John McCain: F-35 is 'a scandal and a tragedy'

CNN ^ | April 27, 2016 | Ryan Browne

[sukhoi-30mki]

Washington (CNN)Sen. John McCain slammed the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's troubled history Tuesday, saying it "has been both a scandal and a tragedy with respect to cost, schedule and performance."

The development of the Joint Strike Fighter, a fifth-generation stealth jet, has been beset by spiraling costs and schedule delays. The program's price tag is nearly $400 billion for 2,457 planes -- almost twice the initial estimate.

[Tallguy]

Nobody knows what the next president will do with the F-35 program. But if it gets canceled, Lockheed-Martin will just move on to the next aircraft design. They won’t really be mad. Why? Because aerospace companies are primarily geared for design & testing. That part is largely done and they’ve been paid (see “sunk costs”). The contract (IE “build price”) limits their prophits. They’d much rather get the next development deal. Why do you think they rolled over like a tame puppy when the F-22 was terminated at 187 airframes?

[Stand Watch Listen]

Related article:

Congress to Air Force: You Can't Retire the A-10 Until the F-35 Proves It's Better

[PreciousLiberty]

"The F-35 is a disaster because it is a design that was to do too many different roles for three different customers: USAF, US Navy, and Marine Corps. The result is a a compromise aircraft that really cannot do any of its jobs really well."

More accurately, it is three models (A, B and C) that share common components.

I'm curious, how do you explain previous multi-role aircraft like the F-15, F-16, and F-18? Each of them has variants that are world class capabilities in air-to-air, ground attack, SEAD, electronic warfare and so on. Do you really think we don't have the knowhow to build such systems from scratch?

"The USAF wanted a stealthy fighter that could, occasionally, drop bombs and give the illusion of close air support."

You have that backwards. The F-35 is primarily an attack plane, with air-to-air capabilities being a secondary role. CAS will primarily be provided via smart weapons directed by ground forces. After all, the ground forces are the ones who best know where the ordnance is needed.

"The problem is that if you want to carry a meaningful ordnance load, you have to mount the ordnance under the wings and your stealth goes away."

I guess if you don't consider two 2,000 lb. JDAMs (or eight SDBs), plus two AMRAAMs "meaningful", that's right. In the real world the stealthy configurations will be used in the SEAD role to eliminate SAM sites, and in the air-to-air role to achieve air superiority. Once that's done, external stores can be used for larger ordnance loads.

"The F-35A has yet to prove itself as able to dogfight and survive against the F-16 and F-15 it is supposed to replace."

Dogfighting is not the primary role for any fighter today. The reason is that air-to-air missiles have steadily improved over the decades since the F-16 was designed. Surviving the merge is the main issue. Further, the F-35 is not intended to replace the F-15 - the F-15 replacement is the F-22. Too few F-22s were procured, but that's another issue entirely.

"The Marines wanted an AV-8B Harrier replacement and the F-35B was the answer. The lift fan, only used for takeoff and landing, is otherwise dead weight during all phases of flight and limits fuel load and ordnance carried. The internal bomb bay of the aircraft is limited to 4,000 lbs. More ordnance requires external carry (as well as external fuel tanks) and that kills any stealth advantage."

The F-35 is superior to the Harrier in every way - payload, speed, maneuverability and of course stealth. Don’t take my word for it though (from http://www.sldinfo.com/an-update-from-eglin-on-the-arrival-of-the-f-35/):

SLD: As a Harrier pilot, could you comment on the potential arrival of the F-35Bs?

Col. Tomassetti: It is ultimately disappointing constantly to see in the news all of the things that the F-35B hasn’t been able to achieve yet or can’t do and people completely missing what we’ve already achieved.

The fact is that we have a STOVL airplane that every pilot who has flown it says that it’s easy to fly. In 60 years of trying to build jet airplanes and do this, we’ve never ever been there before. We’ve never had a STOVL airplane that was as full spectrum capable as it’s conventional counterparts. We’ve never done that before in 60 years of trying.

It’s an amazing engineering achievement; we’ve already accomplished is completely being missed by some observers.

To emphasize the money quote there: We’ve never had a STOVL airplane that was as full spectrum capable as it’s conventional counterparts. We’ve never done that before in 60 years of trying.

“The US Navy wanted a fleet defense fighter and it got the F-35C that has had protracted development issues, not the least of which was a redesign of its tail hook for carrier landings. The F-35C is far behind in its development.”

The F-35C was the last of the variants to be developed, has made numerous carrier landings, and is flying very successfully. Like the other variants it is mainly waiting on software, which it will get at the same time as the others. Again, don’t take my word for it, here’s a nice video of F-35C carrier operations.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/btNicqVLrFw?list=PLDF92451CB0870E9E

“All of this “commonality” has managed to produce the world's most expensive and delayed in development aircraft that really cannot do any of its proposed jobs well.”

That is pure speculation, since the F-35 hasn’t yet gone operational. I believe you’re 100% wrong.

“The F-35 is a turkey. The Services would be better to continue development of the F-16, F-15, and F-18 fighters and fighter/bombers because they DO WORK in the jobs intended.”

You are a stellar example of an (armchair) “general fighting the last war”. The “teen” fighters HAVE WORKED in the past. That doesn’t mean they’re up to the tier-1 threats they’d face going forward, like the SU-35 and advanced SAMs.

The F-35 is fundamentally sound, and far too much has been invested to throw away at this point - and that is aside from leaving numerous allies high and dry without a plane they’re counting on.

[PreciousLiberty]

You may find my last post above interesting...

[PreciousLiberty]

"President Trump will kill the F-35. Lockheed Martin will take it on the chin."

Nope.

[MasterGunner01]

Well, that was quite a spirited defense of the F-35. I'll bet you've testified before more than a few congressional hearings on this bird.

The one size fits all approach with providing the USAF, USN, and USMC with an aircraft tailored to their specific needs has resulted in a “swoose” — part swan and part goose — a compromise that really cannot do its specific jobs all that well. The basic concept is flawed.

As far as I'm concerned, the F-35 is a turkey. I also know that the politicians have invested far too much money in this bird to allow it to fail. That is why billions more will be spent by us and allies to “get right” the F-35.

After the F-35 becomes operational and the squadrons are filled, this plane will probably the last manned aerial platform The future lies with the autonomous aerial vehicle (AUAV). Tomorrow's pilots will sit in air-conditioned rooms thousands of miles from the scene of the action, monitoring the progress of their drones on video monitors and controlling them with joysticks. Other missions will be preprogrammed into the drone and the pilot will just go along for the ride to monitor things (and take control if necessary). The F-35 marks the end of the era of manned combat aviation in the fighter-bomber world.

[SZonian]

Well, that was quite a spirited defense of the F-35. I'll bet you've testified before more than a few congressional hearings on this bird."

PL dissects each and every one of your assertions and this is all you can come back with? An ad hominem?

Sheesh, FR continues to wallow in its own ignorance...

[MasterGunner01]

My opinion is that the F-35 is a turkey. That’s my opinion. Yours may differ. I don’t have any say in whether this bird will have billions of dollars thrown at it to make it well — and neither do you. It will happen and there is nothing that you nor I can do about this. The F-35 will be built and it will go into squadron service. That is a fact.

What I want to see is an honest comparison between the F-35 and the A-10 doing close air support under real world conditions. I don;t think the USAF wants to risk its billion dollar super plane doing mundane (and extremely dangerous) close air support work for the boots on the ground. The A-10 gets the job done very well and is extremely survivable. That’s something the F-35 has yet to prove. We could completely refurbish the entire A-10 fleet and fly them for years for the price of one F-35.