Vocal defense of the F-35

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 17:57:53 -0400

LtGen Bogdan comes out swinging with support for the bird, even with decided issues with its development.

Sound off!!

Bogdan: F-35 Costs Down, Despite Worries

The head of the F-35 program says the jet is on track, despite software and other challenges.

Response by SSgt Joe V. made Mar 25 at 2015 6:07 PM

SSgt Joe V. — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 18:07:11 -0400

I think the title of the article speaks for itself - 'The 'head' of the F-35 program says the jet is on track...' and I paraphrase...'Despite setbacks and an overall lack of a working bird.'

Take the trillion dollar black hole (as referenced in the article) and use the money wisely and 'upgrade' the A-10. I am biased of course, but I am also right...

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 6:14 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 18:14:18 -0400

I don't think we should get rid of the A-10, But I do think we need to invest in an airframe that is capable of both air to air and air to ground missions.

Response by SSgt Joe V. made Mar 25 at 2015 6:46 PM

SSgt Joe V. — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 18:46:17 -0400

Maj. Whitehorn - I would go so far as to say we need to invest in an airframe that is capable of what the Hog is capable of. You said it yourself...we should not get rid of the A-10 and I fully agree, but if (and coming from me that is a BIG if) we do need an upgrade, it should be something that is as capable as the Hog for the ground mission and above board in the air-to-air department. The F-35 is not this...

Response by MSgt Michael K. made Mar 25 at 2015 9:07 PM

MSgt Michael K. — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 21:07:35 -0400

It seems to me that no one has been paying attention to history. In the 60's Kennedy's whiz kids decided that the Air Force and Navy needed to use the same aircraft. While the F-111 went on to serve with the Air Force very well the Navy version failed. Part may have been due to the Navy's unrealistic demands there were some huge disadvantages to the common airframe. We (as a country) are finding out all over again that one size does not fit all.

Response by SrA Joshua Hagler made Mar 25 at 2015 11:41 PM

SrA Joshua Hagler — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:41:52 -0400

F-35 is such a waste of money, time, and resources, though I have a bias, I am an A-10 guy. haha

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 12:15 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 00:15:27 -0400

Ideally we would: Toss the F-35, give the contracter the bird for making such a mess of the project, purchase more Raptors, and retain our current planes.

It solves so many problems and sends a message to those working on our contracts that we are not going to tolerate the kind of garbage performance that resulted in the collosal overspending known as the "Lightning II."

Sadly this probably won't happen, but I can still dream right?

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 9:56 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:56:28 -0400

While there are always pain involved in fielding a new weapon system or air frame, look at the Osprey when the V-22 was in development you heard all the same things. Over budget , behind schedule but as soon as the Marines worked out all the kinks the Air Force jumped on the band wagon and now they cant make them fast enough. While you can argue the performance characteristics of the F-35 vs the F-16 fact is the F-35 is a monumental leap in overall military dominance with its integration into the Net-Centric warfare model. Multi service, role, and nation once we get over the IOC hurdles this air-frame will serve our nations and allies for our lifetime ensuring air superiority. Remember the lessons of WWII , the Sherman was no match for the Panther and especially the Tiger. Fact is numbers and superior tactics/logistics win wars. The F-35 Lightning will win on those fronts since the common air frame will allow us to share logistics and maintenance not only across service branch but allies as well. Not to mention the jobs it brings here and now to the US economy especially Texas.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 7:53 PM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 19:53:25 -0400

I'm not saying the F 35 is a complete waste, but look at it this way: when you go golfing do you use one club for every shot, or do you have a club in the bag for different situations?

We are expecting way too much from this aircraft. It's a multi role stealth fighter that according to testing does not excel in anything. It's a stealth fighter that doesn't fight as well as the Raptor let alone other gen 5 developments being made by other countries. Just Google the Australian eval of the F 35 vs the latest Russian and Chinese designs. It's scary. It's a ground attack bird without the A 10's GAU 8 or the payload of the F 15E. We're replacing two proven heavyweight champs with a featherweight contender. And I use the term contender loosely. We're putting all of our eggs in one basket, and it's the wrong basket. Keep in mind the F 35 wasn't supposed to stand on it's own, it was supposed to make up for the Raptor's lack of Air to Ground ability. The original format was the F 22 secures air superiority, and the Lightning strikes harder to reach targets with the other ground pounders. It was only supposed to occasionally tango with enemies in the air. Now it's the F 35 vs the world...

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 10:57 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:57:47 -0400

F-35?

Lockheed F-35 Projected Cost Rises 1.9% to $398.6 Billion your argument is moot.

We would be better served buying the Chinese version, maybe we can work deal with Apple we can call them ''I-Fighters".

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 4:59 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:59:13 -0400

Don't get me wrong, the F-35 is beautiful when you see it take off and just sounds more powerful than the F-16s that it runs sorties with, but I can't help but think or each one in terms of one F-35 is 3-4 Airmens' full careers. I get as an Air Force we need to stay ahead of the tech curve, but with the sequestration that just we all just went through I see the money spent almost forcefully to get an F-35 fleet up and....am less excited than I probably should be.

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Mar 29 at 2015 9:24 AM

Maj Walter Kilar — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 09:24:01 -0400

The problem with the F-35 is that it is being cast as an all-or-nothing proposition. In an era of sequestration where funding has been cut via peanut butter spread, the right thing to do should be to invest and divest in a peanut butter spread as well-- buy fewer F-35s, retire fewer A-10s, modernize fewer F/A-18s and F-16s, etc in a balance portfolio. This all-or-nothing talk is nonsense. Of course the F-35 has flaws that will be expensive to correct. Of course the A-10 is "expensive to maintain". This does not mean we should entirely trade one for the other. We should trade a little bit here for a little bit there, i.e. some percentage cut in F-35s with a similar cut in other programs, without cutting entire programs.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2015 12:14 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 12:14:44 -0400

Correct me if im wrong but They are getting of the a-10 and this is suppose to replace it?

Response by MSgt Dale Young made Mar 31 at 2015 1:33 PM

MSgt Dale Young — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:33:18 -0400

when I came in there were no A-10 or F-16 when they were purchased and added to the inventory we gripped about how these aircraft would never replace the ---------- and low and behold both did a fantastic job, and guess what we said the same thing about the obscene cost of 12 million dollars per f-16 and now we have come around 30 years later and saying the same crud about how the new boy on the block is not worth the paper it was drawn on. The A10 was an afterthought that about never happened, it only got purchased due to a huge surplus at the end of year fall out and the pentagon did not want to lose the money, so they purchased a set block of aircraft and no others were built along with so many years of support and parts. So your beloved A10 is really a bastard child and we are fortunate that it worked so well but sometimes the cost of maintaining, operating and upgrading older airframes is not very cost productive as a newer airframe. I would never want them to bring the F-4 back even though no other aircraft has had as many air to air conquest and flown more bombing missions it is a dinasour and its bones need to make oil for the new breed

Response by SSgt Joe V. made Apr 1 at 2015 7:05 PM

SSgt Joe V. — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 19:05:40 -0400

My viewpoint has almost changed...

http://tacairnet.com/2015/04/01/f-35d-to-feature-titanium-bathtub-and-gau-8-avenger/

F-35D+ to Feature Titanium Bathtub and GAU-8 Avenger

Responding to the complaints of thousands of Facebook users on various Save The Hog and Long Live the A-10 pages, engineers have redeveloped the F-35D+ to include a titanium bathtub around the cock...

Response by MSgt Wildo Rosario made Apr 8 at 2015 4:06 PM

MSgt Wildo Rosario — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 16:06:30 -0400

My viewpoint on this aircraft have changed...for the worst! I knew it was a POS with sprinkles on it back when it was being developed. Now I know for sure and how bad it has affected the finances and credibility of the USAF/DoD for not delivering, either on-time or at all, what was advertised we were to get the money we have spent on it. It is hard to separate politics from new acquisition ventures. I spent my last five years in service during IOC and FOC of the Raptor. I remember when and the "why's" they removed/deleted the "A" designator from the "F/A-22". The Raptor can do just as much as the F-35 (if not more!) for the money it had already been spent at the time for the "Lightning" OT&E and late roll out. But it was looked at as the point of no return for politicians and certain stars hoping for the jobs after retirement. Solution? Scrap the US program and give it to one or all the other countries who bought off on the dreams of success for this POS. They don't have Raptor's or A-10's, may have F-16's. They have a need for the limited use of this failure of aero engineering. We don't.

Response by Capt Damon Figueroa made Apr 8 at 2015 6:52 PM

Capt Damon Figueroa — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:52:34 -0400

First of all, I was a PM for a major system on this as a civilian and the real issue is that most suppliers bid this program as half the cost...hence the two times over run. Also, it was just a poorly managed program with no common sense. Example one supplier of a small $100 check valve was asked to create so much documentation that the price was huge.

This is a very good aircraft for the services, but just needs to be managed waaaaay better.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Apr 8 at 2015 9:41 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 21:41:21 -0400

I suppose it depends on the threat. Seems that low-intensity conflicts seem to be the order of the day anymore. If we are chasing AQ, Daesh, Boko Haram and all the others why spend hundreds of billions on a platform that will become obsolete within 10 years? The A-10 is a proven performer and an excellent value for money.

Response by SSgt Eric Rush made Apr 8 at 2015 10:35 PM

SSgt Eric Rush — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:35:56 -0400

It's a waste of money. It now costs more than the F-22 and it's not as capable. This is what we get for having democrats in office.

Response by SSgt Mark Steed made Apr 10 at 2015 11:06 AM

SSgt Mark Steed — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:06:11 -0400

The obvious problem we're quickly getting ourselves into is that Russia and China have 5th generational fighters that reports indicate out perform the F-22. You can't take on a 5th generation stealth fighter with an F-15/F-16/F-18, etc.. The current, non-stealth, fighter inventory is nothing more than cannon fodder to a super cruise stealth fighter. If the reports are to be believed, the F-35 is a step above the Russian and Chinese fighters. Nevertheless, we cannot go into the future defending ourselves with strongly written letters to our opponents. Right now we don't have a backup plan, all the chips are down on the F-35 for better or worse. I say, get the jet operational and lets move forward. Even if the "B" model jump jets are not ready to go get the other two versions into the operational inventory. Every USAF vet who touched jets knows that the evolution of an airframe design is not over till they park it in the bone yard. The F-35 will be no different. As I understand it it's designed to be upgraded as technology advances. What we cannot do is go back to the drawing board and spend twenty years building a new jet while Russia and China produce operational stealth fighters right now in real time.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2015 1:23 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 01:23:00 -0400

Hey they kicked Lt. General Bullet-head to the curb! on behalf of all Warthog fans around the world: Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya!

http://www.stripes.com/news/af-general-who-said-protesting-a-10-decision-was-treason-removed-from-post-1.339480

AF general who said protesting A-10 decision was ‘treason’ removed from post

The Air Force general who told airmen that speaking to Congress about plans to retire the A-10 Thunderbolt amounts to treason has left his command position and been reprimanded, the Air Combat Command said Friday.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2015 2:50 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 May 2015 14:50:31 -0400

Like it or not as a CTOL the VTOL is just plan cool and a technological leap over the Harrier.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/six-usmc-f-35bs-land-aboard-the-wasp-for-critical-opera [login to see] ?utm_campaign=socialflow_jalopnik_facebook&utm_source=jalopnik_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Six USMC F-35Bs Land Aboard The Wasp For Critical Operational Trials

A half-dozen F-35Bs just landed on the deck of the USS Wasp (LHD-1) to begin the first shipboard phase of their operational trials. For the next two weeks, the six jets will prove they can operate aboard a Gator Navy Flattop under real-world conditions similar to those the jet will face during its operational lifespan.

Response by SSgt Mark Steed made May 28 at 2015 11:10 PM

SSgt Mark Steed — Thu, 28 May 2015 23:10:08 -0400

I was an A-10 crew chief. Although I'm fond of it I'd say it's not suitable moving into the future. The insurmountable issue is stealth. The A-10 is a big fat target against 5th generation fighters. Be stealthy or die is coming sooner rather than later. The F-22 is, at least on paper, inferior to the Chinese and Russian 5th gen fighters. The F-35 is, on paper, superior to it's foreign competition. There is also the argument that the Apache is equal to the A-10 on the battlefield and superior in that it can imbed with the troops in the field as it doesn't need a runway. I would thus argue that the A-10's useful lifespan has ended, sadly. Sure, it's awesome against an enemy that still lives in the 1st century, or a field of tanks not protected from the air by cutting edge aircraft. But, as the cold war seems to be roaring back I'd argue that keeping the A-10s will prove a bad decision.