Posted on Aug 21, 2015
America’s new trillion-dollar fighter jet under fire again! How could so much money result in so little value?
14.6K
97
43
8
8
0
It’s tough being the world’s most expensive weapon system. Years behind schedule and billions over-budget, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program has had to absorb its fair share of critiques. Over the past several years, it’s been described as too complex, too reliant on high-tech sensors and software, and—at $400 billion for development and procurement—far too costly.
A spate of recent program milestones—including being declared operational by the U.S. Marine Corps last month—seemed to suggest the program might be turning a corner this summer. But a scathing report published Monday by a D.C.-based think tank indicates otherwise. To paraphrase analysts at the progressive National Security Network (NSN): The F-35 Lightning II fighter jet will perform horrendously against “near-peer” enemies, and the Department of Defense should rethink its proposed buy of nearly 2,500 F-35s.
“The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors,” the NSN report reads. “Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft. To avoid such a catastrophic outcome, Congress and DOD should begin the process of considering alternatives to a large-scale commitment to the F-35.”
That’s a fairly damning assessment of an aircraft designed to be the workhorse multirole fighter jet for the U.S. and its allies for the next few decades. The Lockheed-Martin-built F-35 is slated to replace a number of jets across the American service branches, including U.S. Air Force F-15s and F-16s, and U.S. Navy and Marine Corps F-18s. Several foreign militiaries have also pledged to purchase the F-35, including Canada, Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
Read more at ...
http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/f-35-joint-strike-fighter/?xid=ob_rss
========================================
A spate of recent program milestones—including being declared operational by the U.S. Marine Corps last month—seemed to suggest the program might be turning a corner this summer. But a scathing report published Monday by a D.C.-based think tank indicates otherwise. To paraphrase analysts at the progressive National Security Network (NSN): The F-35 Lightning II fighter jet will perform horrendously against “near-peer” enemies, and the Department of Defense should rethink its proposed buy of nearly 2,500 F-35s.
“The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors,” the NSN report reads. “Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft. To avoid such a catastrophic outcome, Congress and DOD should begin the process of considering alternatives to a large-scale commitment to the F-35.”
That’s a fairly damning assessment of an aircraft designed to be the workhorse multirole fighter jet for the U.S. and its allies for the next few decades. The Lockheed-Martin-built F-35 is slated to replace a number of jets across the American service branches, including U.S. Air Force F-15s and F-16s, and U.S. Navy and Marine Corps F-18s. Several foreign militiaries have also pledged to purchase the F-35, including Canada, Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
Read more at ...
http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/f-35-joint-strike-fighter/?xid=ob_rss
========================================
F-35
Airplanes
Technology
DoD
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 22
10
10
0
While the F-35 has all the bells and whistles and a lot of "cool factor", the fact is that it can't do the job of the aircraft it is supposed to replace nearly as well. You are telling me this thing is going to take the place of the A-10 and do that mission as well as the A-10 does? Please...
The A-10, F-16, and F-18 are all better CAS options than the F-35.
Lets just look at the gun:
A-10 - 1350 rounds of 30mm
F-18 - 578 rounds of 20mm
F-16 - 511 rounds of 20mm
F-35 - 182 rounds of 25mm...182 rounds? Why bother even putting a gun in it? Forget strafing with the thing.
Durability? Now not every aircraft can get half a wing blown off and still come home like the A-10 can, but I have a hard time believing that the F-35 could even stand up to small arms fire let alone AAA, rockets, or missiles...the thing is so reliant on its tech, that if the sensors got damaged, it would be useless.
I could keep going, but you get the point...
Like it said...it's got cool factor, but I just don't see it doing the job as well as the current legacy aircraft.
The A-10, F-16, and F-18 are all better CAS options than the F-35.
Lets just look at the gun:
A-10 - 1350 rounds of 30mm
F-18 - 578 rounds of 20mm
F-16 - 511 rounds of 20mm
F-35 - 182 rounds of 25mm...182 rounds? Why bother even putting a gun in it? Forget strafing with the thing.
Durability? Now not every aircraft can get half a wing blown off and still come home like the A-10 can, but I have a hard time believing that the F-35 could even stand up to small arms fire let alone AAA, rockets, or missiles...the thing is so reliant on its tech, that if the sensors got damaged, it would be useless.
I could keep going, but you get the point...
Like it said...it's got cool factor, but I just don't see it doing the job as well as the current legacy aircraft.
(10)
(0)
SFC Jon Vandeyacht
LOL, this is just the Aviation version of the mess that became the BFV, Bradley fighting vehicle. From what was proposed to what became was such a nighmareish mess, that it even became a movie about it.....
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC Jon Vandeyacht - I haven't heard about that. Mind posting the name of that movie?
(2)
(0)
MSgt Darren VanDerwilt
The movie is "The Pentagon Wars" starring Kelsey Grammer and Cary Elwes and is a satire based on the book of the same name written by Col. James Burton (a John Boyd acolyte). Burton, played by Elwes, is tasked with certifying the ability of the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle to protect the soldiers within. He battles entrenched careerism in the Pentagon that wants to see the program go through no matter what.
(2)
(0)
SFC Mark Merino
Bradley Fighting Vehicle Evolution. A Pentagon Parody. | RallyPoint
No one loves the Bradley more than me. I am almost certain that I am the only one in the service to have a BFV tattoo since 1990. Did you know the Bradley was designed to be amphibious? Were you one of the early 11M's (Mechanized Infantry)? Please share your tales of mechanized anguish and triumphs. http://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad I'm no expert on this aircraft and there are a lot of comments by those who know much more about than me, so I defer to them on the aircraft. One thing I wiil comment on and that is wasted leadership and a procurement system for our defense equipment that seems to be broke. Why have we allowed this prorgram to go over budget and why have we allowed the continued financing of this defense contractor that apparently couldn't provide the right contract details, make deadlines, and produce the desire deliverables on time for this project? Hopefully, there are penaliteis built in for the non-deliverables for this government contract against Lockheed-Martin! This really shows you how much money we are wasting on contracts that aren't meeting the objectives. I ask those out there that know and understand this porcess much better than me, did we have the same issues with the A-10, F-15, F-16, and F-18s?
(6)
(0)
MSgt Darren VanDerwilt
Col. Mike Burroughs, you nail it. If you haven't read the book "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War," check it out, provides insight into our weapons system procurement woes.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
Ignoring the specific piece of technology (F35) for just a moment, and focus on the Philosophy instead.
The Philosophy is sound. The idea is that the services are moving towards a "common platform." Think about it like our ground troops. All of our ground troops can grab a Service Rifle from any other branch and be fine, because we have a "common platform." We're all trained the same.
But when it comes to aircraft, that isn't the case. And it probably should be. Pilots, not Planes are the most valuable, and most LIMITED resource we have in Air Superiority. Pilots aren't expendable. Planes are. Planes change all the time. If a plane goes down, we can get a new plane. We lose a pilot, and it takes us years to get another one trained to the same level.
But... if all the services are using "similar" platforms, then that liability is greatly reduced. I'm not saying that the F35 (Technology) is the right solution, but it is the right Philosophy. Just like the M16A1 wasn't the right tech, but it was a step in the right direction.
The Philosophy is sound. The idea is that the services are moving towards a "common platform." Think about it like our ground troops. All of our ground troops can grab a Service Rifle from any other branch and be fine, because we have a "common platform." We're all trained the same.
But when it comes to aircraft, that isn't the case. And it probably should be. Pilots, not Planes are the most valuable, and most LIMITED resource we have in Air Superiority. Pilots aren't expendable. Planes are. Planes change all the time. If a plane goes down, we can get a new plane. We lose a pilot, and it takes us years to get another one trained to the same level.
But... if all the services are using "similar" platforms, then that liability is greatly reduced. I'm not saying that the F35 (Technology) is the right solution, but it is the right Philosophy. Just like the M16A1 wasn't the right tech, but it was a step in the right direction.
(5)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SPC (Join to see) As I said, it doesn't have to be the F35. The idea is to get a common platform. Once we're on the same sheet of music, we adjust. We change. We evolve. There is never going to be a perfect solution. The A10 isn't perfect. It's a beautiful machine, but I'm sure there are things on the pilots wishlist.
(1)
(0)
SPC David S.
If there are all flying the same plane with a know limitation then all pilots are exposed to this risk. Also diversity in aircraft with each having a specific role is better than one aircraft that can kind of do each role. Much like merging a hammer and a sledge hammer to suffice in all uses. Imagine using a 5 pound hammer for tack nails or using a 5 pound hammer to bust up concrete. It can be done but will suck doing it that way.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SPC David S. True, but this is more like a Drill, will a good chuck, and swappable Bits. The Platform is the same but the weapons and comm packages are different.
(1)
(0)
SPC David S.
Very true when it comes to how the plane is configured Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I'm thinking more in terms of flight envelope - thrust to weight, climb and lbs of fuel but as well the avionics. Pick one and exploit it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google