Hhmm can’t buy that ww, rather dis-honest if i may say so.
A fair assesment looks at everything, not just the bits that (may) look good.

For a substantial period there was rather alot of opinion (i think yours included) that was refering to the high level of modeling and simulation in the program that rendered actual (real) testing un-important and un-required; this was also apparently a major factor in the supposed cost reduction that the F35 program would deliver.

This opinion hasn’t been aired for a while now as it has become painfully evident that modelling and simulation are not (at this point in time) a substitute for the real thing.

No one has said modeling/simulations make physical testing unnecessary. It does greatly assist in streamlining the testing. Physical testing is still needed to validate the modelling, and discover issues that weren’t anticipated. My point is that, the program should be assessed by how it is currently doing, and not get fixated on how the schedule was changed. If the schedule continues to change, then that would be worthy of discussion, but we’ll cross that bridge if we get to that point.

Maybe because this *F-35 is only a victim of bad naysayers* agenda is already too boring.. In your wild effort to mark all less-than-fans of your magical bird, including Gates, as naysayers you somehow forgot to ask why is that that this innocent aircraft already has so many opponents, including those who were fans once?

Start asking that…

Former fans and naysayers ,had unrealistic expectations. That’s not to say that LM, etc… are without fault, with regard to the earlier schedules. Of course, it’s impossible to know what issues you may find, where a subcontractor will have to modify a design, or not provide parts as quickly as hoped for. I think the only fair assessments are using current baselines though(I.e. is testing falling behind now, are costs going up, are systems not performing as advertised, etc…).

Well at least the authors of that piece, were former Canadian Air Force generals, and not just journalists regurgitating a sales brochure.

Can the B version be salvaged? It is starting to make inroads now, but has it been compromised? costs? functionality? Overseas confidence in the project?

Just a pity the F-35 is so “ugly”. Nearly as ugly as the X-32 (and that one is a joke in design).

Ivan

Many of the issues the B was having already have fixes, so as of now I don’t doubt the ability to get back on track within 2yrs.

The F-35 is nowhere near as ugly as the X-32, not that it really matters.

The Su-50 is a pretty ambitious aircraft though. It’s not just a modern F-16A. All of the various sensors, and respective fusion therof, the artificial intelligence, VLO? Airframe, 5th gen engines, etc…..

Really depends more on what test points they are able to achieve more than the number of planes, and most nations have different ways of going about it, a plane could be in signifiant squadron service much before they test and integrate everything, a multi role air superiority plane could be operational in significant numbers with many of the air to ground modes being integrated on subsequent batches. Every nation has their own way programs from PRC for example go through very rapid induction (or so it seems from this side of the bamboo curtain).

The F-35 for example would be worthless for the USAF, USN, & USMC without a good air to ground capability, they have no air to air threat to worry about that much.

Even if the F-35 were going to be used solely for air superiority, it’s nowhere near ready to be declared operational. It’s not about block upgrades, so much as having validated the systems, and operational envelope, along with having operational infrastructure(and a logistical supply system in place, with spares, etc…), and trained combat pilots(and mechanics). Additionally, if anything comes up during testing, showing redesigns are necessary, or the systems have issues, that takes more time to fix. Ostensibly, you’re going to need a training squadron, equipped with T-50s as well, before declaring a pilot fully qualified on the aircraft. When one considers that the first 4 examples(or more), won’t even be fully production representative, that leaves 6 to train on, and equip a unit. Suffice it to say, I’m more than slightly skeptical of a 2015 IOC.

The point though, is that there is all sorts of justifications being given for the slow production, and assertions that IOC will be reached with 10 aircraft. I just find it curious, at the benefit of doubt being given here, when it’s not applied equally in other situations.

Yes it would.

Technically 1 aircraft would be enough to declare initial operational capability. Not much of a capability, but if it is able to fire missiles/drop bombs at the other guys in a live war, then it is providing the military with some capability.

Well certainly, if you want to water down the definition, you could declare IOC with one aircraft. I’m not sure how seriously you’d be taken, by using that standard though.