F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[NITRO104]

KenV,
building a fighter aircraft without KPPing flight performance is essentially a 'carta-blanco' contract and we know what that is (a communism, in case you've been wondering).
Also, not that long ago we had Flynn (and not only him) in front of LM, making some pretty bold claims regarding F35's performance, which have now been shown fake.
Then there's the issue of pre-Bogdan program management and spending, where trucks of money delivered next to none results.
Etc, etc...

So, considering all, I think the LM managed to develop a substantial animosity with their 'everything is fine' PR policy, where a more measured and cautious approach would yield a milder public response and perhaps a degree of sympathy from a wider audience than just hard-core fans.

Originally Posted by LO

However, it's not how the aircraft has been sold.

Which exactly is the issue, since LM changes stories like a kid caught stealing jam in the store, as the test results keep coming in.

[KenV]

So, considering all, I think the LM managed to develop a substantial animosity with their 'everything is fine' PR policy, where a more measured and cautious approach would yield a milder public response and perhaps a degree of sympathy from a wider audience than just hard-core fans.

I see the other side of the same coin. I see a "public response" that has generally been "mild". The "animosity" comes from the "hard-core" detractors, not the public. And seemingly nothing will dissuade those hard-core detractors. I for example am not even a fan of the F-35, never mind a "hard core" fan. The program and the airplane it produced has many flaws. Some likely insurmountable. My view of theF-35 is generally similar to the USN view. It has an important role to play in the overall modern combat environment, but it fills only one niche in that environment and does so at the expense of others. My gripe is and has been with the vitriol expressed by some here which on more than one occasion has simply been over the top.

In my view the "hard core" detractors are making the highest claims about the F-35 rather than LM, like that it is supposed to be an air superiority fighter. And they are doing so as a straw man. Easy to knock down, but not congruent with reality.

[KenV]

KenV,
building a fighter aircraft without KPPing flight performance is essentially a 'carta-blanco' contract....

May I respectfully point out that is your opinion. And one not at all shared by the many services from many nations that had a big hand in producing the F-35's KPPs.

May I gently point out that Engines has already made clear the inputs that drove the KPPs and the vast number of requirements that flowed down from those KPPs. F-35 flight performance was not nailed down in the beginning because aeroperformance was a part of the overall trade space. Nailing down flight performance at the very beginning can result in eye watering aeroperformance (like perhaps the Lightning, Raptor, SR-71?), but that leaves an airplane with a lot to be desired in actual real world military operations.

For example, earlier a few made a big deal of the Typhoon's ability to supercruise above 60,000 ft. That is indeed impressive, but is it really valuable in real world military operations? I don't know, but RAF clearly does not think so since they've put a 55,000 ft ceiling on the aircraft. So what was sacrificed on Typhoon to get that capability that RAF does not use? I don't know. More importantly, if that ability had been required of the F-35 what would have been sacrificed to achieve that result? Would that have been worth it? I don't know. Perhaps LM also does not know. But not knowing does not in my mind equate to giving LM "carto blanco".

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

[NITRO104]

The "animosity" comes from the "hard-core" detractors, not the public.

So, hard-core detractors are just born that way (disidents and anarchists) and LM bull****ting public has nothing to do with that?
You know, Darwin wrote in English...

In my view the "hard core" detractors are making the highest claims about the F-35 (like that it is supposed to be an air superiority fighter) as a straw man.

Strawman?
Because ppl, when told the F35 will replace and surpass their their F16s in performance, cost, etc., believed LM?
Are we seriously having this conversation?

F-35 flight performance was not nailed down in the beginning because aeroperformance was a part of the overall trade space.

Well you know, designing a fighter aircraft with its flight performance allowed to fall into 'trade space', is kinda like building a missile without specifying payload and range and thus application.
You can do that ofc, but who knows what will the result be and how much will it cost.
You may get a SRM, or you may get a LRM, depending on what the contractor delivers.
Why would you build the future of your security on a whim of a single company that may, or may not deliver?
There's no chance that such a project goes live in a clean private sector awarded tender and with a good reason.

[KenV]

However, it's not how the aircraft has been sold.

Maybe. Maybe not. But in my considered opinion the hard core detractors of the F-35 have made the highest claims for what the F-35 is supposed to do and be, not LM. Like being an air superiority fighter. The aeroperformance of the F-35 has been generally known since before its first flight, and air superiority fighter performance was never a selling point. Basically from the beginning it was described as F/A-18 like. So in many ways the F-35 is an all aspect stealthy F/A-18. That's clearly how USN looks at it. It seems to me that its the detractors that insist that F-35 is and must be an air superiority fighter, not LM.

[NITRO104]

The aeroperformance of the F-35 has been generally known since before its first flight, and air superiority fighter performance was never a selling point.

Well, Flynn and the LM would disagree on that.
Do I need to quote him/them?

[Radix]

...........

[KenV]

Well, Flynn and the LM would disagree on that.
Do I need to quote him/them?

That would be appreciated.

[KenV]

So what about cost eh?

Cost has spiraled on every high risk program. And this program had more high risk stuff in it than almost any other, maybe even including the F-22. Aeroperformance KPPs don't rein in costs. If anything, they tend to drive them upward.

No, the airplane is just stinking expensive.

Yup, that's one of it's biggest flaws. The program managers promise they've got that under control and that cost will come down during full rate production, but we'll have to wait and see how much. And as regards the Dutch specifically, may I ask how much of the reduction in buy was due to price growth, and how much was due to revenue shortfall? Which had the greater influence?

They were promised an aircraft that could do such and such at such a price and it's just not delivering.

Seemingly not on price. At least at present. But I don't know the details of the contract as regards price. If you know those details, may I respectfully ask that you share with us the contractual price that is being violated. And could you please clarify what performance "such and such" F-35 does not meet? As mentioned by others above, it is meeting its KPPs. Without facts, we are yet again dealing with false assumptions and wild conclusions.

Looks like a pig, smells like a pig, we should call it 'the pig II'.

That's an interesting opinion. Another poster above has the opinion that the F-35 looks too unnecessarily like a "9G fighter" for just a bomber. Please excuse the repetition, but we appear to be faced with wild conclusions drawn from (false) assumptions.

[NITRO104]

Originally Posted by KenV

That would be appreciated.

You can't look for yourself, half the page up?

[chopper2004]

Israel activates F-35 squadron next week

The Israeli Air Force : First F-35I ("Adir") Squadron to be Opened next We

Cheers

[FODPlod]

This should help sweeten the bitterest of naysayers.

Ten Signs The F-35 Fighter Program Is Becoming A Smashing Success

Originally Posted by Forbes Business 13 July 2015

Summer is the silly season for defense coverage in the nation’s capital. With much of official Washington gone, journalists have to work harder to find anything worth reporting. When they uncover an item that sounds like it might be newsy, they get as much mileage out of it as they can.

One approach is to take the latest glitch (real or imagined) in the Pentagon’s biggest weapon program and use it as a pretext for revisiting past issues — even though most of those issues have long since been resolved. The F-35 fighter is an easy target because its budget dwarfs funding for other programs, and the plane thus is a lightning rod for every conspiracy theorist’s fears about the machinations of the military-industrial complex. Few of the reporters on the defense beat realize that all of the legacy fighters sustaining America’s global air power today were subjected to the same sort of withering scrutiny during their own development...

[longer ron]

FODPlod This should help sweeten the bitterest of naysayers.

I was right with the article until the start of the third paragraph - and I quote ; )

I have an emotional attachment to the F-35 because I have worked with many of the companies that build it, including prime contractor Lockheed Martin, for much of my adult life

So not necessarily a detached and neutral view then !

[FODPlod]

longer ron - Would you have felt better if he'd kept that bit quiet or, like me, appreciated his candour and taken his background into account while reading his blog? Does it invalidate the factual evidence, backed up with actual figures, he presents?

[kbrockman]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

Because the requirements folks did like was done for the F-18: it has to perform multiple roles.

Which initially was a true LWF and by no means as multi role as the F35, the SH on the other hand might be a better example, the difference being that it was below weight ,on time and budget and not over promised and sold.

Originally Posted by KenV

My view of theF-35 is generally similar to the USN view. It has an important role to play in the overall modern combat environment, but it fills only one niche in that environment and does so at the expense of others

Which is exactly my opinion too and therefore makes the following remark a bit strange;

The aeroperformance of the F-35 has been generally known since before its first flight, and air superiority fighter performance was never a selling point. Basically from the beginning it was described as F/A-18 like. So in many ways the F-35 is an all aspect stealthy F/A-18. That's clearly how USN looks at it. It seems to me that its the detractors that insist that F-35 is and must be an air superiority fighter, not LM.

You might be rewriting history here and falsely interpreting the problems many people have with the F35.

It was sold as a successor to the F16 or F18, it was sold under false premisses and if you agree with the NAVY doctrine regarding the F35 you basically agree with me on that.

Almost nobody here has a problem with it (F35) not being a true Air Dominance, super agile fighter like the F16 initially was, good enough is all we need and the other (A-type) abilities are certainly at least as , if not more ,important, but it's not really doing that either.
Like you said a good niche weapon, in cooperation with other more conventional fighters but not the standalone product it was intended to be.
Replacing the F15, F16, F18 A10 and Harrier was its initial goal, its either way too expensive, or simply limited in its abilities to do so.

[LowObservable]

But in my considered opinion the hard core detractors of the F-35 have made the highest claims for what the F-35 is supposed to do and be, not LM.

I re-linked on this page to two very specific claims, one from a program manager and another from an LM test pilot, which cast doubt on your opinion. Here's another, from LM's Tom Burbage in Sept 2008:

"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access - all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again."

I don't think anyone could make a higher claim than that, except by appending "while solving the global warming crisis at the same time".

[KenV]

So, hard-core detractors are just born that way (disidents and anarchists) and LM bull****ting public has nothing to do with that?

Were they born that way? If that is your conclusion, then you apparently believe that "the public" are born with "animosity", because the original premise was that the public is showing animosity to the program. It was my premise that the public sentiment has been mild, and the "animosity" is coming from the hard core detractors. You are welcome to disagree with my position, but may I suggest that concluding that people are "born that way" is based on false assumptions?

Personally, I doubt anyone is "born that way". I see it as more of a choice. Humans get satisfaction both from tearing things down and from building things up. Some folks just choose to focus on tearing things down. I don't know why. Perhaps because its easier than the alternative?

Because ppl, when told the F35 will replace and surpass their their F16s in performance, cost, etc., believed LM?

Has LM really claimed that the F-35 will "surpass" the F-16 as an air superiority fighter? Or is that an assumption? LM has certainly claimed F-35 will surpass the F-16's strike (air to ground) performance and far surpass the F-16's survivability in heavily defended airspace. And all while retaining good self defense capability against opposing fighters. And did some people then assume this meant it could surpass the F-16's aeroperformance? And then from that (false) assumption make wild conclusions?

Well you know, designing a fighter aircraft with its flight performance allowed to fall into 'trade space', is kinda like building a missile without specifying payload and range and thus application.

May I respectfully suggest I "know" no such thing. And indeed no one knows any such thing. May gently suggest that this is yet another (false) assumption.

Why would you build the future of your security on a whim of a single company that may, or may not deliver?

With respect, I believe the above is a wild conclusion (future of your security?!!) based on a false assumption (whim of a single company??!!) .

There's no chance that such a project goes live in a clean private sector awarded tender and with a good reason.

And as respectfully and professionally as I can state it, I believe this to be yet another wild conclusion based on false assumptions.

[LowObservable]

FodPLOD

I'll spare you an extended gutting of the cited piece, and simply point out that the same consultant is the author of the memorable line from November 2009:

If you don’t follow the defense business closely, then you can be excused for believing that the F-35 joint strike fighter is in trouble.

FOUR REASONS FOR CONFIDENCE IN THE F-35 - Lexington Institute

As long-time subscribers to this thread will remember, within three months of that statement, SecDef Gates had discovered that the wool had been pulled over his eyes concerning the F-35 program's progress, the Pentagon program manager had been booted with extreme prejudice, and a new team had been parachuted in to sort the mess out, resulting in a multi-year delay to the delivery of full operational capability.

[MSOCS]

Journos trashing Journos on this forum.

The author makes excellent points and is more 'on the money' than many I have read in a number of months. I take your point about his allegiance - but also commend him for coming clean, publicly.

Some Ares bloggers tend not to.

[LowObservable]

Has LM really claimed that the F-35 will "surpass" the F-16 as an air superiority fighter?

Yes, under oath:

Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue F-35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.

ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 20/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11