Does the F-35 have a 'brain' problem?

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS yes, I think so. The concept is a multi-role fighter/attack aircraft...because building & maintaining 5 or 6 "types" is more expensive than building & maintaining 2 or 3 "types". I used to defend the F-35 more, when the promises of its sensor-brain combo seemed to outweigh the aerodynamic penalty we were paying for low radar signature. Our DoD failure to control costs (the Prime contractor in any major acquisition system today knows he will get more funding by failing than by succeeding) and our AF failure to effectively monitor the LM software code writers, means I can no longer defend it. As we move more fully into software-centric aircraft, we may find more success in the Soviet model of continuous evolutionary improvement, rather than the US model, a 20 year mega billion dollar effort with a "big bang" revolutionary improvement.

Col Joseph Lenertz - Concur. The "bird" is definitely flawed based on issues, but I really do like the concept behind it. I'm a diehard A-10 fan (having seen them in action), and would love to have a similar replacement frame, but I can't logically fault the idea.

Unfortunately I don't know enough Air Side logistics to really delve into "this is how we keep it."

Col Joseph Lenertz - I see what you and SGT Aaron Kennedy are talking about, but with the F-35, it is a project that started 20 years ago, so when we first enlisted, this was already a "thing". Move forward and there is money being thrown around after 9-11 that hasn't been seen for decades. Maybe not since the 80's. But this project is still churning. NOW with Sequestration and budget limits, this quiet program is now something that folks are paying attention to. I believe the AF needs to have updated airframes, but it should not come at a cost that can take other ones out of the fight. You're right the A-10 will go away, but we're nowhere near that point yet. The AF leadership will try just about everything under the sun to put it in the boneyard, but they've been caught each time. For the sake of argument, lets say the AF operational budget is 500 billion for everything. From troop care to aircraft maintenance to post maintenance. That is not a lot of money for one branch at all, but lets add to that one project that is taking up a decent amount of that by itself. It should be analyzed and either placed on hold or scrapped. Now evidently isn't the time for it. As a branch Chief, I have a mission to uphold, men and women to move, and deployments to keep up with, so that money should be put to support current mission readiness which would include the current bundle of aircraft that they already have. I could be wrong, but in the operational budget, your procurement budget is in there. If not then my argument falls flat. If the F-35 had come later on, or ahead of this time period, it might be a great idea, and a sound system to develop and use. I cannot justify loosing 10-15 thousand Airmen, slowing their training, slowing PCS moves, or current readiness for a plan that has shown repeatedly it's nowhere near mission ready. The helmet for the damn plane is completely different than previous models and custom to the pilot. Sounds nice, but is it required....now? Who's going to maintain all this new pretty stuff, if you're loosing your experience and trained individuals?

SSG Warren Swan - I don't disagree with you, but let's draw a parallel back to the M16.

"Back in the day" every service had (or wanted to have) their own rifle. We now (50~ years later) have a "common platform" that we all use, with a common logistics chain including repairs, ammo (for the most part), and so forth. I can pick up an Army Rifle, an Air Force Rifle, or a Marine Rifle without issue. Sure the M16A1 "sucked," but the M4 is actually pretty nice.

How much pushback did the Army/Marines give regarding that, and keeping our M14s?

Now apply that same logic. Change takes time. Training takes time.

Now the F-35 is probably a lot closer to the M9 than it is the M16... but the concept holds true. Get everyone on the same page then it doesn't matter what each operator is using.

Money isn't an issue. I know it seems like it is. But it's a DIFFERENT issue. And it's unrelated, just like the CAS piece is a DIFFERENT issue. They're equally important, but they're distractions to this argument.

We can't say X is Bad because Y is Better. We can't say X is Bad because it Costs too much. We CAN say X is Bad AND Y is Better. We CAN say X is Bad AND it Costs too much. Those are RELATED arguments, as opposed to distractions from the arguments.