F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a1bill,
It is not a local sport, it is the beginning of a $1Trillion experiment or more as time goes on. The plane isn't responsible for the US DoD procurement maze, the US DoD along with L-M are responsible for the plane.
I suspect you were not around when Robert McNamara's "Folly" evolved much along the same path the F-35 is following. I was. But, there are differences between the two. First McNamara's F-111 involved only two services, the USN and the USAF. The F-35 in involves three services with distinctive differences in mission requirements. The F-111 aircraft that was put into service by the USAF was at best a compromise as only 100 or so were built before the program was terminated. The USN version never got far before it was terminated for various shortcomings. The F-35 is unstoppable because of US political involvement and overreach. The USAF took a long time to figure out how exactly to use the F-111 compared to its originally advertised capability. For awhile it didn't do much except suck in quite a few geese on the lakes in Maine during low level penetration trials. Plans to move on developed starting with the F-14, then the F-15 and F-16 programs, all "long runway" successful in their own right.
So if one in the Pentagon were to study the McNamara "Folly" saga, a mitigation plan would develop to avoid a repeat of a past mistake. IMHO, this didn't happen on the JSF soon to become the F-35. In fact what happened was a "I wish" and "Sure we can" joint development plans between the customer and selected aircraft manufacturer including the engine manufacturer. For starters:
1. How many fast jet STOL/VTOL planes had L-M produced?
2. How many carrier based fast Jets had L-M produced?
3. How many stealth aircraft had L-M produced?
Yet, L-M was awarded a very vague and open-ended contract for 3 models of an aircraft with pie in the sky promises to three users that can never be met as each share in the deficiencies of one to the other. Mitigation plan? Well, lets add in a concurrent engineering requirement and build all the models at the same time, eliminating the development and proof of concept steps, production from the get-go. So now we have 100+ F-35 scattered about doing development and proof of concept steps that should have been done in the beginning, all on the basis of saving time and money, yeh, right! So where are we 14 years later? Where we should have been years ago with a mitigation plan in place to avoid the F-111 pitfalls.
I don't think the characterization here is correct. The USMC may very well be a start but the finish line is somewhere ahead in the fog. And it isn't just a Marine thing, it is a CYA situation aptly demonstrated by nearly everyone responsible for the well being of the most important and costly aviation program in US history. If you and others are happy with the track record, performance and probabilities this will turnout differently than the previous 'Folly", so be it. History says it will not.
Frost, it's just local sport here, to see who can slag it the most.
How the plane is responsible for the US procurement maze is a strange thing.
How the plane is responsible for the US procurement maze is a strange thing.
I suspect you were not around when Robert McNamara's "Folly" evolved much along the same path the F-35 is following. I was. But, there are differences between the two. First McNamara's F-111 involved only two services, the USN and the USAF. The F-35 in involves three services with distinctive differences in mission requirements. The F-111 aircraft that was put into service by the USAF was at best a compromise as only 100 or so were built before the program was terminated. The USN version never got far before it was terminated for various shortcomings. The F-35 is unstoppable because of US political involvement and overreach. The USAF took a long time to figure out how exactly to use the F-111 compared to its originally advertised capability. For awhile it didn't do much except suck in quite a few geese on the lakes in Maine during low level penetration trials. Plans to move on developed starting with the F-14, then the F-15 and F-16 programs, all "long runway" successful in their own right.
So if one in the Pentagon were to study the McNamara "Folly" saga, a mitigation plan would develop to avoid a repeat of a past mistake. IMHO, this didn't happen on the JSF soon to become the F-35. In fact what happened was a "I wish" and "Sure we can" joint development plans between the customer and selected aircraft manufacturer including the engine manufacturer. For starters:
1. How many fast jet STOL/VTOL planes had L-M produced?
2. How many carrier based fast Jets had L-M produced?
3. How many stealth aircraft had L-M produced?
Yet, L-M was awarded a very vague and open-ended contract for 3 models of an aircraft with pie in the sky promises to three users that can never be met as each share in the deficiencies of one to the other. Mitigation plan? Well, lets add in a concurrent engineering requirement and build all the models at the same time, eliminating the development and proof of concept steps, production from the get-go. So now we have 100+ F-35 scattered about doing development and proof of concept steps that should have been done in the beginning, all on the basis of saving time and money, yeh, right! So where are we 14 years later? Where we should have been years ago with a mitigation plan in place to avoid the F-111 pitfalls.
LO seems to have a thing for anything Marine?
As the Marine statement said, it's a start not a finish
As the Marine statement said, it's a start not a finish
Last edited by Turbine D; 16th Sep 2015 at 14:52. Reason: Removed one word & corrected another
A very compelling post, Turbine. Hard to fault your logic, although I'm sure someone will try.
As for "Frost", this isn't F-16.net where everyone has to agree and post things loving the F-35, a1bill. We are allowed to question the programme, methods, technology and politics here. That does not make us detractors (generally anyway). The military mind is supposed to be inquiring and those of us that have lived through (and with) the shambles of other Jets' introductions are likely to be suspicious and curious about this one.
As for "Frost", this isn't F-16.net where everyone has to agree and post things loving the F-35, a1bill. We are allowed to question the programme, methods, technology and politics here. That does not make us detractors (generally anyway). The military mind is supposed to be inquiring and those of us that have lived through (and with) the shambles of other Jets' introductions are likely to be suspicious and curious about this one.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 18th Sep 2015 at 07:56. Reason: Typo. Sorry, Turbine, I missed the R out of your name.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as an aside, it is interesting to describe the F-111 as a "folly".
I have no personal knowledge of the type, but currently fly with an ex F-111 WSO.
He describes a very impressive beast.
In many metrics it is still spectacular.
I point this out because though it's gestation may have been painful, it was quite a toy once it got there.
I have no personal knowledge of the type, but currently fly with an ex F-111 WSO.
He describes a very impressive beast.
In many metrics it is still spectacular.
I point this out because though it's gestation may have been painful, it was quite a toy once it got there.
@ Turbine D: you post makes a lot of sense, in terms of the imbedded program problems.
CM/Turbine D,
Some one certainly will!
Not only will I fault his logic, but his facts and recall too.
We'll start here...
"only 100 or so were built before the program was terminated."
You may have been around when McNamara's folly evolved, but you obviously didn't stay long. 653 were built, and they served until 2010.
F-111A, F-111D, F-111E, F-111F, F-111C, FB-111A, all superb low level all weather strike attack aircraft that were virtually unmatched globally in terms of reach and payload. Only Tornado came close.
P1154 has more synergy with the F-35 than the F-111, and that ran out of luck purely because they could not, and still have not, manage to get Plenum Chamber reheat in engine nozzles to actually work.
RAF and RAAF were also pretty intimately involved with the F-111 in it's evolution and development.
Compare any complex military aircraft development programme with F-35 and you will find an awful lot of similarities.
If you have to call any element of the F-111 programme a folly, then I suggest that the shipboard F-111B, and the fact that it had an F in it's nomenclature at all,are a better place to start.
Some one certainly will!
Not only will I fault his logic, but his facts and recall too.
We'll start here...
"only 100 or so were built before the program was terminated."
You may have been around when McNamara's folly evolved, but you obviously didn't stay long. 653 were built, and they served until 2010.
F-111A, F-111D, F-111E, F-111F, F-111C, FB-111A, all superb low level all weather strike attack aircraft that were virtually unmatched globally in terms of reach and payload. Only Tornado came close.
P1154 has more synergy with the F-35 than the F-111, and that ran out of luck purely because they could not, and still have not, manage to get Plenum Chamber reheat in engine nozzles to actually work.
RAF and RAAF were also pretty intimately involved with the F-111 in it's evolution and development.
Compare any complex military aircraft development programme with F-35 and you will find an awful lot of similarities.
If you have to call any element of the F-111 programme a folly, then I suggest that the shipboard F-111B, and the fact that it had an F in it's nomenclature at all,are a better place to start.
While Turbine D's numbers may be a little off they are better than some people's.
The endgame of the F-111 story was that 563 aircraft were built of which about 300 (FB-111, E, F and C) were any use.
The endgame of the F-111 story was that 563 aircraft were built of which about 300 (FB-111, E, F and C) were any use.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne,
Sorry for the wrong number being posted, my bad. I was referring to the F-111A of which 158 were built including 17 preproduction aircraft that were later productionized. All were retired by 1982. The F111B was never built, too heavy and not to the USN's requirements.
The F111C was the export version built for Australia, 24 were purchased and in 1982, then the last 4 surviving USAF A models were bought by Australia and converted to the C version at a later date.
96 D versions were bought by the USAF which were upgraded from the earlier A version. There was air intake problems, but moving the intake and using a more powerful TF-30 engine solved the engine stall problem.
Then there was the E version that was built when the D version was delayed. It used the new air intake but the less powerful TF-30 engine. 94 were built, some located in England, all were retired by 1995.
50 K version F-111s were ordered by the UK, but the order was cancelled when the price went up.
Will you be sorry your recall is bad as well?
Oddly, one of the first F-111A model crashed when the swing wing structure failed leading to schedule delays while corrections were made. At least the F-35 never got off the runway in Florida when it failed.
The first 6 production F-111As were delivered to a Tactical Fighter Squadron for training and gaining IOC. Then they were shipped to Vietnam to see how they worked in actual combat. Only 3 came back. The lost 3 were due to aircraft malfunctions. It then took 3 years to achieve full operational capability as there was an outrage in the US at the time over the unwarranted early deployment to Vietnam.
Everyone hopes the USMC has made a better IOC decision for the F-35, only time will tell.
The reason the F-111 was known as McNamara's Folly was the fact the two selected finalist were General Dynamics and Boeing. A design review board selected the Boeing version as being the best except for the engine, The USAF review board also selected Boeing as being the best to fit their needs. However, Robert McNamara ignored both and select the General Dynamics version because it had more common parts between the A and B versions, of course the B USN version was never built. It must have been McNamara's Ford CEO experience that influenced his thinking…
Hope this clears up logic and facts for the F-111…
Some one certainly will!
Not only will I fault his logic, but his facts and recall too.
We'll start here...
"only 100 or so were built before the program was terminated."
Not only will I fault his logic, but his facts and recall too.
We'll start here...
"only 100 or so were built before the program was terminated."
The F111C was the export version built for Australia, 24 were purchased and in 1982, then the last 4 surviving USAF A models were bought by Australia and converted to the C version at a later date.
96 D versions were bought by the USAF which were upgraded from the earlier A version. There was air intake problems, but moving the intake and using a more powerful TF-30 engine solved the engine stall problem.
Then there was the E version that was built when the D version was delayed. It used the new air intake but the less powerful TF-30 engine. 94 were built, some located in England, all were retired by 1995.
50 K version F-111s were ordered by the UK, but the order was cancelled when the price went up.
653 were built, and they served until 2010.
Oddly, one of the first F-111A model crashed when the swing wing structure failed leading to schedule delays while corrections were made. At least the F-35 never got off the runway in Florida when it failed.
The first 6 production F-111As were delivered to a Tactical Fighter Squadron for training and gaining IOC. Then they were shipped to Vietnam to see how they worked in actual combat. Only 3 came back. The lost 3 were due to aircraft malfunctions. It then took 3 years to achieve full operational capability as there was an outrage in the US at the time over the unwarranted early deployment to Vietnam.
Everyone hopes the USMC has made a better IOC decision for the F-35, only time will tell.
The reason the F-111 was known as McNamara's Folly was the fact the two selected finalist were General Dynamics and Boeing. A design review board selected the Boeing version as being the best except for the engine, The USAF review board also selected Boeing as being the best to fit their needs. However, Robert McNamara ignored both and select the General Dynamics version because it had more common parts between the A and B versions, of course the B USN version was never built. It must have been McNamara's Ford CEO experience that influenced his thinking…
Hope this clears up logic and facts for the F-111…
Last edited by Turbine D; 17th Sep 2015 at 00:09. Reason: word corrections
FlyPony,
The F-111A was never based overseas or used in combat after Vietnam. The F-111D's MkII avionics never worked worth ducky dung and the operational wing was dispatched to Cannon AFB, like the crazy aunt locked in the attic. It was the F-111Es and Fs (MkIIB) that were forward-deployed and used in Libya and Desert Storm.
The F-111A was never based overseas or used in combat after Vietnam. The F-111D's MkII avionics never worked worth ducky dung and the operational wing was dispatched to Cannon AFB, like the crazy aunt locked in the attic. It was the F-111Es and Fs (MkIIB) that were forward-deployed and used in Libya and Desert Storm.
Turbine D,
Nowt wrong with my recall, however the same cannot be said for my keyboard skills, a typo, 563 rather than 653...
Point taken about you referring to the F-111A.
Nowt wrong with my recall, however the same cannot be said for my keyboard skills, a typo, 563 rather than 653...
Point taken about you referring to the F-111A.
What, you mean the recorder works? 
The hand off of a single emitting target between systems is one thing, the true test will be handing off the one you want to target between systems when there are many. But it does show that the systems (sorry, sub-systems) are working. Good.
The hand off of a single emitting target between systems is one thing, the true test will be handing off the one you want to target between systems when there are many. But it does show that the systems (sorry, sub-systems) are working. Good.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Objecting to the way they count, If there was an incident on any of the landings/touch and go, wouldn't they want a reference point? I think that may fall into the criticise anything list.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happy Days vs Hogwash
a1bill's original posting:,
vs
LO's original posting:
a1 bill,
I am a no BS kind of guy, what I post here is based on experiences and knowledge. I deal in the world of reality. And I like and admire the USMC, two of my nephews were Marines.
You can use whatever acronyms you want to to describe the test on the ocean, but it was an orchestration to confirm the USMC version of the F-35 was good to go in terms of IOC as demanded coming from the USMC top level. You need to understand the inter-workings of the Pentagon, starting at the top, to understand a point.
There is a daily inter-service war that goes on in the Pentagon at the top, especially when program funding is either short of supply or unequally dispersed. Do you think for one moment the top levels USAF or the USN are pleased with the way the USMC has sopped up money made available to the F-35 program for the most complicated and costly of the three F-35 versions to meet its unrealistic IOC date, never caving? After all, the Marines don't normally use "Fast Jets" to go downtown but generally operate somewhere in the hinterlands as a close in support function to land base forces. The downtown is a USN or USAF job. The top echelon of the USMC response to ongoing internal Pentagon stealth backbiting was to prove they were on target all the way.
If the Wasp happened to sink or the F-35s failed to land, takeoff, or crashed trying, then it would have been a problem. None of that happened, just a couple of hands full of glitches that need lots of work. So on that basis, the big USMC brass, after a brief conference, proudly announced and flew the blimp stating "Mission Accomplished". (somewhere I heard that before). Noo, it was never suspect that word of what took place on the Wasp would ever make it beyond the top deck of the Pentagon. So the disagreement with the publicized DoD report as the USMC reported to CNN is simply a face saving maneuver that occurs in many places, e.g., "we really didn't mean that, we meant this", (I have heard that before recently - L-M.)
So, I would say there are some USN and USAF brass laughing up their sleeves over the good showing on the Wasp and the preparedness of the USMC to declare, "We are IOC ready". Sometimes, being the leader of the pack isn't good. Often the "Coming in Last" award is presented when the dust has cleared and egos are soothed given time over a few cocktails.
TD
The Marines seem happy enough with May, OT-1
The Marine Corps said it does not agree with all of the conclusions and opinions outlined by the D-OT&E in the POGO report, due to what it called a lack of context and qualifying information, according to a statement provided to CNN.
The Marine Corps said it does not agree with all of the conclusions and opinions outlined by the D-OT&E in the POGO report, due to what it called a lack of context and qualifying information, according to a statement provided to CNN.
LO's original posting:
Hogwash.
It was called an Operational Test. After its "successful" conclusion, the aircraft was declared operational.
It was called an Operational Test. After its "successful" conclusion, the aircraft was declared operational.
I am a no BS kind of guy, what I post here is based on experiences and knowledge. I deal in the world of reality. And I like and admire the USMC, two of my nephews were Marines.
You can use whatever acronyms you want to to describe the test on the ocean, but it was an orchestration to confirm the USMC version of the F-35 was good to go in terms of IOC as demanded coming from the USMC top level. You need to understand the inter-workings of the Pentagon, starting at the top, to understand a point.
There is a daily inter-service war that goes on in the Pentagon at the top, especially when program funding is either short of supply or unequally dispersed. Do you think for one moment the top levels USAF or the USN are pleased with the way the USMC has sopped up money made available to the F-35 program for the most complicated and costly of the three F-35 versions to meet its unrealistic IOC date, never caving? After all, the Marines don't normally use "Fast Jets" to go downtown but generally operate somewhere in the hinterlands as a close in support function to land base forces. The downtown is a USN or USAF job. The top echelon of the USMC response to ongoing internal Pentagon stealth backbiting was to prove they were on target all the way.
If the Wasp happened to sink or the F-35s failed to land, takeoff, or crashed trying, then it would have been a problem. None of that happened, just a couple of hands full of glitches that need lots of work. So on that basis, the big USMC brass, after a brief conference, proudly announced and flew the blimp stating "Mission Accomplished". (somewhere I heard that before). Noo, it was never suspect that word of what took place on the Wasp would ever make it beyond the top deck of the Pentagon. So the disagreement with the publicized DoD report as the USMC reported to CNN is simply a face saving maneuver that occurs in many places, e.g., "we really didn't mean that, we meant this", (I have heard that before recently - L-M.)
So, I would say there are some USN and USAF brass laughing up their sleeves over the good showing on the Wasp and the preparedness of the USMC to declare, "We are IOC ready". Sometimes, being the leader of the pack isn't good. Often the "Coming in Last" award is presented when the dust has cleared and egos are soothed given time over a few cocktails.
TD
Last edited by Turbine D; 18th Sep 2015 at 00:57. Reason: word correction
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They set the requirement 12mths ago and have said for years, they are going early IOC with 2B. I really don't know what there is to say. No one is saying they are telling fibs.
"I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B, as defined by requirements outlined in the June 2014 Joint Report to Congressional Defense Committees. VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force."
"I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B, as defined by requirements outlined in the June 2014 Joint Report to Congressional Defense Committees. VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force."
a1 - Given many earlier factual posts about the capabilities or lack thereof of the Block 2B configuration, combined with what we now know about the most important test that underpinned the statement you quoted, I think it's not too hard to make a judgment as to that statement's veracity.