Do you agree with Trump that the F-35 project should be "Fired"?

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:26:45 -0400

He's got a point, right? Our current fleet is awesome, including the A-10. Forget that F-35

Donald Trump wants to tell the F-35 that it’s fired.

The businessman and Republican presidential candidate questioned the wisdom of purchasing the joint strike fighter during an appearance on a conservative radio talk show Oct. 22.

“When they say that this cannot perform as well as the planes we already have, what are [we] doing, and spending so much more money?” Trump said during an appearance on the Hugh Hewitt radio show.

The host asked Trump his thoughts on the fifth generation fighter and the fact that it’s $160 billion over budget. Trump responded that he didn’t like what he had been hearing in security briefings.

“I do hear that it’s not very good,” he said. “I’m hearing that our existing planes are better. And one of the pilots came out of the plane, one of the test pilots, and said this isn’t as good as what we already have.”

Trump referenced a scathing, five-page report that was leaked in June by the website War is Boring. In the memo — meant to be seen only by defense officials and Lockheed Martin — the test pilot derides the F-35’s ability to engage in high aerial maneuvers and a close-in dogfight.

The Lightning II can’t, the test pilot wrote, defeat an older F-16 in visual combat.

Military leaders and policy makers should take the report seriously, Trump said.

“Test pilots are amazing people. They know better than anybody,” he said. “They’re saying it doesn’t perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive. So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they’re spending billions. This is a plane. There’s never been anything like it in terms of cost.”

Trump wants to 'fire' F-35

Donald Trump wants to tell the F-35 it’s "fired."

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Oct 29 at 2015 10:35 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:35:19 -0400

It is a financial and technical disaster!

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 29 at 2015 10:36 PM

SPC David S. — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:36:41 -0400

Its an out of control politico boondoggle that is on the verge of being obsolete.

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-map-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8

This Map Shows Why The F-35 Has Turned Into A Trillion-Dollar Fiasco

The plane is too deeply embedded in the American economy to kill

Response by MSgt Robert Pellam made Oct 29 at 2015 10:42 PM

MSgt Robert Pellam — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:42:38 -0400

While our fleet is awesome, and the F-35 is a budget blown cluster that is feeding money to corporate that can't produce what they promised. The US Air Force aircraft are getting old.

We are going to loose our edge in air combat if we don't modernize. The F-22 was a start, but Corporate greed, Senior leadership failures and congressional tampering have left it under staffed. The F-22 was supposed to take over for the F-15. There won't be enough built. Same with the F-35. This was the answer to the aging F-16, F-18. Harrier, aircraft. It was supposed to be cost effective to replace all these aircraft in massive orders, bringing 5th generation fighters to the line. Again, we see Corporate Greed, Senior leadership failures and Congressional tampering.

Sad this is we need these aircraft, we need an aircraft to replace the A-10. Not because of effectiveness, because of Air Frame ware. I worked Aircraft Sheetmetal for 21 years. These aircraft need replaced. For the A-10 all we need to do is make a modern air frame, take modern avionics and apply a little reason and you could keep the same design just make a better ground support aircraft for 1/10 of the cost of the F-35, Heck you could probably cut the cost to about 10% of the F-35. (Just a guess) So while I agree some people need Fired, we still need new aircraft somehow.

Response by SGT Charles Bunch made Oct 29 at 2015 10:44 PM

SGT Charles Bunch — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:44:37 -0400

How much more money are they going to throw at this program? Yes it should be fired

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2015 10:53 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:53:41 -0400

Trump gets it, what's with the rest of these politicians? Not hard to see that this project costs too much and yields poor results

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2015 11:12 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:12:51 -0400

The Marine Corps needs a replacement for the AV-8B. This platform is the closest we have.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Oct 29 at 2015 11:53 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:53:26 -0400

Trump is a businessman first... and learning to be a politician. To this point, what if the military, and its budget, were ran LIKE a business? Shut down/eliminate costly programs before they create any more of a financial anchor? Crazy. I see the F-22 & -35 following the same spiral of the V-22: Too much $$$ has already been invested (wasted) in the development of these platforms. Congressmen and Senators have to pacify their constituents: If he's going put a silver bullet into the F-35, he'll have to get elected first... and learn to be a politician. Can't say I agree with Trump. But, I certainly don't disagree with him.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2015 12:43 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:43:44 -0400

We need to get the F-35 right, and figure out why it hasn't gone right.
While they're at it, they need to restart the F-22 program.
I hate throwing good money after bad, but the current aircraft are going to start falling out of the sky of we don't modernize.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Oct 30 at 2015 6:02 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 06:02:00 -0400

What I do like is plain talk, and straight answers without having to try to decipher whether a question was answered or the topic was diverted to another subject. In this case, I agree with Mr. Trump.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2015 7:44 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 07:44:18 -0400

Based on what that Article has to say it is hard not to agree. Seems to me that if you are developing something, and you are in the test phase, and it is not working as intended, you don't continue to throw money down the rabbit hole, you scrap it, and move on to the next idea.

Response by SGT David T. made Oct 30 at 2015 8:30 AM

SGT David T. — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:30:56 -0400

From what I've seen the majority of issues with the F-35 stem from the human pilot. Make it a drone and presto.....

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2015 8:31 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:31:40 -0400

Anything out of him ... I must pause and think carefully before I agree. He is riding on emotion, so I must control mine or I will be controlled by him :).

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 30 at 2015 11:01 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:01:08 -0400

As with the V-22 Osprey, it will be modified and modified until something better comes along. And that works out well for the MIC. Russia and China have their versions of the F-35, what will be used to counter them? Its easy to say "Fire" the program, but unless you are moving forward, you are being left behind.

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Oct 30 at 2015 12:08 PM

PV2 Scott Goodpasture — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:08:21 -0400

He's so right about a lot of things it's just too bad he can't be more tactful

Response by LTC Christopher Sands made Nov 1 at 2015 11:52 AM

LTC Christopher Sands — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 11:52:24 -0500

Yes!

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 8:52 AM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:52:43 -0500

The F-35 is a budget black hole. It's a debacle of an aircraft that does NOTHING well. It will not adequately serve the needs of the services. Shit can it.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 9:08 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:08:09 -0500

If you know anything about the world we live in, more 5th gen aircraft are a must. The original number of F-22s would've worked...and saved money, but now that we've failed there...we can't fail with the F-35...

Response by Brig Gen Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 9:16 AM

Brig Gen Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:16:29 -0500

Response by Capt Matthew Avila made Nov 3 at 2015 11:56 PM

Capt Matthew Avila — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 23:56:24 -0500

Reading through the comments, I feel like I'm in the minority here. As a prior enlisted aircraft maintainer (sheet metal), I recognize that not providing a new airframe is not a solution. Planes get old and break from wear and tear, just like a car. Eventually there is a point where it is cheaper to develop and build a new plane rather than try and maintain an old one. Not to mention the increased capabilities. Now being an aircraft maintenance officer with a role in the F-35 world, I can say that article which Donald Trump quotes is extremely biased. "Given this one situation under artificial conditions, for an aircraft with undeveloped tactics and less experienced pilots on the airframe, it didn't perform as well as expected" is not a valid argument in my opinion to cancel a program. Just because the '55 Chevy pickup will tow more than the '15 Camaro, and we all know how reliable that truck is, doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in the sports car if we expect to be in a race. Even if we didn't know we were getting the leather seats and sports package until after the car was bought.

Response by A1C Stanley Kolakowski made Nov 4 at 2015 7:25 AM

A1C Stanley Kolakowski — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 07:25:18 -0500

First off, does Mr. Trump understand that aircraft design has *always* been a series of compromises? I mean, even the F-15 can't "dogfight" like the F-16, but then again, it wasn't *expected* to.
And considering that the F-35 is, perhaps, the epitome of "jack of all trades" aircraft (has to be "easily" configured for an AF F-16-esque role, Navy F-18 role, and do V/STOL CAS for the Marines like the Harrier and A-10) perhaps this is to be expected?

I wouldn't "fire" the program. I would, however, expect him to apply his business acumen on the project and discern if the corporations can still turn a profit off this design without massive "reimbursements" for R&D costs. If it can't - then fire it and send everyone back to the drawing board - collectively $160+ million poorer.

Response by Maj Garau Francis made Nov 4 at 2015 9:27 AM

Maj Garau Francis — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 09:27:20 -0500

Is the model to a certain culture, a sequence deviant.

Response by MSgt Joe Tafoya made Dec 3 at 2015 8:25 PM

MSgt Joe Tafoya — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 20:25:49 -0500

Trump thinks he knows everything but he doesn't. He's just like "old faithful" he has to spout from time to time. He does't care about us or anyone, he just wants to have whatever he wants. I used to be like that when I was about 3 years old.

Response by A1C Charles D Wilson made Dec 10 at 2015 5:16 PM

A1C Charles D Wilson — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:16:10 -0500

Yes. The F-35 should be fired. With the money that has been invested into each aircraft we could have built better airframes and upgraded the A-10 as well as the F-16. Both aircraft are proven and with the technology and manufacturing that we have today we could make what works now even better than trying to fart out a new aircraft that has yet to be tested to its full potential. From what I have seen the F-35 has lost dog fights against the F-16 and the A-10 is still going to be the ground pounder supporter that she was built to be. Congress ahs been bought with the companies deep pockets that they have lost sight of the real picture.
Think about it...both aircraft built in the 1970's and with the electronics even smaller and stronger now the space that could be saved and weight removed. The machine tooling we have now for manufacturing is even way better so a solid airframe can be built and forged. Engines can even be replaced with better engines to save even more fuel. But who am I to disagree with congress .. right?

Chuck D