>>9823
>>9821
>>9822
Alright, here:
The USAF declared it ready for service in 2016 yet it wasn't accepted into mass production for the US until 2023.
As of that date the following problems I can list just off the top of my head
- Vulnerable to lightning; it's practically a lightning rod
https://archive.is/QSIii
- 0 redundancies in the cyber or mechanical aggregates; any malfunction and it's a hunk of metal. On top of that it lacks proper cooling for its electronics, causing them to fry from prolonged use.
- Cannot fly over Mach 1.1 for prolonged time and has no SuperCruise.
- RADAR glitches means it literally ahs to be turned off and on again
https://archive.ph/EEd9y
- Ejection seat is banned for anyone 136 pounds or below and anyone not above 150 pounds has significant injury risk, it literally can break your neck.
- F-35 helmets glow too brightly for air-to-air refueling
https://archive.is/pKE0Y
- F-35 helmets are so heavy at nearly 5 kilograms so that maneuvers cause them to bang their heads on the inside of the cockpit
https://archive.ph/WsRxA https://archive.ph/dE1gP and have caused several ejection seat neck injuries.
(keep in mind these helmets are 400,000 dollars each).
- The oxygen system is unreliable (something that the F-22 shares)
https://archive.ph/kGGKq
The Plane was supposed to be ready by 2010-12 having been projected in the early 2000s
the list of problems in its past and that are remaining in various levels of urgency number over 800.
Such as but not limited to
- Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
- Ejection seat may fail, causing pilot fatality. Lacking safety measures for automatic pilot release.
- Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touchscreen controls.
- The radar performs poorly, or not at all.
- Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
- Maintenance tools do not work.
- It has inferior maneuverability and aerodynamics to the planes it is meant to succeed the F-16 and the F-18
https://archive.is/RmLTT
https://archive.ph/20130410175353/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130306/DEFREG02/303060011/F-35-Report-Warns-Visibility-Risks-Other-Dangers
https://archive.ph/h0NX6
https://archive.is/Vzv4u
Bug List for the F-35
https://archive.is/M9l8n
<Financial Times - F-35 fighter jets can only fly 55% of time, US watchdog says | Sept 21
https://archive.is/2023.09.21-183552/https://www.ft.com/content/a3741488-3350-44fd-940f-f0d494d54587
And at one point the USAF logistics lost millions of replacement parts for the plane
>Inb4 "teething issues"
90% of the tech on it was based on tested and tried technologies of the F-22 that were supposed to be upgraded, not clean sheet. The F135 is literally just the F-22's engine but with a new fan blade and supposedly upgraded turbine, yet can't even push it to supercruise. The fact is the plane is an okayish fighter plane in the vein of the early F-16 but with better BVR capability and 'stealth', but that's it. It lacks the redundancy of 2 engines a sea-borne F-18 is known for (which matters since 2 variants are meant to replace the F-18), it lacks the load-capacity to match the F-18 as well, it can't even carry close to the F-18s load without using external hardpoints that immediately compromise all stealth. The only thing it compares to with the F-18 is the crash rate.
The entire program costs more than the development and construction of the USS Gerald R. Ford, the Nuclear SuperCarrier it is supposed to serve on.
>inb4 lightning strikes don't matter
>Three E/A-18G Growler jets were struck by lightning on June 6 while they conducted operations over southern Japan, officials confirmed this week. “No personnel were injured during this incident and all aircraft landed safely at Kadena Air Force Base,” Naval Air Forces spokesperson Ensign Bryan Blair said in an email.
Example:
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2023/07/06/lightning-struck-three-growler-jets-over-japan-on-the-same-day/
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/12/lightning-strike-on-fighter-jet-caught-on-cockpit-video
The F-18 and the Growler are planes the F-35B and C was supposed to replace.
>To safely fly in conditions where lightning is present, the F-35 relies on its Onboard Inert Gas Generation System, or OBIGGS, which pumps nitrogen-enriched air into the fuel tanks to inert them. Without this system, a jet could explode if struck by lightning.
The only other plane I know of with a comparable system is the MiG-25/31, only for those planes it was meant to improve survivability if hit by a missile and to prevent fuel leaks from causing an explosion when in contact with the hot engines.
[Expand Post]
The F-35 is apparently limited to short bursts of supersonic speed because its stealth coating and tail-fins lose integrity at supersonic speeds.
What this means is that it cannot intercept enemy aircraft or cruise missiles, nor fly long distances at supersonic speeds without essentially losing its stealth. While it can do so to get a mission done, essentially the result would be the plane requiring to be sent back for repairs after conducting a mission. A modern fighter jet is not supposed to have "supersonic speed as an emergency tactic".
>When you go into afterburner, you are heating up the outside of your aircraft.”
Which is why you have non-after-burning supercruise above the sound-barrier as a requirement for 5th generation aircraft.
>limits were imposed after two separate tests in 2011 where the "B" model incurred “bubbling [and] blistering” of its stealth coating and the "C" model suffered “thermal damage” to the tailboom and horizontal tail
The flight tests were at 1.3-1.6 Mach, and according the test pilot involved several hours of flights at supersonic speeds with refueling in between. He stated that this isn't a real scenario, but the problem is that while an aircraft may not be flying for hours and hours at supersonic speeds, it most certainly will accumulate such hours over the course of even a couple flights, including training, let alone actual missions. So that means that most F-35s are going to show repeat damage to the tailbooms and stealth coating within a year of flights, OR pilots are going to be restricted training wise, and lack the capability to train for supersonic combat properly. This is important because stealth is not absolute and evading missiles with maneuvers is something that is still relevant today; There's an example with a Russian Su-34 outmanevuring multiple Patriot missiles and pulling High-Gs to do so.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/24/the-pentagon-will-have-to-live-with-limits-on-f-35s-supersonic-flights/
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/supersonic-speeds-could-cause-big-problems-for-the-f-35s-stealth-coating/
Edited last time by An0nym00se on 11/15/2025 (Sat) 22:42:12.