Public opinion on the F-35 Stealth Fighter upgrades and global sales is deeply divided, oscillating between admiration for its technological advancements and skepticism over its high costs, political motivations, and geopolitical implications. While many admire the F-35's cutting-edge capabilities, others criticize its expense and the strategic decisions surrounding its deployment. Comparisons with counterparts like the J-35 and debates influenced by national pride further complicate the sentiment, highlighting significant global military rivalries and defense technology concerns.

Lockheed Martin

United States Government

European Union

China

India

Pakistan

From the article:

&gt;Lockheed Martin received a $180 million contract modification April 21 to convert three F-35s to flight sciences aircraft, the Pentagon announced. The work is needed “to prevent any increase in the test capability gap,” per the contract announcement.

&gt;The F-35 Joint Program Office has urged Congress for several years to expand its test fleet, so as to supplement aircraft that are becoming structurally fatigued and maintain a high tempo of testing as the program moves from the Technology Refresh 3 program to Block 4 improvements.

&gt;The contract modification “adds scope to procure materials, parts, and components in support of the conversion,” the Pentagon said. Conversion of production-representative aircraft to flight sciences test aircraft typically involves adding equipment such as spin chutes, cameras, load-sensing instrumentation, telemetry gear, and other equipment, while removing some hardware not needed for the test function.   

&gt;The converted aircraft will also “allow for future, holistic flight science testing of Block 4 capabilities for the Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy, non-U.S. Department of Defense program partners, and Foreign Military Sales customers,” the Pentagon said. The work is to be completed by December 2028.

bob_the_impala

For those who don't understand this, this is them taking three production jets off the line and inserting test-specific hardware to make them flight science birds. This includes things you can't retrofit later, such as structural loads/strain sensors that must be embedded in the jet during production.

This isn't making new variants - it's to FINALLY replace our oldest flight science birds (the first birds built off the line) that are no longer representative of birds being produced because so many hardware modifications/changes were made due to the absolute mess of a development program was, i.e., they started producing jets too early before finding all the major hardware issues.

So no, no fancy prototypes of future development. This is to finally retire some of the oldest birds (after years of the JPO asking Congress to fund them) to get some more representative jets there so we can finally test all the issues with TR-3/Block IV.

Remember folks: buying/producing a ton of jets that are not tested/vetted is a recipe for disaster. And for a long time, both Lockheed and Congress were happy to keep the gravy train rolling ($$$ for LMT, jobs for Congressional districts) while the DOD was left holding the bag with jets not vetted or certified for what they were being pitched to do.

(This is why you can't just increase buys without also increasing support infrastructure... it's a hollow force, at best)

FoxThreeForDaIe

AKsuperslay

real_human_20

I stopped reading that site a long time ago, given their obvious biases.  The writer is a fellow at "Defense Priorities", a think tank funded by the Koch brothers.  It was founded to advance Rand Paul's foreign policy agenda.

And the author goes on endlessly about Canada needing to show "seriousness" when we here in the US are inflicting the most unserious leadership upon the world.  It's ironic.  The reason Canada is reconsidering the F-35 is American unseriousness and unreliability.

EDIT TO ADD:  I've never understood Canadian acquisition of the the F-35.  The basic mission of the Canadian Air Force is long range interception and airspace denial over the arctic.  Wouldn't new build F-15EXs leverage the existing parts pipeline and continued operation of the production line for a cheaper platform that was designed from the outset as an interceptor/air superiority aircraft?

GTdeSade

That website gave me herpes, ads and ai generated article

weinerpretzel

That article is such blatant pro Trump propaganda I wouldn't use it for toilet paper.

SonicTemp1e

I_iIi_III_iIii_iIii

Why would we buy from an unreliable partner? There are much better and cheaper European options.

shimoheihei2

I’m sure that the Canadian Minister for Credibility in the Eyes of Americans will be somewhat vexed by this scholarly article and all our opinions.

popdivtweet

Yes, I know, hate Trump. But would Canada do this?

adsman1979


Comment guidelines:

Please do:

    * Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles, 
    * Leave a submission statement that justifies the legitimacy or importance of what you are submitting,
    * Be curious not judgmental,
    * Be polite and civil,
    * Use the original title of the work you are linking to,
    * Use capitalization,
    * Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
    * Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says,
    * Ask questions in the megathread, and not as a self post,
    * Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,
    * Write posts and comments with some decorum.

 Please do not:

    * Use memes, emojis or swearing excessively. This is not NCD,
    * Start fights with other commenters,
    * Make it personal, 
    * Try to out someone,
    * Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section,
    * Answer or respond directly to the title of an article,
    * Submit news updates, or procurement events/sales of defense equipment.

    Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules. 
    
 Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, 
 leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

As a software engineer, the existence of such a feature would be regarded as a security vulnerability red flag, and almost certainly result in a complete lack of purchase orders.

Having your military hardware controlled by a foreign government would be unthinkable for most nations, especially when they could buy from or join competing programs.

AftyOfTheUK

&gt;It seems to me that this claim is quite unrealistic.

&amp;#x200B;

Agree I dont think they can say oh we dont want that F-35 from country  XX to airfield of country YY

&amp;#x200B;

Betting they have ability to shut down access to various systems like the maintainance and mission planning if countries start to go rogue

ratt_man

I don't know which general are you talking about but:

Please just don't, I MEAN DON'T give so much attention to what Greek generals say. 

Most of them are NCD material as here they get promoted through their connections in political parties while the skilled officers are left rotting in the lower ranks. 

Just look at Evangelos Apostolakis who became Chief of the Hellenic National Defence General Staff in 2015 under the Tsipras SYRIZA government. Then was appointed Minister of Defense in 2019 by Tsipras while in our recent 2023 June elections he was elected as nationwide MEP under SYRIZA.

Furthermore there is a lot of Turkish and Russian propaganda in Greece trying to persuade the public against buying the F-35s.

georgevits

If there were any truth to it we wouldn't know because that would be classified to the gills.

But it does occur to me that there's a possible point of confusion here. We're all talking about this like the "target" is an airbase or radar installation or whatever.

But what if "target" is an aircraft?

US anti-aircraft defense is pretty widely understood to make use of profiling data to categorize things as friend or foe. If a thing is at some height, descending at such a rate, at just such an angle it's probably an inbound missile and not a diving Cessna.... that sort of thing.

The F35 is intended as an information hub for US airpower. Is it possible that is what he's referring to? That the 35's inbuilt target classification system comes preloaded with some strong opinions about what an F16 looks like, who flies them, and how likely they are to be a threat?

Killfile

I remember there being some article about SK not being able to use their F35 because it got 'locked' by its software and US personel/permission was needed or the likes.

So, the US having the ability to 'lock' F35 planes (possibly even 'remotely') should be considered to be an ability that they likely have.

As for target disabling while the an F35 is in the air? I don't know, maybe but more likely not?

Anti_Imperialist7898

DJI has something called geofencing, that disables further movement into airport areas. It's not unreasonable to apply this to new military applications. For example If two opposing NATO countries buy F-35 the software could be specially written for specific countries to be geofenced around it's borders, to where the offensive weapon menu options are disabled when it's over another NATOs territory, or disputed territory that it doesn't get a long with. This would seem like the most logical solution to the problem.

DarkMatter00111

ruthless run mysterious dazzling head hard-to-find shame station command absurd

 *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Diplomatic_Barbarian

Like others said this would be classified and there's no way for us to know. As a civilian I wouldn't even bother to find out. 

However, I disagree with the people saying this is "impossible". Depending on the implementation of the software this is not just possible but could be easy to hide as well. Kill switches are a lot easier to implement and hide than backdoors. If the kill switch is simple enough it also poses almost no backdoor risk. 

We can think about the plane like a car. Most cars made today have 1 or 2 CPUs running 2 separate subsystems. One for important mechanical systems, and one for the software subsystem. These systems are intentionally separated because the reliability requirements for the mechanical system is way higher than the software system. 

However, in some cases they must be able to communicate. For example, on some cars if the camera system detects that you're about to crash it will auto swerve for you. In some cases this system is done with a blackbox neural network. 

Let's say your plane has a "feature" where the plane will auto evade a missile that's coming too close. This system can be hijacked to make the plane perform a stupid and possibly debilitating maneuver when the radar system receives a very specific signal. Because of the way neural networks work you can conceal this signal in the weights so that trying to find it will be just as hard as trying to crack an encryption. 

I'm not saying an F-35 is using this exact hardware/software set up, but in any type of system there are creative ways to hide kill switches.

Bu11ism

Depending on how much work you want the word "ability" to do: the US retains the "ability" to do something like stuxnet - insert and update a virus into a programable logic controller on a centrifuge by infecting a PC in an air gapped network in an guarded Iranian uranium enrichment facility.

Presumably the planes already have a system to identify friendly forces, it would be a matter of adding "allied county X" to the list of geofenced blue areas and making it impossible to fire. The planes are networked, the US controls the code.

On paper that "ability" sounds easier than resonating centrifuges to destruction in Natanz.

bunabhucan

If John Deere can do it to Tractors, I’m sure the US government will have that ability and use it on latest military hardware

slimboytubs

&gt; Is there any truth to this statement?


There may be, but it's impossible to know. The source code of the software is only viewable/auditable by the USA and the UK. It's a "black box" to everyone else who buys it.

But imagine if they were nefarious and included a remote override that was to be activated in a time of tension. They'd have to keep the secret close to the chest because if it leaked then the enemy could use it against all the allied forces, therefore significantly weakening the attack. 

All-in-all I'd say it'd be a net-negative to include any kind of real-time interference and so I really don't think that it's either practical or advisable.

Gusfoo

How does the F-35 look so chonky in other angles but look so sleek here 🗿

Initial_Barracuda_93

Two engines vs monoengine, different wing geometry, different vertical stabilizers geometry, the J-35 has a plain, streamlined underside while the F-35 has a bumpy one, no underside engine bulge in the J-35, different dimensions (the J-35 is a bit longer). Changing any of these things would require doing tons of aerodynamics testing and energy radiation testing (crucial if you're designing a stealth plane). It'd also require changing the way the plane flies and behaves, etc.

But I guess both have two wings...

Edit: and I forgot to mention the rear facing spike between the two nozzles, which is a signature Flanker characteristic. That's why I think the J-35 is more similar to what a 5th Gen Flanker would have looked like than an F-35 copy, and that makes sense since the Shenyang engineers have decades of experience working with Flanker derivatives.

Poupulino

Stray-Helium-0557

Why F35 looks so chubby though every time I see her I dare not ask if she's pregnant

YourDaddie

I know J-35's flat bottom is better for stealth, but F-35's curve are way more sexy.

SK_KKK

I am not sure how to explain it properly; but I feel that J-35A is almost geometric in shape. Whereas F-35 is artistic. One done my a mathematician other done by artists/designer.

straightdge

mustbeaguy

OPT1CX

Calling it the J-35 is just a big FU to the west… considering china gained decades worth of research by their intelligence hack of the F-35 project…

DantheDutchGuy

DestoryDerEchte

8ackwoods

Chinese state media published a video recently with the military analyst claiming the J-35A fighter jet is stealthier compared with both the F-35 and the F-22 with improvements due to manufacturing processes. While this kind of direct comparison between different airframes will fundamentally be less credible because just about next to nobody in the world knows the truth, I do feel that releasing comparisons like this does come from some real world data given the known aerial encounters between the F-35 and the J-20.  
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1zrc2esEZv/  

It has been known for many years that airframes of the J-35 family have been constructed with 3D printing techniques by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, so perhaps this is one advantage of that manufacturing process. One known disadvantage however that comes with 3D printing in other manufacturing sectors is that scaling up is typically more difficult unless you acquire greater numbers of machinery used for this new manufacturing process.  
https://mil.sina.cn/sd/2019-02-15/detail-ihqfskcp5341232.d.html  

Of course there is still a massive disclaimer of how this one single video about stealth characteristics between adversarial fifth generation stealth fighter jets is not exactly coming from official military spokespeople. I would also bet there was little consideration by this military analyst regarding varied aspect stealth, of which the F-22 would surely be more stealthy from the rear aspect in comparison with the J-35A but could actually be less stealthy in the frontal aspect given it lacks DSI.

ChineseToTheBone

Probably the simple fact that the US made so god damn many of them and it can still do the job suitably.

Economics of scale and the widespread adoption of the F-16 by many of US allies mean that there is a steady market and support for the aircraft and its upgrade. The F-22 suffers the opposite situation, too “few” made (if less than 200 of the first 5th-gen Stealth fighter is “few”) and only used by the United States, not to mention the halting of its production. With relatively little official manufacturing support for only one consumer, the F-22, while still being routinely upgraded, does not have any place of ambitions in the US Air Force once their Next-Generation Air Dominance aircraft comes online as it becomes too expensive to continue maintaining compared to the F-16 platforms.

Meanwhile, F-16 still does multiple jobs well enough as a multi-role aircraft. It can perform as a fighter, a ground support/CAS and it can even conduct SEAD/DEAD. Newer aircraft like F-35 can certainly do some of these jobs better than the F-16, especially when we begin considering peer-to-peer conflicts, but for low-intensity conflicts like insurgencies or where enemy air opposition is equal or below that the F-16 can contend with, the F-16 can be the more affordable aircraft to provide the capability to get the job done.

F-35 is coming online to replace the F-16 in some countries, and it carries a lot of characteristics that made the F-16 procurement successful, being procured by multiple different countries across the world in high enough quantities to not only reduce the individual aircraft unit cost to more affordable numbers, but also ensure a long support line keeping the F-35 in action for many years.

Inceptor57

As you have said yourself, the F-16 is a multi-role fighter, not a specialized strike or air-superiority fighter, which means it covers many different role well enough. The reality that it's not the best air-superiority fighter doesn't really diminish the F-16's value, because it was never the best to begin with. On the other hand, the fact that F-22 might have a valid competition hugely impacts it's value. Because why maintain a fighter that can achieve just parity with the competition? Why not save the money and invest in a brand-new aircraft that's much better suited for the new reality?

In addition to being versatile, there is the fact that F-16 is cheap to operate and upgrade. It's a relatively small, single-engined fighter, produced in the thousands. Parts are easy to come by, training resources are available everywhere, and upgrade plans already developed and paid for by someone else is almost always available. You can upgrade the F-16s and remain relevant in modern battlefield with new AESA radars and precision munitions pretty cheaply as opposed to purchasing a brand new aircraft that might be bit better head-to-head, but much more expensive.

LeVin1986

It's a bit inaccurate to say "newer fighters have come and gone." Under current plans, the F-22 is supposed to be replaced by the NGAD in the 2030s while the F-16 remains in USAF service. Remember, though, the F-16 was supposed to be replaced by the F-35 JSF then by the MR-X! So we'll see if the F-22 actually gets replaced in the 2030s or not. And if the F-22 really does get replaced by the NGAD, this is more a function of the USAF begin extremely committed to the air dominance role and wanting a world-leader aircraft to fulfill it so much that it's willing to keep flying the F-16 in other roles.

Anyway, the question is framed along the lines of "How come the F-16 is so awesome?" but I think most of the answers have it right: the F-16 is still around in USAF service because it's basically good enough and exists in large numbers, but replacement aircraft haven't been procured in sufficient numbers. So the USAF would rather keep extending the lifespan of some F-16s and operating them alongside newer aircraft.

If you look at more efficiency-minded airforces like the original 4 NATO purchasers of the F-16 (Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway) you see they have decided to transition to F-35 only fleet, which Norway in fact accomplished last year. This is probably what many airforces would prefer, but not all are allowed to buy the F-35 or can afford it.

abbot_x

Economics.

The F16 does alot of jobs 'good enough', and does it pretty cheaply. The huge user base means parts, upgrades are all plentiful, and weapons integration is a cinch.

Sure it might not be as fancy as the latest f22s or f35s, but not everyone needs, or wants such an expensive fighter. The F16 will do just fine for many customers out there for the foreseeable future.

ghostofwinter88

Nearer 50 years old now!

But actually the basic design has gone through so much development that it's effectively been multiple new aircraft over the past 50 years. A F-16C/D delivered in 2005 was vastly more capable than the original F-16A/Bs delivered in 1978. And they've gone through further extensions since.

Many early F-16s have been more relaxed with more F-16s. The average of the USAF F-16 fleet is around 30 years.

So it's actually a bit misleading to refer it to as a 50 year old design.

jumpy_finale

1. It's good enough for most things, especially for air forces without the money or political alignment with US to get the F-35.

2. There are a LOT of them out there. Spare parts are widely available, any new upgrades have a relatively low per-unit cost because of how many are out there.

3. In the USAF case, it would be very expensive to do a one-on-one replacement with F-35 overnight and LockMart might not be able to build them fast enough.

RingGiver

The F16 and the F15 (and the F/A18 in the Navy and Marines, but maybe for a shorter time) are going to be around for a while because they are relatively cheap to produce and maintain, and they do their jobs pretty well. They aren't going to go toe to toe with 5th generation fighters, but if we control the skies using our current 5th gen and future 6th gen fighters they will be able to fulfill the ground support role very well. They are also at least as good as any other 4th gen fighter used by anyone in the world today.   
The F22 was great when it was designed, but like technology in general the growth is accelerated the further we go. By the time production started, there were a ton of improvements that could be seen and were being developed and are now requirements for the NGAD, and some were used in the F35 family. It is currently a better air to air fighter than the F35, but that's mostly because it was designed as an air superiority fighter. The NGAD will be even better (unless we do something monumentally stupid to it... so that's a possibility), and we have time to develop it since China is the only nation with a sizeable fleet of 5th gen fighters. The Russians have two that weren't hand built prototypes with things like visible bolt heads.

Unicorn187

1. cheaper, more advanced in certain sense (like full FBW whereas F-15 is not til most recent iteration that has not been in service anywhere en mass) and more available (the US is very willing to sell F-16s, comparing to other airplanes)
2. Russian jets have their issues like bad avionics, bad life span for engines and such, cost a lot more in term of servicing, plus, post-cold war, it's better and more fashionable to be on side of the US, as opposed to a poor has-been unless the US doesn't want to sell you
3. European jets of comparable generation was less advanced and often even smaller (like Mirage) thus less potential for upgrade, newer ones are better but much more expensive. F-16's number alone means it's cheaper and easier to get upgrade
4. Chinese jets lagged way behind until very recently, even recent advances have not been seriously tested by combat and decades of services F-16 has.
5. Its a very good design fundamentally

Ok-Stomach-

F-16s are VERY easy to maintain. I worked them from '85-2007. I was an engine troop on Pratts and GEs then we were merged with crew chiefs. If ya have parts it's easy to keep a Fully Mission Capable rate over 90% indefinitely at war as we did during Desert Storm.  Shaw units (I was in the 33 AMU) and presumably everyone else always had more available airframes than there were rested crew to fly them.  Being easy to wrench makes it easier to train new maintainers. Maintainers coming off older systems including foreign customers should be delighted. I was. It's easier to be an engine troop or crew chief on an F-16 than it was to be comm/nav on Phantom. (I crosstrained to escape Moody.)

Manning matters so anywhere F-16 requires fewer maintainers than competing systems that's a considerable advantage. The cost of filling a single personnel slot for the life of a system isn't cheap and they add up.

Untakenunam

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is the F-16’s newest iterations are a completely different plane. The airframe remains the same, but that’s like saying T-72A and M3 are the same tank. As far as 4th gen fighters go, there is no need to reinvent the wheel - a sufficiently aerodynamic airframe is good enough, as long as stealth is not a priority. And since stealth fighters are more expensive and require a copious amount of maintenance, they are not an option for many of the US’s clients. Nor are they an economical way of delivering payloads once air superiority and SEAD have already been achieved. Even for the USAF, the F-35 is the tip of the spear and 4th generation fighter-bombers are the shaft.

[deleted]

Value = Capability / cost.  A moderate capability with an extremely low cost to procure and operate means the F-16 has value.

fighter_pil0t

Love the F-16 but I fear it might be found out in the event of a showdown between the heavyweights in the Western Pacific where its lack or range, payload and low radar observability will put it at a significant disadvantage compared to its contemporaries in-theatre.

Lildestro

[Lockheed Martin is actually building *new* F16s.](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/first-f-16-block-70-emerges-from-lockheed-martins-new-factory-128-more-on-order/#:~:text=The%20factory%20is%20geared%20up,the%20Foreign%20Military%20Sales%20program.)

ballsack-vinaigrette

Why do people still shoot M1911s, even though the design is over 100 years old?  Because it still works, it has ubiquitous parts, every gunsmith knows how to fix it, every gun maker knows how to make it. As a result it's a cheap, predictable, explicable and understandable tool.

Not every air power problem needs the latest and greatest.  Stealth doesn't matter in uncontested airspace.  Beyond Visual Range missiles don't matter when you need actual eyes on a target.  You're not always getting into a dogfight.  And if you do get in a lot of dogfights in contested airspace and F-16s aren't good enough, then you've probably got radiological problems in your capital.

Short Answer: The F-16 remains in service and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future because both the development and production of its intended replacement (the F-35) was significantly delayed and  operating costs remain prohibitively high.  

Having said that, I'd be surprised if the F-16 is still operational in significant numbers in 2040, nevermind 2050, as once the F-35 finally enters full rate production (expected to be ~150 aircraft each year from 2023) it will start entering service in sufficient numbers to replace it.

TheShreester

Lockheed Martin discusses upgrading the F-35 stealth fighter with NGAD technologies and explores new markets like India and Saudi Arabia. The program's transformation could affect US air force capabilities and military alliances.

F-35 Stealth Fighter Upgrades and Global Sales

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want