Center for Defense Information =
Far left lobbying cabal in DC
Definitely on the Obama hit list. Does anyone know what McCain’s track record is on this program? It has huge Fort Worth implications.
CDI is staffed by inept buffoons many of whom were former commissioned officers in the US military.
This article isn't even worth reading. Out of context, shocking words, and the rest of the typical hype and sensationalist crap these idiots write. All that matter is that you have a “cool sounding name.” You have lots of these experts in the field of politics/policy, defense, and environmentalism. They basically make a living by gossiping.
This is embarrassing to read. The F-35 is in trouble because the F-111 - in the mid-60s - had problems? Our fighters are bad because they use radar, and these dimwits think we’re likely to return to dogfighting? There is a problem because it ‘only’ carries 2 2000# bombs internally - more than a 111 and obviously with enough room to carry plenty of the smaller bombs?
This is pre-Vietnam analysis applied to a cutting edge fighter in 2008.
It is stupid.
Well, duh...like any bulk purchase, the more you buy, the bigger the discount.
Ok, interesting read. What to experienced, competent, technology-savvy, combat-experienced pilots think?
If they say its a mutt, then it is. If they say it’s too early to tell, then there needs to be patience about this project. If they say it’s a viable program with significant benefits to our war fighting capability then build the damned things.
We could easily afford just about anything we want to afford IF we would get earmarks and enetitlment spending under control.
Every military system has problems. Usually they don’t work correctly until they are deployed. All the systems used in Gulf War One had a hit piece on 60 Minutes Sunday show as a failure. They all worked very well.
It doesn't need more.As an old aviation fire control tech I am keenly aware of the quantum improvement in weapons delivery since Vietnam.
We used to load every ounce of ordnance a plane could carry to sort of "shotgun" a target.That's not needed now...something these yahoos apparently don't understand.
Tri-service? I know that McNanumbnuts and his Whizzed-on Kids tried to saddle the Navy with an overweight, underperforming, sorry excuse for a Fleet Defense Fighter in the F-111B. But, I'm sorry, I don't recall the Marine Corps ever being part of the TFX program.
As for tri-mission, I don't recall the F-111 ever being used or contemplated for use as a close air support aircraft.
It was a deep-penetration, precision, all-weather tactical strike aircraft in F-111A, -C, -D, -E and -F form, and a strategic nuclear bomber in FB-111A form.
This is the part that worries me because it is obviously true. The F-35 doesn't 'look' like a dogfighter & the engine thrust is just insufficient for the weight (which always increases as an aircraft is developed). I also don't envision the USAF ops planners sending this plane in low to support the troops. Even the low-end cost estimates make this plane too expensive to risk in that manner. It will never replace the A-10.
Does that take all the extra weight into account from more internal fuel than other planes like the F16 which has too short a legs?
Does the wing loading take into account the center fuselage itself which on planes like an F22/35 plays a major role?
The F35 performs incredibly mediocre when you look at things that don't matter, like some top speed over Mach 2, service ceiling over 60,000 feet, which like jumping tank pictures impresses the kids. But..... where it matters, acceleration, sustained turns, endurance, RCS, AESA, avionics/communication, warning and ECM capabilities, sensor fusion/integration.... the plane does very very well. -IMHO
Seems like these "experts" have forgotten that the USAF is fighting a war at the moment, and wars are really, really expensive.
I actually agree with their comments about the inventory -- I wish we had 3x more planes than we do. But the fact remains that a huge portion of the USAF budget is being spent on military operations -- which makes that money unavailable for acquisition.
Interesting,,, 49,500 takeoff weight, with a 42,000 thrust engine is bad in an F-35,,,
The F-16 is known for maneuvering, but it’s max takeoff weight is 42,300 lb. Depending on the options (v6 vs v8?)it’s thrust is 23,770 lbf or 28,600 lbf. How is this a smaller thrust to weight ratio?
Also, a 4000 lb bomb is nothing to sneeze at. Also this “internationally recognized fighter designer” needs to be told about precision munitions. (google is strangely devoid of his skysweeping masterpieces)
The Vietnam-era A-4s, F-4s, A-6s, A-7s, etc,,all practically had sagging wings from their loads of bombs. AND we literally sent swarms of them against things like, A SINGLE BRIDGE,,,A POWER PLANT,, etc,,. Why? To drop 40, 50, or 100 bombs, or more, to do what a single JDAM bomb does today. This is a “fighter designer”?. Maybe he would like a fleet of B-24s, they carry LOTS more bombs.
And to assess it as more vulnerable and less maneuverable than an F-105? Insane. Back it up. Has this man ever heard of vectored thrust?
To say that the F-111 failed, so this will too? It doesnt logically follow. The failure there was trying to make that behemoth into a carrier bomber, and not just to accept it as a magnificent aircraft for the USAF.
I was especially tickled at the assertion of an “internationally recognized fighter designer”, that now that flight testing is beginning we will likely find all kinds of horrible serious problems. See, we invented these fun machines called computers. If the P-38 and P-47 were designed today, compressibility, the proper counter rotating prop set up, the need for dive recovery flaps, the proper setup to run a bubble canopy, etc,, allllll would have been seen and completely understood in virtual testing befor the first one was built.
The days of throwing a bubble canopy on a razorback Thunderbolt, then realizing you lost some lateral stability, so we better throw on a small tail fin extension,,etc,,, are pretty much over.
New fighter designs basically fly right from the beginning. If he’s waiting for major airframe concept teething problems, he’s going to be really dissapointed Sure, there are a lot of things to tweak, systems to better coordinate, and other minor things to fix, but they all pretty much understand it on its first takeoff. It’s already had *thousands* of flights in a simulator that probably cost more than the plane itself, we aren’t talking home computer fighter plane games. The only exceptions are completely new concepts like the V-22, but in truth, the machine still was basically correct, it was just that our wonderful and brave pilots initally tried to fly it like it was a Ch-53.
I hope the F-35 is a success. No, I’m honestly not certain it’s needed. A-10s and F-16s and F-22s seem able to take care of anything looming on the horizon. And I would listen to an argument that its not needed, that the finances in buying it are corrupted,,,etc. But PLEASE, dont pass off this sophomoric drivel as the analysis of a “internationally recognized fighter designer”. This guy isnt a Kelly Johnson. For all i know, a british fabian society meeting clapped for him for trying to stop land mines. I wasnt to know a bit more about his “international recognition”.
It’s a good plane, the only true question is if its needed. This designers skill set seems very dated to me.
They oppose any defense spending and have zero credibility.
The upper military echelons are dominated by very ambitious men. All have advanced degrees. The most common degree in this group is the MBA.
This makes these men, as a group, incompetent. Certainly most experienced men and women will agree, at least privately, that MBAs are a disaster once they take control of any operation. They simply refuse to accept that they are incompetent, refuse to see the actual situation, and refuse to admit to themselves that they are lying to themselves.
There are many individual exceptions to this generalization, of course. They lead frustrating lives. Personal experience talking, here.
And the entire US Military is collapsing? In a meltdown? As a Marine from the early 80’s thru the Reagan transition i call BS. My first M-16 looked chrome it was so worn out. I had a WWII steel pot and a WWII .45. My tent was a WWI canvas shelter half. By todays standards, the training was utterly abysmal.
We felt superior to the National Guardsmen next door as they hooked up a BBQ smoker trailer to a Jeep to take along on their 2 week summer camp training.
Don’t kid yourself. These kids today would have handed us our ass. Im proud of em. The Marines stun me with their proficiency today. Todays Marines approach a lethality that Delta would have been proud of in 1979. Todays National Guard is a lean, serious outfit.
Our fighters have incorprated long bitter lessons. They are hardened beyond belief.
He may have *been involved* in design of a plane in the late 60s or early 70s, but he is wildly out of touch to say our armed forces are in collapse.
This is the argument of the maroons who whine that war fighting operations interfere with their training and maintinence schedules.
War zone operations have a leaning effect on a unit that nothing else does. The crap is quickly discarded as a deadly waste of time. The dandies are soon weeded out. A great example of this is the USAAF in WWII. Highly acclaimed leaders often turned out to be duds and were ruthlessly weeded out,, other unknowns rose to colonel in a year or two, and created a USAAF that was truly the terror of the skies. No sir, our services are not in melt down. The Wesley Clarks and Gen Sanchez’s get weeded out,,and the Patraeous’s are rising.
F-111 was only dual mission. Of course the naval fleet defense version was dropped pretty early on. The F-111 is still flying, 40 years later, in Australian service. They not only bought some new ones of their own (C models), they've bought 4 old USAF versions (A models), and brought those to pretty much the same configuration as the original Aussie version, which of course has been greatly updated.
They also have 14 F-111Gs, which were originally produced as FB-111s for SAC.
Whomever that may be; he should sit down with the warfighters, mechanics, support, logistics, ground pounders etc, and ask them what they need; What they feel is the better platform. I mean, can one airframe do three jobs, and do them well? I personally don't think so.
But I would go to the lower ranks from all services (Full bird and down) and disciplines, and get their take. And then go back and talk to the generals.