The only a$$ the F35 kicks is US and UK taxpayer. That could change in 5 years from now when the first bird will be in service.
But it will perhaps never happen for the version C that Trump wants to kill.

I think Ezco meant now, today.. and by that is is right.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-moment-pilots-first-realized-the-f-35-was-something-extraordinary/

I was leading a four ship of F-35s on a strike against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s.

We fought our way in, we mapped the target, found the target, dropped JDAMs on the target and turned around and fought our way out.

All the targets got hit, nobody got detected, and all the adversaries died. I thought, yes, this works, very, very, very well.

Never detected, nobody had any idea we were out there.

That’s now, at Block 2B/3i, with current software, G, Speed, and CLAWs restrictions.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/08/operational-assessment-of-the-f-35a-argues-for-full-program-procurement-and-concurrent-development-process

The F-35A was not designed to be an air superiority fighter, but the pilots interviewed conveyed the picture of a jet that will more than hold its own in that environment—even with its current G and maneuver restrictions. In the words of an F-16C Weapons School Graduate and instructor pilot now flying the F-35A, “Even pre-IOC,[26] this jet has exceeded pilot expectations for dissimilar combat. (It is) G-limited now, but even with that, the pedal turns[27] are incredible and deliver a constant 28 degrees/second. When they open up the CLAW, and remove the (7) G-restrictions, this jet will be eye watering.”[28]

Today even 10 F 35 C can not do the job oh one SH.
This F 35 c can easily be replaced by SH for half of the cost.

Here are several areas where the F-35 has proven itself better than the SH:

1. F-35 kicks every 4th gen a$$ it has come across – 0 losses
2. Takes over as the battlefield QB, even as far back as Block 1B
3. 4-Ship self escort and fight through to the target, attack, & fight on the way out. 0 losses even in Adv IADS.
4. F-35 has a longer combat radius.
5. Communicate & share data without giving it’s position away

Good luck to Boeing on that… They failed the 1st time with the X-32 and now they have to try making the Super Hornet “Comparable”.

Send up 8 x F-18Es vs 4 x F-35s… Even 2:1 the F-35s would wipe the floor with them (as they already have). Then try to justify buying multiple F-18s to do the job of one F-35.

Funny that the quoted items don’t say anything like “blinding”, but instead says “distracting”. The word “blind” is not even in the story.

I hate idiot editors who create headlines like that.

Sad thing is that most idiot bloggers, commentators, etc will quote the “blinding” part without reading the story. :apologetic:

Northrop, Boeing/Saab and Textron have all demonstrated recently with brio that this is not something that couldn’t be done again… 😉 But I could have mentioned too the Skunk works or the UAS industry.

None of those are as complex or need to fill the roles that the F-35 (or any modern multi-role fighter) has to fill. None of the systems you mentioned are even ready to go, they are just tech demonstrators/prototypes.

The delays in the program are at least perturbing. Do I understand from the graphic you posted that it was anticipated that by now +/-, the F35s would have gone through two more technical refreshes than it has?

Two Blocks but only 1 Tech Refresh at Block 5. Block 4 is software only (primarily).

SDD?

Or whatever it is named. When will it reach initial specifications? Block 4 no? This FOC block 3F really look like a smoke screen… Basically now they will “modernize” an airplane in order to reach its specifications? Is it a joke? Looks like they try to present what should have been part of initial capabilities as modernizations instead of “not attained defined standard capability”. Maybe my english isn’t clear (tired), but i’m sure you get my point.

FOC means:

In general, attained when all units and/or organizations in the force structure scheduled to receive a system have received it and have the ability to employ and maintain it. The specifics for any particular system FOC are defined in that system’s Capability Development Document (CDD) and Capability Production Document (CPD).

http://dap.dau.mil/glossary/pages/1936.aspx

In other words, when the JSF project was contracted in and around 2001, the DoD determined that when “X” number of F-35s are operational with the final SDD block (ie Block 3F), then FOC has been achieved. The F-35’s SDD program has always been designed to be a “certain capabilities” block with much more to come afterwords. This is especially evident in the planned weapons charts that have been coming out over the years. The Norway PDFs also show a clear Post-Block 3F “modernization” plan for the F-35. They did this to keep the tendency for feature creep out of the program. These plans were in place LONG before the F-35 ever ran into any scheduling or cost delays so you can’t say that they are trying to hide anything.

There is nothing that I can think of that is in Block 4 that was originally planned as part of the original SDD program save for the SATCOM.

On the issue of many blocks, The USAF & USMC had always planned on going IOC with a Block that was NOT the finale SDD block (ie 2B/3i) while the USN wanted the final SDD Block (ie 3F). The F-35’s block upgrade paradigm is based on a new Block every 2-3 years. Blocks 1/3/5 will include new hardware (ie Tech Refresh – TR) and Blocks 2/4/6 are planned to be software only. I’m sure there will be some minor hardware changes along the way, but that is the TR schedule.