Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

Found it, The dreams of going with Sweden are gone

"Sweden and Germany signed a Letter of Intent at the NATO summit in Ankara to advance their air defense capabilities, sparking major developments for a joint 6th-generation fighter. Following the collapse of the Franco-German Future Combat Air System (FCAS), Germany's Airbus is seeking Swedish defense firm Saab as a preferred partner to jointly develop a new 6th-generation aircraft. [1, 2, 3]
 
The Pentagon has blocked the public release of a congressionally-mandated annual report on the F-35 fighter jet program for the first time in over 20 years.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO), which has conducted yearly assessments of the $1.6 trillion program since Congress mandated the reviews in 2005, said Defense Department officials determined the report contained "Controlled Unclassified Information," preventing any portion of it from being released — leaving only the title of the June 25 assessment publicly known: "F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Update on Production and Modernisation Efforts."
This move comes amid a backdrop of ongoing troubles for the program, including production delays, cost overruns, and supply chain issues, with the F-35's Block 4 upgrade package now expected no earlier than 2031 — at least six years behind schedule — and some planned capabilities being cut entirely.
The F-35 no longer merely overpromises and underdelivers; now, it underinforms.
 
Ok, what has happened to the Rafale? You guys only get this worked up when the wheels have fallen off of it, It can't be over FCAS or a future 6th gen, nothing is happening there :)

There is public and non public data, it seems the GAO put non public data in it, I guess they will have to do a rewrite, You could look at it as the GAO has access to non public data, it is a transparent programme

As to block 4, They added stuff, they took stuff off, it's hard and won't be finished for a while
In the context of the F-35, this obviously looks like an attempt to suppress embarrassing information regarding production, modernization, TR-3/Block 4, engines, parts, availability, or costs.

The 2025 GAO report on F-35 acquisition was already highly critical: it highlighted Block 4 delays, engine and aircraft delivery issues, and incentive payments made despite delays, concluding that the program continued to overpromise and underdeliver.

The most reasonable interpretation, therefore, is that the 2026 report likely contained information the Pentagon did not want picked up by the media, allies, competitors, or foreign lawmakers. F-35 buyers—such as the UK, Japan, Italy, Poland, Germany, Finland, and Switzerland—rely on these reports to assess the program's actual trajectory. By blocking publication, Washington is reducing transparency precisely when the fleet is grappling with TR-3/Block 4 upgrades, declining availability, sustainment costs, and parts shortages.

This is highly detrimental to confidence. A healthy program can withstand transparency; when you start hiding the thermometer, everyone wonders just how high the fever is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bon Plan
Rafale is one of the most hidden, Where are the annual reviews? It's only when the upgrades are announced, we realise how terrible it was

The F-35 is the most transparent in history, By both the DOT&E and GAO and others, The GAO will have to rewrite their report, making all data that is public
 
Last edited:
Rafale is one of the most hidden, Where are the annual reviews? It's only when the upgrades are announced, we realise how terrible it was

The F-35 is the most transparent in history, By both the DOT&E and GAO and others
We don’t need annual public crisis reports on the Rafale program. When RAND studies Dassault, it is usually not to document why the program is failing, but to understand why Dassault performs so well with such limited resources.

The F-35 is “transparent” because the problems are too large to hide: GAO, DOT&E and others keep documenting delays, cost overruns, readiness shortfalls, software problems and modernization slippage year after year.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Optimist
Found it, The dreams of going with Sweden are gone

"Sweden and Germany signed a Letter of Intent at the NATO summit in Ankara to advance their air defense capabilities, sparking major developments for a joint 6th-generation fighter. Following the collapse of the Franco-German Future Combat Air System (FCAS), Germany's Airbus is seeking Swedish defense firm Saab as a preferred partner to jointly develop a new 6th-generation aircraft. [1, 2, 3]
SAAB requests will be the same than Dassault. Some skills less (no swedish engine industry for exemple).
At the end, if there is a end, Germans and Swedish will rely on a foreign engine.... a US one ? :eek::p:cool:
 
Rafale is one of the most hidden, Where are the annual reviews? It's only when the upgrades are announced, we realise how terrible it was

The F-35 is the most transparent in history, By both the DOT&E and GAO and others, The GAO will have to rewrite their report, making all data that is public
Our customers are our best ambassadors.
Egypt purchased it twice,
Qatar purchased it twice.
UAE made a huge order.
India purchased it twice and nearly a third time. They were very happy with it following Sindoor.
Greece ordered it twice.
Indonesia purchased 3 batchs.

Why an annual review ? it is delivered on time, on spec, on budget.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amarante
Online search for dimensions of F-22's IWB says it is classified. Anyways, 3D CADs can help in estimating current & new capacity, area, volume, etc of existing & new jets. Diagrams on internet are not 100% accurate, small adjustments needed.
For example here i adjusted diagram dimensions then Blender view-port dimensions as per official specs, making the outline currently. But IWB in diagram looks short to accommodate staggered AIM-120 AMRAAMs.

AIM-120 AMRAAM length 3.66 m, body diameter 17.8 cm, wingspan 48.4 cm.
In Diagram each IWB hinge is is 104 cm from center.
We've to leave say 4 cm + 4cm in center for door edge support. This leaves 100cm wide IWB both sides.
When 3x AIM-120 AMRAAMs are staggered then they seem to occupy 4m length & 94 cm width, leaving just 3cm gap with side walls & 4cm gap between fin & body of adjacent AAM.

F-22 Raptor IWB, 3 staggered AIM-120 AAMs, front view cross section with position.jpg

F-22 Raptor IWB short for 3 staggered AIM-120 AMRAAMs.jpg

F-22 Raptor IWB short for 3 staggered AIM-120 AMRAAMs, side view over blueprint.jpg



But in reality it looks so easily comfortable to fit 3x AAMs.
I wish if we had a better pic with perpendicular angle & high resolution to know the gap b/w fins & adjacent AAMs.

F-22 with AIM-120 AMRAAM in IWB.jpg

1784545075904.png



In following pics notice how narrow the gaps are b/w SDBs, with edge/hinge.

F-22 can carry 2 AMRAAMs & 8 SDBs internally, gap marked.jpg

checking if bigger SDB-II will fit into F-22 weapons bay, gap ,marked.jpg
 
Last edited:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ocks-watchdog-s-review-of-costly-f-35-program

The Pentagon has blocked the public release of a congressionally-mandated annual report on the costly and controversial F-35 fighter jet program for the first time in more than 20 years.​


The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said Defense Department officials concluded its yearly assessment of the $1.6 trillion program contained “Controlled Unclassified Information,” which meant none of the report could be released to the public, a GAO official said.

The report has offered a key window into the world’s costliest and most advanced defense program. But this time, only the title of the June 25 assessment is public: “F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Update on Production and Modernization Efforts.”

The “GAO has covered the F-35 acquisition annually since Congress mandated reviews beginning in 2005,” said Jon Ludwigson, a director in the agency’s contracting and national security acquisitions office, who supervised the creation of the report.

“This is the first year that any of our acquisition reviews has been determined to contain CUI information” and be restricted from public release, he said. The censored report was still provided to the lawmakers on Congress’s four defense committees and continued “on our path of providing an update to the defense committees on the progress of F-35 modernization.”

An F-35 fighter near the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, July 3, 2026. Photographer: Andrew Leyden/Bloomberg

The Lockheed Martin Corp.-made F-35 is the most expensive weapons platform in US history, but it has been repeatedly criticized for cost overruns, late deliveries of engines and aircraft, delays to software upgrades and parts wearing out earlier than expected. Last year’s version of the report noted the F-35 program “continues to overpromise and underdeliver.”

Pentagon and program office spokespeople didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell has previously said that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth runs “the most transparent Department of Defense in history.”

The watchdog’s annual performance report offers the public the only detailed appraisal of one of the Pentagon’s most closely-watched weapons programs, with previous assessments disclosing crucial delays associated with the program’s major software, hardware and engine upgrades.

The assessments also have proved valuable guides for lawmakers worldwide whose countries have purchased the aircraft, including the United Kingdom, Israel, Japan and Poland.

The CUI label has been criticized for years by lawmakers due to its broad, amorphous designations, effectively allowing the Defense Department to block the release of information it doesn’t want to be made public, even if none of the details are classified.

The Pentagon also censored GAO reports on nuclear modernization efforts under the Biden administration. In one example from 2023, the Defense Department restricted a report criticizing the reliability of the construction schedule for nuclear-armed Columbia class submarines, for example.
/END
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Asterion Moloc
Our customers are our best ambassadors.
Egypt purchased it twice,
Qatar purchased it twice.
UAE made a huge order.
India purchased it twice and nearly a third time. They were very happy with it following Sindoor.
Greece ordered it twice.
Indonesia purchased 3 batchs.
That really doesn't mean much because the F-35 people can make the same claim. its circular logic:
The F-35 is good because people buy it, they buy it because its good.
and many F-35 cutomers have used the F-35 in combat, and ordered more batches. the F-35 has been an ambassador in Eastern Europe as its its deployed there after the Ukraine invasion and that has lead to lots of sales. being perfectly honest the more F-35s sell the more F-35s attract customers as it becomes the "norm"

besides most of the French Cohort here are quick to point out that the Rafale's main attributes are freedom and independence from US and other nations pressure and control over weapons systems not nearly as much to do with performance. in other words politics. goodness knows whenever the Rafale loses in direct competition they never talk about specs and reviews unless its to cry foul and shout "politics" about American control.

very simple formula: if the Rafale wins its becuase its awesome, if the F-35 wins its because it cheats.


The F-35 is “transparent” because the problems are too large to hide: GAO, DOT&E and others keep documenting delays, cost overruns, readiness shortfalls, software problems and modernization slippage year after year.
The F-35 program like all American programs have requirements for public reporting which is what the DOT&E and GAO do regardless of performance. The F-35 is the worlds largest defense program, so it is indeed too large to hide. I'm glad you are acknowledging things like this.


Why an annual review ? it is delivered on time, on spec, on budget.
wow its crazy to think there was never any problems in places like say India? ;) Annual reviews should be a part of any business or military program. perhaps annual reviews would have found some previously missed aspects on the Rafale.

once again the French refuse to see the difference between programs, call them the same and then compare the two when they are very different programs with very different goals and standards and usually different customers as well.
 
let me fill in a little gap


Before becoming one of the world’s top nonproliferation cops, France served as a global nuclear supplier. During the Cold War arms race, the French government was among those that provided Israel, India, South Africa, Iran, and Iraq with nuclear technologies. Except for possibly Iran, all these states endeavored to build nuclear weapons; so far, only Iraq has failed to do so.

French nuclear history also has important ties to the United States and its Cold War foreign policy. Despite public refusal to help the French program, the Eisenhower administration invited French officials to the Nevada Test Site and provided diagnostic instruments for use in Algeria. The Kennedy-era State Department participated in Franco-Algerian negotiations over continued French use of the test sites in the Algerian Sahara after Algerian Independence. The Johnson White House took a firmer stance, refusing further nuclear aid to France. Worried about the reliability of France’s nuclear arsenal, President Richard Nixon and his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger secretly reversed US policy and launched unprecedented Franco-American cooperation on weapons design and safety procedures.
you have to understand that the French have great national pride that borders on delusion and pick selected bits of history to enhance this pride that they then endlessly repeat. so something Admiral rickover said is a huge deal, and the fact that the US actually helped France is not a big deal. this is much the same way that RAND doing a study on Dassault finally proves that France is in the big leagues. A psychologist would point out that They needed RAND approval to feel validated, but lets not talk about that.
RAND did a study and so now the French will hang their hat on it for the next couple decades
who needs to win in switzerland when you have a RAND Study that says they were good little boys? I have to actually admire the French programming. They are unbelievably good at reciting the same things again and again and they are not self-aware enough to understand that many people do not want to be French, and even in Europe many people cannot stand them. There are French people posting here that genuinely believe India wants to be like France.
remember that the French are still trying to get past what happened in 1940. its all cope about the amazing things they did. Who needs to remember being invaded, losing and then collaborating with Ze Germans? lets talk about RAND!

Unfortunately they make this thread nearly impossible to talk in, and it invariably becomes "Rafale vs All" its sad. I would like to talk about the F-35 and F-22 in a more measured way, but the "Rafale Brain" is alive and well and there is zero daylight between France and Rafale. its all the same thing which is why you have to educate them on their own history.
 
Worried? What did they know about the french nuc reliabilty?
Maybe they proposed their assistance... Did we use it? Was it convenient ? I don't know, and so you are.

Did we proposed our reliability mastery in civil nuc powerplant to avoid another Three Mille Island disaster ??? :ROFLMAO:

 
You demonstrate every day just how little you understand about aviation safety and the rigorous procedures involved in operating an aircraft fleet.
F-35Bs have been flying for decades in official operation in since 2012. a request for a cleaner in 2026 would seemingly bely the notion of a lack of rigorous procedures or safety issues. for all the doom and gloom you post below I am not seeing the a lack of aviation safety or lack of procedure.
If the LiftFan clutch rubs or "chatters" during normal flight, the "clutch sludge" is likely not just ordinary age-related grime; it is a symptom of a chronic functional defect. The system generates its own contaminants: wear from the carbon-carbon discs, carbon dust, and synthetic oil degraded by heat, resulting in hardened deposits within the cooling circuit.

And this is nothing new. A Navy SBIR document from December 2011 had already called for innovative clutch plate concepts for the F-35B, noting that while the carbon-carbon plates met the target of approximately 1,500 engagements, this was at least half the desired service life, and issues regarding friction coefficients and wear persisted. It is also worth recalling that Pratt & Whitney revealed in 2011 that the LiftFan clutch discs were making unexpected contact during normal (non-vertical) flight, generating more heat than anticipated.

They aren't addressing the root cause; they are addressing the byproduct of the root cause.

If the sludge has hardened, it is no longer a simple degreasing issue. Emulsifying the oil is no longer sufficient, because the oil likely no longer exists in a free state; it has transformed into a polymerized, oxidized, and coked matrix laden with carbon dust.

In this scenario, the residue resembles a carbonaceous varnish—a type of composite deposit—more than it does "dirty oil": thermally degraded synthetic oil, carbon particles, composite dust, and potentially metallic residues or oxidized additives. This is far more difficult to remove.

Hot water with a surfactant may work only if the deposit remains soft or friable. However, if the deposit has hardened, it must first be fractured, softened, or detached. The actual process therefore becomes:
  • controlled chemical or thermal softening;
  • gentle yet targeted mechanical action;
  • suspending the particles;
  • rinsing;
  • recovery;
  • complete drying.
There is a risk that the hardened deposit might adhere to duct walls and screens. Simply increasing water pressure could tear off chunks, push them further into the system, clog an inaccessible area, or damage sensitive components. Consequently, simple pressure washing is likely hazardous.

More suitable fluids would be semi-aqueous cleaners or specialized mild solvents capable of swelling or softening baked-on oil residues without attacking seals, composites, paints, surface treatments, or sensors. In the aerospace industry, the aim is typically to strike a balance between overly aggressive organic solvents and ineffective water-based solutions—using options such as microemulsions, mild oxygenated solvents, moderate alkaline detergents, or material-qualified decoking agents.

However, there is a complication: if the matrix is truly carbonized, even a solvent will not "dissolve" the carbon. While it may dissolve or soften the organic binder, the carbon particles themselves must be mechanically detached and then vacuumed or filtered out.

Therefore, I would envision a solution along these lines:localized pre-soaking with an aerospace-compatible softening fluid (potentially heated);
  • hydraulic pulses or targeted low-pressure jets, rather than a high-force stream;
  • brushing, swabbing, or use of a specialized tool, provided the geometry allows access;
  • simultaneous vacuuming to prevent fragments from migrating through the system;
  • rinsing with deionized water and a dispersing agent;
  • drying with dry air or nitrogen;
  • endoscopic inspection before returning the unit to service.
This explains why the Navy requires a system specifically tailored to the F-35B clutch assembly. The issue is not just “which liquid to use?”; it is the combination of chemistry, geometry, recovery, and the avoidance of contamination.

If the deposit has hardened, it can break apart. If the process pushes fragments inward rather than extracting them, a cooling issue can turn into a mechanical one—leading to abrasive particles, scratches, contamination of friction surfaces, local imbalance, increased heat buildup, or even accelerated clutch wear.

Therefore, an acceptable cleaning method must strictly follow a reverse-flow approach: suction before injection. The cleaning adapter needs to create a vacuum or controlled suction right at the deposit site, then inject the fluid in a way that dislodges the residue toward the outlet rather than toward the clutch discs. Otherwise, it poses a risk.
the F-35B is doomed until they find a new washer-outter gizmo!
 
In the context of the F-35, this obviously looks like an attempt to suppress embarrassing information regarding production, modernization, TR-3/Block 4, engines, parts, availability, or costs.

yes because such information was such a well kept secret before?


The 2025 GAO report on F-35 acquisition was already highly critical: it highlighted Block 4 delays, engine and aircraft delivery issues, and incentive payments made despite delays, concluding that the program continued to overpromise and underdeliver.

so the same as every year? They are "covering up" all the things you listed already? :ROFLMAO:

The most reasonable interpretation, therefore, is that the 2026 report likely contained information the Pentagon did not want picked up by the media, allies, competitors, or foreign lawmakers.
LOL no.

pickle oil is trying to say that the pentagon is trying to cover up the same things he has already been complaining about for years. even the things he lists are already known issues that he routinely gripes about publicly on an indian forum from France.


F-35 buyers—such as the UK, Japan, Italy, Poland, Germany, Finland, and Switzerland—rely on these reports to assess the program's actual trajectory. By blocking publication, Washington is reducing transparency precisely when the fleet is grappling with TR-3/Block 4 upgrades, declining availability, sustainment costs, and parts shortages.
The foreign buyers of the F-35 don't rely on GAO reports for their information. please tell us what a GAO report that doesn't even contain classified or sensitive unclassified information is going to tell all the countries that already fly the plane and have access to classified information?


This is highly detrimental to confidence. A healthy program can withstand transparency; when you start hiding the thermometer, everyone wonders just how high the fever is.

when you start inventing narratives everyone wonders just what you are pushing. you are actually trying to scream "cover-up" because you apparently think the F-35 doesn't have enough problems so you must invent more?
The report is going to be released, but the Pentagon didn't want certain details exposed so those are being removed and the report will be published anyway. as far as cover-ups go its not a good one. And its not going to be a GAO report that changes any minds anyway. Youre trying to "spin" this as some grand cover up when its going to be releases already, and I would like to think that you are smart enough to know that F-35 buyers don't get their information from GAO reports.
Canada is a partner on the F-35 and they actually have officers working in the US on the F-35 program. They are not waiting on annual reports from the GAO to find out what is going on! LOL. They work there. And GAO reports don't contain classified information that partner nations already have!

The French Narrative that the F-35 sucks horribly, but secretly sucks even worse than that! never gets old. we already watched herciv try and convince others here that the Rafale used non aviation grade glass because he had convinced himself the the F-35 was using the same non aviation grade glass in a lie to convince us the F-35 was even worse! than the reports tell us.

so strange that French lies must be added to the mix to an aircraft that already has admitted problems from the very people who build it and problems already disclosed in many other reports. its like the French have developed a "tolerance" and the old "high" has worn off so they must search ever deeper into the rabbit hole

I honestly don't know if you knew better and are trying to "stir the pot" or if you genuinely think that countries ignore their own classified reports in favor of once- a-year public reports that are openly sanitized of actual important information :ROFLMAO:

Nice try!

A healthy program can withstand transparency;

The F-35 then is a healthy program because it has withstood such transparency for decades. the idea that one delayed report means there is no transparency even as you quote the 2025 report is laughable
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Innominate