New wave of uncertainty on F-35

New wave of uncertainty on F-35

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told House lawmakers Thursday that he supports the “concept” of a fifth-generation fighter, but he wavered more than any Pentagon official in recent history in questioning whether DoD can afford all three flavors of the F-35 Lightning II.

Appearing with Secretary Panetta before the House Armed Services Committee, Dempsey said “I’m concerned about the three variants, whether we can afford all three.” In doing so, the chairman took a dramatically different line from other DoD leaders, saying not ‘We must have the jets and we’ll get their costs down,’ but ‘We need an airplane but we might not be able to buy the ones we’re trying to roll out.’

Panetta, for his part, maintained his solid commitment to the F-35. “This is a remarkable airplane,” he said. “It really does the job well.” DoD officials today are trying to understand all the “issues involved” with reducing its costs and getting the advertised performance, he said.


Panetta was asked specifically whether the B’s ship trials aboard the USS Wasp would get it off the “probation” imposed by former Secretary Gates. Panetta basically shrugged, acknowledging “probation” was as much a political phrase as an actual tool of managemnet.

“The term ‘probationary’ is out there, but what that means is, ‘Give us a chance to test it,’” he said. “It it performs well, it’ll make the grade.”

Panetta also re-opened the door for the prospect that DoD could buy two engines for the F-35, an issue that drove his predecessor up the wall. Maryland Rep. Roscoe Bartlett pointed out that Panetta and other DoD leaders have said that “competition” is a central tool for getting better deals, so if that’s the case, why is the department balking at engine-maker GE’s offer to pay its own money to develop its alternate engine?

Panetta also shrugged. “I’m a strong supporter of competition, but I don’t want competition to cost me money,” he said. “I want it to be efficient.” As with DepSecDef Ash Carter, Panetta agreed he would hear GE’s presentation about self-funding, but he offered no guarantees beyond just listening.

It isn’t clear how serious DoD is about reviving the Engine Wars; it’s possible Panetta and Carter’s responses are part of a more polite strategy of placating members of Congress, GE and Rolls-Royce by using “strategic ambiguity.” The companies need Congress and the Pentagon to agree to let them use U.S. government testing facilities and other equipment to continue work on the F136 engine, even if the work is funded privately, but neither lawmakers nor Panetta went into that level of detail on Thursday. GE has been making its self-funding offer for months, and if DoD officials haven’t gotten a detailed brief yet, it may mean they’re in no hurry to do so.

 

Join the Conversation

Just build the F-22B for ground attack or buy some F-15 Silent Eagles. Build more F-22A’s. Cancelle the f-35B,C and build the F-22N for the navy. The F-35 is a excellent plane but seriously its costs are to high. Buy Euro fighters or SU-35’s, just buy something affordable. I’m tired of reading and hearing about the f-35. $383 billion could buy almost 2000 f-22’s at a price of $200 million per plane.

Just build F-22N, huh. You think they just bolt a hook on and it is carrier suitable? You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Here’s your sign.….

Lies! the F-35 is ahead of schedule and under budget. Buying it will result in massive savings on everything from ammo to maintenance to training for pilots. It is the greatest aircraft ever conceived of by humans. It is more advanced than any other 5th generation aircraft! It stealth is perfect!! You can’t even see it on the ground right in front of you.

Did that sound fan boyish enough?

Everyone wants to pan the F35B but it is the only version out there that has zero competition and a built in market. With a host of nations building or purchasing VSTOL capable carriers (Italy, Spain, Australia, Japan, Korea, US, etc) who else is building a Mach 1+ 5th generation stealth VSTOL capable fighter??? No one. Not even close.

“Dempsey said “I’m concerned about the three variants, whether we can afford all three.”

That constitutes a “new wave of uncertainty”? Jesus, do you have Bill Sweetman writing for you now?

Here are the certainties with respect to F-35:
1. It will never be able to attain air dominance over the battlefield against the J-20 and T-50 (PAK-FA) emerging threats.
2. If we ever have to shoot it out with a near peer with AA/AD posture, it’s tiny internal weapon bay dimensions will render it nearly irrelevant while its compromised exportable stealth design, single engine, and high vulnerable area will result high loss rates.
3. It will never cut it’s price in half and will therefore consume budget badly needed and planned for other programs such as a new generation of standoff weapons, the Next Generation Bomber, and true air dominance fighters. These programs will all get pushed out 10 to 20 years paying for unplanned F-35 costs.
4. It will be overkill (in price and technology at risk) for the kinds of COIN/Irregular Warfare combat op’s that are still likely to dominate the next 20 years.

The time to kill it is NOW before it comsumes our entire DoD budget. Once it reaches IOC (2018–2020???) it will be too late and our Military will be at a great disadvantage because of it.

there should be an understood protocol of Congressional hearings to never force an Army general officer to make a public statement on a fighter aircraft languishing in development. No matter what he says, he’s doomed. Like if you only support the “concept” of a fifth generation fighter then why the frig are we $60+B sunk in full scale development???!! Couldn’t we get “concept exploration” much cheaper?!

No, just replace all of our aging F-15’s and F-16’s with completely new built versions. Not SLEP’d or rebuilt ones, completely new airframes. The F-15E is still in production in various forms so just buy a bunch of those, and build some Block 60 F-16’s to replace all the Block 25–30’s that are in the Air National Guard. Keep buying more and more F/A-18E/F Super Hornets because they’re on time and on budget and they WORK! Shocking…

These are already some of, if not THE best combat aircraft in the world today.

And what happens in the years 2015 to 2022 (for example) when the F-15s, F-16s, or F/A-18E/Fs have to go up and intercept a flight or two of Sukhoi T-50 PAK FAs or in the 2020s have to intercept several flights of J-20s? And there are no F-22s in the area.

Regarding your first point, up until 2020 we should have numerical superiority with 5th generation planes and a mix of F-35s and F-22s could meet a lesser number of J-20s and T-50s. I’m even hoping we can have stealth armed UAVs augmenting the F-35s and F-22s with air to air missiles as well. Isnt who shoots first and as long as the missile hits they get the kill? The same missile can be fired from all 3 platforms. Correct? If we have the best air to air missile and fire first then a mix of F-35s and F-22s could be effective. I am in the favor of buying more F-22s up to a total of 750.

With you there TACAIR

Sounds like the pols have turned the fire up under their dancing chicken. Dempsey is an accomplished pol player and will keep his nest feathered, regardless. Saying you are thinking about something and doing it are two very different acts. There are a lot of SS and Welfare rip-offs that will get canned long before any cuts in national defense.….. but it is good for a laugh from the media nits. God Bless Texas

pfcem taking the day off is he ?

You cede the airspace to them, just as you’d be doing if you were flying F-35s.

I’m not so sure that their stealth and radar technology is superior than ours. The longest range air to air missile and who fires first will determine who wins that air battle not if the plane has 1 or 2 engines. F-35 is stealth the other planes (F-15, F-16, F/A-18E/F) arent stealth.

The last time people relied upon distances and missiles, and “who hit first”. Was during Vietnam when we lost COUNTLESS planes, and pilots. We had to rush jets in that had machine guns on them, as the enemy would close in on them, making their missiles useless.

Your “certainties” are more speculative than stock option trading. Nothing you wrote can be said with any certainty and your #1 point is beyond absurd. The J-20? You mean the Gulfstream V sized “fighter” demonstrator that isn’t even close to entering production? You also have absolutely no way to say with “certainty” your #3&4 points.

How many decades have passed since Vietnam? I hope our current state of the art air ti air missiles are better than the ones we used in Vietnam :)

Well, with respect to Dempsey himself as you bring him up personally, I’d agree that many, if not most accomplished ‘pol players’ around the world — be they Chinese generals, or Russian, or you name them — will be masters in their accomplishments in part thanks being very good ‘dancing chickens’ wanting to keep their nests feathered in the name of duty. So that point alone is not really relevant to the discussion here, nor any real intelligent debate on this F-35 matter…imho, but thanks for the reply rb, as your points are noted.

What we should do is cancel the JSF and just buy upgraded Super Hornets, Silent Eagles, and A-10s. We don’t need the F-35. Why bankrupt ourselves over this jet when our present equipment is good enough to get the job done and will continue to be so for long time. The dollars on the F-35 could be better spent elsewhere.

That was People’s News correspondent ‘Black Owl’ reporting live from Beijing with the 264th installment of his blockbuster investigative series “Are Running Capialist Dog Monoplanes REALLY neccessary?”

Curses! read: “necessary”.

On the F-35, we’re far too along to stop now. But we can reduce the total buy to account for a mix of manned and unmanned “fighters.” Say, 1,800 instead of 2,400. As for Dempsey and being a pol, I’d say his first public move was pretty slick. Let’s see. An Army guy saying that maybe a new plane for the Air Force, Navy and Marines might have to be revisited? Humm. So that the Army doesn’t have to take bigger cuts in the coming budget wars?

You’re assuming these aircraft are actually as capable as the propaganda put out by their respective countries

Get real. The F-35 cost will NOT be to high once production ramps up. Your F-22B & F-15SE are both MORE expensive than the F-35 (F-22B more than the F-35 is NOW & the F-15SE more than the F-35 will be by FY2015). Just how are Euro fighters or Su-35’s more affordable than the F-35? The 2443 F-35s (A, B & C for the USAF, USMC & USN) wont cost $383 billion to buy — CAFE has admitted that its numbers were wrong & their more recent projections are significantly LOWER (in line with JPO numbers)..

With F-35s you WON’T be ceding airspace to them.

Even WITH the 10 day grounding the flight test program IS still ahead of the current schedule. Even IF LRIP 1–3 end up being 15% (reality is they will be closer to 11%) over contract price they will STILL be below the BS 2010 CAFE numbers used to claim a Nunn-McCurdy (not to mention that with production being ON SCHEDULE for almost a year now later lots will cost significantly less). Buying the F-35 WILL result in massive savings on maintenance, pilot training, et cetera. It IS more advanced than any other 5th generation aircraft & the USAF/DOD hope to be able to apply SOME of its advancements into the F-22 (to make the F-22 even better than it is today).

Wrong on all counts. None are even probabilities much less certainties.

Quite the opposite.

The biggest lesson of the program is to ignor/laugh at the naysayers & watch as the program proves them wrong.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff has no clue what he is talking about OR is talking about the possibility of $1 trillon in defense cuts would make EVERYTHING in the DOD unsustainable.

No we should NOT cancel the JSF. We should NOT buy any sort of legacy aircraft. We DO need the F-35 (legacy aircraft are NOT going to cut it in the future) The F-35 is not nor could it bankrupt us (it respresents <1% of the budget). Dollars WASTED elsware WOULD be better spent on the F-35.

Of course you know all of this for a fact. You must be able to predict the future or look into it. Hey can you tell me the next winning numbers of the Vermont lottery? Thanks!

Could the trials on Wasp not be going well? We have had a lot of silence after the intial landings. So if the B still has problems; it could be cancelled — as a cost savings? To save face, DOD would say it was cancelled due to cost pressures, rather than admitting it does not work as planned.

F-35 is a turkey, get rid of it.

oh wow I did better than I thought.

I’d skip having him buy a lottery ticket for you just looking at how accurate pfcem has been to date on the F-35.

With roughly 10% of the nation out of work and the economy in the toilet we’ll NEVER have the money to buy 2443 F-35’s. Just a quick look at the latest LRIP prices for the JSF compared to the per aircraft costs of the Raptor and the F-15 will clearly demonstrate how bogus his numbers are.

Notice he avoided talking about the “other Euro-canard” which remains far below the price point of the F-35 (Saab Gripen).

Brad, what he is TRYING to say is that the sales brochure technical capabilities of the missiles and aircraft is NOT the only part to the puzzle.

Take a little read here, with a grain or two of salt please, and see if it makes any sense. . .http://​www​.rense​.com/​g​e​n​e​r​a​l​5​8​/​V​V​S​.​HTM

And for a real-world example, have you ever watched two or three songbirds cooperatively divebombing a hawk? Good tactics on the songbirds more often than not, shoo off the hawk, even though on paper, that wren would be toast to the hawk’s talons.

The program proves them wrong? Years late and hundreds of billions in cost over runs later the combined financial pain of the JSF Program is finally being felt.

With a total forecast cost exceeding $1 trillion dollars for the F-35, simply eliminating the JSF would save the needed money allowing us to buy the many other critical items needed for our combined military services today.

Poor ROEs/tactics/strategy is why we lost planes in Vietnam. Tech will never fix stupidity.

Unsurprisingly a lot of bad ideas have no competition

A very sharp-eyed observation!

With all the money saved on the f35 surely we can afford a real aircraft now

They tried to do this same BS in the 60’s with the F-111. It didnt work then either and wasted a lot of money. Lets build more of the latest version of the F-15’s and 16’s. They will be better than anything the chinese and russians have for decades to come.

Well lets stack the deck against the USAF pilots and then be surprised that we lost! :)

“Secondly, at India’s request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the full range of capabilities of simulated long-range radar-guided AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. U.S. fighters could not use the active on-board radar capability of the AMRAAM, and the missile was limited to around 32 kilometers range and required the use of the F-15C’s onboard radar to target Indian aircraft. In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn’t require additional guidance from the F-15. ”

What would the result be if we had even odds, used the AIM-120 AMRAAN missile with full functionality, and had a mix of fighters 8 F-15s and 4 F-35As on the USAF side.

I’ve said it many times before, I’ll say it again: PROVE OUT the technology, build a single representative aircraft with the PROMISED capabilities, and then let’s talk about how cheap this thing really is. This ain’t no F-22, where the goal was to develop the BEST air superiority airframe, at whatever cost, and get it into production — We’re SUPPOSED to be building a cheap, effective, stealthy airframe; but what we have is an unproven product that illogical people clamor needs to go into higher-rate production to keep “costs down” — REALLY??? So let’s not only increase production of an unfinished aircraft, but let’s increase production of THREE VARIANTS??? That’s the plan? I just can’t fathom why the problem is so hard to grasp <big sigh>

You don’t need to “kill” the F-35… We just need to be honest with ourselves (read as “the JSF Partners”) and understand that noone should ever pay “$65Mil” for a picture, a wish list, and a promise. And noone should ever base a major cornerstone of their national security on the expectation that anything is “too big to fail”… because as it stands, a decision to continue this path of produce, promise, and build BEFORE you have a finished product is gunna bring about the self-fulfilling prophecy — Failure… at which point the JSF may very well be “killed”, but not due to any limitations in its COMPLETED design — but rather to the greed and impatience of too many We-Need-It-Now’s. At which point I hope we revisit an F22-“Lite” :-)

Maybe I’ll help you out.

Listen to yourself. Conspiracy theory fan, eh?

It’s needed to replace an aging fleet of F-16s, classic F/A-18s, and AV-8s. These can’t fly on forever. At what cost? At whatever cost a production run of 2,400+ aircraft will allow us to achieve, which will certainly be somewhere well below the $100 million mark. The F-35 isn’t made out of diamonds and platinum or anything.

The majority of the technology is unproven and developmental? Well this tends to be the case with most new fighters, although most of the F-35’s systems are developments of proven system. For example the F135 is based off the F119, EOTS shares much with the Sniper XR advanced targeting pod, etc. Airframe and performance testing is moving along, and any new fighter with these capabilities is going to require a similar amount of software.

What criteria has been trimmed? That new HMDS you heard about is an alternate in case the planned system doesn’t work out or isn’t ready on time, it hasn’t been re-contracted or cancelled. Weapons integration choices are down to a “select few”? Since when? In order to trim off some weight the weapon’s bay of the F-35B can only carry 1000lb munitions but that’s the only real change in terms of weapons loadout since the early (pre-F-35) days of the program.

Everyone has genuine concerns about the F-35, but most of what we here these days is simple misinformation. Some people clearly aren’t thinking this out when they say the F-35 would be able to face down Chinese or Russian systems and then argue we should buy less capable alternatives based off current 4.5 generation aircraft.

While I was a fan the F-35 to start with and was happy the RCAF was going to get some, I have serious doubts now. It seems to me they really are trying to do too much with one aircraft. As well, for every aircraft not bought it brings the cost per unit up from what it was supposed to be when your Allies agreed to the F-35. This increase will likely cause the RCAF to have to withdraw as well. The EF2000 Typhoon would serve our needs and is a proven ship. It is started to look like the JSF project is just trying to milk it to keep their jobs or bump up the cost.….….….…There is was a time the US military would have jagged in this idea long ago.……IF it taking this much time to fix problems, what will they do when operational aircraft are killing our pilots.

Black owl,

USAF can’t buy new A-10 airframes as part of a Plan B recap strategy, but your point is legit. SH, F-15E++ and F-16++ would be a viable short-term stopgap strat until a longer-term, more reliable, more sustainable recapitalization plan can be assessed (using up to date ‘reality’ analysis and mindset given austere budget environments).

You are 100% correct. Cancel the F-35.

I think many people are no longer objective over the F35 and captured in black and white thinking over this plane. Yes the F35 is not the best what the USA can develop but the F35 still the only reasonable option was the USA now have. It is probably too late to save the F22 and to correct so one of the biggest mistakes what a Defense Secretary has ever made and it is also absolutely too late to restart a new 5 or 6 Generation fighter program. The Navy and the USAF have nearly 3000 outdated and worn Fighters how must replace jet and not in 20 or more years. It is also right what the F35 will not be enabling to penetrate the best Russian and Chinese Air defense Systems or to still superior against the PAK FA or the J20 but at least the F35 will have a chance to survive against the this aircrafts and also a chance to beat modern Air Defense System with intelligent tactic and better Weapons.

The ugly reality is what the USA has no longer an alternative to the F35 since Gates kill the F22 Program and the Russian and Chinese start up their own 5 Generation fighter programs. You simply cannot beat a J20 with an F16Block52 or a F18E/F/G no matter how improved these legacy fighters are they still non stealth fighters how there designed in the late Seventy. How long the Russian and the Chinese’s had not have their own F22 like fighter projects the idea to buy more improved Legacy fighter like the F18E/F Block 2/3 or the F15SE was not so bad but this can with the emerge of the J20 no longer be serious option. So the USA can now only put all is eggs in the F35 basket them he will maintain a real chances to remain a serious Air Power after 2020. And this why the F22 is also no longer a real alternative to the F35 Program because of is limited multirole skills and the lack of modern sensors and integrated weapons. So the F22 has not even an IRIST System or a modern ECM System for self-defense and the F22 is also not net centric warfare capable and also not enable to use current Air to Air Weapons like the AIM9X or the AIM120D he can just use outdated AIM9M and AIM120C5-7. I would venture to say what the F35 in their basic configuration will beat actual F22 block20 in a in a duel and this simple why the Air Superiority F22 has never be finished. The F22 is just in there Global Strike Configuration the great fighter what It should be in there momentum configuration is the F22 just a LRIP plan. You can fix all this lacks of the F22 and make this plane better them the F35 can be but it will cost money and time and the USA not have both thinks!

So I predict the fallowing Scenarios for the future of the F35.

I start with the worst case Scenario:

1. Obama win the election and the trigger Cuts get reality what means a cut of 1000–1100 billion over 10 Years. So the F35B and F35C will be cancel and the order of the USAF cut and half and this will be a bit later the end of the entire F35 Program and of the US Air Superiority.

2. Obama win the election and the trigger Cuts can be averted what will mean a cut of 450–550 billion over 10 Years. So the F35B will also be cancel and the Number of the F35A and C by one third reduced as consequence the USA will be after 2020 no longer the clear best Air force in the world but the risks can be manage.

3. And the best Scenario Obama lose the election against Mitt Romney and the GOP takes also the Senate. So the F35 will probably completely spared by cuts and the USA will stand the strongest Air Force on Earth beyond 2030.

Or with other Words the uncertainty will still about the entire DOD how long it is not clear how will be the next President after 2012. And this no matter them the trigger cuts get real or not and the end the 113 congress and the next President will decide the fate of the USA as a World Power. Because the reality is that the USA not need to cut their military. Because the maximum annual DOD cuts (110 Billion) will only reduce the actual deficit of 1300 Billion by just 8, 5% but the consequences will mean the end of the USA as the Lading World Power and a World how will be dominated by further criminal dictatorships like Russia and Red China.

Didn’t we hear the same story in the build up to Desert Storm between the F-15 and MiG-29 where we were expecting a significant air to air battle? Training is as much a factor as powerpoint tech.

It is not a prediction. It is a projection and ACTUAL COSTS (even for the significantly delayed & over cost LRIP 1–3 — ONLY 11–15%) are not as far off from said projections as the naysayers want everyone to believe.

Actually it is closer to 20% of the nation out of work (counting those who have stopped looking & are ‘under employed’).

Today’s bad economic times could be replaced by good economic times almost as quickly as they went from good to bad. With the possibility (dare I say likelyhood) of a new Administration taking over in Jan 2013, it COULD get better ‘overnight’ (actually START to improve Nov 2012) with unemployment <5% & annual growth rates >4% by the 2nd half of this decade & being the ‘norm’ for more than a decade.

You obviously haven’t looked at the LRIP prices because they show quite the opposite. Cost from LRIP 1 to LRIP 4 has been cut in half & LRIP is still at only ~1/4 the production rate planned for full rate production.

I did not avoid the “other Euro-canard”. I have dealt with it many times before. Ask Norway about the cost of the F-35 vs the Gripen…

YES the program proves them wrong! The issues which caused the delays & cost overruns in the past have been addressed & the program has been perfoming very well for almost a year now.

The $1 trillion forcast is pure BS & if one were to apply the same methodology to the CURRENT fleet its forcast would be $4 trillion. The F-35 SAVES $3 trillion!!!

The F-35 IS a real aircraft & it is the future. Get over it.

No it is NOT legit! It would cost MORE money & result in a LESS capable force.

Poor weather has slowed the trials.

Quite the opposite.

The F-35 is NOT like the F-111. The F-111 was an attempt to do two VERY different jobs with the same airframe. The jobs of the F-35A, F-35B & F-35C are essentially the same except for the differences with regards to way the USAF, USMC & USN deploy (most specifically take-off & land) combat aircraft.

DItto.

What pfcem wont tell you is that the production is stuck at 31 aircraft a year when it should be around 200 because Lockheed cant build them reliably.

And at the same time the cost per aircraft is now going up having been artificially depressed for “marketing reasons” (ie to keep the program alive), with LRIP5 aircraft costing over 10 each million more then LRIP4 aircraft.

No your typical F-35 is more likely to be overrun on the ground while awaiting maintenance.

“ON SCHEDULE“
NOT THAT SCHEDULE! no not that schedule either, the NEW SCHEDULE from last week
arrrrg

The FY2012 (LOT 6) ‘Weapons System Cost’ for the F-35.
$192.85 million for 19 F-35A (down to $119.70 for 50 in FY2015)
$209.86 million for 06 F-35B (down to $155.42 for 12 in FY2015)
$245.82 million for 07 F-35C (down to $155.39 for 19 in FY2015)

So yes the $200 million is ALREADY absurd!

You are close on the Super Hornet.
$86.85 million for 28 F/A-18E/F
$92.29 million for 12 F/A-18G

There is neither the time nor the money for your absurd demands.

The F-35 was NEVER supposed to be cheap nor was it ever supposed to be another F-22.

The technology & promised capabilities ARE being proven more & more every day!

IF we had been procuring fighters over the past two decades (& you could go from producing less than a dozen airframes a year to over 100 a year ‘overnight’) then the need to get the F-35 ASAP would not be so great.

YOU are the one being illogical.

The only ones not being honest (with themsselves & evryone else) are the naysayers.

The only ‘self-fulfilling prophocies of failure are the BS ‘alternative plans’ conjured up by the naysayers.

No partner has withdrawn. In fact there is already one confirmed ADDITIONAL customer in Israel & a half dozen other nations already expressing intrest in/desire for the F-35.

How would the Typhonoon serve the RCAF’s needs & how is it a ‘proven ship’?

The only ‘problem’ that has taken so long to ‘fix’ is the weight issue from 2004 (which was CAUSED for the most part by the demands of bean counters to make the airframe ‘low cost’ above all else).

LOL cancel the F-35 and keep 150 F-22’s against hundreds of PAK-FA’s and J-20’s. Plus, loose the International Fighter Market for decades to come.

Really, did IQ’s just drop or what???

When you look at the numbers for F-35 production one thing becomes clear. The JSF program never delivers on it’s promises. Every single production figure is way below estimates from the year before. You can also work out how many F-35 there will be in the end.

By the time all the money is spent we will have only 670 aircraft

And that is assuming that partners don’t bail on the disaster. Does anyone really think that Italy’s
order for 132 F-35s is firm, or that they will be happy when only 35 are delivered for the same outlay. Or that the Australian air force is going to be happy to be decimated, reduced from three to one squadron.

When you factor in the partners bailing it looks like all the cash we have to replace the fleet of 3000 F-18, F-16 and F-15s for the air force navy and marines will only buy 650 aircraft.

Carried to it’s conclusion the JSF program is not only the worlds most expensive defense project it is the also the worlds biggest disarmament program.

Is Canada really going to replace three squadrons of CF-18s with half a squadron of F-35s ? I don’t think so.

No all the partners are waiting rapidly trimming their numbers. Nobody wants to be the first to bail. Even the US navy is making alternative arrangement’s.

As pfcem says perhaps Canada should go the Israeli route and accept the F-35 as long as it is delivered for free.

“The F-35 was NEVER supposed to be cheap nor was it ever supposed to be another F-22.”

In other words an expensive second rate aircraft — well they met all their goals there.

If someone had gone to the army in 1943 and suggested that they soak up the entire fighter budget until 2011 to just build P-47s they would have been called nuts.

And no doubt the fan boys would claim that the P-47 was such a wonderful aircraft it will be sure ensure US air dominance until 2011.

The only problem with this story is that the F-35 isn’t even the P-47 of today it’s closer to the Brewster Buffalo with a new jungle paint job that makes it “undetectable”. And just like the Buffalo it cant turn it cant fight and it cant run, you’re better of just ejecting at the merge.

If someone had gone to the army in 1943 and suggested that they soak up the entire fighter budget until 2011 to just build P-47s they would have been called nuts.

But that is what the F-35 production history tells us about where it is going.
And no doubt the fan boys of the day would claim that the P-47 was such a wonder aircraft that it would ensure army air superiority until 2011.

The only problem with this story is that the F-35 isn’t the P-47 of today, it’s more like the Brewster Buffalo with a new jungle paint job that make’s it “undetectable”. Can’t turn, can’t fight, can’t run, just like the ill fated Buffalo, in the F-35 you’re better off just bailing out at the merge.

itfunk: I absolutely agree with you that the total buy of F-35 is gunna drop like a rock. But seriously, is that such a bad thing? Other than the U.S. and it’s closest allies, who can really afford to buy and support a fleet (of ANY size) of stealth aircraft? With all the wizz-bang tech that’s been put into the JSF concept, and the compromises put into each design to satisfy the requirements for the other variants, the F-35 hasn’t produced enough completed technology »> which leads to reduced buys or worse, more buys of defective planes»>which raises costs and delays»> All of this, before a production-rep. aircraft has been produced. So now it’s a matter of what to do: Upgrade the F-15s, F-16s, AV-8s, buy new 4th-gens, etc.

I say stop building the F-35 right now and begin migrating the proven tech into whatever 4th-gen airframes have good life left in them, as well as the F-22; Continue development of the TECHNOLOGY used in the F-35 (not 3 variants); Order enough new-build F-22s RIGHT NOW to keep the line open, even though it’s gunna be expensive (Thanks Gates!), so that WHEN we decide we need a stealth platform for strike/deep interd. missions, and the F-35 ain’t ready, we have a proven monster coming fresh-off-the-line to work with. If the F-35 proves out, we’ll offer it up for sale and build, otherwise put the funds towards buying new F-15SEs or other airframes and offering internationally, and keeping the F-22s in tip-top shape and cutting edge… We all invested alot in the F-22, but most people have no concept of what it’s really capable of now or in the future… It’s what everyone is shooting for.

If someone had gone to the army in 1943 and suggested that they soak up the entire fighter budget until 2011 to just build P-47s they would have been called nuts.

But that is what the F-35 production history tells us about where it is going. It will take 75 years to reach the 3000+ aircraft needed. And no doubt the fan boys of the day would claim that the P-47 was such a wonder aircraft that it would ensure army air superiority until 2011.

The only problem with this story is that the F-35 isn’t the P-47 of today, it’s more like the Brewster Buffalo with a new jungle paint job that make’s it “undetectable”. Can’t turn, can’t fight, can’t run, and just like the ill fated Buffalo, in the F-35 you’re better off bailing out at the merge.

pcfem:

Right, changing Administrations is going to immediately get us out of two useless wars and solve the debt crisis. You’re showing your age pfcem.…

Getting back to the latest LRIP prices, your not mentioning that the new “fixed” price is because Lockmart was forced to eat 50%of all cost over runs from this point forward by the Pentagon (LOL).

Getting back to reality, where’s that advertised $65 million dollar price tag per aircraft? Why let me help you, ITS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

The Gripen continues to deliver on schedule and under budget vs the F-35 being always over budget and years behind schedule. And the fact that Norway is drinking the same hallucinogen laced Kool-aid that you’re guzzling doesn’t change the facts cowboy.

pfcem:

Again I ask you, when is the F-35 going to meet the advertised price point of $65 million dollars per aircraft? Let me help you again, at a “projected” rate of 31 aircraft per year its NEVER going to happen.

Can you say death spiral??

Unfortunately the side effect of dumping so much funding into the F-35 is that the development of evolved legacy fighters has fallen by the way side. The result is the USAF is now feeling the need to install advanced AESA radar systems in 15 year old Eagles in an attempt to counter the arrival of Chinese J-20.

The JSF Program remains one of the most destructive military programs in history and it continues draining the funding opportunities to build new legacy aircraft like the F-15SE/Block 60+ F-16 to replace our now geriatric fighter force.

Meanwhile outside the US and the JSF death spiral, China and Russia continue to use the F-22 as the benchmark target to shoot for.

Here’s the latest shoe to drop, the first photo’s of a Shenyang stealth fighter model on display as reported over at the Dewline. Note this is NOT a single engine strike fighter, this is a two engined air superiority aircraft with a striking resemblance to the Raptor.

When will our Government wise up and put the F-22 back in production?

http://​www​.flightglobal​.com/​b​l​o​g​s​/​t​h​e​-​d​e​w​l​i​n​e​/​201

Gripen NG 60 Million

The Gripen NG with upgraded avionics ( that were to be used in the JSF ) and the Carrier version http://207.88.65.231/GripenNG/Sea-GripenNG-9–11.p

The Gripen NG with upgraded avionics ( that were to be used in the JSF ) and the Carrier version http://207.88.65.231/GripenNG/Sea-GripenNG-9–11.p

Cocidius… I suspect the Government will not get any wiser, at least not wise enough to see that AIRFRAME is everything… They can’t seem to grasp the concept that taking an F-35 and giving it the abilities of the F-22 is a WHOLE LOT more difficult than going the other way and giving the F-22 the capabilities of the F-35. That’s because the airframe of the F-22 is “tweaked out”, so you’d basically be removing raw capability in order to make it marketable like the F-35(marketable meaning exportable, affordable, with the ground attack capabilities that countries want to buy.)

The F-22 airframe has the strength, performance, cooling, power, and growth capability to take on any F-35 “features” you need (doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about an EOTS system, DAS-type system… doesn’t matter, a better airframe can accept a better system) — and the kicker is that it could be payed for by stripping the F-22 of the capabilities the F-35 is never gunna have (top-end stealth, stealthy thrust vectoring, supercruise, high-altitude maneuverability, apg-77/ALR-94, etc.) But, incredibly, it was decided that the $1 Billion estimated tab to make the F-22 exportable to allies ready to PAY FOR IT was somehow a worse proposition than the $700+ Mil we just spent to fix design flaws in the first 20+ F-35s, the Billions more needed to complete development that’s years from completion, the $100+ Mil pricetag of incomplete F-35s, the hundreds of millions we’re planning to spend on new F-18s and life extensions due to delays, and the STILL-INCREASING unit costs as partners drop from the ranks! — AMAZING!!!

I guess it needs to be reiterated again: The F-22 may be expensive, and it may have its teething pains, but it’s flying, it works, and it is the best platform of its kind ever designed. The F-15C was called too too “inflexible” (amongst other things)… Yet there are 2 very important facts lost to F-35 Fans. 1. The F-15C is considered the greatest air superiority fighter for the 2 decades spanning the mid-70s to the mid-90s, and has a record to prove it, and 2. The F-15C, because of its superior airframe, was able to rapidly take on the targeting, navigation, and weapons systems it was never “specifically designed for”… and has evolved, in the F-15E, into one of the greatest deep strike aircraft ever conceived, and it’s still getting better. Until the F-35 shakes out, does anyone REALLY believe that the F-22 cannot do what the F-35 can do, by “simple” tech-insertion alone? I DON’T. Problem is: The tech isn’t there… not for the F-35, and by extension, not for the F-22. And THAT is the problem Mr. Gates, despite the spin you put on the F-22!

Sorry, everyone, lost myself for a bit there.. But common sense should tell F-35 Fans to put up or shut up, and just WAIT until your precious DAS and EOTS make there way into the Raptor when the tech is finally PERFECTED… The –22 will once again leapfrog over the then-top-end capabilities, at least until the 6th-gen arrives. Do they really think we should expect anything less from the fastest, stealthiest, most maneuverable airframe out there? I honestly believe they’re the only ones that’ll be surprised.

Cocidius —

I couldn’t disagree on anything you just covered. Well, maybe one minor point of disagreement… those ’15 yr old’ Eagles are even a bit older in the teeth than one might want to even think. Good thing for lip stick. Cheers~

pfcem–

$200+ million was absurd for Lot-4! Let alone Lot-6!! Get with the program bro, this well-intentioned but unfortunately fatally flawed from inception bird, is NOT sustainable… nor will be seen produced or procured in the annual rates ASSUMED for FY15!

FY15 will see at most 25 USAF CTOL procurement in the imminent austere Defense budget environments. Even at 50 buys, add 10–20% onto the official ‘estimate’, per the trend since start of Program. But unfortunately, as noted, USAF will not be procuring those ‘back-ended’ annual rates still officially advertised.

Project a more realistic FY15 CTOL PUC cost (after modifications) @ $185-190m, TYD, staying the course.

Sorry for the fundamental disagreement… this in not fear mongering, but the reality which will hopefully be realized and acknowledged by policymaking circles before FY15.

pfcem — The F-35 IS NOT a real aircraft & it is NOT the future. Get over it pal. The JSF SHOULD BE cancelled. Any air force should buy any sort of upgraded legacy aircraft. We DON’T need the F-35 (upgraded legacy aircraft and F-22s are going to cut it in the future) The F-35 is and could it bankrupt (it respresents <1% of the budget). Dollars are going to be WASTED spent on the F-35 that is totally useless etc etc.

$190 million per aircraft? The flyaway cost of the later F-22A batches was less than $135 million! From a mechanical standpoint the F-35 isn’t made out of anything or require production methods that would drive up the cost so dramatically.

Not a real aircraft? So I guess that F-35B flying from the USS Wasp was an illusion? Make no mistake, updated legacy aircraft and 180 F-22s are NOT going to cut it! The F-35 is and could it bankrupt? Now you’re not making any sense at all.

STOVL is a bad idea? Better go scrap all of our Harriers early and forget about all of the air-support they’ve provided then.

None of which does any good if we are stuck with some 180 F-22s.

It seems most people fail to understand that the F-22 and F-35 were supposed to complement each other, much as the F-15 and F-16 do.

Because the J-20s, T-50s, Su-35s, etc. can be maintained with a toothbrush and hammer…
Meanwhile you expect us to believe the F-35 will be harder to maintain than a ‘80s era F-117?

The beloved Gripen NG that will offer no significant advantage over a new F-16 variant, neither of which compare to the F-35?

Tell me, if the Gripen NG can be produced for such a ‘low low price’ why can’t the F-35? Magical Swedish labor costs?

In following this thread I often wonder where the tech info/specs of the J-20 and T-50 come from and how folks can so easily say that they are better than what the F-35 is doing today? Why should we believe what the Russians/Chinese say about their aircraft any more than what we believe on the F-35, except that we have a lot more insigth (read FOIA) into what the F-35 can do vice the “potential” of what the J-20/T50 can do.

We should be prudent in our spending to deter China and other adversaries, but not foolhardy. It’s difficult to justify a $383 billion dollar tacair platform if you don’t have a suitable adversary. China is clearly going through an internal tug of war between the hawks and doves so we should be prepared for the hawks view point winning out. The problem I have is our spending on deterrence is platform centric and not strategy centric. Very expensive way of doing things in my opinion.

Its more illogical to continue production of 4th gen aircraft knowing they are instantly obsolete against future adversaries with J20/Pak FA, S300/400/500, and multiple missiles for attacking land airbases. Splitting the stealth tacair fleet between land, big carriers and smaller amphibs is the best answer to dispersing against against anti-access/area denial attempts. Selling Taiwan AH-64Ds would be far more effective in their defense than sales of F-16s destroyed on the ground, unable to take-off, and already endangered by Chinese air defenses and J20s etc, along the coast.

Long range strike risks nuclear escalation. We stil have ample aerial refuelers compared to any adversary. As enemy missiles and fighters are depleted, our stealth fighters will be newly arriving at multiple repaired airfields where host nations are enraged by the missile attack. Older B-52H, B-1B, and ships/subs will carry plenty of JASSM-ER and cruise missiles to strike enemy coasts. In any event, it would be insane economically for China to go to war with the U.S. The Chinese are not stupid.

MM99: Very good point… However, let it be understood that what we can see in the AIRFRAME of the T50 says worlds about its potential. And if we make the assumption that the T-50 and J-20 are nothing to worry about because they don’t have the avionics, engines, etc, then nearly the same can and should be said of the F-35 — Its avionics are FAR from complete and it’s capabilities and cost are rapidly DIVERGING. So, if the Russians are smart and can avoid the pitfalls of the –35 and put proven tech into the PAK-FA, with the growth potential for –35-like capabilities when they’re proven and affordable, the storyline’s gunna change, especially if the two are hitting theworld market around the same time… It comes down to the common sense the JSF Program has lacked. They can say what they want about the JSFs 5th-Gen capabilities, but a half-way stealthy Pak-Fa with an AESA and supercruise is a GREAT counter-move to the F-35!

Just like countries now flying F-16s don’t really expect them to do the job alone against the SU-30s of the world post-2015, how does everyone think they’d feel having Pak Fas or J-20s deployed in the region and no F-22s on offer? Not a concern for us, cause we have the –22. But if the F-35s stealth doesn’t hold up as promised, the game’s up, because its HMDS has problems, DAS has problems, airframe has problems, and its cost means buying alot of them to counter threats is no longer an option, even though affordability was supposed to be one of its core selling points… So now what? Yes, the F-35 will be a great aircraft, IF and when it’s completed, with the promised capabilities… The problem now is do we expect everyone to sit and see what happens, or begin looking for a proven airframe to to fill 2 purposes — 1). act as a “hedge” against the Pak Fa and J-20 being slouches and 2). take on SOME of the targeting/exportability capabilities of the F-35 until the latter either shakes or falls apart. If only a 5th-gen will do for these countries, as we’ve told them, then there IS a PLAN B. We’ve been afraid of offering the F-22 for fear of hurting the F-35s export sales… But the plain fact is, the F-35 is a worse enemy (to itself) than the F-22. The F-22 could actually save the JSF! — Hard to hear, I know, but that’s the predicament we’re in now — Thanks to Gates and his henchmen.

No wonder the US is going broke, when it keeps buyinh toys like this.

If we were to start right now making the F-22 exportable, while scaling back the F-35, what would we have by 2015? We’d have an “affordable” (yes, we all know stealth is expensive) top-of-the-line fighter that could be exported to satisfy any allies’ requirements for counters to air-air and IADS threats deployed in their region(s), and they’ve already offered to foot the bill AND pay up to $200Mil a piece for the end-product. I am assuming air-air emphasis, with current SDB and JDAM capabilities maintained… No DAS, No EOTS. However, some of the savings from the F-35 “hold” could be used to outfit the aircraft we sell to allow for integration of the F-35 tech (or a derivative) when it’s completed.
Now, if the F-35 by that time has panned out, then it could be purchased (hopefully cheaper than “upgrading” the F-22 would be) to gain the desired ground-attack capabilities. IF it hasn’t, the pieces are in place to offer whatever “level” of F-22 we and our allies deem necessary and affordable. But make no mistake about it, those that had purchased the F-22 would be seriously looking at upgrading at least a portion of their fleet to F-35 “standard” — What IADS/fighter/AWACS system out there would be able to handle F-22s penetrating with speed, stealth, superior maneuverability, AND EOTS targeting? I can’t think of any off-hand.

I’d really like to see the F-15SE in our inventory, and the inventory of our allies. A “stealthy” F-15, with all the JHMC/IRST/AIM-9x/Sniper goodies seems to satisfy alot of our and our allies’ requirements, at least as I’ve seen them outlined… It may not be full 5th-gen, but I think it would be available within a couple years and Boeing threw out a figure of $90Mil… Not bad, considering what you’re getting. And I think Boeing would be able to quote an “actual” price very quickly, since it’s already been flown and fired a missile (how many missiles has the –35 fired after 10 years?).

So Paul is upset because we spent $700 million to fix design flaws in the first 20+ F-35s. Except what they actually did was fix flaws on 2000+ F-35s. Now contrast that with required increment upgrades of F-22A. Multiple blocks exist with varying capabilities fielded. To add capabilities as simple as SAR ground attack and small diameter bomb I (susceptible to GPS jamming and no laser designator for SDB II for moving targets) will require upgrades totaling up to $16 billion spread over multiple years.

Don’t believe me? Check out the nearly $1 billion for those upgrades in FY 2012 with many years remaining. The net result will be an added $100 million per each of 160 aircraft for increment upgrades on top of the $227 million that a RAND study cited as the cost to reopen the line and build 75 more F-22As. Still believe that is a viable alternative…never mind that we already have sales lined up for F-35s at far less cost with greater lower altitude endurance at slower speeds for ground attack at lower O&S costs?

I find it quite unbelievable that people who have very little understanding of the F35A, B, C system capabilities and much less knowledge of true program status can pen such nonsensical rants. Funding and cost overruns will forever be a major issue for complex weapon systems. With today’s world economic issues, it can be a more dominant factor. In the end, my hope is that Obama, Panetta and Congress do what is right for the Services and national defense of the U.S.A. With or without partner country buys (in the end my bet is with), the Navy and Marines deserve the capabilities provided by the C and B variants. Naysayers should exercise a bit more patience. 2011 has been a good year for flight test. The Services are going to appreciate all variants of this jet even if a few of the systems are slow to be proven.

So you are saying allies should pay more to sacrifice DAS and other integrated EO/IR/laser capabilities so they cannot use Small Diameter Bomb II from lower altitudes and speeds. Both aircraft have about 18,000 lbs of fuel. One is much lighter and has one engine. Guess which one will use less fuel the majority of time when not flying at supercruise and not flying air-to-air.

The F-22A ship has sailed, it can’t be affordably modified for carriers large or small, and you and I have no idea of the true stealth capabilities of a J-20, Pak FA, F-22A, or F-35A. We do know that the RCS of an F-16, F-15, F/A-18E/F, F-15SE, Gripen, or Eurofighter will not be nearly as good.

Reasonable comments Tacair. We don’t know a lot of things, but that is no reason to approach it glass half-empty instead of glass 3/4 full which is the difference between the cheaper-in-the-mid-to-long term F-35A/B/C and costlier F-22A whose secrets we don’t want to give up.

Do take issue with your last paragraph. So you are saying the F-15E radar can see farther than the F-35. The difference is the adversary can see the F-15E as well while they cannot yet see the F-35. If both fire missiles BVR, you have mutual kills for the F-15E and Russian/Chinese aircraft shooting at each other or a one-sided kill with the F-35 AIM-120D taking out the threat before they are remotely in range to see us to shoot back.

Cost overruns will forever be a major issue so long as staying within a budget is not a priority and system engineers do a poor job of defining and achieving requirements. Pretty nonsensical huh? Your use of the label “naysayer” is ironic, considering F-35 supporters are “naysayers” to any proposed alternative. Why let a little hypocrisy get in the way of your argument, right? Are you a “SysEng” in industry or in govt? just curious.

The F22 is the clear better design and better fighter but he is also the most expensive fighter and not really finish. The F22 can be upgraded to do everything that the F35 can possible much better but this will cost a lot of time and money. And they speak her about cuts, in an ideal world without Obamas and Progressives the USAF fly 700 F22 and 2500 F35 and no one will have a chance to beat this Force but they don’t live in an ideal World, the speak in the moment about cuts from 450 to 1100 Billion.

To kill the F22 was the biggest mistake of the last 50 Years and one of many mistake how was made in the War on Terror ideology and his idiotic believers like Rumsfeld and Gates now it is too late to make radical changes. The DOD has no longer the money and the time to buy or better said to restart the F22 Line so the F35 still a ugly but sufficient Fighter how can be good enough to beat the most Chinese and Russian Fighter and also cheap enough to replace the F16 and F18.

The F22 is simple overpowered, maintenance-intensive and too expensive to replace the F16 and F18. Them you decide to go forward with the F22 and to kill the F35 you will have to invest Billions in upgrades for the outdated and incomplete avionic of the F22 also for the weapon Integration of modern Air to Air and Air to Ground Weapons.

Hear the facts:

1.The actually F22 has no IRIST System,
2.She can only use older AIM120C5-7 and AIM9M in Air combat
3.She cannot use HARMs for SEAD or Harpoons against Ships.
4.She can attack just 2 ground targets simultaneous with SDBs
5.She cannot use Weapons like JASSAM and JSOW how necessary to hit high defended targets
6.She has no weapons to attack moving ground targets
7.She has also not a ECM System
8.And she is not interoperable with other fighters or better said limited Net centric warfare capable.
9.She is expensive in compare to the F35 and difficult to maintain, so it will be hard to sell the F22 in many countries. The Japans will buy the F22 and possible also the South Koreans but for other countries is the F22 to expensive and too difficult to maintain.

The F35 in compare have all this thinks what the F22 not have and this from the beginning but the F35 has also the fallowing shortcomings.

1.She has very limited intern Weapon load
2.A low Speed, just Mach 1, 5 and no super cruise.
3.A weaker and smaller Radar System how is focused on Air to Ground operations
4.Less extensible resource why she is small and a single engine fighter.
5.And she has a weaker Stealth, possible too weak to beat SAMs like the S400 or to be superior to the J20.
So my conclusion that both fighters are not perfect, the F22 is better but more expensive and not finish and the F35 limited as Fighter and unable to beat modern Air defense Systems and the now coming Chinese Stealth fighter. But I believe also what the F35 can beat PAK FA, so the J20 is the biggest problem for the F35 why the J20 appears really comparable to the F22.

I think also what the DOD need a rethink of is entire strategy them he will still superior to the Red Chinese. Only the strategy to buy better Weapon platforms will not help to stay superior the USA need more mass more ships, more fighters , more submarines and better small weapons like a better Cruise missile or a better Air Superiority Missiles also better Air defense System. The DOD is to focusing on high end Platforms and big ticket ships but you reach a point how class no longer work the best example is the B2 and F22 Program. 20 B2 are simple to less to be relevant in a high intensity war also just 185 F22 so the DOD most find a way to procure enough weapons to replace is existing Fleet by 1 to 1 or 1 to 0,8 or he will simple outnumbered in a future conflict.

RE: When you look at the numbers for F-35 production one thing becomes clear. The JSF program never delivers on it’s promises. Every single production figure is way below estimates from the year before. You can also work out how many F-35 there will be in the end.

So obviously by this logic, the F-35 program should build the previously planned numbers even though Congress chooses to stretch LRIP, ostensibly as a perverted form of risk reduction? Not to ‘hep’ on acquisition law eh?

Remind us of this prediction in 10 years there Nostradamus.

Industry but why does it matter? Do you think govt sysengr cannot contribute to overruns? These are complex systems that industry and government both can over (and under) spec with best of intentions. Couple that with today’s safety standards, it is not surprising this multi variant program has taken a bit longer than you expect it should to field “final” production versions. G model F18 is finally a system worth flying despite lack of range. I would say skeptical of YOUR proposed alternatives which aren’t as far along as F-35 or are already obsolete. Do you really believe government or industry really enjoy the pressure of cost overruns or delays in delivery? But why don’t you ask an LMT shareholder that question.

F-22 is more finished than F-35 is. Are you aware F-22 has completed operational testing and F-35 has not? F-35 is just as expensive if not more than F-22. We are closer to being able to buy an F-22 than we are in buying F-35s. One option i think should be considered is restarting the F-22 line, opening it up for export, and maintaining F-16 and F-18 production. a joint multinational force of F-22s and F-16s and F-18s should be able to handle all threats on the horizon indefinitely.

You don’t seem to understand the numbers. 650 aircraft consumes the entire program budget there is no money for any more.

If you think the most expensive defense program in history can just be tripled in cost you’re naive.

Even if the F-35 isn’t canceled outright, the services are most likely to start reducing orders to preserve cash for alternatives. Cash to extend the life of the F15/F-16/F-18 will be siphoned out of the F-35 program. So in the end we will have the same old aircraft we’ve had for the last 3 decades and probably around only 200 new F-35. That is the best case scenario.

One of the notable things about every F-35 plan is that it relies on a breakthrough happening next year. Suddenly the past pattern will disappear and exponential progress will be made. And every year it doesn’t happen.

Did you even bother to read the LAST paragraph of that article? :-)

just trying to determine what source of bias may be affecting your thinking. Your second question — YES, Govt sysengr’s certainly can contribut to overruns. The original point I was arguing was with your statement “Funding and cost overruns will forever be a major issue for complex weapon systems”. My point is that accepting this statement as true and accepting cost overruns is nonsensical and that poor performance and results stemming from poor systems engineering will cause said problems again and again. You statement on safety standards proves my point as well. Perhaps you are ignorant of DoD acquisition regulation that has its authority in law? Programs authorized at MS B must have ORDs, ILSPs, CDDs, etc. In other words REQUIREMENTS (including Safety) are required to be understood. Also due at MS B is a Life Cycle Cost Estimate where the funds throughout the life cycle are required to satisfy all requirements are estimated. So when Sysengrs — be they Industry or Govt. BLOW IT on identifying these requirements, and they don’t get estimated, but realized later, we have, voila, COST OVERRUN.

careful you are arguing with a brick. the whole discussion is moot anyway, given F-35 is nowhere near completion, and any attempts to develop a point estimate for its unit cost is based on insufficient knowledge and unmerited faith in and misapplication of DoD’s Learning Curve methodology, which has led us to failure again and again.

SysEngr: Insinuating that those of us who choose NOT to ignore cost, capability, and AVAILABILITY (or rather, the lack thereof) somehow don’t understand the capabilities that will EVENTUALLY (you forgot to mention that all-important word) be prodided the the –B and –C really belies your screen name. I understand full-well the capabilities that everyone’s been sold on — And yes, they will be, WHEN THEY ARE COMPLETED, very impressive, no argument there — But if you look past the “This time, we got it right; This time the schedule’s more realistic; Let’s increase production to bring the cost down..Blah blah blah”, what are you left with? You’re left with an advanced prototype, in 3 variants, that costs way more than we can afford, isn’t ready for production, and which we’ve known for quite some time was gunna run into these cost overruns, delays, and capability “shaving”.

I’m not against reducing capabilities to get it built, because as you and I both agree, the F-35 holds all the eggs for fleet replacement — But let’s not talk rhetoric about hypothetical capabilities, schedules and costs, which history SHOULD have demonstrated to F-35 fans by now are not realistic — Let’s get a working aircraft that we can afford. We’re gunna pay more to upgrade the already-built aircraft than it would cost to get the Marines aircraft they can actually use right now. You see, it’s easy for Gates to say the F-22 isn’t need because it hasn’t been used in combat, but anyone with common sense can ask “And exactly how many bombs has the F-35 dropped in support of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya?” I’m pretty sure it’s 0, whereas the F-22, if desired, could have obliterated the Libyan defensive with merely the SBDs and JDAMs. to keep.. REPEATEDLY.

All versions of the F/A-18 are inferior to the F-14 they replaced. Totally deficient in range, endurance and long-range air to air armament. Ok for an attack plane but still too short in range.

Remember the F-111 — a total failure as a carrier fighter? The F-22 can’t carry enough ordfnance for ground attack. Foreign buys not going to happen and you give too much credit to the Ruskies. F-22 line is closed down and will never be reopened — plus serious issue with oxygen system caused grounding the fleet.

The PROMISE of an F-35 means nothing. CHOOSING not to use the F-22, in order to keep it off the radar screen so the F-35 can move forward without competition, is exactly the reason the F-35 has to have its butt defended — Bad decisions are never easy to admit, especially when you’re behind schedule, over-budget, and making promises to allies that the American taxpayer, and the manufacturer, have not been able to keep… REPEATEDLY__So, SysEngr, what, is the REAL status of this program? Because, ardon us, but the pathetic arguments of “be patient”, “it’s classified”, “this year’s the year”, etc. are very old indeed… taxpayers want proof and results after 10 years, not another $1 Billion slap for more “fixes” that have no end in sight, more cost overruns and delays, and reduced capabilities, which we supposedly NEEDED. THAT, my friend, is what’s really pathetic.

Sorry, the post above was for another thread (for another “be patient”, “you don’t undertand” F-35 FanBoy) :-)

I’ve worked programs where the “promise” of MTBF #‘s from the ORD were the #‘s that were used in the cost estimate for spare parts, or the A sub o Operational Availability is based upon assuming maintenance gets done in the blink of an eye, or minimizing scheduled maintenance.. The reliability analysis was dog crap because DoD & its contractors skimp on reliability engineering, because all the resources is going in to the marketing engineering (Power Points). PM organizations & contractor teams do not communicate, and act with hostility towards anyone from headquarters, OSD, or GAO that dares to ask some tough questions. Anyone who speaks out is considered an unpatriotic lunatic non-team player. Everyone knows the program is a zombie and that the PM is incapable, no one has trust that the problems will get solved. They concentrate on keeping their jobs and moving into the next better one.

Neg that statement above… I had it right.

That’s is a very cheap and practical fighter. Nice.

I personally like the new Upgraded Super Hornet: http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​l​E​3​h​8​y​I​m​m4U
http://​www​.indiandefence​.com/​f​o​r​u​m​s​/​f​7​/​m​r​c​a​-​u​p​dat
http://​livefist​.blogspot​.com/​2​0​1​0​/​0​8​/​b​o​e​i​n​g​-​o​f​fer

That*

Get your head out of this F-22 OR F-35 mentality. The USAF wanted both aircraft for a reason.

Well sometimes life doesn’t turn out as what was planned 20 years ago and you have to make decisions with the best interest of the nation in mind as opposed to “too big to fail” mentality. Get your head out of that.

I agree & disagree. Systems Engineers hands are tied too and they are victims of poor leadership like the rest of us. From my perspective as a Life Cycle Cost Estimator, an LCCE or any cost estimate for that matter, is only as good as the maturity and knowledge of the program, as evidenced by understanding and definition of realistic requirements. Who defines requirements? System Engineers. Of course they have to march to their PM and senior leadership’s tune. In my case, I have to do my own system engineering from which I can base my estimate. 10+ years of explaining this problem and urging people to do their part and start working as a team, not much to show for it.

I agree with your 2nd para completely. I think the world would benefit greatly if people studied chaos theory a bit and “Sensitivity to Initial Conditions”. Then again, in every failed program there are stakeholders who recognize the program is a doomed to fali “death march”. The problem of inability to nip poor concepts in the bud is a cultural and leadership one. You can see that in the history of FCS, which started out as Shineski’s bright idea, ultimately resulting in a lost decade and billions and immeasurable pain for the Army.

lmao!!

talking out your butt. The MS B decision is rescinded. DoD has not held the DAB to revise the APB, which includes the schedule. Therefore any assertions you make that the program is on schedule is not based on current data. It is based on the highly bias, limited scope worldview of your brain. Learn, pfcem. Contractors have to produce programs that are successful not just in “contractor dream world”. They have to produce programs that are successful in… THE REAL WORLD.

Good posts, Thanks for the interesting replies and insight…

Let’s look at this sensibly. We issued system requirements 15 years ago for a fighter to replace thousands of aircraft worldwide, to be built in 3 variants. Those requirements stipulated stealth, emphasis on air-ground targeting, affordability, and an in-service date of 2012, among other things. Since then, the F-22 line has been shut down because it’s supposedly too expensive and too inflexible, this at a time when it’s design was frozen, costs were dropping, IOC is long-since ahieved, and its road-map to acquiring F-35 technology was becoming a reality. And also, since JSF design began, we’ve seen the F-35s flexibility (read “IOC capabilities”) hacked, its costs skyrocket, delays increase, while we’re being fed the line that there’s “no alternatives”… Yet, the Navy’s buying more F-18s, the Air Force is extending airframe lives, and we’ve sold Australia the first batch of F-18s for $6 Billion! F-15Es are getting a Raptor-like AESA, an F-15SE is on-offer, and we’re promising Canada a pricetag for the F-35 of $65Mil when current airframes are costing US 3 times that at a time whe we’re just now getting to the riskiest part of the program… So what’s the truth? The answer is that NOONE knows and’or is telling.

In a nutshell, yup! A couple of points though…

First, the RAAF has been flying F/A-18s for a LONG time. The recent purchase was of F/A-18E/Fs to replace the A/Bs that they have been flying. Upgrades to existing airframes is just good sense and good business management by DoD. When a capability evolves there is normally no compelling reason to build a new airframe to carry it, so AESA is a natural for the F-15 (and others). And you hit on the biggest single problem in your second sentence. The lag between the analytical requirements process and putting hardware on the flightline is simply unsupportable, and your 15-yr estimate is off by quite a bit. In the world of computer technology, and a HUGE percentage of a modern fighter (or most any weapon system) is computer electronics, 3 years is about the span from introduction to what is essentially technological obsolesence.

If we do not find a way to ruthlessly cut that timeline between requirement definition and hardware on the flightline, we will be just “working the system” and producing weapon systems that are irrelevant before they ever reach the field! Hmmm.… but given this discussion, is that not very little different from where we are now?

Could not help but chortle a bit over your comment about the F-35 business model!

A few years back, as a vendor sys. eng. I was at a program management review on a very ambitious, tight timeline program. When the gov. “Master Planner” presented his obligatory MS Project slide showing the program PERT chart, all of the contractors’ hands shot up. Seems that the dependencies between tasks had been omitted. When challenged on the point, the poor fellow simply stated that if the interlinked dependencies were included, the schedule would not work! There were a round of gasps, and the gov. PM looked tragically betrayed by the revelation, but… these were not “negotiable” interdependencies. As our award fees were based heavily on schedule accomplishment we all had an interest beyond the theoretical! The PM just wanted to show a schedule that would meet the need since he could always just blame the contractors for bad performance! LOL!

On the Govie side now, but still see impossible pressure to portray “pretty pictures” instead of truth, politically correct positions instead of reasonable engineering analysis.

For once, EE, I agree with you, but I think I would probably extend that “real world” a bit further into the future battlefield than you would be comfortable with.

The SUCCESS of a procurement program goes beyond just being on schedule and on budget, or for that matter even getting through initial acceptance testing and OT&E. All of those things are tied into a set of requirements laid down many years before. As an example, if I developed a new fighter in a perfectly “managed” program, meeting all requirements, passing all tests, on budget and on schedule, and delivering only 10 years after requirement development, with an IOC of 1947, it could have been a fabric covered wooden airframe with a big radial engine and two .30 cal machine guns. The “threat” that this poor aircraft would have met would not have been Brewster Buffalos, Gloster Gladiators, or He-51s, it would have been jets with 23mm cannon! You cant always bet on your crystal ball, even over only 10 years of unforseen advances.

prior to OIF how good did we do at predicting and planning for the future threat environment of IED’s? pretty crappy huh? and that was just a few years in the future. FCS and JTRS with agonizingly long development cycles were supposed to help us win in the “future battlefield” for the next decades. If we had killed them earlier, and bought MRAPs sooner in response to the EMERGING IED threat, we could have saved many lives, and frankly, decisively won the Iraq War, creating a virtuous cycle of using resources better in the Afghanistan War, and decisively winning there.

Seems like we haven’t learned, in continuing to commitment to vastly long too big to fail acquisition programs. We end up not winning the ‘wars’ to field FCS, JTRS, F-35 on time, on budget, we fail to win decisively in Iraq and Afhanistan, and we fail to win in the realm of moral & political warfare (Boydian theory here), aimlessly wandering about, wasting resources, and not accomplishing our Grand Strategy.

By all means, dream about the future and leap ahead technologies with DARPA and lab type funding. When it comes to ACAT 1 MDAPs, there is NO TOLERANCE for failure — people need operationally suitable, improved replacements for the gear, ASAP, yesterday, even.

“The SUCCESS of a procurement program goes beyond just being on schedule and on budget, or for that matter even getting through initial acceptance testing and OT&E.”

Let’s sharpen up your acquisition terminology. Acquisition is Development, then Procurement. You can’t procure products that have not properly been Developed (operationally suitable)

Unfortunately if one did adopt your “zero risk” approach, you are insuring good CPI and SPI (or at least trying to do so), but you are also insuring that you are building the fighter to end all fighters, 30 years after its time! When you make it “sound so easy”, you need to make sure that its not easy because you are ignoring at least a part of the requirements and I would contend that addressing the threat of today is much more important than good management parameters, if those mean you must talk to the threat and the missions of 1981!

An irrelevant, but on schedule on budget weapon system, procured through risk-o-phobia (which often happens today!), is no bargain to anybody except, unfortunately in today’s environment, perhaps the career path of the PM. Aim beyond what is in hand today, in terms of threat or technology, at any point during the 30 year development/procurement cycle, and you buy risk! Sorry! The real world does sort of suck when compared with theory and rhetoric.

I’m not talking about CPI/SPI EVM BS that applies to a contract WBS. I’m talking about keeping a whole program within budget. You just are not getting it. Unless there is no tolerance for cost overruns (in MDAPs), people will keep pushing the limits of sanity and we will always have fuzzy baselines. If I were God and people would follow this strategy, we wouldn’t have a long development programs end up in complete failure and waste. We would have many more successful smaller programs and continual improvements. Continual, measurable improvement (kaizen) is what the world needs, not chasing the latest high promising fad. Cripes you are so focused on the technology on the end item you are completely missing the point that we utterly lack realistic wide scale exercises that test everything — the whole logistics tail as well. Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. You misunderstand me if you characterize me as “riskophobia” also. You just do not get it.

The term is probably better stated, “riskophobic”. And yes, I would lean more towards the kaihatsu and kakusin aspects of the “3K’s”. I believe that the current thought is that the three are really a triad to be imployed as needed by a sentetsu, sort of like cost, schedule and performance. Ignore one, or two of the three and the “3Ks” fall like a three legged stool missing a part or two.

In warfare particularly, fighting a fair fight is not always the best thing and the only way to insure that you get to fight on the up side of an unfair competition is through INNOVATION and the latest information. Innovative change is risk incarnate and information flow means requirements drift, requirements drift means risk. Understanding, accepting and MANAGING the risks is the key. Better to accept the senryonoisshitsu than to just stay irrelevant! :-) Domo arigato, EE-san!

Completely ignore the argument that a lack of realistic widescale wargames renders all discussions of “What is better? This platform X or this platform Y” moot. We currently have laughable computer simulations that incorporate a paltry sum of the variables affecting outcomes. The derived conclusions (F-35 is great! we must always innovate! = you) are laughable because they are based on flawed premises. Variables such as spare parts availability, logistics lead times, support equipment, maintenance certification & training, leadership, weather, strategic & political factors, ROEs, DOTMLPF, TTPs, camoflauge, concealment, infinite others + do not get tested unless there is realistic war gaming, not farces like Millenium Challenge. “the only way???”. COME ON MAN you are better than this.

perhaps Socrates can get through to you “I know that I know nothing”. as to your “fighting a fair fight”. US war fighters have never fought a fair fight, and it’s not due to technological superiority. ROEs, collateral damage, targeting restrictions.. COME ON MAN. FINE don’t agree let’s waste some more $ on F-35 and its ilk so LM and Boeing can get fatter. Too bad that money should have been spent on better training and war gaming (J/I/M would be nice)

Are you ignoring that halting F-22 production was not in the best interest of our nation? Cancelling the F-35 would not be in our best interests either.

I gotta flag this one down. Noted, that MRAPs save lives in a constrained COIN environment. MRAPs may have additional use in mid-intensity conflicts to support rear area protection missions, by hardening the “tail”. All good. But to say that fielding more MRAPS earlier would have yielded strategically significant results is an insult to the reader’s intelligence, and a misrepresentation of both the challenges of COIN and the IED threat. Those who wish to live in ORSA hell may ignore my remarks, to their peril.

I am curious as to how “Chaostician” would go about solving this problem. Larger campaign simulations with more people in the loop ? (Aka just a a bigger and better Millenium Challenge) More abstract campaign simulations that give you simpler and clearer answers ? Just give up and let the analysts all use Matlab and Excel for their modeling needs ? Kitchen sink number crunching, with supercomputers and special purpose engineering models, perhaps ? Inquiring minds would really…like…to…know.

Bigger & better Millenium Challenge is on the right track. And we need to bring in all J/I/M players. The problems we face now and in the future will require more and more ad hoc teaming (eg Katrina, Oil Spill, Haiti, on top of what we already know from joint warfighting (CIA, State Dept, DHS, FBI, DEA in GWOT)). We are learning painful lessons and failing at mission in real conditions that we should learned through realistic exercises. Number crunching simulation is good. Simulation is more affordable, and it helps you learn, ask the right questions, and helps you design more realistic real-world live fire exercises. But there is no substitute for training in as real conditions as possible. Look at first Desert Storm. They got some kick butt training at NTC and it paid off. However there were many other screw ups that happened that should have happened in training first, and then wrought out of the system through better acquisition strategy, TTPs, DOTMLPF, etc.

“we could have saved many lives, and frankly, decisively won the Iraq War” Note my use of the word “could” as opposed to your use of the word “would”. Surely you understand the difference in meaning between the two words. I also hope that anyone who would want to predict winning & losing in war would understand that CASUALTIES would indeed be a driving variable, yes? Plus you understand how many activties in the portfolio of activities required to win war were inadequately resourced, yes? Lack of body armor, training, spare parts.. excess dependence on contractors?? Let’s make the connection then between the possibility that the sooner we canceled doomed to fail programs like FCS, JTRS GMR, and VH-71, we COULD have diverted those resources to where they were needed to yield the best possibliity for strategic success, as opposed to pumping that money into LM & Boeing contractors’ pockets? Now there’s not just the $$ either. Those contractors (human resources) burning their brains on wasted projects could have been working on solving deficiencies and improving OTHER systems contributing to the war effort.

LOL u think I’m traping people in ORSA hell? Fine, then, if you think massive cost overruns, APB breaches, schedule overruns are acceptable, and not something that can be prevented through better acquisition strategy, then in fact YOU are the one that ensnare us in “Developmental Hell” — programs that never had a chance in the first place, end up late, $B’s overbudget, canceled programs, and warfighters not getting any systems they were promised, failed missions, and damaged economic and national security.

The US can afford all the F-35s including the F-35B fighter jets, just get out of Afghanistan and Iraq as everyone knows once the last US troop leaves the drug-lords will take over Afghanistan while Iran will annex Iraq; if this doesn’t save enough money, we can withdraw all US troops from Europe since WWII has been over for 60 years and with the war in Korea having been over for 50 years, we can withdraw US troops from Japan and South Korea. This is why we would need F-35B and F-35C because if there’s a conflict, we can move US assets to the trouble zone with our carrier fleet like we do now.

As an AV8 mechanic working aboard Cherry Point, NC as a civil service worker, there is concern about the F35 future indeed.…..Cherry Point is designated as one of the repair facilities for the F35, and seeing first hand at the aging AV8.…if the Marine Corps wants to stay with the same type of close air support (STOVL), what is the answer 10 years from now??? The cut of this program will have severe future economic impacts in Eastern NC.

That was great! First time I’ve laughed out loud in days. No I will start crying because one of the fan boys actually said in seriousness what you stated as farce.

As a layman Captain Fire fighter I have no idea of the jets you are talking about and what their capabilities are. Simply not my job! The answer is simple. Stay ahead of the competition. If what we already have is decades ahead of them, we should at least have the blueprints for a superior aircraft when it is needed. This does not mean we need it now if what we have is sufficient or cheaper to buy and stay superior to threats. Sorry for not creating a account to show who i am, I just normally do not comment and probably never will in the near future. Thanks to all of you who obviously are former military pilots and have served you’re time protecting our great NATION. You have earned the right to debate but I am clueless. Common sense does say in my opinion, “STAY STRONGER BUT DO NOT OVERKILL, YOU MAY NEED A RESERVE TO PROTECT AGAIN IN THE NEXT CHALLENGE>
Doug Conquest Sr. Murfreesboro, TN

nope. i am for fixing the F-22’s bugs, restarting F-22 production, develop FB-22, explore naval F-22 concept, developing an export version. our commitment to F-35 should be flat until the program proves itself through operational testing. we should not deepen our commitment to a program that isn’t delivering acceptable results.

Chaostician and ExUSAF,

Very interesting discussion and views both of you, worth the read this many days later…

From a neutral position, I actually have to observe that you both are probably not too far off, not joined at the hip of course, but not radically divergent in philosophy. e.g., I might be mistaken, but I don’t think ExUSAF is exactly 100% behind a: “Go F-35 innovation, or go bust!” mindset??

I mean, who among us in any complex and tense discussion matter such as this are identical in approach, problem solving and drawing conclusions??

I think somewhere between the two views are at least some marginally common ground — e.g., relying on more sound recapitalization strategies, requirements and testing, etc.

Anyway, I’ve enjoyed this thread with respect to inherent flaws in the ‘stay the course F-3′ business model and broadly agreed upon stance that some form of substantial, more sustainable and realistic USAF Tacair recapitalization Plan B should have been and should still today be initiated, ASAP…

But thanks again both, for actually getting me to think a little more into this subject in more expanded dimensions, getting me to further reform some of my own perspectives as well. Regards.

First of all, YES we can afford plenty of these and F-22s if we were to QUIT subsidizing half of the rest of the world’s defense. We should get out of Korea, Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., make them also pay us back for what we’ve done for them. I would also get rid of the Federal Agencies that Ron Paul listed (no I am not a Ron Paul supporter) and also get rid of the IRS and ATF. All of that would free up a TON of money to really rebuild our defense and offense capabilities. We should quit spreading our forces so thin and put more money into things that allow us to move our forces around the world quickly without having to set up costly bases in all these countries that don’t like us anyway.

Problem with most of the current aircraft (F-22, F-16, F15, F-35A) is that they require huge bases and runways to operate. All the enemy has to do is take out the runway and the whole squadron is grounded. We should make all of our fighters have a short field or no field takeoff and landing capability, similar to the Jaguar and Gripen. I would like to see a new F-22 that could operate from just about anywhere.
B-52s and B-2s are just big slow moving targets, get rid of the B-52 altogether, convert the B-1 fleet to B-1Rs and push ahead with the next generation bombers.

Thanks for the kind words! Just be warned, thinking is a dangerous thing to do when posturing, policy and politics are in play, and with the F-35 these are unfortunately foremost!

If you want a model to consider, separate the “beans and bacon and proven systems” procurement system from the “bold leap” procurements. In the military you absolutely need both. In the first case, focus on the best deal for the price/schedule and press ahead. Its an exercise in production engineering. For the later.… you just have to roll the dice, hope for a seven and be willing to call snake eyes a qualified success simply because of the lessons learned.

Roger that Tacair thanks for playing peacemaker & referee. I agree that people are often closer in views than their heated rhetoric may otherwise indicate. In the case of Ex-USAF, he and I have gone to the carpet many times and he has definitely challenged my thinking. That’s what my goal is here too. In an anonymous rank free consequence environment people should express their unvarnished raw opinions. It is easy to misunderstand and things get heated more quickly than in fact to face discussion, but overall I think this discourse is extremely valuable and an essential characteristic of the democracy we have sworn an oath to defend! In the case of the F-35, or acquisition reform in general, the exasperation of “those who wish alternative solutions & approaches to be considered”, should be completely understandable.

What do you think about Boyd’s theories on Grand Strategy and unifying vision? In the pursuit of “leap ahead” technologies DoD has enhanced internal strife and friction, which is theorized to result in LOSS in war. Leadership ramrods the technology through, does not build consensus, and we have the inevitable unacceptable results: broken trust, angry Congress & taxpayers. The acquisition practice of pursuing leap ahead technologies and the require gamesmanship makes a mockery of the USAF’s first core value “Integrity First’”. Surely you can appreciate the turmoil created by this cognitive dissonance?

Keep the STOVAL f-35 and lose the other two versions–we don’t need those just thed jump jet to replace the Harrier

Well, just take note of this. As I understand it, what you have stated is antithetical to the CAPE Director’s views on how to use modeling and simulation. Big bang simulation exercises are so Nineties. What is left of JNTC is on life support in the wake of JFCOM’s demise, and they took down the J-9 experimentation effort altogether. Yes, the services will continue to make good use of simulations down in the trenches, but don’t expect that to impact how the building does business. Even the serious games crowd won’t be able to talk trash when all is said and done. There is no magic pixie dust.

I’ll say this as bluntly as I possibly can. Purchasing MRAPs could not win the Iraq War. There is no way to weasel out of the boolean logic that was proposed. Oh, yes, casualities are a “driving variable”. But the actual numbers in both Iraq and Afghanistan are not commensurable to any previous conflict, in terms of perceived political impact. If one considers Bill Clinton’s “zero casualties” standard in Kosovo to be the current baseline, then of course any number above zero casualties results in loss of public support. But such a standard is simply unsustainable and never was. The more we try to optimize force protection against other capabilties (that are traded off), the more we break the system. And that’s why DoD cannot control its costs.

Please write a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates how one may achieve strategic victory by optimizing systems for force protection within manageable cost constraints. Make sure that you have considered the value of a human life in that analysis.

“Leap ahead” only requires gamesmanship if you forget that it is “leap ahead” and try to run it as if it was a cut and dried, success assumed process. Sell it, run it and live with it as if it were a gamble and.… the gamesmanship never comes into play. Its called “honesty” and I believe it comes really close to “integrity”. :-)

It would appear that you might just have some background in modeling and simulation as well as “large scale war games”? Both can be very useful unless of course Chaostician’s “gamesmanship” shows up. Just a word of caution though. I was introduced to the “butterfly principle” by a friend at NCAR. Even if the model is perfectly honest, you still have that chaotic effect of the butterfly flapping its wings in central Siberia.

where are these views? Simulation will always have advocates. and realistic training will always have advocates. if you are saying the value of simulation & exercises is not currently appreciated and this area is under-resourced, then we are in great agreement. I predict that history will likely repeat itself like it did after Vietnam, or Operation Eagle Claw, in that it takes a FUBAR, failure, and pain, and then a cultural shift happens and some positive improvements may happen. What happens is the current way of thinking has its merits, but eventually it is exposed for failing to explain ongoing phenomena, and then a paradigm shift happens. This happened with Newtonian mechanics to Relativity, for example.

The real problem with the M&S and even the large scale, man-in-the-loop/live-fly “experiments” like JEFX or Empire Challenge was that there was no “path forward” for the success stories. If a new toy was trotted out and turned into a “game breaker”, there was no real way to transition to the field. At least on the AF side, no PM worth his snuff would continence taking on a new “mod” to his program of record just because of a “breakthrough” performance, and without a program of record.… .… . :-(

That’s not what happens. Industry & the Service brass leadership concoct some ‘revolutionary innovative’ concept that promises a world of benefit for low costs (frontloading) and build a too big to fail program through political engineering. They don’t give a d*mn about the LAW and regulations that are required and that they will be held accountable to. Then they force the program on the work force, and will use every morally questionable tactic to keep the program alive. Lt Col Yingling’s essay “Failure of Generalship” is most insightful here “a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war”.

Now THAT sounds like something I’d love to do. JIEDDO probably has, or should, have done such analysis. However, the basic elements of the analysis are already present in this peer reviewed forum. Achievement of victory is a dependent variable of an infinitely complicated function of an infinite # of variables, Casualties certain to be a driving one. It is intuitive that greater # of casualties decreases one’s probable chance to win the conflict. The argument is more easily proven with deduction. There is no such thing as “optimum” either. I am a “satisficer”, not an “optimizer”. MRAPs don’t have to provide ‘optimum’ force protection of the range of possible solutions out there. They are intuitively more survivable than Humvees, and the qualitative evidence of their use is compelling.

yes the experiments should be carefully designed! if you have vague, weird, specifications of goals, requirements, evaluation crtieria, you end up with a bunch of waste and confusion. However, I recall reading in the book Nightstalkers how one of the 160th SOAR advocates “bet the farm” on a realistic exercise that demonstrated utter inability of the Army to perform that mission, which eventually led to that unit’s creation and historical legacy. A similar example might be Billy Mitchell’s ship bombing? I think you are proving my point though… Concepts should be tested out in simulations and realistic wargames prior to massive commitment of expenditures.

The tradeoff you propose, i.e. minimizing casualties vs cost vs tactical necessity, has been haggled for at least a few thousand years! LOL! Its been debated by military tacticians and heads of state, and.… there’s just not an answer that always works. With the Sherman tank, the alternative was already worked up and ready to go, and the decision makers settled for building and incredible number of serviceable but technically inferior tanks (at least when compared to Tigers). Ford even made the trade with the Pinto’s gas tank. Sanitary warfare, be it with Clinton’s cruise missile campaigns or todays Predator strikes, is an anomaly and a world removed from the rest of warfare where a two guys try to kill each other with a trench knife. I want to see that peer reviewed article too! LOL!

I include caution and warnings of uncertainty in any analysis I provide. I have a slide on Rumsfeld’s “unknowns” that is part of my “stump speech”. I’ve also been developing concepts of how this relates back to Socrates “I know that I know nothing”, black swan theory, and Hume’s problem of induction. Your last statement “model is perfectly honest”. That’s funny. No model is perfect, no one is completely honest, no one is free of bias. The question I see is in spite of these set backs are models useful? Ans: absolutely. We need more and more investment in modeling to help us discern the good and the bad.

Reducing the buy would increase the cost per airframe. The R&D and T&E costs, and now included in the overall production costs,( a good potion of which has already been spent) would be spread across 1800 instead of 2400 airframes. This is assuming production costs remain constant. Just look at what the reduction in the procurement numbers did to the cost of the B-2 per airframe. Before the B-2, the R&D, T&E costs were seperate from, and not included in the production costs.

0kay “paul” You have all the answers, and 1943 p-47 was a great craft at its time. itfunk and paul can go fly a lead ballon. If we intergrade the flight groups and combine the air support to the need of the battle , J-20 , T-50 would not be shooting P-38 out of the air. the shealth would be within 10 mile air to combat. the J-20 would chase the F-35 into the flight path of a supprerior plane and go back to the battle. The plimbs of yesterday were fighting tools of their time, but the battles need to be intergraded to a standard of ” We Push, They Grow” “We Kill, They Learn” “We must Kill First and detroy, so they cannot build to fight”

Well said and the F-22 is a far superior aircraft compared to the F-35.

Now I have read all the buffalo roar I can take! Lets just shoot our selves and forget the war. They do not need to find answers, just post a comment and the american will tell him how to defeat the enemy. Now as fire fighter said and I said, Kill The Captians and the enemy will not have lead. We had Osama in sights 15 years ago, but it would not be nice to kill him? He’s Now Dead, and the fighters are without knowlege to grow so they shoot. Agondy is a coursp now with they stop shooting? We should have killed him leaving the UN! Is there any other leaders that need to be taken out? Koerea, China, Japan. Lets not help their need so they can build and army. Let them feed their people and we feed our need, not their wants?

Point #1: I thought the F-35 was never meant for air superiority. The F-22 is meant to clean the skys, and the F35 wipes out anything moving on the ground.

ROTGL! Just post the link to the article when you publish! :-)

You will get no argument from me on that last sentence. I completely agree that a good use of simulation, the best use of smulation is during the concept exploration phase. So why don’t we do (more of) this ? Why is this not done continuously ? Why don’t we just do it ? I mean, Krepinevich has gotten a lot of mileage out of MC02 war stories. Imagine what you could to if you actually had a plan to do comprehensive joint experimentation and resourced it properly, (In all fairness to Andy K., his book “Seven Deadly Scenarios” did recommend exactly this, a recommendation that seems to have been rather blythely ignored when they took down JFCOM last year.)

It is interesting that you did not acknowledge the essential dilemma tucked away in the rhetorical gauntlet that I laid down. So, now that we know what school you belong to, here is another, perhaps simpler challenge. Review the book “The Clausewitz Delusion: How the American Army Screwed Up the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (A Way Forward), by Stephen L. Melton. Describe the implications of Melton’s views for predicting strategic success or failure in COIN environments. Compare Melton’s approach to T.N. Dupuy.

I confess to being a great fan of N.N. Talib, though I cannot claim to have thought through all the impllcations of the “Black Swan“book, which I sorta waddled through. After all, Isaac Asimov got to me first, and at a younger age. As far as the problem of induction goes, I vastly prefer Charles Peirce to anyone else, especially David Hume, but also Popper Himself. If you need to go to Greece, Carneades and Calcidius bracket my world view, which does not require solipsism or cynicism. Contingency is our friend.

You are confusing the BS opinion of an idiot Under Secretary of Defense with reality.

We have been/are/will be producing 32 F-35s for FY2010-2012 & the FY2012 budget as passed by the House has the number increasing to 42 for FY2013 (with FY2012 advance procurement for that many), 62 for FY2014 & 87 for FY2015 — & that is just for the US, a number of partner nations are anticipated to start procurement in FY2014 bringing that total up as many as 100.

F-35A LRIP4 (FY2010) RF = $136.84 million
F-35A LRIP5 (FY2011) RF = $121.56 million
A DECREASE of $15.28 million!

The Obama deficits EACH YEAR have been as highas the cost of said wars over 10 years! You obviously no nothing of the US economy if you think replacing Obama will not go a LONG WAY towards improving the US economic situation.

It was LM which proposed/asked for the switch to “fixed price” contracts a year EARLIER than planned.

ACTUAL production cost are NOT that far out of line with the projections which bring the average full rate production F-35A RF to ~$65 million.

The Gripen is a prop-driven fighter in the 1950’s.

It is YOU who needs to stop drinking the anti-JSF Kool-Aid.

The projected $65 million is an average for full rate production which is set to ‘officially’ begin in 2016. As to when the $65 million will be reached…my guess is ~FY2020 (RF halved from LRIP1 to LRIP4).

The production rate is projected to ramp up VERY QUICKLY in FY2014 (the FY2013 projection of 42 SHOULD be higher so that the jump from FY2013-2014 is not so great).

No. Only the USAF will have any F-22s for air dominance. ALL OTHER F-35 CUSTOMERS WILL RELY ON THEIR F-35s.

MS B was rescinded because BS projections of cost & delays were used to call for a Nunn-McCurdy breach. The program was rescructured in Jan 2011, WHICH INCLUDED THE CURRENT SCHEDULE that the program is ahead of. A new APB has not been done yet becasue the DAB wants to wait for more accurate REAL WORLD data to becomes available so as to avoid using inaccurate/made up BS like was done in 2010.

The program IS ahead of the current (Jan 2011) schedule & IS (even LRIP1-4) BELOW the BS 2010 cost projections & production HAS been on schedule for almost a year now. That IS real world success!

pfcem — Again F-35 IS NOT a real aircraft & it is NOT the future. As said to you before.

William C — What I meant was more F-22s at beyond 187, at around 290 or 390 aircraft and updated legacy aircraft to fulfill the needs. Which I forgot to add.

Hugh: Very good point — The Marine version (F-35B) seems to be the one most needed; it’s unfortunate that the one that’s most needed is also the most complex, the most expensive, the most troubled, and the one with the smallest potential orders. The fact that this has been known for so long and yet the JSF Program continued to stumble along with the whole “affordability, commonality, blah blah blah” argument, all the while watching costs skyrocket has now brought the program to this exact, predictable crossroads, is amazing!

It doesn’t really matter at this point what we SHOULD have done — The question is, what do we do NOW? I support other readers’ comments that we should do something OTHER than what we’re doing right now Designing, testing and fielding a modern aircraft with stealth, advanced avioincs, and interconnectivity is tough enough… But seriously, we’ve by-passed viable, “affordable” designs and alternatives, while being told there are none, to escalate a program that does all of this to pursue AFFORDABILITY?… in the form of a 3-variant, test-as-you-build fighter that’s to have a ridiculously complex avioncs system, never-before-seen situational awareness, and be bound by commonality between each of the variants?… How on earth can one conceive the idea that affordability meshes with any of those things, UNLESS you make the assumption that major problems won’t arise, and that orders will flow in even with delays and cost-overruns… That assumption will cost us dearly, and is one that should never have been made. Now let’s just correct it — and not by continuing status quo, which got us here in the first place.

What we’re looking at now in the F-35 is a silver-bullet aircraft (if we’re lucky… or unlucky… take your pick) –Too expensive to deploy in the massive numbers that would be needed to offset its huge development bill. However, unlike the F-22, where even the limited number of airframes have had a profound effect on the squadrons flying them, purchase quantity is much more critical to the F-35. It is replacing a large number of aircraft filling different roles, and is expected to be used much more frequently (i.e., more sorties) than the F-22. At what point does our leadership actually LEAD, and recogmize that “normal folk” have to keep alternatives available (That’s how we survive)… WE can’t just say there are no alternatives to get what we want, that’s immature and self-centered

FY2012
$ million
3,728,700 = US Federal budget
0,670,916 = DOD discretionary budget (533,073 base + 117,843 overseas contingency)
*
0,166,343 = USAF budget (149,968 base + 16,375 overseas contingency)
0,038,298 = USAF procurement budget
0,014,610 = USAF aircraft procurement budget
*
0,176,428 = DON budget (161,389 base + 15,039 overseas contingency)
0,045,321 = DON procurement budget
0,019,318 = DON aircraft procurement budget
*
F-35 Net P-1 [NET TOTAL — advanced procurement]
0,003,341 = F-35A
0,001,142 = F-35B
0,001,503 = F-35C

0,005,986 = F-35 (A+B+C)

F-35A Net P-1
00.090% of US Federal budget
00.498% of DOD discretionary budget (00.627% base)
02.009% of USAF budget (02.228% base)
08.724% of USAF procurement budget
22.865% of USAF aircraft procurement budget
*
F-35B Net P-1
00.031% of US Federal budget
00.170% of DOD discretionary budget (00.214% base)
00.647% of DON budget (00.708% base)
02.520% of DON procurement budget
05.912% of DON aircraft procurement budget
*
F-35C Net P-1
00.040% of US Federal budget
00.224% of DOD discretionary budget (00.282% base)
00.852% of DON budget (00.931% base)
03.316% of DON procurement budget
07.780% of DON aircraft procurement budget
*
F-35 Net P-1 (A+B+C)
00.161% of US Federal budget
00.892% of DOD discretionary budget (01.123% base)

Hypothetical full rate production.
100 F-35A @ $70.0 million RF/$098.0 million NET P-1 = $9,800 million
050 F-35B @ $80.0 million RF/$112.0 million NET P-1 = $5,600 million

$15,400 million NET P-1

00.413% of FY2012 US Federal budget
02.295% of FY2012 DOD discretionary budget (02.890% base)

Just to add ‘insult to injury’…

LRIP 6 (FY2012) is for 38 aircraft!
32 for the US
04 for Italy
02 for Australia

pfcem: Ummm… OK. So you’re saying what? It appears that you’re trying to let numbers prove a point for you; problem is that numbers don’t talk, they can only provide support to an argument; and since an argument requires you to have a valid point , I guess my question to you SHOULD be: What’s your point?
I’m gunna take a shot in the dark and say that pfcem is “Private First Class EM”, and so maybe you threw out some numbers to try to convey your support for the F-35 Program; after all, you could obviously point to the F-35 costs you cleverly listed at the bottom of your post and say that, comparing them to the figures at the top, the program represents a small fraction of the federal budget. Either that, or I’ve been dealing with F-35 Fans way too long and paranoia is setting in :-)

All I can say is that I HOPE the F-35 delivers all that’s been promised, because the longer we continue riding this train, the bigger the crash is gunna be. If it finally starts delivering WHAT is promised, somewhere in the ballpark of WHEN it is promised, we’ll be ok. But it don’t look too good as far as cost, let’s be honest… Noone can afford to buy the numbers that would be needed to drive costs down. An all-too-familiar yet unheeded predicament.

Wow…everyone here seems to look at the negatives of this aircraft. Skepticism is a normal thing and people will be skeptic about anything new no matter what, but time will tell if this aircraft is a good thing or a bad thing. People were skeptic about the SR-71 Blackbird, but time and again, it delivered no matter what. You just have to look at the positives. Sure it can’t climb, turn, or run, but noone said anything about its low speed handling and if someone latches on to your tail, no worries, “Hit the brakes and he’ll fly right by.” And besides, this plane was originally for the Marine Corps, a CLOSE AIR SUPPORT branch. This isn’t a fighter, it’s a ground attack jet. Was there a reason they called this the Joint STRIKE Fighter? The only time this is a fighter is if it needs to defend itself. I’m pretty sure it’s all about the pilot’s ability and not the type of aircraft he flies. Now the escalating cost? That’s a different story, but if you want to play “This airplane is a useless waste of taxpayer dollars.”, fine by me. I mean, it’s all about money these days isn’t it?

“Guest”…Of course we look at the negatives of the aircraft, particularly when the negatives go against some of the core principles, requirements, and expectations of the entire program — I believe we’d all agree that this type of “negative thinking” is called COMMON SENSE. As for the SR-71, what skeptical PEOPLE are you taking about who questioned the SR-71? Was there some big uproar over the cost that we aren’t aware of?… All the more laughable, since most people didn’t know the true cost of the SR-71 program, likely never will, and it’s 40 years irrelevant any ways. And OF COURSE the JSF is a STRIKE fighter, that’s our point… It’s being marketed as this air superiority fighter second only to the Raptor — Not likely! My point in the negatives is that the JSF was never a good idea, not the way it has been implemented. It’s supposed to be affordable, and yet every damn piece of that thing is new at the least, unproven at worst. How can anyone be surprised that cutting-edge electronics, stealth, sensor fusion, an AESA radar, DAS, EOTS, and a new-design engine, in a 3-variant, concurrent-development, commonality-focused design, is EXPENSIVE???? The real kicker is this: While the JSF can do things the Raptor can’t simply because it’s a strike fighter, with gear installed that STRIKE things, anyone that thinks otherwise really has no clue. It highlights the difference between the programs — One focused on the airframe, the other focused on the internals. The Raptor can take on those systems, those weapons, those capabilities of the F-35– But the F-35 will not supercruise, will not hold its own in WVR with a real fighter, will not have the growth capability, and will never be as survivable as the F-22. So where’s the “flexibility” of the F-35? (A better airframe would be more flexible)… Where’s the “low cost” of the f-35? We’re gunna have to buy 300 of these things… twice-over after “fixes”… to get the price down to that of the (agreed) “expensive” F-22. Dump the F-35 tech into the F-22, then downsize the Raptor to a single engine, remove its top-end stealth, and let’s move on — Seriously, I think we’d have a cheaper product in the end, delivered before the F-35 even gets to IOC.

This may be a dead post but was wondering to halcyon’s comment as the best plane conceived by humans, which ones were conceived by aliens and how much do they cost?

*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.