F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the reason we, the smaller single fighter type nations have no real use for the F35, it needs an air superiority fighter to do its job optimally according to the USAF.
Air Combat Command's challenge: Buy new or modernize older aircraft | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com
Also this is how far the USAF is tied to the faith of the F35, and probably the reason why the US NAVY is not allowed to look for alternatives,
The part bolded and underlined is IMHO an enormous overstatement of the future capabilities of the most potent adversaries the USAF and partners are likely to face, namely the Chinese and Russian forces.
China just decided on going with 1,200 J10's as their main fighter in addition to a number of land and sea-based SU27 derivatives, the J20 will most likely be a stealthy bomber in low volumes and the J31 will only be for export, so not very likely to be very cutting edge.
The PAK-FA is a long way from being a viable adversary, certainly when we look at the comments coming from INDIA and the Russians are nowhere near capable of fielding any kind of credible aerial opposition against any of the biggest western forces.
Fact is that the most likely adversaries will be MiG29 and SU27 derivatives for a long time to come, even some latest upgraded MiG21's, MIII and a couple of other types might be used for many years to come.
The SAM threat is unlikely to be fooled by current stealth technologies past 2020, certainly not by fighters like the F35 which have only a limited amount of all aspect stealth and certainly nothing to hide its enormous heat signature.
Also interesting to know that while the USAF is unlikely to upgrade its legacy fighters any time soon, it most certainly is planning on keeping them in use for many years to come, the current overhaul program may have been put on hold for now but I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade or so it is back on the table, certainly knowing that a large amount of F16's are in use al around the world and will most likely not be replaced for another 20-30 years.
The idea that an 80's USSR designed fighter with all the possible updates (with all due respect) is going to outperform our latest fighters , also with added kit & capabilities is just plain ridiculous.
As long as we invest cleverly in our men (training, education,...) and use our money wisely when it comes to equipment, we will keep the edge for a long time to come.
The F35 is just not the right tool for most of the smaller air forces, better (read more economically sustainable but potent enough) solutions are available and should be considered.
I can see why the UK likes its F35's, the way the carrier(s) are going to be set up just makes the F35B the winner by default, same goes for the MARINES and maybe also all the other forces that want fixed wing on non CATOBAR carriers.
The USAF always liked big fighters ,why , I don't really know ???
They hated the F16 and A10 but smarter people where able to force their hand, that option has gone now and the F35 has no real competition in the USAF.
The NAVY seems to be not really in love with the whole F365 idea but are forced to order to keep production volumes up.
For nations like HOLLAND, NORWAY, DANMARK, BELGIUM, CANADA and even AUSTRALIA,... it just seems like complete overkill in one way and underachievement in another way.
The South KOREANS decision of going for the F35 iso EF or F15 is just plain bonkers.
Air Combat Command's challenge: Buy new or modernize older aircraft | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com
Q. What about upgrades to the F-22?
A. The F-22, when it was produced, was flying with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console in somebody’s home gaming system. But I was forced to use that because that was the spec that was written by the acquisition process when I was going to buy the F-22.
Then, I have to go through the [service life extension plan] and [cost and assessment program evaluation] efforts with airplanes to try to get modern technology into my legacy fleet. That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet, I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be.
A. The F-22, when it was produced, was flying with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console in somebody’s home gaming system. But I was forced to use that because that was the spec that was written by the acquisition process when I was going to buy the F-22.
Then, I have to go through the [service life extension plan] and [cost and assessment program evaluation] efforts with airplanes to try to get modern technology into my legacy fleet. That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet, I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be.
Q. Are there any programs you would fight tooth and nail for in the budget?
A. I am going to fight to the death to protect the F-35 because I truly believe the only way we will make it through the next decade is with a sufficient fleet of F-35s.
If you gave me all the money I needed to refurbish the F-15 and the F-16 fleets, they would still become tactically obsolete by the middle of the next decade. Our adversaries are building fleets that will overmatch our legacy fleet, no matter what I do, by the middle of the next decade.
I have to provide an Air Force that in the middle of the next decade has sufficient fifth-generation capability that whatever residual fourth-generation capability I still have is viable and tactically useful. I am willing to trade the refurbishment of the fourth gen to ensure that I continue to get that fifth-gen capability.
I am fighting to the end, to the death, to keep the F-35 program on track. For me, that means not a single airplane cut from the program, because every time our allies and our partners see the United States Air Force back away, they get weak in the knees.
Q. So you remain committed to the 1,763 figure that has come out?
A. Absolutely. Not one plane less.
A. I am going to fight to the death to protect the F-35 because I truly believe the only way we will make it through the next decade is with a sufficient fleet of F-35s.
If you gave me all the money I needed to refurbish the F-15 and the F-16 fleets, they would still become tactically obsolete by the middle of the next decade. Our adversaries are building fleets that will overmatch our legacy fleet, no matter what I do, by the middle of the next decade.
I have to provide an Air Force that in the middle of the next decade has sufficient fifth-generation capability that whatever residual fourth-generation capability I still have is viable and tactically useful. I am willing to trade the refurbishment of the fourth gen to ensure that I continue to get that fifth-gen capability.
I am fighting to the end, to the death, to keep the F-35 program on track. For me, that means not a single airplane cut from the program, because every time our allies and our partners see the United States Air Force back away, they get weak in the knees.
Q. So you remain committed to the 1,763 figure that has come out?
A. Absolutely. Not one plane less.
China just decided on going with 1,200 J10's as their main fighter in addition to a number of land and sea-based SU27 derivatives, the J20 will most likely be a stealthy bomber in low volumes and the J31 will only be for export, so not very likely to be very cutting edge.
The PAK-FA is a long way from being a viable adversary, certainly when we look at the comments coming from INDIA and the Russians are nowhere near capable of fielding any kind of credible aerial opposition against any of the biggest western forces.
Fact is that the most likely adversaries will be MiG29 and SU27 derivatives for a long time to come, even some latest upgraded MiG21's, MIII and a couple of other types might be used for many years to come.
The SAM threat is unlikely to be fooled by current stealth technologies past 2020, certainly not by fighters like the F35 which have only a limited amount of all aspect stealth and certainly nothing to hide its enormous heat signature.
Also interesting to know that while the USAF is unlikely to upgrade its legacy fighters any time soon, it most certainly is planning on keeping them in use for many years to come, the current overhaul program may have been put on hold for now but I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade or so it is back on the table, certainly knowing that a large amount of F16's are in use al around the world and will most likely not be replaced for another 20-30 years.
The idea that an 80's USSR designed fighter with all the possible updates (with all due respect) is going to outperform our latest fighters , also with added kit & capabilities is just plain ridiculous.
As long as we invest cleverly in our men (training, education,...) and use our money wisely when it comes to equipment, we will keep the edge for a long time to come.
The F35 is just not the right tool for most of the smaller air forces, better (read more economically sustainable but potent enough) solutions are available and should be considered.
I can see why the UK likes its F35's, the way the carrier(s) are going to be set up just makes the F35B the winner by default, same goes for the MARINES and maybe also all the other forces that want fixed wing on non CATOBAR carriers.
The USAF always liked big fighters ,why , I don't really know ???
They hated the F16 and A10 but smarter people where able to force their hand, that option has gone now and the F35 has no real competition in the USAF.
The NAVY seems to be not really in love with the whole F365 idea but are forced to order to keep production volumes up.
For nations like HOLLAND, NORWAY, DANMARK, BELGIUM, CANADA and even AUSTRALIA,... it just seems like complete overkill in one way and underachievement in another way.
The South KOREANS decision of going for the F35 iso EF or F15 is just plain bonkers.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I keep wondering about the 1,763 number of F35As that the USAF "Needs".
If as seems likely, the USAF wants to take the A10 out of service, closing down the whole logistical and training chain to make the required savings, implicitly thus reducing the USAF headcount, there will be no need, personnel, or indeed funding, to replace these A10 squadrons with more expensive F35A squadrons, that must have an impact on the unit costs...
If as seems likely, the USAF wants to take the A10 out of service, closing down the whole logistical and training chain to make the required savings, implicitly thus reducing the USAF headcount, there will be no need, personnel, or indeed funding, to replace these A10 squadrons with more expensive F35A squadrons, that must have an impact on the unit costs...
I don't pay much attention to the 1763 number, for one reason:
The Congresscritters who vote on the last 800 or so of them are still serving their time in aides' offices, on school boards and in state legislatures, and the late 2020s (the buy years) are as far away from us as the year 2000, when you had to talk into a telephone, your data ran at a screaming 56 kb/sec and you could get on an airplane without being groped by high-school-dropout members of the Waffle-SS.
The Congresscritters who vote on the last 800 or so of them are still serving their time in aides' offices, on school boards and in state legislatures, and the late 2020s (the buy years) are as far away from us as the year 2000, when you had to talk into a telephone, your data ran at a screaming 56 kb/sec and you could get on an airplane without being groped by high-school-dropout members of the Waffle-SS.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bulkhead actually severed at one point, it states.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Very amusing 
Duffelblog
F-35 Delayed After Fourth Prototype Becomes Self-Aware And Has To Be Destroyed
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
The 'kbrockman' above link is to 05 Jan 2012 news?
Here is something much better. Great footage of the F-35 - the guys? - not so much....
The jet that ate the Pentagon 03 Feb 2014
Here is something much better. Great footage of the F-35 - the guys? - not so much....
The jet that ate the Pentagon 03 Feb 2014
"bravenewfilms
F-35 Bad Deal "
F-35 Bad Deal "
The c*nts in the little youtube clip talk about "war profiteering" and use some buzzwords that make me want to slap them with a fish. These are sensationalist sorts who cherry pick quotes and do all of the dishonest things journos do.
That said, their core message isn't all wrong.
I am on board with the criticisms of the program that was already eating a sizeable portion of acquisition budget over ten years ago. JSF was the 800 pound gorilla in the room that basically aced out two modest programs I was working on. We were in meetings to do with how and where the first training base was to be chosen, how and where the maintenance training site was to be chosen, and much else that was non trivial in terms of planning and programming. The number of attendees at these conferences was in three digits.
The other two programs never got more than a dozen people in a room.
There is some truth in the "F-35 is the plane that ate the Pentagon."
Three of our four services have significant monies tied up into it, sunk costs, and the prospect of it being continually expensive to own and operate.
That said, their core message isn't all wrong.
I am on board with the criticisms of the program that was already eating a sizeable portion of acquisition budget over ten years ago. JSF was the 800 pound gorilla in the room that basically aced out two modest programs I was working on. We were in meetings to do with how and where the first training base was to be chosen, how and where the maintenance training site was to be chosen, and much else that was non trivial in terms of planning and programming. The number of attendees at these conferences was in three digits.
The other two programs never got more than a dozen people in a room.
There is some truth in the "F-35 is the plane that ate the Pentagon."
Three of our four services have significant monies tied up into it, sunk costs, and the prospect of it being continually expensive to own and operate.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf_50
I am a firm believer in learning from history, nothing describes the F-35 Program better than this:
January 17, 2014, 53 Years To The Day That Eisenhower Warned Of The Military-Industrial Complex
One has to be brainwashed or brain dead to believe the F-35 program represents anything more than a boondoggle for the complex at taxpayer's expense.
There is some truth in the "F-35 is the plane that ate the Pentagon."
January 17, 2014, 53 Years To The Day That Eisenhower Warned Of The Military-Industrial Complex
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TurbineD
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
There is some truth in the "F-35 is the plane that ate the Pentagon."
U.S. Military Aircraft Programs | Spending, Purchases, Sequestration
Lets see... of a total of $351bn in 2012 the US spent a total of $9.1623bn on the entire F-35 program.
That's 2.61% of total expenditures for the year.
In 2012 the US spent $3.4986bn on the various H-60 models, $2.9849 on the V-22, $2.9115bn on the P-8A, $2.5163bn on the F/A-18, $2.5065bn on the C-130, and so on.
The site above contains links for the other parts of the DOD budget as well.
For example, in FY2013 the USN spent $4.87bn on the DDG-51 program, $4.81bn on the Virginia-class SSN program, and $2.33bn on the LCS program.
But lets not let facts and reality get in the way of a good paranoid anti-defense industry rant.
There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Like everything else, it depends on how you look at it.
Presumably $351bn is the total US defence budget, this includes bullets, beans, wages, fuel, etc and an element for the procurement of new assets. The largest portion of the budget will be spend on running and maintaining current assets and personnel, how big is the procurement budget?
If $9bn was spent on the F-35, then presumably this almost all came under the heading of procurement spending? What % of the procurement budget is being spent on the F-35, possibly to the detriment of other projects.
With regard to your comparison with spending on other aircraft, if, for example, $2.51bn was spent on the F/A-18, how many operational airframes was this expenditure spread over, compared to the 100 odd non operational F-35s? Is it in the region of 300-400 F/A-18s? So a comparison of cost per airframe between spending on F-35 and F-18 might be nearer 10:1.
Presumably spending on F-35 will also ramp up as production increases further...
Presumably $351bn is the total US defence budget, this includes bullets, beans, wages, fuel, etc and an element for the procurement of new assets. The largest portion of the budget will be spend on running and maintaining current assets and personnel, how big is the procurement budget?
If $9bn was spent on the F-35, then presumably this almost all came under the heading of procurement spending? What % of the procurement budget is being spent on the F-35, possibly to the detriment of other projects.
With regard to your comparison with spending on other aircraft, if, for example, $2.51bn was spent on the F/A-18, how many operational airframes was this expenditure spread over, compared to the 100 odd non operational F-35s? Is it in the region of 300-400 F/A-18s? So a comparison of cost per airframe between spending on F-35 and F-18 might be nearer 10:1.
Presumably spending on F-35 will also ramp up as production increases further...
Last edited by Biggus; 6th Feb 2014 at 08:43.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Navy F-35 Set For Sea Trials After Tailhook Redesign
The naval version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is due to start flight tests on an aircraft carrier at sea in October after Lockheed Martin Corp. said it had fixed the tailhook used to arrest the plane's landing on a ship's deck. Lockheed was forced to redesign the tailhook, and said Wednesday that the naval version of the advanced jet--known as the F-35C--was "on schedule and progressing well for sea trials" after a test plane successfully landed 36 times with the new version during trials on land...........
The Pentagon on Wednesday cautiously welcomed progress on the carrier version of the jet after the testing of the new tailhook, which has a different shape to catch the arresting wires used to slow and halt the plane on landing. "We're not declaring victory. We have a lot more testing to do and more data to collect, but the initial results have been promising," said a spokesman for the F-35 Joint Program Office in an emailed statement.
The landing system faces another three to four months of land testing before being cleared for sea trials on the USS Nimitz, currently scheduled for October.......
The naval version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is due to start flight tests on an aircraft carrier at sea in October after Lockheed Martin Corp. said it had fixed the tailhook used to arrest the plane's landing on a ship's deck. Lockheed was forced to redesign the tailhook, and said Wednesday that the naval version of the advanced jet--known as the F-35C--was "on schedule and progressing well for sea trials" after a test plane successfully landed 36 times with the new version during trials on land...........
The Pentagon on Wednesday cautiously welcomed progress on the carrier version of the jet after the testing of the new tailhook, which has a different shape to catch the arresting wires used to slow and halt the plane on landing. "We're not declaring victory. We have a lot more testing to do and more data to collect, but the initial results have been promising," said a spokesman for the F-35 Joint Program Office in an emailed statement.
The landing system faces another three to four months of land testing before being cleared for sea trials on the USS Nimitz, currently scheduled for October.......
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
36 Roll In Arrests Lakehurs between 09-16 Jan 2014
Slightly different story here:
Navy’s F-35 Tailhook Passes Initial Tests; Carrier Flights In October 05 Feb 2014 Colin Clark
Navy?s F-35 Tailhook Passes Initial Tests; Carrier Flights In October « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
Navy’s F-35 Tailhook Passes Initial Tests; Carrier Flights In October 05 Feb 2014 Colin Clark
"...Joe DellaVedova, F-35 program spokesman, said in an email. “We’re not declaring victory but last month (9 to 16 Jan) the F-35 team accomplished 36 successful roll-in arrestment tests at Lakehurst with the redesigned F-35C arresting hook system on CF-3.”
CF-3 is the first F-35C to be fitted with the redesigned Arresting Hook System, as it’s formally known. The plane has returned to the Navy’s Patuxent River test facility where for the next three to four months it will undergo “field-based ship suitability tests, including fly-in arrestments.” Those tests are expected to lead to a certification of the F-35C for carrier flight trials, planned for October aboard the USS Nimitz (CVN-68)....
...Here’s some background on the tail hook problem. The initial design did not reliably engage the cable and wasn’t strong enough. “Improved damping and optimized hookpoint shape addressed part one,” DellaVedova said. And they basically redesigned the tail hook and made it, and where it connects with the airframe, much stronger."
CF-3 is the first F-35C to be fitted with the redesigned Arresting Hook System, as it’s formally known. The plane has returned to the Navy’s Patuxent River test facility where for the next three to four months it will undergo “field-based ship suitability tests, including fly-in arrestments.” Those tests are expected to lead to a certification of the F-35C for carrier flight trials, planned for October aboard the USS Nimitz (CVN-68)....
...Here’s some background on the tail hook problem. The initial design did not reliably engage the cable and wasn’t strong enough. “Improved damping and optimized hookpoint shape addressed part one,” DellaVedova said. And they basically redesigned the tail hook and made it, and where it connects with the airframe, much stronger."
GK121's numbers are indeed distorted. Not exactly sure what the $351 billion is (less than the based defense budget) but what is important is that the F-35 program is $13.2 billion in FY18 and rises to $14.5 bn in 2021, sustaining that level throughout the 2020s.
This is one-third of the current budget for all aircraft R&D, production and modernization. No way can it be covered without reducing force numbers and (most likely) deferring any other major new programs.
PS - On the roll-in tests: "Good news" for the F-35 is now "catastrophe avoided". I don't recall such a release being issued for the Super Hornet, or any previous Navy program.
This is one-third of the current budget for all aircraft R&D, production and modernization. No way can it be covered without reducing force numbers and (most likely) deferring any other major new programs.
PS - On the roll-in tests: "Good news" for the F-35 is now "catastrophe avoided". I don't recall such a release being issued for the Super Hornet, or any previous Navy program.
PS - On the roll-in tests: "Good news" for the F-35 is now "catastrophe avoided". I don't recall such a release being issued for the Super Hornet, or any previous Navy program
If the commentariat screams that the sky is falling, it can hardly complain when someone points out that its fall has now been arrested (sorry!).
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the trouble is the saga just goes on and on and on and.....
it has been a few years from in service for over a decade
I'm struggling to think of a major US programme that has taken so long and not delivered anything ..........
it has been a few years from in service for over a decade
I'm struggling to think of a major US programme that has taken so long and not delivered anything ..........
From ORAC's link:
The problems with the tailhook and a pricey new pilot helmet had become symbolic of broader issues with the F-35 program as the complexity of trying to develop three different models simultaneously with a high level of shared parts led to a cascade of technical problems and cost overruns.
It appears that what we've ended up with is three versions of the same airplane - none particularly good at their primary mission due to the compromises necessary to allow commonality with the other two versions - which is costing more and taking longer to develop than would have been the case for three unique, mission specific aircraft that shared common technologies.
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant
I wonder if it's too late to build more F-22s. They may have been expensive, but at least it was able to effectively perform their primary mission.
