So F-35 has completed more than 10% of it’s planned flight test program, yet according to you it hasn’t demonstrated “anything”?

10% means it barely flew.. almost everything has to be proven yet…

the thing is, nuclear weapons aren’t there to give victory, but only to act as a deterrent (“attack me and it will cost you more than you’re willing to pay”)

a simple example:

when JW Bush talked about the “axis of evil” he claerly stated that it was Irak, Korea and then Iran

Irak eliminated, Koreans just blew something inside a mine and claimed they made a nuclear weapon. add to that they shot a couple of missiles into the pacific and suddenly the “axis of evil” became Irak and then Iran.. korea disappeared from the list, all of a sudden.

In any case, you can’t possibly believe that an exchange between the USA and korea could end in a korean win, but the simple idea of being on a receiving end was enough to keep them “safe” (more or less)

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.

you see, that’s the very problem many of those criticising the program have a problem with:

you ask that people forget about schedule changes that happened before, and consider the today’s one as a valid one.. unless there’s another delay.

now, if we look at the way such situations were handled by F-35 fans, we can already anticipate their reaction should the schedule be corrected again “naaah, but this is normal, it’s now that we have the right schedule.. and it’s doing just fine now”…

the story only repeats itself

more like 1.5 bn I think.

as for the f-35, I find something curious with ww’s arguments.

the f-35 would have combat speeds of M1.6+, and the nose ability of the f-18

thing is, you won’t pull your nose up anywhere more than 10-15° at M1.6.. or you’ll generate so many G’s that your aircraft will simply desintegrate.

Besides, coming back to european planes, if one looks closely at the rafale:

it’s an aircraft made to do everything on can ask from a combat aircraft (not unlike the F-35s aim), from land or sea (same thing), and relying on heavily integrated electronic systems for active and passive detection as well as working in a network, communicating with others and sharing everybodys information for a global situational awarness.

One may say, rather than asking, when or how europe will catch up with the US, when will the US field a fighter capable of similar things as the rafale? ^^

needless to say the cost was waaay lower for the french aircraft.

one thing that the F-35 has put forward most is passive stealth, that’s where the french have chosen a different path with a “discreet” airframe and aiming for a development of “active stealth” as presented in its budget law for this year, and probably a couple more to come.

other than that, one may say that the F-35 is an american way to make a rafale… so, bigger, costing a lot more… hopefully for them, it end up better.. but we’ll only see once it’s “finished”

“will” is wishful thinking… how it will perform remains to be seen IRL.

as for “360° missile shoot ability, that reminds me the “invulnerable” WWII bombers who has 360° MG coverage… or at least were presented as such by their makers and “intelligent guys” on top who pushed for them claiming that fighters were the thing of the past… the same bombers that got slaughtered almost any time if they went in without the fighter cover.

The russians mastered off boresight missile targeting long time ago, the french have developed helmet mounted targeting system too, for teh rafale (the thingy that you like to claim is outdated) even if french air force did not buy it, for budget reasons (ability considered nice to have but not worth the cost)

as for “every program had the same cost and delay overruns”, well, as far as US programs are concerned, you forgot one word in your phrase: “every cancelled program had the same cost and delay overruns”

The F-35 should have been legally terminated a couple of years ago already, and it is only because of political lobbying that it’s still there.

So in other words, you’re saying that Mr. Beesley is lying, since he hasn’t had anything negatve to say? You can’t have it both ways.

no he says that Mr. Beesley, besides flying the thing works for the company who sells it, so he can not openly criticise their product. It’s part of his job to explain how his company did a good job of it.

It should be easy to understand

as for the rafale production line closing, I doubt they close the line without another aircaft to produce.. france will probably maintain orders (and probably reducing the number of year’s deliveries if necessary) to keep production active.. what’s more, if there’s an export order, that will delay french orders (saving them money on that years’ budgets, so, saying “we can’t buy because the line will close” sounds quite curious