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
Tourist,
As I explained in a previous #9523, available money will be the deciding factor as to how many will be produced. Just sit back and watch how the US DOD deals with the bind they put themselves in, the politicians already left their imprint by spreading out the supplier base on a complex, pie in the sky program out over most of the US and some of the rest of the world, resulting in at least a 5 year delay. Delay = +cost $$$s and less produced product.
Statements from all politicians are always up for modification.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you see anything in the world today that leads you to believe that there won't be a proper war in the next 20yrs?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USAF Declares F-35 Ready For War
The U.S. Air Force on Aug. 2 officially declared the F-35 ready for war, a huge milestone that signals the tide may finally be turning for the fifth-generation fighter jet.
The decision to declare the Air Force’s F-35A operational right around the target date of Aug. 1 is a triumph for a program with a long history of cost overruns, technological challenges, and schedule delays. But now that the chief of Air Combat Command (ACC) has finally given the green light, the Air Force will waste no time in deploying the Joint Strike Fighter to Europe, the Pacific and even the Middle East.
“I would like to deploy it to both the European and the Pacific theater in the not-toodistant future, so I would say within 18 months I think I’ll try to get to both those theaters,” said ACC commander Gen. Herbert Carlisle, adding that if U.S. Central Command asks for the F-35 in the Middle East, he would send it in a heartbeat.
The plan to send the F-35 to combat zones in the next few years stands in sharp contrast to the Air Force’s delay in deploying its other stealth fighter jet, the F-22. Though the Raptor entered service in 2005, the jet did not see combat until the U.S.-led intervention in Syria in 2014. The F-22’s time spent fighting Islamic State terrorists and its deployment to Europe as part of the U.S. response to Russian resurgence did wonders for its public image, even sparking a movement in Congress to potentially restart the production line.
In rolling out the F-35, the Air Force may be taking lessons learned from the Raptor to heart. U.S. partners and allies really want to see the jet in action, Carlisle said. “I think when the F-35 deploys to places like in the European theater as well as in the Pacific theater, it will give our allies and partners confidence in the airframe,” Carlisle said. “It will also give them a chance to see it in operation and see it in interoperability working with their fourth-generation airplanes.” Deploying the F-35 to these regions also serves as an effective deterrent to potential adversaries, Carlisle said—in other words, Russia.
The Air Force decided not to deploy the F-22 to combat zones immediately because some believed sending the world’s only fifthgeneration stealth fighter to the Middle East would be viewed as a provocative move, Carlisle explained. However, at this point he does not believe operating the F-35 over the skies of Iraq and Syria is a bad move. “From my perspective, I think it sends a good signal,” Carlisle said. “I think it reassures friends and allies and it is a deterrent to potential adversaries, so I don’t think it’s provocative at all.”
The decision to declare the Air Force’s F-35A operational right around the target date of Aug. 1 is a triumph for a program with a long history of cost overruns, technological challenges, and schedule delays. But now that the chief of Air Combat Command (ACC) has finally given the green light, the Air Force will waste no time in deploying the Joint Strike Fighter to Europe, the Pacific and even the Middle East.
“I would like to deploy it to both the European and the Pacific theater in the not-toodistant future, so I would say within 18 months I think I’ll try to get to both those theaters,” said ACC commander Gen. Herbert Carlisle, adding that if U.S. Central Command asks for the F-35 in the Middle East, he would send it in a heartbeat.
The plan to send the F-35 to combat zones in the next few years stands in sharp contrast to the Air Force’s delay in deploying its other stealth fighter jet, the F-22. Though the Raptor entered service in 2005, the jet did not see combat until the U.S.-led intervention in Syria in 2014. The F-22’s time spent fighting Islamic State terrorists and its deployment to Europe as part of the U.S. response to Russian resurgence did wonders for its public image, even sparking a movement in Congress to potentially restart the production line.
In rolling out the F-35, the Air Force may be taking lessons learned from the Raptor to heart. U.S. partners and allies really want to see the jet in action, Carlisle said. “I think when the F-35 deploys to places like in the European theater as well as in the Pacific theater, it will give our allies and partners confidence in the airframe,” Carlisle said. “It will also give them a chance to see it in operation and see it in interoperability working with their fourth-generation airplanes.” Deploying the F-35 to these regions also serves as an effective deterrent to potential adversaries, Carlisle said—in other words, Russia.
The Air Force decided not to deploy the F-22 to combat zones immediately because some believed sending the world’s only fifthgeneration stealth fighter to the Middle East would be viewed as a provocative move, Carlisle explained. However, at this point he does not believe operating the F-35 over the skies of Iraq and Syria is a bad move. “From my perspective, I think it sends a good signal,” Carlisle said. “I think it reassures friends and allies and it is a deterrent to potential adversaries, so I don’t think it’s provocative at all.”
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
There are lots of wars going on, just no "war to end wars", and with nukes there probably won't be. With the wars we have, there is no need for the politicians to pay for high end tech stuff, and with the production lead time, if one flared up you couldn't build them, you'd fight with what you had.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hmmm, this week's AW&ST has an article about the A-10 replacement. They want to do it with 2 types, first off a light weight low end attack aircraft (OA-X) such as the AT-6, to supplement the presence types, then a longer term A-10 replacement (A-X2) for medium threat theatres, such as the M-346 (the high threat theatres being the realm of the F-35, natch).
But where does the money come from for two new programmes?
"......since the F-35A was initially meant to replace the A-10, the Joint Strike Fighter buy may now be a bill payer for the OA-X and/or AX2....... The Air Force has backed away from statements that the F-35A is a one-for-one replacement for the Warthog, but the two aircraft will still directly compete for funding over the next few years...."
And the A-10/CAS has an awful lot of support on the Hill.
Still so confident on programme numbers?
But where does the money come from for two new programmes?
"......since the F-35A was initially meant to replace the A-10, the Joint Strike Fighter buy may now be a bill payer for the OA-X and/or AX2....... The Air Force has backed away from statements that the F-35A is a one-for-one replacement for the Warthog, but the two aircraft will still directly compete for funding over the next few years...."
And the A-10/CAS has an awful lot of support on the Hill.
Still so confident on programme numbers?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
Wow! That is exactly a point I was going to make, you beat me to it. Even with no war and how many years in, these planes are coming out in dribbles and drabs. Why? There isn't the money...
With the wars we have, there is no need for the politicians to pay for high end tech stuff, and with the production lead time, if one flared up you couldn't build them, you'd fight with what you had.
Last edited by Turbine D; 3rd Aug 2016 at 19:52. Reason: spelling correction
If you meant "how much will the Russians and Chinese pay for the first one shot down"...a bit more than for an F-117, I suppose.
Not sure about 5x, but I'll play, I imagine these programs exceeded original planned purchase:
AK-47 rifle
UH-1 Huey
CH-47 Chinook
F-4 Phantom
F-16
MRAP
Tomahawk Missile
AIM-9 Sidewinder
DDG Arliegh Burke Class
C-130 Hercules
Global Hawk
Reaper
HUMVEE
MiG-21
....
The F-35 is so stealthy, it produced training challenges, pilot says
Well, that's OK then. All is well in the F35 world...
The F-35 Lightning II is so stealthy, pilots are facing an unusual challenge. They're having difficulty participating in some types of training exercises, a squadron commander told reporters Wednesday.
During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, F-35 squadrons wanted to practice evading surface-to-air threats. There was just one problem: No one on the ground could track the plane.
“If they never saw us, they couldn’t target us,” said Lt. Col. George Watkins, the commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
The F-35s resorted to flipping on their transponders, used for FAA identification, so that simulated anti-air weapons could track the planes, Watkins said.
“We basically told them where we were at and said, ‘Hey, try to shoot at us,’ ” he said, adding that without the transponders on, “most likely we would not have suffered a single loss from any SAM threats while we were training at Mountain Home.”
During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, F-35 squadrons wanted to practice evading surface-to-air threats. There was just one problem: No one on the ground could track the plane.
“If they never saw us, they couldn’t target us,” said Lt. Col. George Watkins, the commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
The F-35s resorted to flipping on their transponders, used for FAA identification, so that simulated anti-air weapons could track the planes, Watkins said.
“We basically told them where we were at and said, ‘Hey, try to shoot at us,’ ” he said, adding that without the transponders on, “most likely we would not have suffered a single loss from any SAM threats while we were training at Mountain Home.”
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly different story from the one about difficulties in getting F35s airborne as there were so many software problems and the report that an F35 needed so much support, with 2B and 3i software...
WTF-35: How the Joint Strike Fighter Got to Be Such a Mess
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer,
Thanks for posting this article, it represents what I have been attempting to say all along. The one thing about history is, we learn we don't learn and that will be the history of the F-35 for the next generation of aircraft developers to see and not repeat. It isn't that I am anti-F-35, it is that I am anti-stupid people that do stupid things that history has demonstrated can't be done. I mean really, why did the F-4 Phantom, the F-15, the F-16 and the F-18 come into being? Because of a stupid decision railroaded through by McNamara simply on the basis of poor data to save money that resulted in a boondoggle that hardly worked for anything. Only time will tell what damage will result from the stupid idea that one airplane can excellently perform missions for three different military services and save money doing it.
Interesting take on the F-35...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you saying that the F15, F16 and F18 are bad?
It is difficult to workout what you are saying.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc
I think he's raving about the F-111 - and trying to make the point that the others were built BECAUSE of the problems with F-111 procurement, design & cost ie specialised roles instead of all -singing, all-dancing........
I think he's raving about the F-111 - and trying to make the point that the others were built BECAUSE of the problems with F-111 procurement, design & cost ie specialised roles instead of all -singing, all-dancing........
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I think he is saying that they (and certainly the F-16/18 as light weight fighters (thanks you Boyd)) came about as a consequence of the fingers burnt with the F-111A/B single design for USAF/USN debacle.
Edited - what he said.....
Edited - what he said.....