Via Stephen Trimble over at the DEW Line blog, is this post from defense analyst James Hasik who makes the case for killing the F-35. As we’ve learned is the cause of most human errors, Gates made his decision to go all-in on the F-35 on the basis of incomplete information, Hasik writes. Now, the F-35 is not justly hugely over budget but development is over a year behind schedule and slowing.
Hasik points to cost as the most obvious F-35 vulnerability. After an eight year absence, deficit hawks have returned to Washington and their budget cutting knives are out. “Any bipartisan commission for balancing the federal budget, as announced just last month, will not be able to avoid recommending military spending cuts, and the JSF is simply the unavoidably biggest part of the investment accounts,” he writes. The F-35 also faces a tough road ahead with the program’s overseas partners who see their own fiscal houses sagging under ominous debt loads.
It’s when Hasik’s analysis ventures into back of the envelope net assessment territory that I find it most compelling. He contends that the F-35 is not militarily vital.
“Several years ago, I asked the head of strategy at a European aircraft manufacturer why his company had no obvious plans for a fighter beyond the current model. “All our customers,” he said, “have enough fighters for chasing Cessnas for the next fifty years.” The next generation of unmanned strike aircraft is alluring, but the air sovereignty mission is just not so compelling today. For frankly, there’s just no threat anywhere that calls for such a huge fleet of land-based fighter aircraft.”
Hasik points out that the Air Force, Navy and Marines combined make up the world’s largest air armada. Then he looks at possible contenders.
Russia:
“The next largest armadas is probably Russia’s, with almost 2200 aircraft. Even if Russia were a plausible opponent, the rest of NATO has its air force outnumbered even without the US on board. And given Russia’s long-term finances and demographics, that number will be shrinking.”
China:
“China’s air fleet is of comparable size—read, smaller than America’s—but it’s also remarkably unimpressive. China’s most numerous jet fighter is a copy of the MiG-21. Then again, one doesn’t fight the Chinese without necessarily having either the Japanese or the Taiwanese—and their significant air forces—on board.”
The rest:
“Sidestepping India (another implausible opponent), the next largest air force is North Korea’s: more than 600 aircraft on paper, but not so many that are flyable or fueled. Besides, South Korea has over 500 aircraft, and of far better quality in men and materiel. Iran? Not half that many flyable machines.”
Hasik figures the U.S. has at least a ten year window before any potential foe could build a fighter fleet that poses a real challenge. Money freed up from the F-35 should go to building a fighter that can best anything the Chinese are likely to build over the next few decades.
As Trimble says, it’s worth a read.
– Greg
{ 90 comments… read them below or add one }
It's about time someone just came out and saud "Let's cancel the F-35"! This thing has been a giant waste of money from the start. If they cancel the 35 maybe the DoD can buy a plane that's actually good at something.
My only concern is that it opens up the trap… that something that exists only as an idea will be better. Same justification used to cancel the F22, atleast the F35 is within sight. The hypothetical fighter of the future would take more than 10 years to develope and cost more than the F35 was to develope. If you constantly pursue the next best thing, you'll end up with nothing.
I believe the F35B is completely necessary for the Marine's viability, and this whole program has gotten so big you can't cancel one without canceling them all. Even if just the F35A is canceled the F35B and F35C variants will get more than 100% more expensive, since the economomy of the F35 is based entirely on quantity. So you end up getting the full 600+ planes for the growing current price or half the planes for the growing current price. The Navy's fight gap woes are only going to grow if a cancelation became the case.
If any of the F35 gets axed, and it will be, it should be the VTOL version. Hell the USMC should not even be in the fighter/bomber role. Dump that pos Harrier too.
I think the F35B is actually the most worthwhile variant. It solves a good number of the short comings of the harrier. I think the "F" designation is really inappropriate when you look at the roles all three services are putting it into it really should be either a "F/A" or "A" designation. The USMC is using it as an attack aircraft and thats what they need. Without a dedicated aircraft under their control they suffer becoming a non-viable entity that is a pale imitation of the Army. They are a shock force. Many theorize that the amphibious assault concept is dead and that the marines should move to all air-cav assault. If amphibious assault is a dead strategy, than killing a dedicate support attack aircraft would kill their ability to mount aerial assaults. Thats why I say they lose their viability.
To say the USMC has no role in Fighter/Bomber role, you obviously know nothing about Marine TacAir or its history.
Pound for Pound Marine TacAir runs circles around the AF in the TacAir arena; thats been true fr/ WWII & Korea to the present Conflict.
Fighter role, thats more the AF area. But in Tactical Bombing/CAS there's no units better than Marine Air, its what they specialize in.
As a retired special ops guy (Army) I always preferred Marine or Navy air to cover my backside in VN. Whether flying a chopper or rescuing some folks.
I am not so sure if there would be as big of an impact as you say. Even though they are the same aircraft there are significant differences between them and I believe these significant difference should mitigate the cost increase. I think these differences are one of the reasons the plane costs so much.
I would like to see the F-35A canceled and have the air force develop a fighter version of the advanced trainer aircraft they want to field later on this decade.
The F-35C could be used to replace the F-15E later on and the F-35B could be used to replace some of the early model F-16's to supplement the A-10 in CAS role.
The AV8B is currently serving well. As stated there is no particular force out there that warrants an F35. Personally as a land war fighter I will take 10 AV8Bs over one F-35 anyday…makes me feel a lot more comfortable!__The current threat is all land based….one shoulder lauched rocket with one kill on an extremley expensive consequence. As I said…10 AV8Bs would pose a much greater threat to the enemy and cover for our butts.
The analysis was a bit off, because the problem with the Chinese air force is not the quality of the aircraft. Its the quantity of the aircraft combined with the ranges involved. He should have read the most recent RAND report, which said that the ranges involved made the anti air mission all but impossible. As a corollary, the F-16 as a CAP airplane wouldn't last a very long time, especially with the quantity of SAMs that China will be able to bring to bear over Taiwan Straight.
As a more fundamental question, there is no good replacement for the F-16 fighter. Given the realities of modern air combat, against a highly defended area, stealth will be a necessity. The idea of using F – 18D/Es as advanced fighters into the far future is quite close minded.
There were some fairly poor arguments in there. Of course, a stealth plane won't have electronic attack, because its stealthy. But that isn't much of a problem, because it will be supported.
The overall problem, revealed by the F-35 debacle, is that the USAF bet the farm on one plane. Why the USAF didn't decide to spread around the air plane awards is beyond me. What would get Lockheed on notice is if Boeing won a fighter combat. Then Lockheed would know that their fighter could be replaced by another stealth plane, and they would have an incentive to improve their performance.
To believe that there won't be any potential air threat in the foreseeable future is in itself shortsighted. The statement to build a fighter that will best anything China can build in the next 10 years points us right back to the F-22A that was cancelled. So, what do the defense analyst want? I think cancelling the F-22A at 187 airframes was a mistake, the existing fighter fleet is at the end of the lifecycle. If we are going to strictly Unmanned Air Combat Systems, then chip manufacturers had better make some processing breakthroughs. I don't see the F-35 being cancelled or cut back. It is now the only game in town to replace the aging fighter fleet.
We'll never fight China. And China will never fight us. It would be economic and political suicide for both countries. China will never attack Taiwan either, it would kill the world economy and the quick end of communist authority in China will be measured on an egg timer.
Remember World War I?
The European powers would never fight each other, because the web of treaties would mean all of Europe would be ablaze if they did!
Ooops!
Sadly, the Human Race is not a logical animal…
It is an emotional animal that is sometimes rational!
I agree. If we base our security on the idea that it would wreck our economies if we got into a war with China, then what happens when it makes economic sense for them to attack? Remember Japan Inc? Remember when Germany was supposed to be this economic powerhouse, and everyone was in awe of their efficiency? Things change.
It doesn't take too much for US/China relations to become strained, and counting on a giant trade imbalance to stop war is ridiculous.
…we could scrap 1/2 the Pentagon procurement budget and nobody would give a crap except the vested parties behind all these procurement boondoggles.
Yes, we could…
Until the next time something blows up, and military action becomes the only available option!
THEN, we'd be in trouble…
And you, or folks like you, would be wondering why we were so unprepared!
After all of the F-35's development, prototyping, testing, and commercial hyping, as a replacement for the Harrier, it has still yet to successfully peform its VTOL characteristics from vertical take off to horizontal flight in a single sustained test flight.
To think the government scrapped the F-22 procurements in order to pump more tax payer dollars into a faltering F-35 program which hasn't even gone beyond test flight status after 10 years of development.
No, it's not relevant nor needed, who exactly are we fighting in the sky? Everyone with a decent air force is using our old technology.
Sorry, but are you nuts, or just not paying attention?
The Rafale, the Typhoon, the Gripen, and the newer Sukhois (30+) are all better than our 1970s designs!
It's been that way for a few years, now…
You (and a LOT of other people) need to catch up on your reading!
Gates is a fool, Obama dosent have a clue and is trying the bush approch send more troops.
And now they want to take argentinas side on the falkland issue?
HELLO ENG is our biggest support, our ally with decent hardware and the nerve to go with it who faught beside us for years now and Obama throws that away to what be friends with poor argentina who actually started the first war there.,
What a mess!
Like they used to say in West Texas, Gates has his head stuck so far up his ass that he needs a belly button window to see where he is going. Who's going to get the enemy to stop killing us long enough for us to build an F-35 replacement, in that "long distant time when we really need it?"
Gates has not said anything about cancelling F-35. Quite the opposite – Hasik is criticising Gates for committing to the F-35 based on incomplete information.
I'd be interested to see how much money we could save by scrapping the F-35C and replacing it with continued F-18 procurement, and by reducing the number of F-35A units purchased but a few hundred, substituting some of those cut planes with commercial off the shelf technology for CAS and domestic air security.
I'd also be interested in seeing if slowing the F-35 acquisition rate would save any money, or if the maintenance costs from the old fleet of F-16s makes it cheaper to get them sooner rather than later.
F-16 isn't as bad as the F-15, but it's not easy to maintain, especially not as old as it is!
Typically, slowing the acquisition rate of any aircraft makes it much MORE expensive, not less…
"If they cancel the 35 maybe the DoD can buy a plane that's actually good at something"
Cause the DOD's been so good at weapons acquisition lately?
Can someone point to one military aircraft program that was completed on time and on budget? Every major military program, from the original six frigates of the US Navy through the M1 tank, has been panned as too expensive or unnecessary by someone. Sometimes they are right, but I'd hate to have gone to Kuwait or Iraq without M1s and Bradleys.
Virginia class subs. On time delivery and under budget…. oh and we are reducing their build rate by 50% as a result.
The DoD has two options as far as I can see:
a) Cut the programme back to the basics, by scrapping the F-35 Bunter and Charlie variants to concentrate on the Alpha variant for the USAF and the other countries foolish enough to buy it.
b) Terminate the F-35 programme in it's entirety, in the short term buy enough Typhoons to replace both the older F-15C's and F-16 in USAF service, while buying extra Strike Eagels. The US Navy & USMC should buy enough Super Hornets to fully replace the old Hornets currently in service, while the Harrier is subject to an Upgrade to extent it's life for another 10-15 years. In the long time, develop a V/STOL version of Boeing X-32 to replace the Harrier and then develop a Super Hornet replacement to not only replace all versions of that aircraft, but also replace the F-16 and F-15E.
The V/STOL version of the Boeing X-32 was a horrible failure and it couldn't even get off the ground. It lost out to the X-35. They should keep the F-35B version and possibly the A and scrap the C as it has the most limits eg no internal cannon, 7.5G limit. The C version also hasn't been build in pre-production yet and the F/A-18 Super Hornets and E/A-18 Growlers are new enough to remain in service until a replacement can be found.
Kill F35 outright. Start an as-needed 1 for 1 replacement of current F15 fleet with Silen Eagles, with emphasis on "as needed". Upgrade F16s as needed to extend airframe life and capability (AESA Radar, ECM). UAVs are nice, but they are not nearly as responsive as they need to be for a true CAS role. They don't have enough of a payload or good enough situationalawareness to support troops in contact and engage multiple fleeting targets. Some UAV money needs to be diverted to a cheap COIN plane that can loiter, carry a usefule ordnace load, and operate in a low ADA threat environment. Skyraiders would have been a godsend for most of the Iraqi campaign. They could have loitered for hours, carried somewhere around 20 SDB JDAMS and some hellfires to boot, and they would damn sure have better situational awareness flying 220kts at medium altitude than an F16 cruising 450 at 15000
You do realize that the Silent Eagle is almost as expensive as the Raptor, and no where near as survivable against late generation SAMs, and emerging 5th Gen threat aircraft(i.e. PAK FA and J-XX). There's only so much upgrading that you can do to an old design, and then you're still behind the power curve.
1. Using this reasonign why do we need subs? why do we need Minute man ICBMs they arnt fighting terrorists?
2. You honestly believe it would be cheaper to repalce 1 aircraft program with 3-5. You have 1 aircraft here in 3 varients filling 5 roles. The cost of The marines the AF x2 and the Navy all makign there own aircraft would cost the taxpayer alot more money.
3. Its interesting to me when you get people who come in this forum saying things like " The marines dont need VSTOL" and "get rid of the Harrier too"
Id like to know if these guys have ever been shot at! or do they know that fire support is gettig hard enough to get over yoru head as it is with the crazy ROEs.
I think you shouldask Mariens how they feel about takign away more of the fixed wing assets
George K,
The F-22 can drop 1000lb JDAMs and SDBs, so it isn't exactly a one-trick pony.
http://www.afa.org/ProfessionalDevelopment/IssueB…
That capability was added to the F-22 only AFTER they threatened to axe the whole program!
If the Air Force hadn't insisted on a fighter that was "Only Air Superiority, Only for the Air Force", we could have bought some for the Navy, and maybe the Marines, as well…
That would have made it a LOT more affordable!
Any future programs though do need to be managed better so we do not have a repeat of this meaning designing a plane around what is capable now and not specializing it so much it becomes worthless. F22 is a very capable aircraft and can do some bombing but would hope with future developements it can do more. Personally should be developed with external mountings as well so it can carry more ordinance once its stealth mode has been used to defeat air defences.
You guys who are talking about the "aging" aircraft fleet need to clarify your position. If you mean that the individual airframes are aging, then go ahead and retire them and replace them with the latest model of the same plane, with attendant avionics and weapons upgrades. Problem solved for much, MUCH less money and time than procuring a new plane. Hell, buy twice as many as we have now and you probably still come out ahead.
If you mean that the planes' designs are inherently too old to be effective in modern combat, then you have a lot of convincing to do based on the plausible threats on the horizon. Name the enemy who would even get a significant number of his planes into combat, let alone defeat us, when the shooting starts. As I recall, Saddam had 500+ of some of the latest, greatest opposition planes at the time. The ones we didn't kill on the ground or in the air went into hiding in Iran. Have we lost any of our relative air combat capability advantage since then? I don't think so.
Again, in mock Air Combat against the Indians, flying their new Sukhois, our "old reliables" get their rear ends kicked…
The designs are old, they're hard to maintain, they're expensive to fly, and they don't work all that well, anymore!
As to Saddam, he had obsolete garbage that wasn't anywhere close to being new, much less 'latest and greatest'…
Your information is out of date, or just plain wrong, I'm afraid!
Oh, and before I forget…
Buying twice as many planes mean hiring and training twice as many pilots, which simply ISN'T going to happen!
I think you ned to re-read that India vs US artical again. True the Indians spanked the US in a few of the fights, but that's what was expected. We didn't use US tactics. We we're flying "red air" tactics. Other countries style of fighting. On top of that, we flew four aircraft against their twelve… every sortie.
Well considering aerodynamically speaking, the teen series aircraft are already inferior to the Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen NG, Su-30/35, PAK FA, J-XX, and will suffer high loss rates against S-300/400(and other modern theat SAMs), I tend to disagree with your assessment. What sort of loss ratio is acceptible to you, to save money?
Russia and China could get numbers up and newer technology in field quickly. You also need to take into account that in a conflict we only have so many planes that are available the rest are patrolling other parts of the world, its not like out entire airforce goes to one theater so the numbers even out more there.
The f35 is great and will last a long time because of its versatility and 5th generation stealth features. It will also be a great platform for future development. The f35A has stealth, survivability and is alot better than the f16 in everything besides agility and outright speed and is a worthy replacement. The f35B is WAY better than the harrier in every way and nothing will come close to the tactical advantage the f35B will give any airforce. If you dont have the f35 then what will replace the f16 and the harrier? The fact is those two aircraft will need to be replaced in the future anyway so why wait? Anyway whats the point in spending so much in development and then just abandoning the project near completion just because you go over budget. That would be just stupid.
End all versions of the JSF besides the vertical take off version. Replace GB's harrier fleet and give the USMC their new strike fighter. Keep our Super Hornets and newer built F-15's. Then most importantly restart production of the F-22 as our dominate air superiority fighter. No need to produce hundreds, even 25 a year will out-pace anything China or Russia will be able to develop for the next few decades.
Take a lesson from poker, dont ride a hand just cause you have a lot invested in the pot. Thats how you really lose. Theres nothing wrong with focusing on the vertical take off JSF and slowly starting back up the F-22 program. Besides I live in Western Mass, right near the 104th fighter wing, and their F-15's are up almost every morning – those pilots log more hours and have more skill than anyone were going to realistically fight. and they're in Eagles.
There is no verticle take off version of the F-35. The B model is a STO/VL aircraft(i.e. short take off, verticle landing). There's a big difference there. You can't take off vertically with a meaningful fuel/weapon load.
Aren't the F15's ready to fall apart? Or was that all Air Force BS to get more F22/F35's made?
The F22 is a one trick pony and hanger queen. The F35 is not much better, but at least usable in the real world, here and now. You know, Bombing Terrorists.
No air to air opponents, and only a few modern air defenses, and massive budget cuts on the horizon. So yes the F35 is in big trouble. Terminate the VTOL version to R&D only, cut the AF and USN buy numbers and get a long term fixed pricing agreement. In the mean time, buy F15K Slam Eagles, and F15SE Silent Eagles and F18E/F. Still 120 Mil a piece but you know what you are getting.
The US needs more Predator B and the new Predator C. That should really be the top budget priority, anyway even if it comes at the expense of manned aircraft.
Uhmmm… Speaking of Hangar Queens, doesn't that describe the F-15 exactly?
One of the big things they tried to build into the F-22 and the F-35 (I don't know how successfully) was ease of maintenance!
The way the Bush administration set up this program, buying the F-35 concurrent to flight testing, was a terrible idea, but if we don't buy THIS plane, we either go back to the F-18, or we have nothing to put on our Carriers for a good long while!
The harrier is in need of a replacment. VTOL is what is needed sence the marines operate there expeditionary carriers and such.
And the Harrier Definiatly! needs replacment. Its gotten old and is a death trap.
Those nifty nosels? they blaze like the sun to any heat seeking missile in the world. Widow makers is a good name for em. They need to get a good solid attack vtol/vstol. Dont worry about stealth just make it fast manuverable and able to fit a nice bomb load. Then build a Good twin engined fighter for the Navy.
Use alot of the parts like engines etc to keep cost low and to have maintanence supply down.
Again no stealth just a kicka$$ fighter able to do a great job at air superiority. Hell make it a land based one to.
Stop the freakin mission creap. What we need are a good VTOL/STOL attack aircraft. And a fighter for the Navy, airforce.
Trying to have an attack aircraft do the same job as a attack aircraft means compromises ALOT of compromises. And a large increase in cost etc.
No offense but i think its better to have the best fighter for our money than not have any.
I think you need to work on your spelling and grammar a bit, but you make an excellent point about mission creap [sic].
Having one aircraft type that can fill a number of rolls but not master them, seems like a good way to save money. Well, it seems like it until you start finding out that you can't do all the things you wanted with your aircraft.
Yea i got in a hurry sorry heh.
While I agree the program has spiraled out of control with schedule and cost its really the only thing we have. Only a few people have commented on what is a growing problem, our current fleet of planes is rapidly nearing the end of its service life. The next gen aircraft are needed, and those who argue well no one else sports that type of capability well hey great we are a ahead of the curve. I will say that we may have gotten a bit a head of ourselves with the new aircraft in adding capabilities and technology that are a bit a head of their time which of course ends up drawing out schedule and cost. The fact of the matter is they are the aircraft that are available now or near future. Our fleet is aging and needs replacing. Even as some say we replace current aircraft with newer F18s or silent eagles other countries are still modernizing both aircraft and air defense systems and seeing as it takes forever to deveolp an aircraft anymore stick with the future capabilites that you can field now.
I've always thought it would be a good idea to the USA buy Eurofighters instead of wasting so much money in such a mismanaged program that is the F-35. It would make the unit of the Eurofighter cheaper, at the same time making european allies happy and saving money. Just a crazy dream.
But not any crazier than thinking that the F-35 will be a good replacement for the A-10.
Not a good idea.
Something that is lost in this discussion is maintaining our production capacity. By replacing our current fleet with jets made elsewhere, you know what we do? We end up putting our own aircraft manufacturers out of business. That's not good.
Making the euro's happy wouldnt help much. They either wont bring more troops to the war on terror or cant and they dont offer alot of logistical support so…….
The problem as you said isnt that american companies cant do it its managment and mission creep. That and UBER STEALTH EVERYTHING.
Plus is the euro fighter VSTOL.
I'm not keen on buying Eurofighters (Silent Eagle, F-16 Block 50, F-18 E/F offer plenty of choices), but I couldn't agree more about the A-10. There is simply nothing out there right now (or planned) that will sufficiently fill the A-10's role. Give that mission back to the Army and let them buy the right plane for that job.
Why in hell we want Eurofighter???I prefer the Raptor !!!
Someone remarked about asking the Marines about losing the Harrier – I'm a Marine and a firm believer that the USMC does not need VTOL or VSTOL as currently engineered. It gives us too little firepower for greater risk and price and reduced performance in every metric. We lay down expeditionary airfields everywhere we stay for any length of time – we can support fixed wing from there just fine. We don't need stovl for the amphibious ships, because there isn't enough space to carry enough aircraft to perform any contested airspace mission, and if it is contested airspace, we will have joint and carrier support as well. Again, once we are ashore, we can support normal fixed wing from EAFs we build
on site. VSTOL is just not justifiable given its current price and engineering drawbacks. We pay the most and get the least – that is not how the USMC earned its tradition of frugality.
VSTOL is worth getting. Its just the JSF isnt worth it. To much compromise was put into the aircraft. Take out all that and you can get a good aircraft easily.
Its not just JSF – every time you add VSTOL to any airframe you end with a far inferior performer than any conventional version. That's the plain and simple of it. VSTOL/STOVL=subpar performance across the board on EVERY possible metric, including cost (meaning its MORE expensive).
The USMC does not need stealth, and does not need VSTOL – we need a good solid CAS aircraft with great loiter time, good warload, and excellent survivability. You get none of those things with a VSTOL/STOVL aircraft, and certainly not with the STOVL JSF at all.
Oh boy, yet another "analyst" is telling us we should cancel a program… based on what? The points given were both out of date and inaccurate anyway.
The question should be "Why do our procurement contracts spiral out of control so quickly?" Not "It's over budget, lets kill the program." The simple fact is our current fighter force is OLD. A replacement needs to be brought online quickly. I do love how many people KNOW the F-35 is a junker when zero official performance data has been released.
Pushing VSTOL ahead is almost essential, but the more pressing question is whether or not we ditch the AF version or the Navy version. I'm skeptical of using a aircraft not designed to survive ground-attack for ground attack, more than enough A-10s have returned to base shot up but still flying; and I question if JSF is capable of the same survivability without impairing maneuverability and range.
And of course you realize the Marine JSF version will be doing CAS almost exclusively, yet has the worst survivability as a direct result of the STOVL requirement…(and worst loiter time, worst war load, and highest cost of all three versions).
The Marine Corps needs a viable replacement for the AV-8B.
Yes, its called a SuperHornet. Until we can get a navalized A-10, SuperHornets will have to do.
Until we can get a navalized A-10, SuperHornets will have to do.
OK that would just be awesome.
Replacing A-10 with F-35 is as laughable as pretending to replace Abrams tanks with those flimsy FCS vehicles. The Pentagon and its twisted logic
When Lockheed said "dogfighting doesn't matter", you just knew the F-35 was going to be a turkey.
I have every reason to believe that the NEW builds of the F-15 and F-16 would make perfect sense if they had the vectored-thrust supercruise engines of the F-22, NEW LONGER RANGED WEAPONS to replace AIM-120 and AIM-9, and the new avionics that have been developed thus far. The F-16XL already managed to do supercruise with the F-100 way back in the 80s and another test variant of the F-16 did all the fancy aerial tricks like "helicoptering" and flying backwards, using vectored thrust. There's no logical reason why the F-16 can't be developed into something that can kick Euro-canard ass because all the technologies are already there!
As far as stealth is concerned, the IDFAF didn't seem to need stealth aircraft to bomb Syria's nuclear facility and that arms convoy in Sudan without getting detected. They're perfectly happy with the F-15s and F-16s that they have.
Anyway, people talk about the Su-30 like it's a new design. It's not that new! It's about as new in concept as the Hornet mashed up with some Tomcat. It's just that the Russians took their basic Su-27 fighter and progressively developed it into a series of incrementally better models, but the basic design is still the same.
In the USA however, a new spec gets issued and then gets fiddled with, leading to bigger problems, when the basic F-15 and F-16 could have been improved on, developed further and upgraded.
As for carrier aviation, the Navy should have gone with the Super Tomcat/Tomcat 21. Super Hornet sucks. But it's too late now.
As for USMC's VTOL planes, 5 got hit in Gulf War 1. All went down. VTOL is paying for too much and getting back too little. I agree with all of WHY's comments.
better get the AF and Navy model sqaured away, the Corps plane has bugs to be worked out it seems. but really, how long till we really face a threat? i would sell the F-22 to keep the line open and enable our allies. The F-15SE? Wats the deal with that? Is the AF buying them?
I had a great post written out that would have solved all of these problems and led to world peace. But this suckass posting system wouldn't work and the whole thing disappeared.
It boils down to this. You can't cancel the F-35. There are too many international commitments. Lockheed has staked its future as a company on this plane. Kill it, you kill Lockheed. There are too many important Senators from large states that get jobs from this program.
So here's the compromise. Scale back F-35A purchases. Supplement with new F-16s. You don't need stealth to shoot a guy on a camel. Cancel the Navy variant. Buy new F-18s and supplement with more Tomahawks. Buy the Marine variant in very limited numbers and just eat the higher cost. We can't cancel that one because Britain is counting on it, and the political fallout we'd get is more costly than the extra couple of million dollars it will cost to keep it running.
Building a new aircraft will cost more than fixing this one. Restarting the F-22, for better or worse, is a non-starter politically. Sadly, that plane is done. That's pretty much it.
Finish the 35. We have come to far not too, get it rolling out and keep it for a the long haul. If we don't do it we will just have the develop something else 10years from now. Get that airframe going we are just to far in.
I think there is a miscalculated analysis regarding air superiority and its importance. Russia now or in the pass have mass produce their MIG'S to approximately 25,000 and may have sold most of them China on the other hand have 1,300 mig jets and increasing. India on the other have is an ally and increasingly interested and had plans in producing large armama of 5th generation jet planes and partnered with Russia in producing it. Id say there is a need to mas produce 5th generation jet planes like F-22 and F-35 and some unmanned jet planes to protect our air space and allies in any event there is a conflict in unforseen crises in the future. We learned in the pass we won WWII by jet planes and bombers. In any event if peace will not prevail along with our enemies, we should be ready. Especially the growing crises with Iran, N. Korea ,China -Taiwan relationship and its allies.
"The F22 is a one trick pony and hanger queen. The F35 is not much better, but at least usable in the real world, here and now. You know, Bombing Terrorists. "
"Really? At least the F-22 will be able to take down top end threats for years. And once threat aircraft and enemy area SAMs are beaten down. 4th gen aircraft can do what ever they want.
This basically means that except for the STOVL wishful thinking by the USMC, the DOD has not made a solid case for the F-35; especially the USAF.
Bomb terrorists… well if that is deep in to a land mass like Afghanistan and Opeatiions USELESS DIRT you need something that has gas and range. That would be the B-52, B-1, B-2 and F-15 strike eagle. But yeah go ahead and use the Just So Farcical (no mission systems jet tested yet and no known price) to hunt down hillbillys. That will be a big dollar per hour cost.
It is time to cancel this fifth generation failure of aviation.
It's totally irresponsible to kill the F-35. Yes, it is expensive and late, blah, blah, blah… But did anyone bother to look up what the Russians and Chinese are up to? China is embarking on the greatest military modernization this century and we are talking about cutting back, extending old weapon lines, etc. Despite technological prowess, how can the Seventh Fleet shoot down 2000 or China's 3rd generation fighter jets at the same time? How many air to air missiles can all our planes in the theater carry? What will happen if they send in another wave of 100s/1000s of 4th generation fighters when our planes are out of missiles? It was a mistake to stop the F-22 production line, now the F-35s are being threatened. I hope it is just silly talk by some so-called "experts"…
The f-18 is on time and under budget. Maybe the govt. should look at buying more of them.
History (1933-41) tells us that It is vital to know how to build aircraft like the F35 and F22 in case you ever have a potent adversary. It is NOT vital to have thousands of them while no real threat exists.
1500 F16s and 150 F22s is just fine for the next 20 years unless the Chinese get territorial ambitions beyond Taiwan or a real Islamic superpower emerges.
The Chinese will solve the Taiwan problem themselves within a few generations, its the Chinese way and good luck to them.
People need to get their facts straight. The program IS NOT hugely over budget (it has not even breached the dreadred 25% yet – people are worrying that it COULD) and it is NOT a year behind schedule OR slowing (closer to 6 months & that causes of the delays have & continue to be addressed).
My favorite part of the whole argument is the fact that killing the F-22 was partially justified by the EXISTENCE of the F-35. Oh, we don't need that many F-22s, they said. We'll have lots of F-35s, which are almost as good. And now, big surprise, the plane is behind schedule and they want to kill that too.
The F-22 is still in production, and all you have to do is keep it that way. Get the run out to about 400 or so, and then scale the F-35 back to equalize the cost of more F-22s.
Then if you have a war against a capable country like Iran or China, the F-22 can sweep the skies clear on day one. While you do that, you can fly your SEAD missions to take down the SAM threat, after THAT, you can bomb then with biplanes if you want.
But no, the F-22 is a "Cold War weapon we don't need," right? And now the F-35 will be the current weapon we "don't need," and when we DO need them they won't be there and there will be no assembly lines, special manufacturing, or work force to build them.
What will we do then, throw Medicare ID cards and welfare checks?
In my humble opinion, they retired the F-14 entirely too early.
This entire thing should be looked at by the prime contractor from the standpoint of — suppose we design a fighter nobody can afford (much like we used to ask, suppose we declared a war and nobody came?).
I beleive that is precisely where we are right now. With a global recession in progress, no government in their right mind should be spending anywhere near $100 million for any kind of aircraft — no matter what its capabilities.
Its time for all parties involved (DOD, Congress authorizing and appropriation committees, et. al.) to get a grip and start serving the best interests of the American people and quit treating contractors as sacred cows.
Ok, let's see…..the F35 is a radar stealth strike aircraft, does it have any features that reduce IR trail signature? Think MANPADs here… What I mean is, it is designed to attack ground targets in a modern, heavily defended airspace (against large air defense systems).
The F22's primary mission is to rule the airspace…. Now if we are dominating the airspace, do we really need a stealthy strike fighter? If the F22 can takeout the large air defense system radars (F22 internal weapons bay), what is the justification of the F35 again?……I mean for the Air Force? I do realize that the Navy and the Marines need to update their aircraft.
Mike,
I got to agree with you about the F-22. I definitely think that with a sufficient number of F-22's (probably around 300-400), we would not need the F-35. The F-16E/F and the proposed Super Hornet Block III make better sense in our current economic climate for the AF and Navy. Both are improvements to 4th gen aircraft. The AV-8B needs to be replaced by the F-35B because the AV-8B is an improved 3d Generation aircraft. the original Harrier is dated around 1960.
With SDD completion now 4 years behind schedule, the unit price no longer affordable, and with the F-22 line in a state that could still be restarted now is the time to kill it. I doubt that will happen.
The best we can hope for is killing the 308 pre-OT&E LRIP jets. That $58B would pay for a lot of F-22s and F/A-18's that could fill the void with usable battle ready fighters rather than hanger queens and gate gaurds that these F-35 LRIP planes will become. Sure the unit price will go up further but these were not going to be sustainable usable warfighting aircraft anyway. They were there to make the price look better than it really is. In the end it is highly likely that the retrofit cost (with the fixes that testing indicates will be needed) will exceed the price of buying a new F-35 anyway. BTW -is any money even budgeted for fixing all of these LRIP birds. You know the answer.
STARTLING GRAPHICS OF JF-17 / FC-1 AIRCRAFT : http://image155.poco.cn/mypoco/myphoto/20090514/0…
SOURCE : http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/lofiversion/i…
(22 GRAPHICS IN TOTAL)
STARTLING GRAPHICS OF JF-17 / FC-1 AIRCRAFT : http://image155.poco.cn/mypoco/myphoto/20090514/09/46180989200905140947213851878057312_000.jpg
SOURCE : http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/lofiversion/index.php?t184522.html
(22 GRAPHICS IN TOTAL)
evolution of jf-17 aircraft / fc-1 aircraft :
http://i0.sinaimg.cn/jc/p/2008-08-08/U1335P27T1D5…
I have a idea to shut the budget hawks up, and really help with the defense of the USA…
1. Cut the army from its current end strength to 5,000 personnel. This includes all brigades and battalions at all levels of war fighting skill.
2. Cut the marines to 200 men and take away amphibious capability
3. reduce the air force to a fleet of no more than 30 fighters,and de activate all bombers and tankers. Reduce the transport fleet to 2 squadrons of c-130.
4 Cut the navy down to just 5 ships all to be used for coastal patrol only
5. De activate all Ohio class submarines and deactivate minute man missiles, and deactivate all missile defense and any response the USA needs to counter nuclear weapons
world wide.
with these cost cutting measures,the USA will be left defenseless and will be held at mercy by our enemies world wide….just what the budget hawks want.
A bit much-
Is your only alternative 700 F22's , 3000 F35's and a thousand of that gold plated amphibious thingee for the Marines? Throw in a 100 LCS that are armed with… something…
We should just refurbish a couple hundred A7's , hang a Sharpshooter pod (or similar) off them and use them to bomb terrorists/Third World.
Save a few hundred billion.
Assuming we continue to simply bomb third worlders or terrorist types and that the cost of maintaining old production lines for legacy hardware is cheaper than buying newfangled Bugattis of the sky.
USMC needs a AV-8B replacement to bomb terrorists, Super Tucano.
F-14 TomCat retired way to early, 100% correct.
F-35 a Turkey! Yes and also a gas Guzzler. can't get a 1/4pounder at McDonalds without at least 2 KC-10 hookups.
F-15s already falling apart? Not the 160 sitting at the AMMARC in Tucson(also a similar number of barely broken in F/A-18s and F-16s) with less than 1000hr on them(can you say "New Car Smell")
F-35 used for CAS? I'll take my chances with a Barret .50cal and two 13year old Taliban with Stingers.
I did 4 tour in A-stan, best support aircraft? B-1B Lancer way ahead of the pack, then A-10, and then Mirage 2000. Most USAF, USN and USMC fast movers do not want to be involved with warfighting, hence CAS is defined as anything below 20,000ft. JSF out – Turbo prop Super Tucano in. Hell most US fast mover pilots would take a ass-kicking if picked up by Army or USMC infantry.