er, care to remind le how the aircraft was evaluated? what TESTS/missions has it flown?

The relevant test data and specs were made available, as was simulator time, and at least in Korea’s case a Korean pilot flew in a chase plane. Just because they didn’t organize the three ring circus that India did doesn’t mean there weren’t extensive tests…

The U.S. government has approved Korea’s request to perform chase flights and use a wireless data transfer system to test Lockheed Martin’s F-35A, one of three fighter jets bidding for a multi-billion dollar project, a senior Seoul official said Wednesday.

American aerospace giant Lockheed is competing with fellow U.S. firm Boeing and Europe-based multinational defense group EADS to win the state-funded fighter jet deal worth upward of 8.3 trillion won ($7.3 billion). South Korea plans to purchase 60 fighter jets by 2021 to replace the Air Force’s aging fleet.

To conduct the flight tests, the South Korean Air Force has asked the bidders if its pilots can use telemetry and pursuit planes to measure the function of each model. Boeing and EADS gave permission for South Korean pilots to test the planes, but Lockheed Martin had been reluctant to give the green light.

Ahead of a test slated for early September in its homeland, the U.S. Department of Defense has sent a letter allowing Korean test pilots to use the testing methods, a senior military official said.

“This letter serves as confirmation of our discussions outlining my decision to grant seven chase flights with ROK Air Force test pilots,” the Pentagon letter read. The ROK is the acronym for South Korea’s formal name, the Republic of Korea. “The F-35 JPA will meet your need for telemetry through material derived from the actual telemetry and flight sciences data test for the F-35.”

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/02/205_118509.html

Too many people equate “dogfighting” with WVR. They are not the same.

Besides, according to the recent article from the Norwegian F-35 pilot, the F-35 can more than hold its own in a dogfight.

Seconded… just because you are hypothetically within visual range, which many here generously define as within 10-15 miles, that doesn’t mean you are in a “dogfight.”

I am sure we have had this discussion before. Clearly a competition such as the Swiss or the Singaporeans held would allow manufacturers to demonstrate how their aircraft will operate in Canada.

It is clear that the only people who would be unhappy with that would be LM (assuming that it takes place in the next couple of years).

The Canadians are still members of the program and know a great deal about the F-35. It is hardly as if they need to take Lockheed’s word for what the F-35 offers or the current status of the program.

I don’t doubt that the F35 will operate very well after 2020, but equally a European product will be serving the UK or France in its ultimate form all the way through to 2040. The Canadians are operating Hornets which are old enough to have been ditched by other operators so lets not pretend they will need the very latest kit in 2050.

Buying a 4th generation fighter just as they are going out of production would be a terrible decision, not just from a capability/cost standpoint, but from a long-term sustainment standpoint. Every new weapon, datalink, software update, etc, all would have to be paid for by someone and as the operators of 4th generation aircraft dwindle it will be harder and harder to find someone to pick up the tab. Even today the Eurofighter program participants struggle to get on the same page for even updates like the AESA.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/03/f-35-chief-think-very-very-hard-making-another-joint-fighter/126587/

Only 20% in common?

That must be wrong?

Yes, he is presumably referring to structural elements. (many of which while not identical are very similar and are produced using the same tools, just as you see F-35s of different variants moving down the same production line) The avionics fit and software is essentially entirely common and that by itself represents a huge chunk of the cost and complexity of each aircraft.

This is an interesting illustration of the huge vaste in the F-35 program.

Obsolete is a strong word… the currents EOTS works fine, it just isn’t state of the art. This is a similar argument to what Rafale and Eurofighter fans said about the radars in those planes… They worked fine, but weren’t on par with the latest systems available elsewhere and so discussions about a replacement (AESA) radar were ongoing even as the planes reached IOC.

The difference is the speed with which the F-35 program is implementing the upgrade. The Rafale had to wait ~10 years for its AESA radar, the Eurofighter is still waiting.

From an article in vanguardcanada.com:

http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2015/09/01/fighters/

Is recovery of a pilot who ejects over water or in winter really so unlikely?

The real issue is that while that scenario is much discussed, it is very very rare.

We have decades of safety statistics on single engine aircraft like the F-16 and Gripen and operators like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and the US operate them in the arctic without problems.

Let’s not beat a dead horse on that, especially one that has moved on to greener pastures. On a side note, the boys over at “War is Boring” published the Norwegian pilots report and presented it as a rebuttal to their “Pilot says the F-35 can’t dogfight” clickbait. Makes me wonder if some of the feckless journos that pumped out garbage articles and hit pieces will be swarming the life rafts on their “postitional” Titanic.

That would be consistent with what has happened over and over again in the past.

Standard timeline:

Early in a program most information is basically conceptual, there is little to no hardware, and everyone besides POGO et all, think the new thing will be great

Once actual development is underway the first problems emerge, budgets are blown, the schedule slips, critics emerge

As the program enters testing essentially all news is negative. Testers are looking for problems and finding them. Critics are frothing at the mouth. The new thing is a poster-child for Pentagon waste and stupidity. Its computers crash. It is late. It can’t even X. Cancel it now and buy more of the thing we decided was obsolete 10-15 years ago before it is too late!

As the new thing finds its way into the hands of actual end-users they are amazed at its capabilities. It starts showing up at actual exercises and surprise surprise, its designers weren’t total imbeciles who did everything wrong. Critics start to hedge their bets a bit… (Where we are now)

Once operational, sooner or later it is proven in combat. Suddenly, it is time to write articles on the amazing XXXX that we just spent 10 years slamming. Critics have moved on to their next target…