Posted on 04/02/2018 3:49:25 AM PDT by maddog55
Jim Roche, then-Secretary of the Air Force, made an announcement on October 26, 2001, that all aviation enthusiasts had been waiting for: a winner had been picked to design and build the Joint Strike Fighter. The American people were assured the new jet would enter service in 2008 and be a high-performance replacement for the military’s aging airframes while only costing between $40 million and $50 million.
The F-35 has now entered an unprecedented seventeenth year of continuing redesign, test deficiencies, fixes, schedule slippages, and cost overruns. And it’s still not at the finish line. Numerous missteps along the way—from the fact that the two competing contractors, Lockheed Martin and Boeing, submitted “flyoff” planes that were crude and undeveloped “technology demonstrators” rather than following the better practice of submitting fully functional prototypes, to concurrent acquisition malpractice that has prevented design flaws from being discovered until after production models were built—have led to where we are now. According to the latest annual report from the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E), 263 “high priority” performance and safety deficiencies remain unresolved and unaddressed, and the developmental tests—essentially, the laboratory tests—are far from complete. If they complete the tests, more deficiencies will surely be found that must be addressed before the plane can safely carry our Airmen and women into combat.
(Excerpt) Read more at pogo.org ...
What many people miss when discussing the variants of the F-35 is that as a Fifth Generation fighter, its operational envelope(s) is not the only important characteristic. These fighters are characterized by their ability to see and sense, as well as communicate and share, their battle environment in a way the previous fighters could not.
The ability to engage, avoid, surround and destroy is totally different from other fighters. So much so that understanding those capabilities and utilizing them takes more training that the flight control familiarization.
The F117 was first of its kind but designed before computers could calculate the stealth reflective requirements of a complex surface that was more than just flat facet plates. The F35 is as stealthy as they come. If you have not read “Skunkworks”, read it.
People try to compare the accomplishments of 2nd and 3rd generation fighter/attack aircraft from the 2nd and 3rd generation wars to 4th and 5th gen aircraft in wars that have yet to be fought. Bad comparison. To inflict the same damage today as in the 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s, we need an order of magnitude less aircraft and an order of magnitude less munitions. The increased cost is necessary as the less expensive older frames will not survive in the contested environment of modern day adversaries. I am talking about Russia, China, and their clients using modern Russian SAMs like Iran.
No airframe in modern warfare has ever come off the assembly line full up. They all go through upgrades, modernizations, software improvements, and various reworks. The F35 is no different, yet its capability is pretty much unsurpassed according to the crews that are using them today. I’ll take their word over these hit pieces.
Look at the roles or missions an aircraft could be tasked with today: defensive interceptor, offensive TARCAP, general air superiority, recon, precision strike, SEAD, EW, anti-armor, anti-ship. Launched from established air bases, launched from forward operating bases, launched from aircraft carriers.
Other than sharing the requirement of something that flies, most of these missions have contrasting and competing, even opposing requirements. The air-to-air role is arguably the most demanding. You want stealth to stay off the adversary's long range sensors. You want long range weapons and sensors for a BVR engagement. Yet you want to be able to turn and burn with a highly maneuverable aircraft for dogfighting. Now decide you want to be able to do all that not only over your own defended assets, but a thousand miles away or more establishing TARCAP. If you really want to be the best air superiority fighter you're designing and building a thoroughbred, a Ferrari.
But then someone says they want the same aircraft to haul a decent amount of precision strike ordnance. You need to build a pickup truck. Then someone says they want to slam it into a carrier deck repeatedly in the controlled crash Navy pilots call landing. So you build it with off-road level suspension. Then someone says they want it to take off and land vertically from unimproved fields. So you build it light with great MPG...
The problem really is expectations. As technology has improved yes, multi-role aircraft can and have improved at all their roles. However, dedicated single-mission aircraft can and have also taken advantage of these technology improvements. Trying to force a multi-role to be as-good-as a dedicated airframe is a recipe for disappointment, problems, redesigns, failures... gee, kind of what we're seeing with the F-35.
I believe we should build 2, maybe 3 "classes" of airframes. One should be a dedicated, kill anything in the sky fighter. That's it's one job and it is the unquestioned best. Yes it may need tanker support, may have limited internal weapons inventory to maintain stealthiness. Build simple, dedicated hotrods. I know some ex fighter pilots - there would be fist fights to join those squadrons. The second class would be strike support. Reasonably fast, able to get there in time to matter, but with airframes optimized for hauling the mail. Yes they would "hide" behind their fighter brethern, but these guys would have the capacity to carry the ECM and EW support. They'd carry the long range weapons that could be launched and handed-off electronically to the fighters out in front of them. These would be simple rugged airframes. Carry a couple dozen weapons - air-to-air, air-to-ground. But these are just the delivery vans, firing and handing off the weapons to the fighters. The third class would be the brains behind them all. Something like AWACS, but at a tactical level on more like an A-6 airframe. These would be the expensive, electronics laden brains behind the fight, but in close enough to matter - to maintain links via RF or laser in spite of jamming efforts etc. These are the ones that allow you to keep the others relatively simple aircraft.
Ok, granted, but they still have the E-2 and EA-6B, plus the C-2.
Not quite designed as “one size fits all”.
The F-4 and A-4 were designed specifically as Navy carrier aircraft. It just ended up that they were such good solid all-round aircraft built for the stresses of Navy use that the other forces liked them. :^)
The F-4 Phantom - Proof that with a big enough engine you can make a barn door (actually the whole barn) fly... ;)
It was a pipe dream from day one.
Propaganda? Just maybe?
Could swear I read something about us giving $3B in military aid and they had to use it to buy the F-35.
We do give them that much in aid, but how they spend it (on US systems) is up to them. They would not spend that much on a fighter if they could get a better one - especially if it cost less. They have plenty of other places to spend those funds.
This is true, but it was intended to be a carrier aircraft and a do-all platform.
EA-6 is retired from Navy service too.
The Marines still have a few land based ones that will be retired by this time next year.
Not even close. Toss the electronics being withheld from the F-22 and it eats the F-35’s lunch. The F-35 is less stealthy and its radar half as powerful as the F-22.
Do you really think ANY pilot or politician is going to poo-poo an expensive new aircraft purchase??
So? Carriers are for beating up third-world nations. Don’t need advanced aircraft for that anyway.
If your comment is serious, I will let others chastise you for it. Carriers are for whatever the threat is anytime, anyplace.
Not against first world nations. They’d last about 12 minutes.
You understand that any nation that takes out a carrier has just started WWIII. At that point all bets are off. If you are advocating against carriers because they wont survive WWIII, then we might as well just not spend anything on defense.
Carriers, unlike missile silos, get more bang for tax dollar bucks, just because they are multi-purpose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.