10
10
0
Pretty open ended discussion here but I'd like some insight into the F-35 program. From my perspective it was way over budget and under performs, and most of the time its in the news its for stuff like this:
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/12/27/pentagon-grounds-small-group-of-f-35s-after-ejection-on-texas-runway/
Should we be investing more in these fighter planes or direct resources elsewhere?
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/12/27/pentagon-grounds-small-group-of-f-35s-after-ejection-on-texas-runway/
Should we be investing more in these fighter planes or direct resources elsewhere?
F-35
Air Power
11FX: Fighter Pilot
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 4
Well, it's the Air Force version of the Army's Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV).
Both programs started out to be lightweight/modern updates to what they were replacing.
For the BFV, that was an original design from the late 70s. Cost overruns, mid-production design changes, etc. It started out as one thing (a new type of IFV) to what it is now - something almost on part with a 'light tank'
For the F-35, that was supposed to be a light and inexpensive replacement for the F-16. Instead you get something that is using the most modern (even experimental) technology that is expensive to install and resource (time, labor, cost) intensive to maintain. Add onto it the same type of mid-production shifts the Bradley went through where changes occurred to what role it could do, how it accomplished those roles, etc.
Basically, they both fell victim of "too many cooks in the kitchen" where every politician or someone with an axe to grind was able to influence the program.
In the case of the F-35, parts are currently made in 46 states and 18 of them have an economic impact of over $100M (Texas, where the main plant is, has an almost $5.2B impact followed by California with an almost $5.1B impact)*. With that much 'love' spread around, if someone wanted to kill the program and do something else, you're not likely to get much support in Congress.
Now, to your specific question SSG Carlos Madden - "Should we be investing more in these fighter planes or direct resources elsewhere?". My opinion on that is "in for a penny, in for a pound". There are so many 'sunk costs' in the program, it would be hugely detrimental to scrap it and go with something else.
I can see something that happened with the Bradley happening here. Eventually the Bradley's originally envisioned role was filled by the Stryker - a modern/updated IFV that is mobile and transportable. To that, I could see a new program (maybe you Air Force wonks know of one) that fills the role of the spiritual successor to the F-16* instead of what it is now.
Simply speaking, if you were to compare the F-16 to an older flip-phone and the F-35 to a next generation smart phone, you can see the comparison. Both can make a phone call, but the F-35/smartphone is designed to do everything for everyone and has a resource tail to prove it. Expensive to manufacture, expensive to maintain, and resource intensive in terms of manpower, training, and other logistics.
------------------------------------------------------
* https://www.businessinsider.com/this-map-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8
* F-16 role - The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft. It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack. It provides a relatively low-cost, high-performance weapon system for the United States and allied nations.
Both programs started out to be lightweight/modern updates to what they were replacing.
For the BFV, that was an original design from the late 70s. Cost overruns, mid-production design changes, etc. It started out as one thing (a new type of IFV) to what it is now - something almost on part with a 'light tank'
For the F-35, that was supposed to be a light and inexpensive replacement for the F-16. Instead you get something that is using the most modern (even experimental) technology that is expensive to install and resource (time, labor, cost) intensive to maintain. Add onto it the same type of mid-production shifts the Bradley went through where changes occurred to what role it could do, how it accomplished those roles, etc.
Basically, they both fell victim of "too many cooks in the kitchen" where every politician or someone with an axe to grind was able to influence the program.
In the case of the F-35, parts are currently made in 46 states and 18 of them have an economic impact of over $100M (Texas, where the main plant is, has an almost $5.2B impact followed by California with an almost $5.1B impact)*. With that much 'love' spread around, if someone wanted to kill the program and do something else, you're not likely to get much support in Congress.
Now, to your specific question SSG Carlos Madden - "Should we be investing more in these fighter planes or direct resources elsewhere?". My opinion on that is "in for a penny, in for a pound". There are so many 'sunk costs' in the program, it would be hugely detrimental to scrap it and go with something else.
I can see something that happened with the Bradley happening here. Eventually the Bradley's originally envisioned role was filled by the Stryker - a modern/updated IFV that is mobile and transportable. To that, I could see a new program (maybe you Air Force wonks know of one) that fills the role of the spiritual successor to the F-16* instead of what it is now.
Simply speaking, if you were to compare the F-16 to an older flip-phone and the F-35 to a next generation smart phone, you can see the comparison. Both can make a phone call, but the F-35/smartphone is designed to do everything for everyone and has a resource tail to prove it. Expensive to manufacture, expensive to maintain, and resource intensive in terms of manpower, training, and other logistics.
------------------------------------------------------
* https://www.businessinsider.com/this-map-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8
* F-16 role - The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft. It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack. It provides a relatively low-cost, high-performance weapon system for the United States and allied nations.
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
(4)
(0)
COL Randall C.
Pentagon Wars - Bradley Fighting Vehicle Evolution
From the movie "Pentagon Wars". Bradley Fighting Vehicle design and development. Any design engineer will love this scene.
As a side note, if you want to see something from Col. Burton's point of view called the Pentagon Wars (1998) starting Kelsey Grammer and Cary Elwes.
A great snippet* from the movie that talked about the 'evolution' of the BFV is a huge laugh about how procurement went (from Col. Burton's view).
Depending on who you listen to, he was either a dedicated whistle blower to doctored tests that the BFV went though or a clueless novice that just didn't understand how testing worked.
Personally, after having seen how the sausage is made in a lot of development, I'm inclined to side more with Col. Burton than his distractors.
-------------------------------------------------
* Pentagon Wars snippet - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
A great snippet* from the movie that talked about the 'evolution' of the BFV is a huge laugh about how procurement went (from Col. Burton's view).
Depending on who you listen to, he was either a dedicated whistle blower to doctored tests that the BFV went though or a clueless novice that just didn't understand how testing worked.
Personally, after having seen how the sausage is made in a lot of development, I'm inclined to side more with Col. Burton than his distractors.
-------------------------------------------------
* Pentagon Wars snippet - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
(2)
(0)
COL Randall C.
*sigh* ... fast fingers ... slow brain .... STARRING Kelsey Grammer... and side more with Col. Burton than his DETRACTORS
(1)
(0)
On the plus side at least the ejection seats work
https://twitter.com/cbs11doug/status/ [login to see] 04406530?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/cbs11doug/status/ [login to see] 04406530?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
(4)
(0)
I'm sure there will be plenty of politicians that have their hands in that money pot fighting to keep the 35 alive.
(4)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I think the contracts are spread out all over the country to make this joint junk Strike Fighter difficult to kill. I remember reading in my command and general staff officer course that President W bush put the plane into production even before all the bugs were out of the Prototype and they had to keep fixing things like engines cracking. This aircraft has been a can of worms. A fighter that's not really a fighter that can be beaten by an F-16 and a dog fight even though they claim that it has Over the Horizon missiles but what if the enemy gets through and it has to dog fight? When you have visual flight rules, a skilled pilot will be able to shoot down the F-35.
In this article, the f-16s carry external fuel tanks while the F-35 did not and the F-16 was still able to get a firing solution and was more maneuverable.
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/06/deathmatch-f-35-vs-f-16-viper-in-a-dogfight-who-wins/
This article is old but I thought India was going to purchase some F-16 models with semi stealth additional add-ons. I wonder if that's going to make a difference? 7 years have passed and I'm sure the F-16 has improved but I doubt the F-35 has because it is underpowered.
COL Randall C. SSG Carlos Madden MSG (Join to see)
I know they said in Top Gun Maverick it's not the plane, it's the pilot!
In this article, the f-16s carry external fuel tanks while the F-35 did not and the F-16 was still able to get a firing solution and was more maneuverable.
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/06/deathmatch-f-35-vs-f-16-viper-in-a-dogfight-who-wins/
This article is old but I thought India was going to purchase some F-16 models with semi stealth additional add-ons. I wonder if that's going to make a difference? 7 years have passed and I'm sure the F-16 has improved but I doubt the F-35 has because it is underpowered.
COL Randall C. SSG Carlos Madden MSG (Join to see)
I know they said in Top Gun Maverick it's not the plane, it's the pilot!
Deathmatch: F-35 vs. F-16 Viper in a Dogfight (Who Wins?)
Platforms like the F-35 lean heavily into the prevailing wisdom that dogfights are a thing of the past, but that might not always be true.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
F-35s vs. F-16s: The Stealthy Jet with Advanced Sensors and Weapons Wins
F-35s may never need to engage in future dogfights - here's why
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google