F-35B Deliveries in 2011 and a 10 Year Cash Crunch

F-35B Deliveries in 2011 and a 10 Year Cash Crunch

Yup, from F-35B deliveries in 2011 to predictions of a 10 year budget crunch, here’s a roundup of some ideas on the future of naval aviation as presented by senior Navy and Marine Corps aviation officials to an audience at the Navy League’s 2011, Sea, Air, Space conference just outside of Washington DC, today.

First off, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program manager Vice Adm. David Venlet let everyone know that it looks like the Marines will indeed receive B-model JSFs before the years end, noting that there are about 30 of the short takeoff and vertical landing planes in production under the LRIP 2 and 3 batches. While this doesn’t mean the Marine’s IOC date will swing back to 2012, it is a glimmer of hope for the B model which has been placed on a two year probation. So, far this year, the Bravo has demolished its flight test goals and just last week it performed its first ever automated short takeoff, according to Venlet.

Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. Terry Robling, the Marine Corps top aviation official made a rather sour prediction, saying the Pentagon should get ready for a ten year or “dual FYDP” budget crunch. This makes delivering aircraft on time and on budget all the more important lest they go away, said the three-star. This type environment adds to the importance of keeping legacy jets such as the F/A-18 Hornet in service until they are slowly replace by F-35s and the possibility that a sixth generation naval fighter may be a modified or upgraded variant of the F-35, added Robling.


Meanwhile, Coast Guard Chief of Staff, Vice Adm. John Currier said that his service needs tow new classes of maritime surveillance UAV to replace the Coasties’ HC-130 Hercules transports and its fleet of helicopters that are currently being used “inappropriately” as maritime surveillance aircraft. The service needs a broad area surveillance drone (sounds like the Navy’s BAMS) that can patrol wide swaths of ocean like the HC103s currently do and a smaller UAV that can serve as the eyes of the Coast Guard’s cutters in the same way the service’s choppers currently do, said Currier. Key to this will be following the Navy’s UAV programs very closely since Coast Guard doesn’t have the R&D cash needed to develop brand new UAVs for these missions.

Both Robling and NAVAIR chief, Vice Adm. David Architzel conceded that maintaining the aging fleet of F/A-18 Hornets is their number one headache when it comes to aircraft. Both noted how the Hornets were originally designed to fly about 6,000 hours before retirement and how the services have been working to push that out to 10,000 hours to help stave off a ‘fighter gap’ caused by the delay in fielding their replacement, the F-35. A Marine Corps F/A-18 recently suffered an engine explosion that injured 11 deck crew aboard the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis.

Oh, and Venlet also fired off this interesting piece of info, saying that none of the “mission system stability issues” that plagued the F-22’s avionics development are present in the F-35 program. Some have worried that the JSF, with its massive amount of software code would be beset by similar problems. However, the Pentagon and F-35 partner companies have largely learned from the experience with the F-22 and have so far kept the JSF’s mission system testing cruising along.

Here’s one last piece of interesting information about aging naval aircraft, the Marines are apparently talking with the Brits about cannibalizing the United Kingdom’s recently retired fleet of Harrier II jump jets for parts to sustain the Corps fleet of AV-8B Harriers.

 

Join the Conversation

Interesting process. The F-35 program busts schedules. Then a revamped schedule is published; then in a matter of months we hear that it is beating that schedule. The claim of doing great with the schedule would be OK if one ignores the fact that less than 4 years ago the program schedule looked like this;
http://​goo​.gl/​z​h​7Tp

Software stability. Awesome. Good work. That means there is less crashes or reboots in flight. I would predict few if any however software is half done and there is more than 3 times the software of the F-22. Anything representing a full go-to-war aircraft is a long way off. Important because then you will know if that software stability is real and takes into account thermal effects/cooling and so on. A CATBIRD helps but it doesn’t have the flight envelop performance of the F-35. Then too, mission systems won’t mean much if you don’t have a working helmet interface. That will be fixed—whenever and with the help of CAIV we can lower expectations/capability to meet cost targets. Yippie. This was already done with the watering down of software definitions of Block 1,2&3 software compared to 2006.

So what did Venlet say about the redesign fixes needed to make sure molding of parts met stealth requirements? This is a known issue where a solution may not be present in production aircraft until 2015. Mistake-jets is what we will be producing until then.

How about that learning curve gained (along with the alleged lower costs) by building a lot of jets? Hard to do with 400 jets cut early in the program for the U.S. requirement and a couple of hundred recently for LRIP and 150 UK orders that were supposed to happen a lot earlier. Add that up (and some other examples of production slots not happening to the Ponzi scheme promise) and you have a lot of fluff about production learning curve helping lower cost with not much to back it up. Meanwhile a lot of sub-contractors are sucking air building widgets in dribbles while the banker asks for money.

But yeah, great program.

Software development is not easy and incorporating the advanced avionics and networking systems of the F-35 into any other aircraft is going to be equally, if not more difficult. Yet such systems are a significant improvement worth the investment.

Good Old Lockheed Martin (Bring another Thousand) BOAT or in this case Trillions.…!!!! Willam C Thinks we need to cut Lockheed Martin some Slack after 15–19 years of lessons learnded in regards to the Avionics software that was suppose to be the little Sister to the F-22 (unless you happen to fly over the equator).

15–20 JSF JPO Program Managers in and out of the JSF Program in 15 plus years. Of course this includes this also includes the most resent Marine Corps Colonel that was fired/relieved of duty. The Program was so screwed up JPO had to bring in a retiring 3 star to help stop the bleeding. BTW: The Majority of these fired, removed and retired Officers now work for Lockheed Martin and solicit the Senate and Congress for continued funding. Yes, the Great Steven Hawkins would find it impossible to define the leading-edge of this JSF/F-22 Black Funding Hole. Here is an idea!!! Let’s not only procure another worthless platform at $150,000,000.00 Dollars Each times 2600 aircraft. Let’s build one with NO GUN on-board for Air-Air Combat, Afterburning engine for IRST recognition, NO Communications with F-22 or any legacy platforms and NO Creditable BFT-CID for Fratricide on Stealth Platform. What do you say!!! Let’s talk to Lockheed Martin and the 200 General’s they have working at Fort-Worth….

Trigger the avionics aren’t the same as the F-22A. Lets ignore the endless cost and schedule debates for a second and look at the aircraft itself. The F-35’s aerodynamic performance isn’t a huge step forward over 4th generation designs. Yet if there is one thing the aircraft gets right, it is the avionics and sensor suite. Most of the systems are developed by Northrop Grumman if I recall correctly.

Now I strongly believe we should have produced more F-22s and I think the Navy needs something like the old NATF proposal too. Yet the F-35 is a major improvement over the F-16, F/A-18(A-D) and AV-8 which it should be replacing. Naturally this depends on the fighter being affordable but surely there are better solutions than scrapping the program and starting back at square one.

Unless the stars align and Washington, the DoD, and our procurement system works in a competent manner, “restarting” the program even without the STOVL requirement will cost more. And if the such a miracle did occur in Washington, we could just fix the F-35.

The real size and complexity of the F-35’s software should have been taken into account by Lockmart when selling the US Military and half the world on this flying Ponzi scheme.

Any “supposed” improvements with the F-35’s much touted avionics remain in the world of make believe since for almost a decade we’ve waited for the JSF Program to produce anything that even resembles a functioning and battle ready fighter.

Considering that the F-35 long ago eclipsed the F-22 as the most expensive fighter program in the world, we should all hope that at some point (far in the future) something worthwhile comes from the staggering investment in this aircraft.

William C:

This is what the 2009 GAO report stated about the software development for the F-35:

“The joint estimating team believes that the software productivity rate will be less than the program’s calculation and anticipates much more growth in software requirements. The JSF
aircraft is expected to require 7.5 million lines of computer code—the most by far of any aircraft. By comparison, the F/A-18E/F has only 1.1 million and the F-22A 2.2 million. Experiences on past acquisitions have shown 30 to 100 percent growth in software requirements over
time, while the JSF Program Office estimate assumed no growth.”

So much for your recent comments about the lack of accuracy of the GAO. So here we are in 2011 and is anybody listening??

http://​www​.gao​.gov/​n​e​w​.​i​t​e​m​s​/​d​0​9​3​0​3​.​pdf

>Yet if there is one thing the aircraft gets right, it is the avionics and sensor suite

All the evidence is the opposite — quad redundant avionics that has crashed in testing as late as 2004. Software requirements that have been cut back so far that the aircraft can no longer launch a naval missile such as harpoon and has to resort to bombing. And court evidence that the software development isnt up to standard.

The F35 will be soaking up the airforce budget for two decades after becoming “operational” with fixes and patches. Which is exactly what Lockheed at it’s sycophants such as Bill want.

Software development is not easy…blah, blah. They had enough time and enough money. Get it done. Stop asking for more time and more money. Make it work as advertised and shut up.

“The F-35’s aerodynamic performance isn’t a huge step forward over 4th generation designs. ”

It’s about the same as 4th gens with external tanks and weapons, and about the same as 3rd gens clean. You might say it is “retro”. This might be a good deal if the price was retro, but alas, its price is 51/2 gen. It”s got that going for it, a mediocre performer at a premium price. I am constantly told that the avionics will make up for this inferiority, but proof of this will not be available for 5 years, and F-35 performance claims are unreliable in any case. We are totally committed, but I don’t have to be happy about it, and I want to see heads roll as compensation.

LOL sweet. One of USAF’s many biggest mistakes was not promoting John Boyd to General. If they had given him the credit he deserved and some people skills coaching, a lot of this nonsense would have been put it in it’s rightful place decades ago.

Ah…another internet “expert”. So it’s the equivalient of 3rd gen performance yet it gets an INCREASE with the addition of external tanks and munitions. Damn… if it just flies with its gear down it would have 6th gen performance!!! Yet further in your post you claim performace stats are “unreliable”.. in other words; you really have no idea as to what you’re talking about, you just don’t like the program (or what you think you know about it). If you could even explain the critical differences between a 3rd and 4th generation fighter aircraft I’d be surprised.

LOL @ William so if the avionics and sensor suite is what is “right”, then why not put the avionics and sensor suite into proven airframes, like the ones you mention, at a fraction of the F-35’s cost and schedule, and then we wouldn’t have to have the endless cost & schedule debates? Yah, and ya forgot A-10 in there too — F-35 replaces A-10 in DoD’s brainiac future force structure correct? SO looking at the DoD SAR looks like $68B is pissed away thru FY11 (into LM’s deep pockets) and the remaining balance of the program is $260B. Why don’t we scrap the dang thing and actually get something out of the $260B, rather than endure more and more years of foolishness and cost overruns by staying the current road to perdition? BTW $11B+ is pissed away every year we engage in these endless, foolish debates.

Agreed… in theory the suite sounds incredible, but the implementation has been a little rough, to say the least. The issues with the flight control systems are unforgivable at this stage in development. Other systems like DAS and EOTS, which are actually working decently well, could have slipped a little but this has all the signs of becoming a major problem in active service with endless software fixes after each mishap.

Long time no see Oblatski, are you going to try to sell us some Eurocanards today?

I don’t think integration of the Harpoon was planned, however the aircraft can launch the Naval Strike Missile under development however. Plus JSOWs, JSSAM, and JAGM. Yep, just bombs there.

He’s saying F-35 = 3rd gen clean or 4th gen loaded. 6th gen doesn’t exist, but maybe F-35 would be as good with 6th gen with a gear down if 6th gen were like the alien fighters from independence day. he actually has some good points. we will have no assurance of operational performance for 5+ years. Marketing data, hopes, dreams and promises, do not count. We’ve been victimized by industry & program official propaganda too many times. you’re a real sarcastic person, not very professional at all.

The A-10 isn’t one of the aircraft the F-35 SHOULD, be replacing but the USAF wants it to (and Gates is probably fine with this) and Gates wants it to replace most F-15s as well.

You would still run into problems with software development and integration if you were designing these systems to be integrated into other aircraft. It is likely that many of these aircraft would require significant work in order to fit these systems. The F-35 was designed with these systems in mind however.

And what is that “something” else you want to get? While the newest F-16(E-F) are nice aircraft, they aren’t stealthy, there is no room left for growth on the airframe, and that aren’t nearly as cheap as older models anyway.

I’d take Lockheed and test pilot claims over APA “expert” analysis.

i agree with some of gates’ moves, but f-35 definitely not. i agree with you that there are risks with any integration effort, which is why we should DIVERSIFY technology investment to reduce overall risk. Going “ALL IN” on a dog of a hand like F-35 is about as dumb as it gets. in the future when the A-10s are retired, and the ground friendlies get F-35 fly by and “bye”, they will have F-35 program advocates to thank. I’ve posted my alternative proposals many times. Rebuild the F-22 line and produce at a minimum sustaining rate, buy latest new F-15, F-16, F-18 platforms at minimum sustaining rates, start new programs for upgrades, restart tactical fighter mod programs at conceptual levels. Developmental programs that do not demonstrate an ability to produce useful products within budget must cease to exist. Too risky. We are better off improving upon what currently works, and fixing what currently does not. We do not need to make all in commitments to jump in the dark into a whole new universe of problems, i.e. the FCS & F-35 strategy.

what is APA? would you accept OSD & GAO analysis? any objective analysis besides the contractor making the big bucks???

What is required is understand where the F-35s has encountered problems and why those problems occurred. This is necessary to fixing the program, and fixing it is a far better alternative than scrapping the aircraft, telling all of the countries involved to go to hell, and starting at square one.

The F-22 is a great aircraft but you can’t possibly hope to replace our huge F-16 fleet with sufficient numbers of them. Something like the F-35 is supposed to be is necessary for that role.

GAO and OSD largely deal with price, schedule, etc. as opposed to actual performance, and some of their points are indeed valid. APA however is an organization intent on making everybody think the F-35 will be beaten by blind and deaf MiG-21 pilots.

The F-35 isn’t made out of solid gold or diamonds. Compared to the F-22 it’s stealth materials are easier to maintain, it only has one engine, and there is significant commonality between the three variants. There is nothing making physically manufacturing the aircraft horribly expensive. Rather it’s is problems in the massive development effort causing these cost overruns.

Cost and Schedule IS performance, from a strategic perspective. Every schedule delay is time we have to operate our aging systems against current and future threats. It also delays the availability of F-35’s replacement when it comes time for F-35 to go. Every dollar spent on cost overruns is a dollar that could be spent on a much needed capability somewhere else in the battlesphere. Cost, Schedule, and Performance are intertwined. Since we will never truly be able to know if F-35 satisfactorily performs, due to DoD’s obfuscation and classified nature of performance evaluation, we are left with only Cost & Schedule to fairly evaluate and compare programs. F-35 is a failure. If you cannot accept this, then you would have to tolerate similar Cost & Schedule overruns in ANY defense program. There is no logical reason to stay the course with F-35, and alternatives short of outright cancelation will merely delay the pain and increase the costs. Like I said above, if we want to get better at defending the country, we need to improve upon what works and fix what does not. There is no logical reason to stick with a proven loser like F-35.

The problems occurred because the Pentagon chose to buy before they fly.

The JSF competition was a joke. The prototypes prototyped nothing other than the basic layout and didn’t even test that to any real extent. The result of all the unforeseen development work required is that the F-35 is now too expensive to purchase and maintain without raiding other accounts and cutting capability. And, the longer it takes to field this aircraft, the higher the costs of our old airframes become until something there breaks.

We can not afford this airplane! When is that going to sink in with you? Living in denial of that and trying to hammer it through anyway will be worse than cancellation, painful as that is. There ARE alternatives.

JSF Is a Total Waste of Funding. NO GUN on-board for Air-Air Combat, Afterburning engine for IRST recognition, NO Communications with F-22 or any legacy platforms and NO Creditable BFT-CID for Fratricide on Stealth Platform. What do you say!!! Let’s talk to Lockheed Martin and the 200 General’s they have working at Fort-Worth…. The Damn thing cannot even take out a Bridge withouit hanging Pylon’s not to mention that our AIM-120 A/A Weapon has a PK Rate of less than 20%. We need addtional connectivity, longer range A/A Missles and Stand-off weapons. NOT another 15 Years of Hell on a Platform that is useless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get a Grip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW: William, You need to be a poster child for Lockheed Martin and that Worthless Platform.… You are attempting to convience folks that we acutally need this platform. In addition, we need OV-22’s like another hole in the head. They should build addtional CH-53K’s that are currently being built for the Marine Corps. The OV-22 is another non-conductive useless waste of funding.

Gate’s should do what Dick Cheney did with the A-12!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cancel JSF before it breaks the entire DOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dumb JSF advocates refuse to let affordability (and many other) issues sink in. They are biased, tunnel vision thinkers. They evaluate the costs of telling the truth (having JSF canceled and losing their job) against the costs of continuing the lies, spin, and promises of committing us forward with the program. They are not the ones who will pay the $260+ B balance of the program — they are trying to pocket as much of that amount as possible.

Don’t be confused by Vanlet’s statement. The Marine’s decided years ago to forgo purchasing the F/A-18E/F and kept with the F/A-18C/D’s that were at the time the smaller version of the Super Hornet (E/F) in order to purchase JSF. Why the Marines are treated like “Step-Children” in the DOD is beyond my comprehension. The Navy treats the Marine Corps badly. They should have forced the Marines to procure both the F/A-18E/F and the EA-18G, that are still being manufactured. The Navy should have at the same time procured the additional assets needed by the Marine Corps to make things happen. This is yet another reason why the Marine Corps should be a separate branch of service within the DOD!!!!

Janes 19 DEC 06: First Flight Report
Brigadier General Charles Davis, the executive officer for the air force’s F-35 Program Office, said the successful first flight provides important evidence that the programme’s aggressive deadlines and concurrent testing and production schedules can be achieved.
“It really proves the programme can step through a lot of the milestones we have planned over the next couple of years,” Gen Davis said…
Gen Davis, however, said the programme is on track and he is working with Lockheed Martin to secure a contract for six conventional and six short take-off and landing variants in 2008.
“We understand risks for schedules and we don’t see anything as a significant challenge,” said Gen Davis.

General Davis needs to be Fired!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I like the idea of USMC becoming a separate branch. My view is that the USMC should buy COTS & Non-Developmental Items and focus on being agile. However, my faith in the USMC dropped when they lied & pushed forward with V-22 and EFV. Neither of those programs demonstrates agility in thinking.

Wasn’t L/M the prime on the Presidential Helo that was cancelled too? A trend perhaps.….. Maybe a poorly performing or failed contractor shouldn’t be permitted to bid on any further work with DoD until they PROVE they can execute on cost, schedule, and performance.

Although the other COMMON FACTOR involved is NAVAIR.….. They share in the blame, as it seems like every program they touch catches the same cough.

“There is nothing making physically manufacturing the aircraft horribly expensive. Rather it’s is problems in the massive development effort causing these cost overruns.”

What a wriggling, juggling, illusionistic, logic-distorting disinformer!

The cost overrun of the whole F-$$ program – R & D obviously included – reflects itself directly on the increasing UNIT COST of EACH mass-produced aircraft (should this abortion ever get mass-bred), and not only from an accountant’s point of view, but also because hopefully all that R & D leads to ANY increased value of the final product, not just to mends and patches!

Go ahead, make another promise.

No what we cannot afford is operating the same 30 year old designs for another 30 years, and buying more F-15s and F-16s simply won’t cut it against modern air defense systems. When will that sink in? Like it or not systems like the SA-21 will get exported as will designs like the PAK-FA and J-20. You don’t fight the enemy on equal terms, you fight on your terms and superior equipment enables that.

Factoring R&D costs into average unit procurement prices isn’t an honest representation of what it actually costs to actually build the aircraft. Do that and the F-22 costs something like $300 million an airframe. And I don’t care if directly intervene and hand off production to Boeing or somebody else, I do not want to the services lose the improvements the F-35 promises.

you are correct. the amount of commitment into an R&D effort should be inversely proportional to the riskiness of the effort. there’s nothing wrong with pursuing “high risk” cutting edge defense technologies. however when it comes to recapitalizing our end items, we are operating systems way beyond their useful life. this is no place to be playing games with pursuing high risk technology. people’s lives are on the line. There is a correct way to maturely develop technology, and to gracefully egress out of a failed technology effort. DoD’s current acquisition practice is NOT the correct way to be investing in technology.

You are correct LM was the Prime on the Presidential Helo. Yet another wasted program. Lockheed is a Funding Pit with no bottom. Why would JSF and F-22 not be able to communicate? The questions are endless. LMCO is not looking after the best interest of the United States. They are looking after the Best Interest of Lockheed Martin and the hundreds of General’s they employ to blow smoke up Congress and the Senate’s ass by manipulating the current General’s at J8 and further up the Chain. No General should be allowed to work for an Integrator after retirement. We have been manipulated LMCO and Wall Street Interest long enough. There are Joint Standoff weapons and UAV’s that are more than adequate to take out an IADS, TST and High Value assets, without jeopardizing any aircrew on an overpriced piece of crap. When a Fighter Platform is built without an Internal Gun and no Connectivity we have a Problem!!!! Mullins needs to be fired and go back to work at Northrop Gumman Ship building so we can have additional targets manufactured.

All the more reason to can the JSF-type development paradigm where it takes 10–20+ years to even realize that you have a failed program to begin with. Another thing that doesn’t sink in to the gold-plated platform thinkers like yourself is that you seem to think these systems operate in some sort of technological vacuum simulation. You think “SA-21 + PAK-FA + J-20 vs current force F-15 & F-16 oh no we’re going to lose”. Such amateurish games thinking is not how the real world operates. Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, or, better yet, Grand Strategy. There are political, economic, social, doctrinal, logistical, morale, etc etc forces at work that defy your limited thinking conclusions. For example, suppose we get F-35, but because we expended all our resources in F-35 we don’t have a new Tanker for a longer period of time. Well guess what then F-35 is worthless. Shouldn’t a new Tanker be a higher priority? ANS: Yes it should, but DoD has higher priorities in its flawed industry-friendly, careerism, and narcissicm-focused acquisition strategy.

You responded to exactly nothing that I said and then coughed up a bunch of scary buzzwords.

Garbage. Moreover, the fat-in-the-can F-35 isn’t going to be much good against any of those systems anyway, if they live up to their billing. And even if they don’t, we still can’t afford the F-35! We can’t buy enough of them to maintain our capability, and they cost too much to operate. So we can’t go back to the old systems either? Well then, sounds to me like we’ve found the boundaries within which to solve the problem.

Yea you don’t think, you just mindlessly repeat Lockheed talking points.

Harpoon was thrown out along with two thirds of the weapons that the F35 was supposed to carry. Of course they will all have to be integrated again in the end. Having a naval strike fighter doing bombing runs on ships is a joke. It was just a way for Lockheed to claim progress and make sure another decade of rework and fixes.

Very good point. Not alot of people realize they are a big factor in these programs.

Bills complete embrace of failure as a lifestyle is emblematic of everything that is wrong with defense contractors. Only the application of market forces and competition on those companies will drive them to get rid of such deadwood and lickspittles that now dominate thier ranks.

The A variant has an internal gun. The B and C have a centerline gun pod. As for the rest of your “claims”, I don’t know where your getting them from but they seem pretty garbage to me.

Keep talking out your ass Oblatski, if integration of the AGM-84 was ever planned it was dropped at a very early stage. Care to explain which other weapon systems have been dropped? And as I just said it doesn’t have to do bombing runs.

For somebody who says I embrace failure you sure seem to be obsessed with failing at making any decent arguments.

They can communicate with other platforms. If you’re going to criticize the JSF actually criticize what is wrong with it rather than capabilities it indeed has.

What did you say? Too expensive? Well not everybody agrees on that matter which is exactly why the program is still ongoing.

Do you honestly think we could cancel the F-35 and develop and field one or two new fighters in less time and at a lower cost than what it would take to finish development of the aircraft?

We’d have to restart F-22 production and update it with some of the F-35’s systems which we probably should have done anyway, but it will be costly regardless. Then even with upgraded F-16s in the interim something to replace the F-16. The Navy also needs 5th gen stealth fighter of their own and you cannot hope to adapt the F-22’s airframe to that task without massive modifications.

And unless you want to fund another aircraft program the AV-8 gets retired with no replacement in the foreseeable future.

So with the exception of some more F-22s (which we should have gotten anyway ), we stick with upgraded F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s and pray this new fighter program actually works out? Considering the current state of the procurement system it will likely face many of the same developmental problems as the F-35 anyway.

The program is ongoing because it was made to be too big to fail. Except nothing is ever too big to fail in the real world, so what we actually have is a program we can neither afford nor afford to let fail. If it goes down catastrophically, we risk losing a huge chunk of our defense industrial base with it. If we don’t kill it, TacAir in all three services will have to cut wings to afford the aircraft it does buy. Rock and a hard place, we’re between ‘em.

…Unless you can think of someplace else to get the money. Now, do you honestly believe the baby boomers are going to work until they’re 75, while we grind down everyone else’s standard of living, just so we can buy some fighter planes? Good luck with that.

As for whether we can take a fighter from concept to combat-coded in less than a decade? You’d G-D better believe we can! It’s been done before, we have some pretty useful bits and pieces that have already been developed sitting on the shelf that can be rolled right into a clean sheet design. The only thing stopping that from happening is continuing to do business as usual. It’s over! Whether you understand that or admit it or not, we can’t continue doing things like we are.

I want to be optimistic here, but if we could get a 5th gen stealth fighter from drawing board to full operational capability in less than a decade, why the hell can’t we fix the F-35?

Or let me put it this way, if we can’t even fix the F-35 how can we expect to do that, let alone NGB or F/A-XX?

I know naval fighter jets are aging and a replacement is required soon enough. But is this F-35 program worth the cost of life support, or should this program be allowed a dignified death and a better aircraft be tested? Did the designers of the F/A-18 have this much development problems and cost over runs? With all the powerful minds working on the F-35 program, what is the problem? Is this a truly “better” design given current technology or just more fancy and expensive? All this does is leave our sailors at a disadvantage should hostilities break out!

All I can suggest is you read a bit more up-to-date specs, and calm down. The F-35 is a STRIKE aircraft (the “S” in JSF…) that can handle large conventional bomb loads (JDAMs, JSOWs, etc) in the wpn bays, as well as external pylons. The “A” model (Air Force) has a 25 mm cannon integrated into the airframe, while the “B” and “C” models will use a cannon pod, should it be deemed required for the mission. Maybe with a little urging, they could add a forward-firing vickers 30cal through the canopy for those pesky legacy enemy aircraft (no prop to shoot through, so no interrupter gear is required). F-35 ( the actual aircraft which grew out of the JSF proposal) has comm with legacy platforms, as well as IFF, etc. If you are objecting to an afterburning engine from a SAT recognition standpoint, get a grip. F-35 is also capable of supercruise. Just curious, which 15 years were wasted on which useless platform? F-15, F-16, F-18, F-117? Don’t think so…

Byron here is the problem. JSF Cost does not fullfill the mission. Therefore, it needs to be stopped. BTW: We are still building F/A-18’s both model’s infact as we speak. One last note. I hope JSF has been plumbed with the ability to refuel aircraft on a CVN like the E model F/A-18. The new F/A-18E is the only platform on a CVN with Tanking capability. Admiral Mullins and his 1000 after burning Ships took all the funding to keep other platforms such as the S-3 and A-6 around to keep the fighters refueled. Therefore, JSF is going to have to pick up the slack. Go Texaco.…. $150,000,000.00 Dollars EACH times 2600. Do the Math. Over the lifespan of JSF we could upgrade all our standoff weapons and platforms for years, and years with more capability. JSF Overpriced, under performing and worthless.

Thanks Donnley. Didn’t the US try this JF program with the F-111 and A-5 without success? Not too many aircraft in a joint system worked well for all the services. I know the old F4 Phantom was a successful JF. Thank you for the information about the F-35. I have not been keeping up with this, although every time I look seems the news is negative about this program. Any good news or progress about this program? I think this is a waste of money and causes the military to miss the chance to put into service a fighter that will work and save lives.

Lockmart has said a lot of things about the F-35 over the last 10 years and about 90% has been pure crap. And these hypothetical superior systems either remain on a PowerPoint slide, or as unverified lab equipment.

Lets take that wonderful helmet mounted display as an example; for years the entire design of the avionics has been around this “advanced” helmet mounted display replacing the standard HUD. Did anyone verify that this display would actually work as advertised by empirical testing on other aircraft?

So now we have a F-35 production line building hundred billion dollar stealth fighters with no HUD all dependent on a gee whiz high tech display that doesn’t work!

That superior sensor fusion, its all hypothetical. Since we’re years away from them even getting the software caught up with all this marvelous “advanced” hardware, it will be 2018 or beyond until we actually get to see the DAS, EOTS, and the AESA integrated together in a functioning aircraft with battle ready avionics.

Not a single penny more of funding should go into this aircraft until Lockmart produces a real battle ready fighter that can be tested and verified by military test pilots.

The benchmark aircraft that the new Russian and Chinese stealth fighters are being designed with is the F-22, NOT the F-35.

The F-35 with its F-16 style performance will be completely unable to handle the PAK-FA/T-50 or a production J-20. It is NOT a real 5th generation fighter.

I’ll take a US military test pilot over a paid Lockmart employee any day of the week, thanks!

BTW — much of what APA has predicted over the years has come to pass with the F-35. Bitching about them in negative comments won’t make the real problems with the JSF go away.

I not sure why your telling someone to criticize accurately the F-35. Valid comments don’t seem to make much of an impact on your opinion, right?

Because most of the stuff people like you and him criticize isn’t valid. “Can’t communicate with other aircraft?” It can.

Like the US military pilots that have actually flown the thing and praised it’s handling? Or do they not count for some reason? APA which has their own interests at stake in this F-35 matter by the way. 20/20 hindsight is hardly that impressive.

These fighters won’t be aiming for gun kills or using rear-aspect only heat-seeking missiles. I believe we need contined development and production of the F-22 to provide an aircraft clearly superior to those designs, but the F-35 can hold its own.

IMHO — There is nothing dignified about SDD costs doubling, unit price doubling, and development schedule slipping greater than 5 years.

If they don’t praise it they commit career suicide

NO. we should never repeat this joint multirole crap ever again. then we would not repeat the F-35 developmental problems

great. we can invest the savings in other defense programs that make a difference, and the talented people can make even more money on those programs. i don’t want crybabies developing defense systems anyway.

no need to stay humble. F-35 advocates don’t.

and BTW national defense investments should be made based on their return to national defense. I could care less about how fun of a joy ride the jet may be to a pilot.

F-22 for air supremacy. Kill F-35 = more money for more F-22 air supremacy. plus no air platform can “ensure” air supremacy. Terrorist attacks, destroying the runways, destroying the tankers, jamming comms, cyber attacks are all tactics that enemies could employ to deny air supremacy, and none of these tactics require sending up an enemy aircraft to joust with an F-35.

Chopping Block, shopping list: JSF, F-22, Next Gen Bomber. These three platforms alone would pay off the National Debit in Savings. Fire, Admrial Mullins, and his damn Stealth Boat This is not hard.

Aim-120 PK rate of 20%??? What are you smoking? Obviously you haven’t worked the AMRAAM program and don’t know first hand what the missile can do! I worked AMRAAM for almost 30 years as part of the prime contractor team so you might want to check your specs.

As far as the F-35, “oh no, it’ll never cost as much as the F-22″! Right! A single engine airplane now as much as $150 million a copy! Give me a break. The only reason that the Air Force is stuck with this dog is because of politics and foreign orders/parts build. In the F-16’s life, we have lost more than 400 of them, mostly because when the engine quits, the pilot is out of altitude, airspeed and ideas. Sorry, but give me a Raptor any time and let the Marines have this thing if they need vertical takeoff and landing. BTW “Trigger”, I don’t personally know one pilot that would even consider using a gun in a dogfight, and I know plenty of them. That was about 40 years ago.

AJ, pull your head out.

Give me a Break.… You must work for Lockheed, I need more funding Martin. That Platform is DOA.

Fire Admiral Mullins, NOW!!! He is a National Disaster, leading the DOD to the Brink!!!! He has made bad decisions and continues to be a poster child for Corruption, Stupidity and inept rational. The Only Admiral Left in the Navy that has credibility, integrity and unlimited leadership ability and can fill a true Senior Leadership, in the DOD at the Joint Level is Admiral Donald Gaddis. This Man can make a difference.

The S-400 SA-21 is capable of destroying stealth aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with an effective range of up to 3,500 kilometers (2,200 miles) and a speed of up to 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) per second.

Eliminate JSF, NGB, B-2, and F-22. Fire Gates, Mullins and all of Air Force Senior Leadership for pressing and funding these Stealth Platforms for years. Investigate these idiots.

Cocidius — I strongly agree, that the F-35 is not a true 5th Generation Fighter.

This aircraft will not survive, and will not be capable of doing the job in the near and wider regions, awash with proliferating Russian / Chinese fighters and SAM systems, thus cannot guarantee regional air superiority etc. Single-engine not surviable for land and overwater operations.

In my opinion, purchase the latest new F-15Es while they are still in production and restart the F-22 program. So therefore mix force of both F-15Es and F-22s provide a powerful punch.

The Boeing Company from St Louis should develop the F-15F model as an export type, a single-seat variant of the F-15E with multi-role capabilities & stealth features. An export variant for other allies to keep the production lines beyond 2012, to provide an opportunity for new customers to purchase additional aircraft as well as the F-15SE model.

Open up F-22 to export to our closest allies as well. Keep on producing F-22 at minimum sustaining rates. Cancel F-35. Sustain and keep production lines open for F-16, F-18, and F-15.

@ Break The Cycle — Indeed, cancel the F-35 all together. Sustain and keep production lines open for F-15s and F-16s and certainely open up to export the F-22 to closest allies too. I’m very concerned with the F/A-18 Super Hornet. Its characteristics, up against the Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30 Flanker variants will outperform the Super Hornet in all key performance parameters by widely available fighters. Which means the APG-79 AESA radar will vanish in coming years as Russian AESAs emerge, defensive systems include a Radar Warning Receiver, mostly variants of the SPO-32 / L150 Pastel digital receiver carried. Newer Flankers however carry the podded wingtip mounted KNIRTI SPS-171 / L005S Sorbtsiya-S mid/high band defensive jammer developed for the Tu-22M Backfire C.

(More information about the F/A-18 Super Hornet vs. Sukhoi Flanker)

The Sorbtsiya-S, unlike most Western jamming pods, is designed to operate in pairs and uses forward and aft looking steerable wideband phased arrays to maximise jamming effect. It is worth observing that the Sorbtsiya is clearly built to provide cross-eye jamming modes against monopulse threats, and the wideband mainlobe steering capability provided by the phased array permits best possible utilisation of available jamming power. A graded dielectric lens is employed. Russian contractors have been using Digital RF Memory (DRFM) technology, which is of the same generation as Super Hornet EWSP. The Super Hornet does not have any compelling advantage in EWSP capability.

(More information about the F/A-18 Super Hornet vs. Sukhoi Flanker)

The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers, which will be running rings around the Super Hornet in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in WVR close combat. With inferior acceleration, extreme agility, lack of long range / payload performance and poor survivability. Two or more aircraft required to match range / payload of single F-15E variants or F-111. vs Sukhoi Su-27/30/35; significant dependency on AEW&C, AWACS and tankers to provide useful capability. The Super Hornet is unsuited for bomber and cruise missile defence due to limited endurance, limited missile payload and limited supersonic speed. Aerodynamically uncompetitive aircraft provides little useful capability in primary roles.

In the air superiority role, for example the Sukhoi Flankers carry much better AAM weapons than the western types, especially the Novator R-172/K-100 ‘AWACS killer’ missiles, AA-11 Archer (R-74), AA-12 Adder (R-27) and AA-10 Alamo (R-27) family AAMs. The F-35 sits in the same category as being double inferior. Use the small airframes like the F-16s for light threats and use the large airframes like the F-15 or F-22 for high threat environment.

William C. — The F-35 will not have a qualitative edge over against Sukhoi Flanker family of aircraft, particularly post 2010 configurations; definitely post 2015 evolved growth variants, no matter what the upgrade. Canadians or the US Allies are committed to this JSF project are certainely not missing something when it comes to their debate over the purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter. Opponents to the JSF are very strongly not missing the broader point. I state that the Lockheed Martin JSF aeronautics, designers, engineers, test pilots etc are very strongly missing the entire broader point. Again this JSF is a dog in all of its multi-role capabilities. Its too heavy and sluggish to be successful as an air superiority fighter in aerodynamic terms.

With very high cost — uncertainties in total numbers will persist until at least 2015. Remains in development in difficulties in performance, weight and cooling capacity PLUS significant software and system integration challenges. Potential for significant variations in capability, cost and schedule timelines with high likelihood of current
risks materialising and further risks arising eg. software problems, partners leaving program, Congressional intercession. Unsuited for bomber and cruise missile defence due to limited endurance, limited missile payload and limited supersonic speed. The JSF is a failed project and it should be cancelled.

William C. — The JSF will be extremely useless. Is because it can’t turn, its hugely flammable and vulnerable to any gun fire. The stealth doesn’t work, the stealth is a total delusion. The JSF is 50 times worse, which cannot perform close air support role. Wrong replacement for Australia’s F-111 fleet which cannot perform long range strike and low level TFR. How can you survive without agility, acceleration, long range and missile payload to be able to defeat SAMs and enemy aircraft. And by just relying EW system, APG-81 AESA, BVR and cruise missiles as stand off. It’s totally unreliable, can’t survive, the pilots will be horrified with this inferior aircraft and shows that all the Air Forces, Navy and Marine Corp will be totally ruined. Its a Baby Seal, is because the JSF doesn’t perform well and it looks like one.

Single engine, a.k.a not surviable and risks for land and overwater operations. You’ll be a dead duck with any single engine aircraft.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.