Home » Naval » Marines see light at the end of the F-35B tunnel

Marines see light at the end of the F-35B tunnel

By Philip Ewing Friday, July 29th, 2011 1:30 pm
Posted in Naval

Would Congress or the Pentagon take away the Marine Corps’ ability to fly fast jets from big-deck amphibious ships?

It seems inconceivable, but that’s what would happen if DoD canceled the Marines’ F-35B Lightning II — and that’s probably why it was never actually a serious option. The service’s AV-8B Harriers are wearing out, and there’s no time or money to opt for anything else besides the B. But the B had its high profile, well-documented development problems, and to show he meant business, former Secretary Gates put the jet “on probation,” warning that unless it got it act together … something … might happen to it. (Nothing was going to happen to it.)

Program officials today say they’ve got the B’s problems just about licked, and now the key is to try to restore the jet’s good name — or give it one in the first place. To that end, the Marines on Friday flew a group of reporters — sadly, not including your correspondent — from the Pentagon to Naval Air Station Pax River aboard an MV-22 so they could watch a B doing its thing. Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos told them, and an industry audience this week, that he is confident the B can get off “probation” as soon as Secretary Panetta gets the full picture of how far the program has come, with all its many short takeoffs and vertical landings. It wouldn’t be surprising if the B is taken off “probation” before or just after its planned shipboard tests this fall aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp. Not only that, if the Marines can demonstrate the jet works as advertised, they’ll have a leg up on the Navy — its C-model isn’t supposed to fly on and off a carrier until 2013.

Amos and other top Marine Corps officials say the country is getting a great deal with the Bs and Cs: When they’re in service, it’ll be the first time in decades that the naval services can operate the same frontline fighter from all the fleet’s different flight decks, Cs from full-sized, nuclear-powered carriers and B from smaller, conventional LHDs and LHAs. That means tomorrow’s stealthy Marine squadrons could take first-day-of-the-war missions that Harrier squadrons never could. And that, Amos argues, effectively doubles the number of capital ships in the U.S. fleet — assuming the Navy doesn’t lose some to the Mother of All Reviews or a last-minute debt ceiling bargain.

Join the Conversation

	freefallingbomb July 29th, 2011 at 1:43 pm Text excerpt: “…they could watch a B doing its thing.” Meaning they really managed to make it land?
	Oblat July 29th, 2011 at 2:12 pm “Program officials today say they’ve got the B’s problems just about licked” Fixed all the problems in 6 months? — rubbish — Yea the next thing we here will be a cancellation. They are all just openly lying because they know their jobs are on the line.
	RunningBear July 29th, 2011 at 2:29 pm Woe is me! Nothing to complain about! Anyone betting on the “Bee” as the weak sister in the F-35 program were deceiving themselves or ignorant of the “Can Do” Marines. They would have sold their leave time, uniforms, MREs and anything they could appropriate from the Navy to make this program successful, but never their integrity. They will win, in the end. The “Bee” is flying and BF-1 (alone) has made 100 vertical landings. As other nations observe the USMC flying the “Bee”, more will be bought similar to the Harrier’s experience. The WASP is waiting to receive aboard the “Bee” for flight testing and subsequently the Corp wil move to IOC before either the AF or the USN. Semper Fi
	freefallingbomb July 29th, 2011 at 2:35 pm It can land, it can land!
	STemplar July 29th, 2011 at 2:46 pm Any plane can land, the question is will it be able to take off after the landing.….
	Weaponhead July 29th, 2011 at 3:09 pm Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is a train coming the other way! Long story short, as long as we keep dumping unlimited amounts of money into this program we will get limited positive results, an unaffordable unit price, and an unaffordable sustainment cost.
	Gregory Savage July 29th, 2011 at 3:29 pm First off it’s hear not here. But to the point, you seem to be just hating at this point.
	@Earlydawn July 29th, 2011 at 3:40 pm All of this is complete and total nonsense until we hear a price tag.
	freefallingbomb July 29th, 2011 at 3:49 pm Did you hear that: F-$$s can land!!! A new chapter in aviation history has begun! J-20 pilots are quaking in their boots.
	@E_L_P July 29th, 2011 at 4:01 pm Good message that the reporters went out to the press visit in the MV-22; or has everyone forgotten what happened over a decade ago? A can-do attitude is worthless if what is being done isn’t backed up by something solid. A Marine and his rifle is dependable. A Marine managing a bleeding edge aerospace project; not so much. The F-35 actually has to do its mission with operating weapons you know. No weapons cleared yet. Mountains of software to do. Including; the displays in the helmet don’t work. A high operating cost per hour. Too expensive to use for low threat wars (Libya), too weak to take on emerging threats. I guess “first day of the war” means a war it won’t go up against high-end threats. For real high-end survivability*, it isn’t just a small F-22. Once the export-friendly (mostly front aspect) stealth is naked you have problems because the F-35 has no super-cruise and extreme altitude to back it up like the F-22. Where LM stated after the F-117 shoot-down, even a small turn increases your radar-cross-section by a factor of 100 or more. So what happens when the F-35 is naked? It has some expendable decoys. Big deal. They say the front aspect only AESA will be able to jam. However this has never been proven properly (heat and sustained output) and it is only in-band (surprise-surprise). The AESA in the Super Hornet is on par or better than the F-35s AESA and here is a stunner. Australia marked the over-sell of AESAs alleged jamming capability (Their new Super Hornets) as being one thing hyped by the sales force as not viable. So, the F-35 has no real defense once it is naked. This brings us back to the Super Block II which has near all-aspect defensive jamming that works along with a towed decoy that along with the emissions detection is all fused and works well. Both the Super and F-35 second-tier fighters. One works and costs a lot less. One is grossly over-sold. The JORD for the F-35 done over 11 years ago was dependent on there being enough F-22s to clear the big threats. We know how that turned out. The F-35 design is not stable, so there is no production learning curve of worth. Without that, it can’t be built in quantity. Where the whole “affordability” lie was based on them building this jet in quantity. Want to argue that? Take it up with Carter. He stated as much which is why the next production batch (LRIP-5) is going to be 30-some jets. Note: LRIP-5 in 2003 was briefed as 120 jets. In 2009 it was briefed as 61. Real fixed-price contracts aren’t good for anyone because they are still building mistake-jets because everything isn’t figured out yet. Fixed-price contracts are for when everything is pretty much figured out; like a Super Hornet. Harriers btw can last out to early 2020s. Not that we need them as the STOVL mission is over-sold. Find a real air campaign where it mattered. If you had a war and no STOVL showed up; who would care? Then there is the logistics. An F-35 will need 7 tons of gas for every sortie. I guess austere basing (the Holy Grail of land-based STOVL) will have a new meaning. LHDs groups will make nice targets if this is all that will protect them. We could see the end of fast-jet Marine-air only because they painted themselves into a corner. Unfortunately for them, they did not invest in a plan-B which would be 2 seat, block II Super Hornets. Where it always takes off with a gun and the guy in back is highly useful for CAS. And, the platform doesn’t cost an arm and a leg. Even NAVAIR tends to think there is more over-all value in a Super Block II. http://goo.gl/VN4mf
	dirtylodown July 29th, 2011 at 5:02 pm Lets see it after having a full combat load.
	Tee July 29th, 2011 at 8:34 pm You won’t hear the price, because the F-35B will be canceled along with the whole JSF program because of the up coming budget cuts, as will the LCS program. With somewhere between 400 & 800 Billion on the chopping block 382 Billion won’t be considered doable under the new austerity DOD is facing in the coming years. I was a F-35B fan boy from it’s conception. Because IMHO in a shooting War long runways won’t exist. China has enough Runway Denial missiles to keep most if not all the Pacific bases shut down for around 14 days ( and we don’t have enough reloads for our Surface to Air systems in place to stop them ). So our only hope was a STOVL aircraft that doesn’t need long runways to operate from. So we could stay in the fight. Now that China has the J-20 coming soon, so you can pretty well give up on the idea of using tankers, they will be easy prey. But there is still hope by using some Gen 4.5++ STOL aircraft.
	ribby22 July 29th, 2011 at 11:01 pm the Marines should forget about the “B” and buying anymore of those peices of crap V-22s , both of those systems are not worth the money for the advantage they bring to the table. the engine from the F-35 is based off from the F-119 in the F-22. that engine should be putin all F-35s with the thrust vectoring nozzel on it . That would make the f-35 much better maneuverable and it might inprove the rear quarter stealth of the F-35 , if it could maneuver like the F-22 it would be much more credible as an air-air platform. And who knows it might be able to take off from a Marine amphibious helicopter ship with out a catapult and just a few arresting wires to land with. as far as the V-22 the gain you get with the little extra speed is not worth the price, they say it works fine now and is an assit to our Marines , that may be some what true but it is not worth the $70 million they are paying for it . we could do way better than that and for alot less money and have a much safer transport helicopter.
	pfcem July 29th, 2011 at 11:14 pm As of Jul 26 the F-35B has completed 187 flights & performed 112 vertical landings so far THIS YEAR.
	pfcem July 29th, 2011 at 11:18 pm Given that the “problems” were primarily minor parts reliability issues with ONE airframe & the test program now has FIVE F-35B test aircraft…
	SMSgt Mac July 29th, 2011 at 11:23 pm Wow. DId you have to go back and put in punctuation and carriage returns? It usually takes half a thread of exchanges to get that much torpedo spread. I only dread the future as your littany of talking points, invariably consisting of more perversions and fun-house reflections of F-35 realities than reality itself, only seems to grow longer with every F-35 delivered. Good luck with that Super Target Part Deux. BTW: the slide at the link is an F-18E/D pitch (logo upper left) — what did you expect it to say?
	pfcem July 29th, 2011 at 11:23 pm Could you PLEASe join the real world…
	pfcem July 29th, 2011 at 11:42 pm Wake up! The F-35B & V-22 are GAME CHANGING in their advantages over legacy platforms. The F135 produces MORE take-off thrust than the F119. The F-35 maneuvers well enough to be MORE than a credible air-air platform — in fact, of aircraft flying today, only the PAK FA & J-20 stand a chance bettering the F-35 as the 2nd best air-air platform anytime soon. The F-35B has already demonstrated the ability to both take-off & land from the deck space of a US LHA/LHD. The V-22 provides a 50% increase in operational speed & double the operational range vs transport helicopters. The V-22 would cost A LOT less if procurement numbers had not been cut. The V-22 IS safer than any trasport helicopter.
	yawn July 30th, 2011 at 12:25 am Sure the F-135 produces more thrust but then the single F-414 powering the Gripen NG allows it to supercruise while the two F-414s powering the Super Hornet don’t. In other words, thrust isn’t everything. Despite it’s thrust, the F-35 is significantly heavy and with its smaller wing area and lack of thrust vectoring capability, it’s just not in the same class as a dedicated air superiority platform like the F-22 or even its Russian/Chinese counterparts unless we think it’s electronics are generations ahead.
	Cocidius July 30th, 2011 at 12:46 am More hilarious wisdom from SMSgt Mac. Taking a swing at ELP for talking to much, or using “talking points” is the funnest thing I’ve heard in a long time! As someone who can’t have a conversation about the F-35 without referring to the latest Lockmart marketing trash, you’re a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. Meanwhile back at the ranch the Super Hornet works, is battle and in service, and costs a fraction of the F-35. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/201…
	Cocidius July 30th, 2011 at 12:53 am As a proven F-35 cult member and a obvious graduate of star fleet academy, ditto — can you wake up and take a breath of reality??
	Cocidius July 30th, 2011 at 1:05 am Five stripped down test mules which are flying at least 5 years behind schedule, conducting dirt basic test routines, with no high alpha flight testing, no weapons/warfighting capability, and software that’s at the most 80% complete. Earth to pfcem, come back to reality…
	Jeff July 30th, 2011 at 1:55 am Might surprise you but, they run a whole battery of tests. Even if they’re stripped of combat equipment its within the parameters of these particular test and no doubt it will face its serious scrutiny. These tests are for subsystem testing and the optimization of design features before full production.
	Jeff July 30th, 2011 at 2:01 am The whole “mountains of software to do” has always been a misrepresentation since 30% of the software left to do is system optimization that can’t be done till aircraft are built and competed testing, and the other 70% isn’t intended for initial production, but has always been scheduled as part of an upgrade 5–10 years after the aircraft enters service. Simply put if they had completed the software, they’d have put the cart before the horse and much would be worthless by virtue of the physical design optimization changing the context of that softwares’ environment.
	Anonymous July 30th, 2011 at 2:26 am Here’s a better suggestion How about purchasing a better plane– The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
	@E_L_P July 30th, 2011 at 2:51 am :::::crickets chirping::::::
	William C. July 30th, 2011 at 2:53 am F-35 cult member? Those wishing for the F-35 to be canceled are drinking just as much kool-aid, I just happen to prefer to the other flavor.
	freefallingbomb July 30th, 2011 at 3:57 am To the poster “yawn” You wrote: “…the single F-414 powering the Gripen NG allows it to supercruise while the two F-414s powering the Super Hornet don’t. In other words, thrust isn’t everything.” Absolutely brilliant, hawk-eyed observation – especially if you only have a private, amateurish interest in military technology (like in my case) ! Unfortunately, it seems that the U.S. Armed Forces never hire guys like you to evaluate weapons… maybe they’ve got other criteria.
	mike j July 30th, 2011 at 5:11 am So you’re fine with being lied to, as long as you like how it sounds? Explains a lot.
	Oblat July 30th, 2011 at 6:30 am pfcem — “Five years late and still ahead of schedule” :-)
	AmicusCuriae July 30th, 2011 at 10:46 am @pfcem: So, what’s the tropical day vertical landing bringback for the production configuration? Is it more than an AV-8B? I can’t seem to find that anywhere?
	SMSgt Mac July 30th, 2011 at 3:09 pm If only the F-18E/F cost was spiralling downward as fast as its value and slower than its survivability..then what you assert MIGHT have been relavent. Too bad. But gee.… your argument does sound familiar. Oh yeah!: ”.… In mid-1991, Department of Defense (DOD) officials estimated their flyaway unit costs in FY1990 dollars as $33 million for the F/A-18E/F vs. $44.5 million for the F-14D Quick Strike . F-14 supporters noted, however, that flyaway costs do not include development costs, which would be several billion dollars for the F/A-18E/F vs. several hundred million for the F-14D Quick Strike . They noted further that these flyaway costs assumed annual buys of 72 F/A-18s vs. 24 F-14s, and they argued that comparable 72-plane buys would reduce the cost of each F-14D Quick Strike to $34 .5 million, approaching the cost of an F/A-18E/F. “ http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA435448… (p.10) Some one should blog about that. Oh yeah — somebody did. The capablities designed into the F-35 surpass anything the Borg can kluge onto their Supah-bug. The only edge you have in this discussion is more free time little one–for reasons that are manifestly evident in your posts. You are dismissed…again.
	William C. July 30th, 2011 at 3:47 pm No, my point is that just as many lies are coming from those organizations and individuals opposed to the F-35. I am just more inclined to believe test pilot commentary and updates from Lockheed Martin, the USAF, USN, and USMC over Air Power Australia analysis.
	Oblat July 30th, 2011 at 4:31 pm When your job involves stealing from the American people you tend to get very flexible about the importance of integrity and truth. Most contractor shills are moral degenerates for this reason.
	mike j July 30th, 2011 at 4:45 pm You did it again. If the “other side” is lying “just as much,” then the people you are choosing to listen to are liars. Why would you believe liars? Do you understand how much these people have riding on this program, and what happens to their careers if they step out of line? Do you understand human nature? Now I’m also curious, just what do you think it is motivating the naysayers?
	Tee July 30th, 2011 at 5:03 pm Think MS Vista and how ” Wonderful” it worked with “Legacy Hardware”. Their software problems have only just begun!
	pfcem July 30th, 2011 at 5:13 pm I am in reallity. The “problems” the F-35B was having last year were primarily minor parts reliability issues with ONE airframe. The program now has five F-35B test airframes & the ONE airframe that was having so many “problems” last year has THIS year been buring through test flights & test points FASTER than scheduled. You obviously know nothing of weapons development &/or flight testing.
	pfcem July 30th, 2011 at 5:20 pm Earth to Oblat. A new cost & schedule baseline was established. The performance of the program this year demonstrates quite clearly that the cost & schedule projections used to claim a Nunn-McCurdy breach were absolute BS. The program continues to track closer to the 2008 cost & schedule baseline than the 2010 baseline.
	Tee July 30th, 2011 at 6:08 pm IMHO in a Real shooting War long runways won’t exist. China has enough Runway Denial missiles to keep most if not all the Pacific bases shut down for around 14 days ( and we don’t have enough reloads for our Surface to Air systems in place to stop them ). So our only hope was a STOVL aircraft that doesn’t need long runways to operate from. So we could stay in the fight. Now that China has the J-20 coming soon, so you can pretty well give up on the idea of using tankers, they will be easy prey. But there is still hope by using some Gen 4.5++ STOL aircraft. The Gripen NG is a True 4.5++ Gen fighter not like the Super Hornet at a 4.2 Gen. The Gripen NG can land and refuel & rearm then take off from any 800 meter 2 lane strip of highway. It Super Cruises at Mach 1.2. Has AESA radar & IRST capabilities already built into it. A Flight of 4 Gripen NG’s can be refueled & rearmed by a C-130 or a couple of choppers or a truck, by 6 men in 10 minutes. It’s maintenance costs are about 1/2 of what a F-16C costs. It can be carrier capable very quickly ( See Brazil ) and it cost only 60 million each. For Our Dirt Wars CAS: US needs only spend about 3 Billion to take care of CAS. What we need for most of our recent Dirt Wars are EMB 314 Super Tucano’s or Hawker Beechcraft AT-6B or something similar at 10 million a pop you could get more than 6 hours of loiter time. The USAF won’t like it but that’s what’s needed, we shouldn’t be putting all those hours on our fast movers when we really don’t need too. Since the USAF wont like it give them to the Army & Marine aviation units where they would be put to very good use, in very short order . So Lets compare some numbers JSF F-35 $382 billion to develop and procure 2,457 aircraft. 3000 Gripen NG X $60 million = $ 180 Billion 800 F-22 Raptors X $120 Million = $ 96 Billion 400 F-15 S/E X $100 million = $ 40 Billion 300 EMB 314 Super Tucano’s or Hawker Beechcraft AT-6B for CAS = 10 million X = 3 Billion Ground support for our Dirt Wars, take the Costly hours off the fast movers Total = $319 Billion With 2043 more aircraft ( 800 Free F-22 Raptors & 400 Free F-15 S/E and 300 CAS Turboprops ) A Savings of 63 Billion Dollars or Roughly a 20% Savings off the Current 382 Billion Projections. The Gripen NG’s would be License built in the US by US workers, most-likely down in the southern states. Also Saab is already working on the Conformal Fuel tanks & Stealth air-take inlets (2013 delivery) “and they have been on time and on budget every time, unlike the JSF” and working on the Thrust — Vectoring engines for a future upgrades.
	Tee July 30th, 2011 at 6:09 pm And before anyone asks: The reason for the Gripen NG’s higher price tag of 60 million instead of the 40 million current price tag is to add all the US Advanced Avionics that would be put into the JSF that the current Gripen NG dosn’t at this point, like the “Advanced Ground Targeting ect ect”. The Gripen NG has” 20–25% empty space that was designed to be upgraded later” which will cost about 20 million according to the latest estimates . And with the “Major Defense Budget Cuts Coming” whether we like them or not. This Cuts the Combined USA’s Air Forces budget by a whopping 20% which will make the “Cutters Happy” and Greatly Increases the number of Top of the Line Aircraft by 2000+ planes which makes that “Hawks Happy” And in the Long term the maintenance costs of the Gripen NG at half the costs of a current F-16C increases the overall savings of Billions more thru their service life. A” WIN WIN ” in DC POLITICAL talk. Both sides get what they want, and more importantly the “War Fighter” gets what he or she needs “NOW” not 10 years down the road & if it works like it’s supposed too or if it works at all. I don’t think China will wait that long.
	pfcem July 30th, 2011 at 6:47 pm The most recent program document I can find ATM states the projected vertical landing bring-back payload as 4940 lbs of unused weapons & fuel. The post-SWAT vertical landing bring-back payload requirement is 4710 lbs of unused weapons & fuel. Note that the pre-SWAT bring-back requirement was 5108 lbs & SWAT was initiated since the then overweight F-35B had a projected bring-back payload of only 3442 lbs. Harriers (AV-8B included) dont’ have a rated “vertical landing bring-back payload”, they have a maximum vertical landing weight (based on the engine model).
	pfcem July 30th, 2011 at 6:49 pm Many of the test flights are done at weight simulating full combat load.
	pfcem July 30th, 2011 at 7:11 pm The F135 produces more thrust than the F119! That is until you get up into the higher speed/altitude the F-22/F119 is optimised for… Sure putting a F119 & properly optimized intake in a F-35 would improve its higher speed/altitude flight performance but would REDUCE it everywhere else — most important would be reduced combat radius. The F-35 is a multi-role fighter, not a dedicated air-superiority fighter — YES that means it air-to-air capabilities are compromised vs what it could be BUT even without the F-22’s supercruise & vectoring thrust, the F-35 will have a better kill/loss ratio vs current &/or projected opponents than any legacy fighter.
	@E_L_P July 30th, 2011 at 8:26 pm This is nothing more than a marketing ploy by the USMC because they are worried about the jet getting cancelled. See! It lands and takes off! No reporters at the scene (because they were clueless) asked why the DAB keeps getting delayed.
	STemplar July 30th, 2011 at 9:33 pm The USMC needs the Chinese to get a little snippier. They scare the Japanese and South Koreans enough it might convince some more countries like them to buy the B model. I think the whole program is overly expensive but I am resigned to the fact we are going to buy them. Everyone fretting over the ‘cuts’ to defense should stop worrying so much. Neither Boehner’s nor Reid’s proposals were long on facts and in essence both used varying degrees of cost savings from ops concluding in Stan and Iraq. There aren’t any real cuts being considered aside from maybe bumping up co-pays on healthcare and transitioning a few Army and USMC units to reserve status.
	William C. July 30th, 2011 at 11:12 pm Oblatski you’re the only moral degenerate I’ve seen around these parts. Shouldn’t you be selling secrets to the Chicoms?
	William C. July 30th, 2011 at 11:18 pm I phrased that poorly. It’s not outright lying, rather both sides exaggerate the truth to different extents. This is a given. Yet I happen to trust Lockheed and the Marine Corp a bit more than Carlo Kopp or Eurofighter. What motivates the naysayers? The same human nature you mentioned. People have staked their reputations on the success or failure of the F-35. Future sales for Eurofighter, Rafale, and the Super Hornet also hinge on the F-35. Do you really think there isn’t any motivation to bend the truth a bit and exaggerate the problems the F-35 faces?
	William C. July 30th, 2011 at 11:34 pm You’re forgetting support costs, a figure in the billions not included in your Gripen NG estimate. Plus setting up a production line over here is going to cost some serious money too. Now those 2,457 F-35s aren’t just for the USAF. What about the USN? The Gripen doesn’t do much more than Super Hornet and developing a naval variant of the Gripen NG would easily add several billion, plus said aircraft would be somewhat more expensive. The Gripen NG is a nice aircraft, yet I’d question if it’s advantages are enough to justify procuring them over the F-16E/F or a new variant of the proven F-16 series. The small size of the Gripen also means it won’t be able to match the payload of the F-35 or larger aircraft in the strike mission, which is one of the major focuses of the JSF program.
	William C. July 30th, 2011 at 11:40 pm To add a few other things, a navalized Gripen NG still wouldn’t give the USN a stealth fighter. That gap would still exist. Now, some of the $382 billion is already a sunk cost, meaning we aren’t going to get it back even if we canceled the program tomorrow. If we could set up a production line and build 3,000 Gripens that cost $60 million each, including development cost, why couldn’t we manage to work that same magic with the F-35 and get the program’s problems sorted out?
	tammy brierstein July 31st, 2011 at 2:09 am The J-20, really? One prototype does not a threat make.
	Oblat July 31st, 2011 at 4:04 am This is a common contractor tactic — build hollow airframes with no operational capability and then charge a fortune over the following decades to make it do something. We have already seen this happen with the F-22 debacle and Lockheed intends to do the same thing for the F-35. And 30% has to be rewritten because it’s rubbish is probably an underestimate. We have to face the fact that the F-22 and F-35 amounts to unilateral disarmament and that that is exactly what the contractors intend.
	Oblat July 31st, 2011 at 4:07 am “If we could set up a production line and build 3,000 Gripens that cost $60 million each, including development cost, why couldn’t we manage to work that same magic with the F-35 and get the program’s problems sorted out?” Yes folks you guessed it — “there is no alternative to failure”
	Oblat July 31st, 2011 at 4:15 am “You’re forgetting support costs, ” Yea that’s a big miss — when you factor in the saving from the 1 trillion dollar support costs of of the JSF the gripen practically pays for itself.
	joe July 31st, 2011 at 4:28 am If the Americans get the B working they should not sell it to anyone else other than the USMC for at least 10 to 15 years (with perhaps the exception of the Japanese to operate from their new 19,000ton LHDs as a counter for the Japnese to the latest Chinese carrier). This will reduce the chances of anyone copying it. It is 20 years ahead of its time as no one else will be able to create as credible a VSTOL fighter in this time. Then wait for the opposition to catchup and 5 years before they do start selling it to all your allies and then a few years after that to anyone else who may want it. It is no use spending all this money developing these advanced weapons if they are just going to be copied so easily. And the point about turning LHDs into miniAircraft carriers is a valid one and should justify the extra expense on the F35 alone. You may be able to use it to retire two or three super carriers when it becomes operational and slow the building of the next super carrier by a 5 years or so and reap the enormous associated savings.
	STemplar July 31st, 2011 at 5:56 am We were going to sell it to the UK ya know? and we already are to the Italians, you knew that right? Plus we are probably more closely integrated with the South Koreans than any nation and they just happened to build the deck of their Dokdo class with a deck appropriate for STOVL ops.
	mike j July 31st, 2011 at 10:40 am Alright, fair point. Some in the anti– F-35 crowd have a profit motive. So where do I fit in that? I don’t pay attention to anybody’s marketing. I don’t have a dog in this fight, no reputation on the line. I don’t care much about which plane we buy as long as it can do the mission at a fair price. All the JSF program had to do to keep me happy was make its goals. It has failed time and again, on schedule and cost. It’s not even close. Things have reached a point where we can’t realize the efficiencies that were promised to hold the price down. We can’t afford enough of these airframes. We will lose capability by sticking with this program. When will that get through to you? After we’ve cut fighter wings and closed the bases?
	Engineer Economist July 31st, 2011 at 2:25 pm you are right. The cost & schedule baselines resulting from the baseline were no good, They are as much BS as the estimated amount of the LRIP contract which overran $771M.. What was the IOC dates for the 2008 baseline, and how does that compare to how the program is currently tracking?
	Gregory Savage July 31st, 2011 at 2:29 pm I agree what is the viable alternative. I am all for building block ii f-22 but how much will that cost? What are viable alternatives I really want to know what people think the best solution to this mess would be in the long run.
	William C. July 31st, 2011 at 2:33 pm One trillion for the entire JSF program over 50 years Oblatski? Considering what we’ve spent on bailouts in just 5 years, that sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Beats it being wasted on pork by your beloved Democrats.
	William C. July 31st, 2011 at 2:34 pm The only failure is in gutting our military as you want to do Oblatski. Also your reading comprehension is lacking as usual.
	STemplar July 31st, 2011 at 2:36 pm A very reasoned argument. The US is not going to buy a front line tactical fighter designed by another nation regardless of where it is built. I agree the F35 program has issues, but, the US is not going to buy a fighter designed in another country. There is a certain logic to keeping design, as well as, construction of platforms like this indigenous, since that’s a national security issue, however, it would be refreshing to have what we design and build on budget and on time.
	Engineer Economist July 31st, 2011 at 5:36 pm It is amazing to me that the scenario driving our defense technology investment strategy for 10–50 years out is a contrived conventional war against China. We have gaping holes in readiness, recruiting, retention, training, leadership, command and control, logistics, homeland security, counter-terrorism, cyber warfare, intelligence, etc. requiring major investment dollars, and we keep throwing the lion share of our resources ino tactical aircraft modernization. Time and time again the MIC promises us technological panacea for cheap. Then when the programs turn into inevtiable failures, more resources are poured into the schedule and cost overruns. Could DoD leadership be any more stupid and arrogant???
	Oblat July 31st, 2011 at 7:23 pm pfcrm just makes this laughable nonsense up — the F135 optimised for low altitude so improving it would reduce it’s combat radius — just hilarious. I guess the F-35 is going to fly lo lo lo all the way to the target now to get that extra few miles in. ha ha ha
	Oblat July 31st, 2011 at 7:26 pm See this is the way contractors think — it is basically a criminal mindset. They see other people getting cash to rescue the economy and they think — Why can’t we loot the economy? Bill has less in common with middle class Americans than small time crooks.
	Oblat July 31st, 2011 at 7:27 pm It’s your own words Bill. As you say you willingly believe the contractors lies. Again your own words.
	STemplar July 31st, 2011 at 8:48 pm Thumbs down don’t change it, the US is not going to buy a fighter.
	Robert A. Fritts July 31st, 2011 at 10:24 pm All aircraft that leave tierra firma eventually return to “land”. Well in one shape or another. In fact I do believe that almost every aircraft that has achieved flight has landed somewhere, at sometime. This is such great achievement. Leave it to Lock-Mart and the USMC to not let their aircraft fly off into space.
	mike j July 31st, 2011 at 10:38 pm Fair point, some of the opposition has a profit motive. That doesn’t apply to me. I couldn’t care less what planes we buy as long as they do the job and we can afford enough of them. The JSF program would have kept me happy if they’d just come close their original goals, but they’ve completely failed. We can’t realize the production efficiencies, and we won’t be replacing our aging aircraft fast enough. We will lose capability by sticking with the JSF. When is that going to get through to you?
	mike j July 31st, 2011 at 10:44 pm Looked at the federal budget lately? Start thinking in terms of the affordable alternative, and get used to it. The solution to this mess is we stop running defense acquisition programs the way we have with JSF.
	Robert A. Fritts July 31st, 2011 at 10:46 pm Actually Gripen NG has about the same payload as F-35 right now and the F-35 gets it capabilities in every field cutback from what we were told originally about every 5–8 months. The list of what F-35 cannot do is on a growth curve far exceeding what it can do. Also in Alaska 2 years ago the F-22s vaunted radar and sensor suite could not pickup “original” Gripen until they were involved in visual range A to A combat. Like the Rafale in 08, the Gripen of 09 will not be invited back. Small is good sometimes, and FYI Canada has 2 long term Gripen guests for the next year, Dont know what those Cannuck could be up to. But the new Government wants 60 aircraft it thought it would get at the start of their JSF adventure, not the 28 they will get for the current price.
	Robert A. Fritts July 31st, 2011 at 10:50 pm A very sensible comment. Also all spending cuts in any budget/debt plan would be Congressionally approved each fiscal year. Meaning any agreement of today would only be good until the next election cycle.
	yawn July 31st, 2011 at 11:28 pm I always thought that higher altitude performance is always equivalent to better range.Anyway, sure the F-35 should be better than most legacy fighters but then that is to be expected. The question is by what margin. That it can carry only a limited strike load in stealth mode limits its utility. You would undermine its stealth capability by utilising the pylons and that is where its aerodynamic deficiencies will come into the picture.
	pfcem August 1st, 2011 at 1:21 am No the F-35 is NOT optimised for low altitude but it IS optimized for lower speed & altitude than the F-22/F119. Putting a F119 (with F119 optimised inlet) in a F-35 would only improve its high altitude/speed performance but would REDUCE it everywhere else — ESPECIALLY it combat radius.
	pfcem August 1st, 2011 at 1:43 am No, more fuel efficient engines… The F135 is a significantly more fuel efficient engine than the F119 EXCEPT at the higher altitudes & speeds the F119 is optimised for. Depending on which of a number of computer simulations you wish to use, the F-35 has been found to have a kill:loss ration between 3 & 6 times better than legacy platforms. With any equivalent payload, the F-35 is MUCH stealthier than any 4th/4.5 generation fighter. Sorry but putting external stores on a F-35 DOES NOT increase its RCS to that of legacy fighters. And the F-35 doesn’t HAVE to utilise external stores!
	pfcem August 1st, 2011 at 1:45 am Try joining reaity.
	pfcem August 1st, 2011 at 1:53 am More ELP BS.
	pfcem August 1st, 2011 at 2:13 am Truly pathetic BS. The $382 billion is BS. It was based on the HIGH END of the BS 2010 CAPE projections which it has admitted were wrong. Neither the Griphen NG, nor the F-15SE (much less your wet dream X models) have been developed yet. Full rate production F-35As (yes the Bs & Cs — for which your proposal ignors the need for — will be $10 million more) are going to cost only ~10–15% more than $60 million.
	pfcem August 1st, 2011 at 2:35 am Sorry wet dreamer, but the CURRENT Gripen C costs $40 million, the Gripen NG is projected to cost $60 million. And NO WAY does the Gripen NG have “20–25% empty space that was designed to be upgraded later”. You have no clue what budget cuts are coming in the short term much less what the US defense budget will be 10 years from now.
	pfcem August 1st, 2011 at 2:40 am First the $1 trillion is BS based on legacy platforms. Second since you obvious haven’t seen it (or ust ignor it), using the same criteria a fleet of legacy platforms comes in 4 TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE. Norway found the total cost of the F-35A to be LESS than the Gripen NG…
	pfcem August 1st, 2011 at 3:10 am Try joining the real world. The Gripen NG has neither the payload nor the range of the F-35A. The F-35 capabilities to have been cut back is the F-35B internal payload going BACK to the USMC requirement of ‘1000 lb JDAM’ durring SWAT.
	freefallingbomb August 1st, 2011 at 3:41 am To the poster “STemplar” You wrote: “The US is not going to buy a front line tactical fighter designed by another nation regardless of where it is built. (…) … the US is not going to buy a fighter designed in another country.” Interesting! Is that official? You’re right, it is… KC-X. I’m amazed how you U.S. Americans still expect any ally with an aircraft industry of his own to buy your stuff then, and about the nerve you have to invoke “technical arguments”, “flight records” and “battle-experience” etc. during foreign aircraft sales. You’re too obvious.
	freefallingbomb August 1st, 2011 at 4:16 am To the poster “pfcern” You wrote: “Try joining the real world. The Gripen NG has neither the payload nor the range of the F-35A.” What do YOU know about the real World? 1) The“Gripen’s” maximum ( = ferry) range is 3.200 km. 2) But the F-35A’s ( = C.T.O.L.) maximum range is only 2.220 km, 3) the F-35B’s ( = S.T.O.V.L.) maximum range is only 1.670 km ( = ONLY HALF AS MUCH as that of a “Gripen” ! But naval aircraft don’t really need lots of range) and 4) the F-35C’s ( = carrier version) maximum range is only 2.520 km, too. So, whichever F-35 version you choose, in terms of RANGE (and speed, and agility, and runway availability) you ALWAYS lose against the “Gripen” ! Now tell me some things about the real World.
	freefallingbomb August 1st, 2011 at 4:22 am Hey everybody: Before you smear the “Gripen’s” unit price again (rumoured to be anywhere between 40 million $ and 60 million $ ), or even the “Eurofighter’s” unit price (conflicting price indications, but all of them cheaper than the F-$$, too), ask Saab once how much every single “Gripen” would still cost, if ALL 3.000+ F-35s were to be replaced by them, even under license-production! Basic common-sense…
	Oblat August 1st, 2011 at 7:27 am LHDs make terrible aircraft carriers. Not only are they poorly equipped but using them just so the marine pilots can get a combat ribbon is a waste of resources.
	Oblat August 1st, 2011 at 7:30 am Yea $1 trillion is an underestimate. Lockheed projects double that but they are so embarrassed by it they wont release the figures officially. JSF is a full life-cycle overrun — ever phase is designed to overrun the budget. All the way to killing more pilots by putting them in a terrible aircraft.
	Yawn August 1st, 2011 at 7:43 am The F-35 doesn’t have to utilise external stores?? I don’t know what you’re talking about-but for most strike missions, it would need that option given limited internal volume. Whatever efficiency comes with the F-135 dissipates in a lower altitude strike profile with an internal and external strike load. Unless all you’re having are a pair of JDAMs.
	freefallingbomb August 1st, 2011 at 7:56 am To the poster “Tee” ————————— Part 1 / 2 You wrote: “With somewhere between 400 & 800 Billion on the chopping block 382 Billion won’t be considered doable under the new austerity DOD is facing in the coming years.” I sure hope so. Still, I’m aghast…: The F-$$ project is the biggest mistake, the most expensive mistake and the biggest scandal in the history of the U.S. Armed Forces, all of which totally self-inflicted, there are only two possible choices left in relation to it (Yes / No, or: Continue / Cancel), and what should we think of an Airforce that even needs the extra push of an unprecedented, national default at such economically dire times & the ensuing economic collapse (chaos? Shrinkage from Hyper-Power status to regional power status? What else?) to make the ONLY sensible, evident decision and finally cancel the F-$$ ?? (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 1st, 2011 at 7:57 am Part 2 / 2 What does that bode for the future? (“Believe in me, I’m with the High Command” ? “Show faith in our institutions” ? “… ask what you can do for your country instead” ? “I want to tell you that our great nation appreciates your 50 years of dedication and personal sacrifice” ? )
	Engineer Economist August 1st, 2011 at 8:42 am Given macroeconomic inflation & political uncertainty and inevitable obsolesence due to a laughable 20+ year production run the real BS is your delusional deterministic estimates. The $382B is within the range of uncertainty, and even the low Ctr/PM estimates are possible too (a miracle could happen). However, planning on miracles does not a wise national security strategy make.
	Josh August 1st, 2011 at 8:57 am Don’t confuse him with fact.…
	Josh August 1st, 2011 at 9:00 am What are you talking about? The word “Joint” in JSF may have eluded you… but the program office and DoD, not the individual services, are in charge of the testing and development schedule. The B was moved up because it was the highest risk of being chopped, it had nothing to do with Marine Corps attitude or willingness to starve while naked in order to make it work.
	Josh August 1st, 2011 at 9:03 am Better compared to what?
	Guest A August 1st, 2011 at 9:55 am But they make great amphibious assult ships for the Marines to deploy from when you need boots on the ground fast when the Army isn’t around…
	mike j August 1st, 2011 at 10:00 am ( The board was swallowing posts yesterday… 23 hours later it shows up. Figures. Sorry for the double post. )
	Engineer Economist August 1st, 2011 at 10:29 am good thoughts! the problem is deeper than how the programs are “run”, or executed. the problem is rooted into how concepts, requirements, and staregy are generated, and the leadership culture that starts the nonsense to begin with, and then cannot change as the nonsense is exposed.
	Engineer Economist August 1st, 2011 at 10:33 am I agree with you. It’s sad how F-35 supporters demonize the program’s critics. Those of us with objective perspectives can see how F-35 follows and perpetuates the pattern of flawed acquisition strategy & execution, resulting in the death spiral of out of control costs, undercapitalized force structure, aging platforms, and lower readiness. We “might” get revolutionary capabilities through the dogged pursuit of complex technology regardless of cost, but with the equivalent amount of unnaccountable billions of dollars we could have a much better force structure and readiness with greater certainty.
	Engineer Economist August 1st, 2011 at 10:37 am You are hitting the nail on the head. TacAir modernization obsessions are mismatched with the reality of the national security environment. These F-35 advocates here offer illusions of a narrow focused threat, schedule, delivery, and cost promises of F-35. We haven’t even addressed the operational testing, operational suitability, and logistics support sustainment for F-35 (other than SMSgt Mac’s promises that PBL will solve everything). Meanwhile, other critical national security investment areas get neglected as we disproporationately sink decades and billions into ONE tacair modernization program. They’ve created and are perpetuating the too big to fail myth, too stupid and lazy to develop alternatives. Meanwhile, the budget deal will likely result in a major Butt Beating to the program. Yes, the F-35 advocates are divorced from political realities as well.
	Engineer Economist August 1st, 2011 at 10:42 am So is this “other 70%” accounted for within the $233B, no make that $380+B program baseline? Since the “physical design optimization changing” results in axiomatic violation of learning curve theory, by what basis does the program have in the estimated unit costs at completion of the program? Don’t know? Well that means indeed that the program is improperly conceived, planned, and executed. But don’t worry American taxpayer, just trust DoD & LM with your patience and billions of dollars.
	freefallingbomb August 1st, 2011 at 10:55 am Part 1 / 4 The poster “STemplar” claimed in this discussion that South Korea is “still interested in F-$$s”… BOYS , is he out of orbit!!! The South Koreans are even preparing a whole international COMPETITION (a competition = NOT a purchase!) to replace their aging F-4 “Phantoms”, so that they DON’T have to forcibly buy F-$$s!!! It’s the South Korean “F-X-III” contest, and it will start in earnest next year. Only the absolutely best competitors in the World were invited. Surprisingly, not even the “Gripen” was pre-qualified – obviously, South Korea isn’t interested in buying cheap. And guess who’ll show up, too, for the first time, to compete in a free country against ALL Western super-fighters TOGETHER ? None less than the Soviet / Russian PAK-FA!!! (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 1st, 2011 at 10:56 am Part 2 / 4 Short-listed by South Korea were: 1) Boeing’s F-15SE “Silent Eagle”, 2) Lockheed Martin’s F-35 “Lightning II” (this is gonna be an embarassment… F-$$s are still so unfinished that they didn’t even show up on this year’s Paris Air Show, not even on a trailer! Wanna bet that this will be ONE MORE major, international contest where the unhatched F-$$ will be once more an illustrious absentee?! Are you U.S. Americans quite sure that you’re pumping billions of dollars into this plane with ANY intentions to sell it?), 3) E.A.D.S.’ “Eurofighter” and finally the dark knight, the cloaked one, the universal anti-hero, the FIRST 5th-generation fighter on Earth for sale on the international arms market (hoo hoo, interested, America…?) : 4) Sukhoi’s T-50 “PAK-FA” itself, competing head-to-head with all the West’s best fighters! (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 1st, 2011 at 10:57 am Part 3 / 4 It seems that for political reasons Boeing refused to compete (even) with some heavily watered-down export version of its F-22 “Raptor”, and (for a change…) we stupid French also excluded ourselves VOLUNTARILY by not offering the “Rafale”, although it still urgently needs any foreign buyer… (My own conspiracy theory: Our two nations are just too afraid to have OUR OWN , TWO BEST AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTERS lose in a direct, hot, but honest competition against the Soviet / Russian PAK-FA and this way lose our faces big time, on multiple levels… that’s what I suspect!!!!!) (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 1st, 2011 at 10:57 am Part 4 / 4 “STemplar”, so much only for South Korea’s “interest” in F-$$s … sneer! Quite honestly, I’m a bit surprised that in this Web-site about arms acquisitions (“THE defense and acquisition journal for Washington Beltway and Pentagon insiders”) neither the editor nor any of you other commentators ever mentioned this South Korean contest with a single phrase until today! But if you want to read probably the best, most informative, most interesting, most independent article (in English) I’ve ever read about international fighter competitions, and also read some expertly written descriptions of the ups and downs of each of these fighters, then read this article here: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/koreas-fx-mul… It gets especially interesting with the chapter “Contracts & Key Events” (about one sixth down from the top of the Web-page).
	William C. August 1st, 2011 at 5:55 pm How pathetic that you pretend to have secret Lockheed information. If you did I’m sure you’d sell it to the Chinese before the ink dried.
	William C. August 1st, 2011 at 6:02 pm Wrong as usual Oblatski. All I said is that I’d trust Lockheed long before groups opposed to the F-35. Yet some moonbat like yourself doesn’t care if it’s the F-15, F-22, or F-35. You simply don’t want to see our armed forces, whom you don’t respect, get any new aircraft.
	William C. August 1st, 2011 at 6:15 pm So people aren’t employed in manufacturing the F-35 or all of it’s thousands of components? Who knew. But I guess you don’t care about those “big bad contractors” in the aerospace industry. They don’t matter because it isn’t an Oblatski approved industry. Small time crooks you say? Well considering you willingly elect large time crooks to congress, I’d question your judgment here.
	William C. August 1st, 2011 at 6:24 pm Stats from Wikipedia I presume? Even presuming any of these are remotely accurate, that maximum ferry range for the Gripen is the aircraft carrying full internal fuel and as many external fuel tanks as possible, plus no munitions. Those F-35 ranges are based on full internal fuel and likely internal munitions. Plus it is likely a flight profile more appropriate for a combat mission. “So, whichever F-35 version you choose, in terms of RANGE (and speed, and agility, and runway availability) you ALWAYS lose against the “Gripen”!” The Gripen has the advantage in max speed and short airfield operations. Cold War era plans involved taking off from highways after-all. Yet the F-35B can operate from a much smaller area than that. As far as agility goes, it will depend on a number of factors. Yet with F-16/F-18 like performance the F-35 isn’t exactly lacking.
	mike j August 1st, 2011 at 8:14 pm re: stupid and lazy — Yeah, well maybe. If you’re told “failure’s not an option” then making something too big to fail seems reasonable, right? People are people; irrational and selfish. Sometimes the opposite, sometimes all at once. The people who gambled on the JSF didn’t count on the casino going bankrupt… s#!% happens. But it would be pretty odd if they just rolled over now and walked away from a project they’ve thrown a decade plus of work into.
	jakemono August 1st, 2011 at 10:45 pm I suspect the post about the Gripen is more true than we realise, but we’ll probab;y never know for sure. Despite all the B’s shortcomings, I wonder if the biggest reason for keeping the B around is that it can give us navair presence on ships smaller and cheaper (and possibly less vulnerable) than a Nimitz/Ford. What with the budget cuts coming down the pike that has to be a factor.
	pfcem August 1st, 2011 at 11:57 pm Sorry wet dreamer but the VAST majority of stike missions the F-35 is going to carry an all internal load — two ‘2000 lb’ JDAM/LJDAM (or eight ‘250 lb’ SDB I/SDB II) + two AMRAAM + enough internal fuel for a COMBAT RADIUS of >600nm. The F-35 is optimized for its intended strike profile. The F135 is MORE efficient at the speeds & altitudes the F-35 is intended to spend most of its time at than the F119!
	TMB August 2nd, 2011 at 12:10 am Joe, I’m going to assume you’ve never actually seen an LHA/LHD up close. When current LHDs carry Harriers, they can only carry six of them. SIX! They could theoretically carry more if the V-22s and helicopters were left at home. If they did that, the embarked Marines couldn’t get off the ship. LHDs are an important tool in the Navy/Marine Corps’ arsenal, but they couldn’t replace the punch of a Navy aircraft carrier in their wildest dreams.
	pfcem August 2nd, 2011 at 12:14 am Thanks for continuing to demonstrate your disingenuousness/ignorance. The F-35A has a COMBAT RADIUS of >600nm (111.2km) with just internal fuel. That translates to a ferry range of 1500-1800nm (2778.0–3333.6km). But wait, the F-35, like other fighters can carry external drop tanks to extend its COMBAT RADIUS/range. With two ‘program standard’ 420 gal tanks the COMABT RADIUS of the F-35A is increased to 700-750nm (1296.4–1389.0km) which translates to a ferry range of 1750-2250nm (3241.0–4167.0km). If that is not enough, Israel is going to have 600 gal drop tanks integrated (which any other customer could use as well). With two 600 gal tanks the COMABT RADIUS of the F-35A is increased to 750-800nm (1389.0–11481.6km) which translates to a ferry range of 2250-2400nm (4167.0–444.8km). And the greater the payload the greater the disparity between the F-35A & the Gripen NG.
	pfcem August 2nd, 2011 at 12:19 am No, the $382 billion is completed & utter BS which those who made the projections for it have since admitted.
	pfcem August 2nd, 2011 at 12:47 am While it is not common, the LHA/LHD do at times operate in a “Sea Control” configuration & embarck 20 AV-8Bs + 6 H-60s instead of the normal amphibious assault air wings. Nobody is claiming that the LHA/LHD are a replacement for a CVN! BUT in the “Sea Control” configuration with F-35Bs they will represent roughly half a CVN (1/3 if the CVNs operated at full capacity) worth of fighter/strike aircraft.
	STemplar August 2nd, 2011 at 3:50 am Fighter, tanker, not the same thing.
	STemplar August 2nd, 2011 at 3:55 am I guess you missed the part about the logic of maintaining the design function domestically. The US doesn’t buy fighter aircraft like girls trying on clothes like our allies do. A 100 Euro fighters here, 50 Rafales there, we buy thousands at times. Those air frames are going to be in service for 20+ years and while I have no love for the F35 program, were the US to forgo a domestic design we essentially eliminate our domestic ability to design fighters. the NGAD or whatever the 6 gen aircraft is being called may or may not happen, it could be delayed substantially depending on budget issues. Eliminate the F35 program and buy a foreign design and there won’t be a fighter design industry left in the US.
	STemplar August 2nd, 2011 at 4:06 am So why did they build the Dokdo class’ deck with a urethane coating to support STOVL ops if they aren’t interested in a STOVL aircraft?
	STemplar August 2nd, 2011 at 4:10 am PS, I wasn’t referring to the FX competition, I was referring to the capabilities they are building into the Dokdo class to conduct F35B flights from its deck. All of which I have managed to point out to you without being an obnoxious insulting immature pecker head.
	freefallingbomb August 2nd, 2011 at 5:20 am To the poster “pfcern” —————————— Part 1 / 2 You wrote: “With two 600 gal tanks the COMABT RADIUS of the F-35A is increased to 750-800nm (1389.0–11481.6km) which translates to a ferry range of 2250-2400nm (4167.0–444.8km).” Two external 600-gallon-tanks = 2 x 600 x 3,79 liters = 4.548 liters of fuel, carried externally. If fuel was as heavy as water, then 4.548 liters = 4.548 kg of weight (because 1 liter of water weighs 1 kg). But since fuel is slightly lighter than water, let’s say that the F-$$ “only” carries 4.000 kilograms of fuel externally, not 4.548 kg. However, it can carry only 6.800 kg of payload externally! Which means that you’re already using up 58,8 % of the F-$$‘s maximum external payload as fuel! Small wonder that its ferry range increased considerably. (Continued)
	freefallingbomb August 2nd, 2011 at 5:20 am Part 2 / 2 How far would a B-52 fly, if it could carry around another 31,5 tons of fuel instead of bombs? Or, for that matter: How far would a “Gripen” fly, if it used up 58.8 % of its payload as additonal external fuel tanks, too, like your F-$$ does? (58,8 % of 3.500 kg = 3.116,4 kg, meaning in turn over 3.500 liters of additional fuel) Let’s keep those comparisons intellectually honest, shall we?
	commonsense August 2nd, 2011 at 5:21 am Cut the personal insults-you asswipe. The vast majority of strike missions-oh yes, like launching stand-off cruise missiles? or penetrating heavily defended airspace? You seem to forget that as F-35 numbers get reduced, requirements on individual airframes increase. Oh yes-an engine that is more efficient at lower altitudes than higher; I think you should try for the Nobel piss price. And what was it about spending more time-more time at lower altitudes for an airframe means lower range and stress.
	freefallingbomb August 2nd, 2011 at 6:00 am P.S.: Allow me to split just one more hair. It’s stronger than me… Jet fuel weighs only 0,775 kilogram / liter − 0,840 kilogram / liter. On average, that’s 0,8 kilogram / liter of jet fuel. (For the standard military jet fuel “JP-8″, too?) So, your proposed ( = existing or made up?) two external 600-gallon-tanks for the F-$$s contain ( 2 x 600 x 3,79 liters = ) 4.548 liters of fuel. This fuel VOLUME (a liter is a VOLUME , not a weight, or even some liquid!) weighs only ( 4.548 liters x 0,8 = ) 3.638,4 kilograms. These 3.638,4 kilograms of externally carried jet fuel in turn represent exactly 53,505882 % of the F-$$‘s maximal, externally carried payload. (Sorry for the imprecision, I used my cell phone for these maths, not my pocket calculator or Windows Office’s Calculator) There you got it.
	Puken Dog 01 VF-143 August 2nd, 2011 at 7:36 am The Marine Corps could upgrade and develp the AV-8B and purchase the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G that are still in production with much less cost. We can purchase 3 F/A-18E/F’s for the Cost of 1 JSF, or 2 EA-18G’s for the cost of 1 JSF. JSF Cost per platform is $160, 000,000.00 Million each for a JSF that has NO Capability that keeps the stupid ignorant individuals in texas employed where bush baby has his home. We can tax the engineers, and all the other workers, but not the Billionaires or Millionaires and we can send <1% of our population off to War to serve 7–10 tours in the AOR. While wall street dances over our graves does not have to pay taxes in addition to Grandma and Grandpa being thrown under the bus by paul ryan and his tax bill. Congressman canton, Ryan, Boehner, McConnell and the rest of the Bastards in the Congress and Senate need to pick up a weapon and stand the watch!!!!! Satan has a special spot in hell next to UBL and Hitler for these folks. Did not see any of these Patriotic morons at the Medal Of Honor Ceremony, The Republicans are patriots to NOTHING other than Wall Street and Lockheed Martin.
	Engineer Economist August 2nd, 2011 at 9:16 am you are just too ignorant and biased and ignored everything I said. $233B is possible if a miracle happens. $382B is possible given uncertainty way outside of your control. What is certain is that F-35 has mismanaged what IS in their control. Given the macroeconomic and political factors and how bad of a screw job F-35 is, no one is going to know how either prediction will turn out. The real certainty is that the LRIP 1–3 contract is BS because that is an Actual, which does not bode well for your $233B earlier baseline. Give me the reference for who admitted the $382B is BS. At the Senate testimony, the CAPE director admitted the SDD software estimate was way underestimated, which is part of the $382B. Your ignorance and bias is amazing, hilarious, tragic, and predictable. We’ve been suffering from and picking up the pieces from your type of foolishness for a long time.
	Cocidius August 2nd, 2011 at 9:51 am It can give navair a presence on ships if the USN and Marines want to pay the ever growing price for purchasing and operating the F-35B!
	Cocidius August 2nd, 2011 at 10:14 am Under best circumstances surrounded by the most lavish maintenance/technical and parts support possible Lockmart and the JSF Program still can’t fly the F-35B test aircraft enough to meet a flight testing schedule. Now imagine supporting many of these aircraft at sea or at forward deployed bases in austere conditions with limited parts and maintenance staff during real combat operations. The other unmentioned elephant in the room is the need to armor ship decks and STOVL landing pads to withstand the exhaust from the hottest and most powerful engine fighter engine in history (1700F). A quick look at the latest price of F-35B along with the other aforementioned O&S issues and one has to question the fiscal wisdom of the USMC purchasing the F-35B in the current economic climate. On the other hand there is a operational aircraft that has the low maintenance costs, can operate in primitive conditions, and has advanced capabilities that would greatly enhance USMC air operations. Can you say Gripen NG? http://jas39gripen.blogspot.com/
	Oblat August 2nd, 2011 at 10:15 am It’s your own words Bill. As you say you willingly believe the contractors lies. Again your own words.
	Oblat August 2nd, 2011 at 10:22 am French pilots ave a joke — Why do the Americans call it “stealth” — because you don’t see the aircraft in Afghanistan and you don’t see them in Iraq and you don’t see them in Libya. But if you go to Eglin you see them lined up on the tarmac.
	Engineer Economist August 2nd, 2011 at 10:40 am well the people who created this too big to fail monstrosity might not be the ones with the right votes in place. we will see how gutsy our pol’s will be as they hash out the details of the debt deal. We should add “corrupt liars” to the “stupid and lazy” adjectives. Leadership people are so corrupt with power and self-deceived that pretty much anything is possible. There’s very little Integrity in American leadership. We may very well be on a freight train to implosion and disintegration.
	Engineer Economist August 2nd, 2011 at 10:42 am well the beaches are nice there…
	mike j August 2nd, 2011 at 11:44 am Gutsy? The Dems are compromisers and the Repubs are ideologues. There’s no guesswork about how that ends. We’ll see if all that ideology keeps the Republicans warm at night. And yeah, if there’s a theme to this conversation, it’s about people only seeing the world as they would have it.
	frank gonzalez August 2nd, 2011 at 12:23 pm it seems that the modern us military new motto will be if you want to join the military you have to supply your own uniform and bring your own weapon, because we dont have the money so your family will have to supply everything, like back in the 1700“s war with great britain
	Engineer Economist August 2nd, 2011 at 12:49 pm I kind of like when he degenerates into personal name calling and vulgarity. It adds clarity to who is right/wrong in the F-35 debate, despite all the otherwise obfuscating efforts.
	Tee August 2nd, 2011 at 1:09 pm Think USMC AV-8B Harrier II , just to name a few aircraft the US has bought over the years.
	Tee August 2nd, 2011 at 1:12 pm William C: With the 2000+ Additional Aircraft being built how many Thousands of New US Jobs will be created, along with the Jobs for the logistic train to support them.
	Tee August 2nd, 2011 at 1:17 pm Robert: You forgot to mention what happen in Arizona & Poland when the OLD Model C/D Gripens ( Only 30% made up of composites, New NG models is 60+ % composites, even harder to see) went up against the F-15’s & F-16’s. They weren’t invited back to play again either. Didn’t make us look to good.
	Tee August 2nd, 2011 at 1:36 pm That’s where a Navalized version of the F-22 comes in, as I have stated in earlier posts. We’ve been trying with the F-35 for a decade and it isn’t working Period! LM sold some great Kool Aid and I use to to drink it myself, then I woke up and smelled the coffee. You can’t make a ” All in Everything Aircraft ” it’s been tried. Way to many compromises. As for Stealth, It’s only ONE bullet in the gun, if that is what your totally depending on your DEAD ( see Bosnia F-117 ) If a modern fighter can’t do 9 G turns & then hit super-cruise their dead with modern air defenses. You really need to do more research on the Gripen NG, not just the top 5 links on Google. Go 30–40 links back and then reprogram your search so you get different results. You will learn quite a lot more the Wikipedia will ever have displayed.
	Tee August 2nd, 2011 at 2:34 pm My last post is being looked at by the Admin, still not up, hmmm, true hurts some time
	Tee August 2nd, 2011 at 2:35 pm but this one show right away ?????
	William C. August 2nd, 2011 at 5:10 pm Considering all you’ve ever done is lie around these parts why should anybody take your word? You don’t care for the USAF or anybody serving. Your own words Oblatski.
	William C. August 2nd, 2011 at 5:25 pm What is with all of the people pimping the Gripen NG around here? What advantages does it offer over the F-16E/F that aren’t offset by the what the latter does better? That’s a lot of work for a platform that offers minimal improvement over the F-16E/F already in production. For the USAF, the only serious alternatives to the F-35 are more F-22s and new F-16 variants. Ideally this would be followed by a new 5th gen fighter but expect Congress to be a massive barrier. For the Navy the only alternative is improved Super Hornets in the interim and the development of a new fighter. Not much of a chance for STOVL either. The Marines would be best off with F/A-18Fs until the Navy got their new 5th gen fighter online. All of this seems a far greater risk than continuing the F-35 program.
	William C. August 2nd, 2011 at 5:36 pm As much as I would like it to be so, you can’t just slap new landing gear and a tailhook on the F-22 and navalize it. You would be redesigning much of the fighter. What happened in Bosnia was no failure of the F-117A, rather it was a result of poor planning and bad luck. That’s not to say that the F-117A is enough to deal with future air defense systems, but it was fine for its tiem.
	Robert A. Fritts August 2nd, 2011 at 5:55 pm “Try joining the real world”? When the F-35 has been depolyed to Squadrons, had years of flight, weapons, and maintenance training, had deployed world-wide. Had the enevetible electronic, avionic, weapons, and training problems and glitches worked out then you too can join the “real” world. I give you that progress has been made lately and things are looking better. But just because Lock-Mart(feeling the heat) cranks out a few A/C and calls them “production” while the test program still has major problems(albeit getting better) does not mean this program will ever be successful. In the 26 mile marathon to be called a success, the JSF is at mile 2.4. I wish it was cancelled, to many other options and the USAF, USN and USMC do not need another “Too expensive” for combat aircraft while Soldiers and Marines die in the real fight for want of very inexpensive equipment. But since we are in TOO deep I’m actually starting to hope it gets completed if only to show all you home teamers what a dog it will turn out to be.
	Robert A. Fritts August 2nd, 2011 at 6:14 pm Having worked for Marines, worked with Marines and having commanded US Marines in both Iraq and Afghanistan I have seen this “can do spirit” and it is only slightly below that of the Army. The reason the USMC is being singled out for the lions share of the budget cuts is performance(it remains to be seen if the F-35B will have MAGTFs to go to in the future). The USMC is the second string today and many are having a hard time coming to grasp with this fact. As Gen. Amos stated in a Senate comittee recently, the Army transformed its fighting units in the 80s and 90s into smaller, better trained, better armed, flexible and extremely deadly organizations and the USMC wasted 3 decades. Not to rain on your chest thumping parade but USMC performance in Iraq and Afghanistan as a whole has been poor. And thats not my opinion, its what they are teaching today at the Naval War College.
	Tee August 2nd, 2011 at 6:21 pm LM was working on a Navalized version of the F-22, but shelved it when they got the F-35 Fantasy deal. I hope to God someone have been working on it in the shadows. There were a couple of different plans as I recall. The F-35 is only Stealth from the FRONT, so that 50–70 ton bus will glow in the dark on most advanced air detection systems. The F-117A had much better overall stealth protection than the F-35 will ever have.
	Tee August 2nd, 2011 at 6:52 pm William C: The F-16 doesn’t do or have list as of TODAY. (1) Super-cruise (2) STOL capabilities the US Marines need desperately as does the USAF (3) Has AESA radar & IRST capabilities already built in. (4) A True 4.5 Gen Airframe 60+ % composites, ( hard to see on radars even the F-22 couldn’t see it till it was in visual range ) as proven in Alaska, Arizona, & Poland to name a few.. (5) Tested the Meteor Long Range BVRAAM comparable in range to the old Navy AIM-54 Phoenix ” 100+ km (60+ mi) ” with the most modern seeker heads available. (6) It cost 50% per LESS a flight hour to maintain than a F-16C. (7) Cost of Aircraft only 40 Million, if you add the same advanced Air to Ground Attack capabilities that are supposed to go into the F-35 add another 20 Million so you get about 60 Million a pop. (8) They are adding Conformal Fuel tanks & Stealth Air-in-takes for the next version, And you can have it ALL in about 2 YEARS 2013. And Saab has been on Time and ON Budget EVERY TIME, unlike LM, which hasn’t met one item on time or on budget yet.
	Tee August 2nd, 2011 at 6:53 pm here we go again with the Admin approval
	Tee August 2nd, 2011 at 7:08 pm Someone doesn’t like the last post still waiting for Admin
	pfcem August 2nd, 2011 at 10:36 pm You obviously have no common sense. The F-35 is DESIGNED to operate in a specific mission profile & that IS the mission profile it will operate in the VAST majority of the time. Yes there will be times when external stores will be used — I just love how the pathetic naysayers try so despiratey to convince everyone that this ‘destroys’ the performance of the F-35 while at the same time trying despiratey to convince everyone that external stores have little effect on the performace of their favorite legacy aircraft. The F119 is optimised for operating at >Mach 1.5 @ 50,000′. At subsonic speeds & <40,000′ it’s SFC is not good compared to the F135 which is optimised for transonic speeds (Mach 0.8–1.2) @ 35,000′.
	pfcem August 2nd, 2011 at 10:47 pm We don’t expect anybody to buy any of our ‘stuff’ (except for when they are using OUR MONEY in the form of military aid) — ESPECIALLY not anybody with the industry to design & build their own ‘stuff’. As for KC-X, the US government bent over backwards to accomodate the KC-30 even though the USAF made it perfectly clear what it wanted & that the KC-30 was not it.
	commonsense August 2nd, 2011 at 11:12 pm And you obviously seem to be lacking all sorts of sense. The F-35 will have to perform in a variety of profiles. And for a lot of countries, it will assume the role of the premier air to air platform.
	pfcem August 2nd, 2011 at 11:13 pm JP-8 weight ~6.7 lbs/gal. 1200 gal = ~8040 lbs. That is 43.9% of the F-35’s internal fuel capacity of 18,307 lbs & 44.4% of its theoretical max external payload of 18,100 lbs (2x5,000 lbs + 3x2,500 lbs + 2x300 lbs external stations). The Gripen GN has greater infernal fuel capacity than the Gripen C but the 3200km ferry range of the Gripen C INCLUDES 3 external drop tanks. Please get it through your thick head that legacy fighters like the F-16, F/A-18, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen et cetera REQUIRE 2–3 external tanks just to get their COMBAT RADIUS/range to what the F-35A has with INTERNAL fuel.
	pfcem August 2nd, 2011 at 11:25 pm The F-35 doesn’t have to have been depolyed to Squadrons, had years of flight, weapons, and maintenance training, had deployed world-wide for one to regonnise that its COMBAT RADIUS/range is greater than that of the Gripen NG. The test program doesn’t have major problems. In fact it is (& has been) EXCEEDING expectations. The biggest ‘problem’ the test program has had to deal with is late delivery of test aircraft.
	Oblat August 2nd, 2011 at 11:36 pm As pcfem says the F-35 has already been deployed for 100 years, and costs $12, 50 cents to make.
	pfcem August 2nd, 2011 at 11:39 pm Quite the opposite. The F-35 IS working & working BETTER than expected. Just about every time REAL news comes out about the program, part of the news, which far to many miss most of the time, is how closely the results of the tests have been to projections/expectations.. YES there were delays & cost overruns in the past (pretty much all a direct or indirect result of weight issues in 2004) but for almost a year now the program has been going exceedingly well. YOU should follow your own advice & see Bosnia F-117! If you spent half as much time researching the F-35 as you imply that you have about the Gripen NG you would recognize that as good as the Gripen NG is, the F-35 is better.
	pfcem August 2nd, 2011 at 11:49 pm No, YOU are the ignorant one. CAPE has since corrected itself on its projections which resulted in the $382 billion BS — AUPC has heald steady since 2008. Even IF LRIP lot 1–5 end up 15% over contract (the HIGH END of projections — aka the “worst case sceneario’) they would STILL be well below what they would HAVE to be in order for the $382 billion to be even close — & with production now having been ON SCHEDULE for almost a year you can bet no later lots will be as over contract as much as LRIP 1–3.
	pfcem August 3rd, 2011 at 12:02 am The only smearing of unit prices has been by the F-35 naysayers. The unit price of full rate production F-35s will be closer to that of the Gripen NG than it will to that of the Typhoon. The Gripen’s unit price is NOT “rumoured to be anywhere between 40 million $ and 60 million $”. Current Gripen C’s cost ~$40 million & the projected cost of the thus far undeveloped Gripen NG is ~$60 million. YES the unit price of the Gripen &/or Typhoon could be lower if it were going to be produced in the numbers &/or at the rates the F-35 is but they aren’t & they won’t.
	pfcem August 3rd, 2011 at 12:46 am Try joining the real wold. The FX-III is going to come down to either the F-15SE (for commonality with existing F-15Ks — including possible/likely upgrade of existing F-15Ks to near F-15SE standard) or the F-35A. The Typhoon & PAK FA are only their to make the competition ‘international’ instead of US-only & (I suspect) to evaluate them as representations of threat aircraft vs the F-15SE & F-35A (to see if the F-15SE will be ‘good enough’ of if it has to go with the F-35A). The F-35 was not at Paris because with the economy the way it is & the way the current administration treats US companies LM chose to cut back its ENTIRE (not just F-35) presence to show how it is ‘tightening its belt’. Lockheed Martin is the lead contractor on the F-22, not Boeing & the US government has forbidden foreign sales of the F-22.
	pfcem August 3rd, 2011 at 1:03 am Quite the opposite. The flight test program is 18% ahead of schedule on test flights & 30% ahead of schedule on test points. For those of you who don’t get what that means, the flight test program is not only completing test flights FASTER than scheduled but it is completeing MORE test points per flight than scheduled. Ship decks don’t need to be armored & heat treatments for flight decks & landing pads have already been devoloped AS PART OF THE PROGRAM to deal with the engine exhaust. The USMC is procuring very few F-35Bs at ‘the latest cost’. Full rate production costs will be MUCH lower. Sorry but the thus far undeveloped Gripen NG does not meet USMC requirements.
	pfcem August 3rd, 2011 at 1:26 am Of course the F-35 will perform in a variety of profiles — it was designed to (2x5000 lb + 3x 2500 lb + 2x300 lb external stations) but the profile it will operate in the VAST majority of the time will be with an all internal payload. And it was DESIGNED to be the premier air-to-air platfom for every customer except the US & as such is 2nd only to the F-22 (as I posted before only the PAK-FA & J-20 stand any change of taking 2nd place away) in that reguard.
	pfcem August 3rd, 2011 at 1:29 am Thanks for continuing to demonstrate how pathetically out of reality you are.
	Robert A. Fritts August 3rd, 2011 at 1:52 am Wow, Billionares and Millionares pay most of the taxes already. The top 5% pay 45% of all taxes, not just Federal Income tax. The next 44% of wage earners pay the remaining 55%. What about the 51% od wage earners or folks that do not earn a living? They pay ZERO Federal into the Government coffers, but account for 41% of all Federal income tax refunds. We paid $293Billion over the last 8years in Earned Income credits to people with no income. How was it earned? By popping out babies they could not afford. PS the Whitehouse Chief of Staffs office makes the list of guests at all official awards ceremonies at the White House. The reason there were no Republicans at the MOH presentation was they were not invited. I was at the presentation of a DSC for one of my Soldiers(3 DSCs and 2 Navy Crosses were awarded) by President Bush and all of the Congressman and Senators from the awardees home states were present reguardless of party, thats just the difference between how the party you love and the party you hate operate. Take a deep breath, now get a hobby.
	Terry August 3rd, 2011 at 2:38 am The Gripen NG is their only viable fall back option to be able to keep STOL aircraft in there future, as soon as this POS F-35 gets the axe. Or just use the F-18 tied to their carriers without any hope of caring out any Expeditionary landings on hostile shores.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 3rd, 2011 at 7:55 am LOL! What are you trying to do, sir? Do you really think that you can confuse politics or politicians with hard numbers and simple facts? If you get a chance, pass on my congrats and gratitude to your soldier! And I think that your advice to the original poster is very sound, and military/political commentary is NOT the hobby of choice! :-)
	Engineer Economist August 3rd, 2011 at 8:29 am provide this reference that CAPE has since corrected itself. macroeconomic inflation and the uncertainty in the learning curve are out of your control ignorant one. given that the program is late, we are in infancy of test, we rushed into production before a milestone C, milestone B has been revoked, and the DAB to give us new milestones was itself delayed, we cannot bet on anything with the F-35 program. provide the verified data. as of now, the glaring published zits of the program are the recent Senate testimonty and the most current program SAR — both provide plenty of contrary evidence to your rosy assessments.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 3rd, 2011 at 9:24 am Hmmmm…. F-16E/F? Hopefully you typo’d and meant to say F/A-18E/F! Of course that would be about the biggest piece of humble pie ala mode served up since the USAF bought A-7s and F-4s (both USN aircraft!!!!) ! But… it might be something that a humbled, cost-crunched, and needy USAF had better start to consider. Im sure that Boeing has! :-) The F/A-18E/F could be an expansion of the EA-18Gs that I believe at least a few USAF types get to enjoy today, but.… an airframe rugged enough for trap landings and cat shots, with TWO engines, with modernized avionics and sensors, with some room to grow (which all F-16s have precious little), with an established, domestic, maintenance and logistics system, and with NO R&D to pay, sounds like a pretty good deal to me… even if Super Hornets DO have the wrong paint job (just like those A-7s and F-4s of yore!) ! LOL!
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 3rd, 2011 at 9:26 am And I think that US pilots have a few jokes about the French as well.… but in the interest of international tranquility we wont go there! VIVE l’ FRANCE! LOL!
	Oblat August 3rd, 2011 at 10:57 am Yea, when you’re sitting on the tarmac all day you have a lot of free time on your hands
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 3rd, 2011 at 11:48 am Why sit on the tarmac when the beaches and golf course are so close.… :-) Anyway, most of those jokes on French pilots are self-inflicted, generally attributed to “Lucky Pierre”, the self proclaimed greatest fighter pilot in the world! (what air force does not have a few of those!) And if that was not enough… just check out most any aircraft built by French aviation industry between the world wars, and at least a few since! The home of the Louvre and the generally quite elegant Dassault products certainly produced a few seriously, artistically-challenged airframes! LOL!
	Engineer Economist August 3rd, 2011 at 12:36 pm I’ve heard better sales pitches from used car salesman. pfcem you have no response for how macroeconomic inflation, learning curve uncertainty, political, programmatic, and supportability risk, AND how obsolesence will affect a laughable 20+ year production run. The real world is beyond your ability to manage pfcem (don’t feel bad you are in good company), but keep trying to win your arguments by volume if it makes you happy.
	William C. August 3rd, 2011 at 6:27 pm Lockheed’s NATF shared many components and systems with the ATF (F-22) but it actually had variable sweep wings much like the F-14. I’d imagine the O&M costs of that would be prohibitive these days. I’m not against the idea, in fact I would love to see such an aircraft. Yet it is a major investment that I doubt our “wise” Congress would be willing to make.
	JSFMIKE August 4th, 2011 at 10:10 am Gripen this, F-18 that. Sorry, guys, but you are all way off base. The problem with these jets is that they hang their weapons on the wings. That makes for perfect radar reflectors. Having a “stealthy” engine intake doesn’t buy an extra second in a shooting war when the hardware is on the pylons. Further, when the need for a stealthy jet isn’t so necessary, the F-35 can hang a bunch of ordnance on its wings. Plus all the electronic goodies inside the jet that makes the pilot way more effective. As for logistics costs, add up all the costs for all the jets being replaced; jets like the earlier F-18s, F-16s, A-10s, AV-8Bs, etc. That means ALL the COSTS for these earlier airframes that get more costly each year they are in service. And it is not a One For One replacement! It’s NOT one F-35 for one F-16 or one F-18. In terms of computing power alone, the jets being replaced are dinosaurs. By the way, where did anyone get such low ball fly away costs for F-18s? Guess again! And the numbers for the F-35 are way exaggerated.
	Jethro August 4th, 2011 at 2:47 pm I’m pretty sure you puked any hint of a brain out of that loud stupid mouth. Still spouting the same old SIERRA. Grow up…
	otto August 4th, 2011 at 4:53 pm from what i here the marines just purchased 60 harriers form the britts the c model has started cat launches .but what the usmc needs s a-10s they can a least carry the ornace and the fight av8s and f-35s will not slug it out with an enemy they are not armored for a fight .the vtoll type air craft have to give up fuel or ammo for there capabilatys the 10 may need a longer runway but it can come to loiter and fight
	razorback August 13th, 2011 at 11:22 pm Cancel the f35 except the vstol.and build new super Tomcats.chaney is gone and this problem is his doing.One engine is not enough.They should have stuck with a proven air frame and went with the updated system.they would have already been online by now.Little testing would have been needed. I wonder who donated the most to chaneys election fund?
	pfcem August 14th, 2011 at 12:14 am New build Super Tomcats would be MORE expensive (to both procure & operate), take LONGER to get to IOC & be LESS capable than F-35s (sure you could get F-35 avionics & other sensor tech in a Super Tomcat but NO WAY are you getting anywhere near the F-35s VLO). One engine IS enough. The only NEED for multiple engines is when there is no single engine powerful enough. The only ‘proven airframe’ which could have possibly been used is the F-22 & it is simply too expensive to be procured in the kind of numbers necessary to replace F-16s & F/A-18s…anything else would be as dumb as developing a new prop-driven fighter in the 1950s.
	Ragtimes2k September 28th, 2011 at 5:10 pm I don’t think that the Marines are that concerned with stealth. Oh, sure it’s nice, but in the theater of operations that Marine airpower is used is ground support. Everybody in the area will know they’re there. For strategic, sneaky missions, we (USA) have the aircraft.

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

DoD Buzz

Marines see light at the end of the F-35B tunnel

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments