources that are usually more reliable than Russian claims anyday.
TVC may have usage on the PAK-FA ..but if they expect it to be more useful in a dogfight than where it can really count.. then they have another thing coming.

 

[sancho]

I would reiterate.. and I see bias against the US teen series for reasons unknown when the Mirage-2000-9 is outmatched by the F-16 in a sustained turning fight..

That has nothing to do with bias, but with media reports of dogfights of the F22 during exercises (also about the F5), or of the delta canards vs the Teen series, which constantly looses out in these excersis. You can even add the reports from competitions, where the teens are outperformed in most cases as well, last reports from Qatar for example. Modern designs have advantages that the teens don't have and why they hope on upgraded electronics and weapons basically.

Russian philosophy for Air combat cannot be taken as proof that TVC has been a silver sword in Air combat..

Of course it can! Since they made their R73 more agile by the addition of TVC , which changed the air combat tactics completely and forced the western countries to follow. Today every modern WVR missile has this feature, which is one reason why you don't necessarily need it on the fighter anymore, but as said, it still is a feature to make a fighter more maneuverable if needed and that is why most stealth fighters will use it as an addition too!

 

[SQ8]

That has nothing to do with bias, but with media reports of dogfights of the F22 during exercises (also about the F5), or of the delta canards vs the Teen series, which constantly looses out in these excersis. You can even add the reports from competitions, where the teens are outperformed in most cases as well, last reports from Qatar for example. Modern designs have advantages that the teens don't have and why they hope on upgraded electronics and weapons basically.




Of course it can! Since they made their R73 more agile by the addition of TVC , which changed the air combat tactics completely and forced the western countries to follow. Today every modern WVR missile has this feature, which is one reason why you don't necessarily need it on the fighter anymore, but as said, it still is a feature to make a fighter more maneuverable if needed and that is why most stealth fighters will use it as an addition too!

Which has been skipped for the F-35..
The teen fighters may be outclassed.. but definitely not by the M2K series.. or any of its contemporaries..
Even then.. the F-15 may still fall into the obsolescence category of maneuverability.. but the F-16 does not.

 

[Darth Vader]

The Pentagon’s director of the F-35 program said Monday the next-generation US fighter jet could be back in the air within a fortnight after an engine crack forced the grounding of test flights.
Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, in Australia for talks on the jet, also dismissed any talk of foreign customers backing out of the costly project to build the F-35, known as the Joint Strike Fighter, because of its delays.
If the crack’s cause was as straightforward as a foreign object striking the turbine, or a basic manufacturing defect, “I could foresee the airplane back in the air in the next week or two”, Bogdan told reporters in Melbourne.
“If it’s more than that then we have to look at what the risk is to the fleet,” he said, adding than a verdict on the cracking cause was expected “by the end of this week”.
“My opinion is that the airplane will be back flying within a reasonable period of time if this is not a serious problem.”
The Pentagon plans to make 2,443 F-35s for the US military and several hundred others for eight international partners including Australia who have invested in the project, as well as at least two customers, Japan and Israel.
Turkey has followed an Italian decision to delay purchase of the JSF, which has labored under soaring costs and delays.
But Bogdan stressed: “I have no indication whatsoever that any partner is thinking about pulling out of the program at all.
“I have communicated with all our partners and all the (armed) services about what occurred with the grounding,” he said.
“They all understand that, while unfortunate, that it is not an unusual thing to find (that) an engine blade on a newer engine has a crack in it.”
Bogdan said the small crack had been noticed during a routine 50-hour ground inspection and the entire engine had been shipped back to manufacturer Pratt & Whitney for examination.
“One thing we are grateful for is that we found the problem on the ground during a routine inspection and not in the air where it could have been catastrophic, where it could have damaged the airplane,” he said.
All 51 test jets in the US F-35 fleet were grounded and further flights were suspended as a “precautionary measure” Friday after discovery of the crack on a turbine blade in one F-35 engine at Edwards Air Force Base in California.
“I do not anticipate whatsoever that this problem will delay any of the major milestones of the program at all, I just don’t see that happening even in the worst-case scenario,” Bogdan said, describing the project as “on course and on schedule”.
He warned that further teething problems were likely, with only 35-40 percent of the test flight program completed. “But we have enough money and enough time in development to take care of those things.”
The Pentagon has high hopes for the radar-evading F-35 fighter, which is supposed to replace most of the combat aircraft fleet of the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps by the end of the decade.
Australia has so far committed to delivery of two Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) in 2014 and a further 12 in 2019-2020. It originally indicated it would buy 100 of the jets, but budgetary constraints last year saw it trim back and delay the order.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard said her government remained committed to the initial order for two jets, but would “continue to monitor and be in discussions about issues that have arisen and need to be addressed”.
A defence ministry spokesman said the engines for Australia’s first two aircraft were yet to be manufactured and “if any design changes are required to the engine blades then those changes would be incorporated”.

 

[FireFistAce]

Can somebody help me by explaining something about f-35 to me?

What is the current Condition of JSF program?

I mean a couple of days ago I heard that our decision of buying 2 initial F-35 was suspended, and the reason behind it was said to be rising costs because of decreasing interest of other countries like australia to it.

But then again, I heard that initial order of UK and (idn was it italy or netherlands) were successfully delivered.

And later I heard US grounded all F-35's because of a bug in engine.

So I am confused, is the JSF program likely to fail? is the situation very bad? what's happening to it?

 

[gambit]

Can somebody help me by explaining something about f-35 to me?

What is the current Condition of JSF program?

I mean a couple of days ago I heard that our decision of buying 2 initial F-35 was suspended, and the reason behind it was said to be rising costs because of decreasing interest of other countries like australia to it.

But then again, I heard that initial order of UK and (idn was it italy or netherlands) were successfully delivered.

And later I heard US grounded all F-35's because of a bug in engine.

So I am confused, is the JSF program likely to fail? is the situation very bad? what's happening to it?

Troubled.

First...No one on this forum is a greater proponent of 'stealth' than I.

Now...In my opinion, the F-35 is just as ambitious a project as the first aircraft carrier. You should understand that no one else in the world have as much global interests as the US does. As such, we have always tried to have diverse platforms to suit different combat environments. Past attempts at producing a fighter aircraft to fit all the services' requirements have failed, some fortunately on paper, some spectacularly failed after the fact, as in the F-111, my first assignment. Not even the venerable F-4 fit the bill because it could not take of vertically like the AV-8 Harrier for the US Marines.

The inevitable result of that diversity is the equally diverse logistic lines to support all those platforms. Take the US Navy for example. In the past, when an aircraft carrier sailed, it have the F-14, A-6, EA-6, F-18, E-3 Hawkeye, and assorted helos. All on one ship. That was a lot of money to support all those different platforms. Today, a carrier have the F-18 Super Hornet and the Hawkeye.

The F-35 takes this on a much larger scale. It is supposed to serve the aviation branches of the USAF, USN, and USMC. Who knows? May be the US Army will get in the game as well. The Army does have its own fixed wing aviation branch. The cost we borne so far pretty much forced US to take this road. No one else in the world have the money and equally important the courage to try. That is why I laugh at the -35's critics. What have their countries accomplished?

Issues are bound to arise. But one thing the critics DELIBERATELY omitted: The problems that the -35 is experiencing are not technically insurmountable, not like how it was for the F-111 and eventually the design was slowly compromised nearly to death. The technology level back then was not ready enough for the -111's purpose. But the technology we have today is feasible for the -35's purpose.

 

[FireFistAce]

Troubled.

First...No one on this forum is a greater proponent of 'stealth' than I.

Now...In my opinion, the F-35 is just as ambitious a project as the first aircraft carrier. You should understand that no one else in the world have as much global interests as the US does. As such, we have always tried to have diverse platforms to suit different combat environments. Past attempts at producing a fighter aircraft to fit all the services' requirements have failed, some fortunately on paper, some spectacularly failed after the fact, as in the F-111, my first assignment. Not even the venerable F-4 fit the bill because it could not take of vertically like the AV-8 Harrier for the US Marines.

The inevitable result of that diversity is the equally diverse logistic lines to support all those platforms. Take the US Navy for example. In the past, when an aircraft carrier sailed, it have the F-14, A-6, EA-6, F-18, E-3 Hawkeye, and assorted helos. All on one ship. That was a lot of money to support all those different platforms. Today, a carrier have the F-18 Super Hornet and the Hawkeye.

The F-35 takes this on a much larger scale. It is supposed to serve the aviation branches of the USAF, USN, and USMC. Who knows? May be the US Army will get in the game as well. The Army does have its own fixed wing aviation branch. The cost we borne so far pretty much forced US to take this road. No one else in the world have the money and equally important the courage to try. That is why I laugh at the -35's critics. What have their countries accomplished?

Issues are bound to arise. But one thing the critics DELIBERATELY omitted: The problems that the -35 is experiencing are not technically insurmountable, not like how it was for the F-111 and eventually the design was slowly compromised nearly to death. The technology level back then was not ready enough for the -111's purpose. But the technology we have today is feasible for the -35's purpose.

Thanks for the explanation.
One more thing, if you don't mind.
When ready, to what fighters will the JSF be comparable technically? Be it Existing ones or the ones under development.