The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

^ The video of the event can be found here -

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3536.msg256088.html#msg256088
 
Published on Aug 6, 2015

The first twenty-five F-35s fill the 56th Fighter Wing's first training squadron, the 61st Fighter Squadron. Subsequent F-35s arriving in 2015 will populate the second training unit, the 62nd Fighter Squadron. Eventually, the 56th Wing at Luke AFB will have six F-35 training squadrons flying 144 F-35s. Learn more: http://bit.ly/1IY12px

https://youtu.be/_fbHMRBJ0aE
 
Podcast: Fighters – the F-35 and Beyond
Aug 7, 2015 Jen DiMascio, Amy Butler and Tony Osborne | Aviation Week & Space Technology

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-fighters-f-35-and-beyond
 
"OPINION: Why the F-35B's IOC milestone matters"
By: Flight International
London

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-why-the-f-35b39s-ioc-milestone-matters-415474/

Sometimes a purely symbolic achievement actually means something.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 programme has a lot of promises still to keep. Within five years, programme officials must now complete development of all three variants, reduce unit prices by 25% and sort out a current mess of a maintenance system.

Meeting those measures will be challenging enough on its own, but probably impossible given another downturn in public confidence caused by more missed deadlines and budget limits.

By declaring initial operational capability (IOC) with the first Lockheed Martin F-35B squadron on the last day of July, the US Marine Corps uses a mostly symbolic act to nudge the programme in the right direction.

In purely technical terms, passing the IOC milestone in July 2015, as promised in 2010, is not by itself significant. The USMC established its own criteria for achieving IOC, then came up with a waiver for one criterion that could not be met in time. Compared to the more rigid and consequential status of full operational capability, IOC is more symbol than substance.

But there is an unmistakable sense of momentum growing around the programme. The atmosphere seems completely changed from five years ago. At the beginning of 2010, the F-35 had just emerged from an infamous lost year, as the test fleet remained mostly grounded by technical glitches and the production system was a debacle. The head of the programme was sacked and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates acknowledged a new budget overrun and a three-year delay.

When the marines promised five years ago to achieve IOC of the F-35B in 2015, few would – or should – have believed them to keep their word.

But the programme really has changed. The back-to-back appointments of Vice Adm David Venlet and Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan transformed a dysfunctional F-35 joint programme office into a bureaucracy that actually solves problems.

The F-35, of course, will never satisfy a global chorus of critics who believe the fighter’s basic design is unworthy of its role regardless of how much time and money supports its development.

But the best argument against the F-35 has always been a decade-long track record of expensively broken cost and schedule commitments. The programme is by no means yet out of trouble, but the F-35B IOC milestone symbolises a recent period of progress and promises – finally – kept.
 
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/08/12/rockwell-delivers-first-gen-3-helmet-f-35/31538101/
 
"Davis: F-35B External Weapons Give Marines 4th, 5th Generation Capabilities in One Plane"
by Megan Eckstein
August 13, 2015 1:30 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/08/13/davis-f-35b-external-weapons-give-marines-4th-5th-generation-capabilities-in-one-plane

The Marine Corps’ Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have the stealth of a fifth-generation fighter and a weapons payload surpassing a fourth-generation fighter by the time a software upgrade is ready for fielding in 2017, the Marines’ top aviator said this week.

The aircraft’s ability to alternate between accessing contested areas and deliverying heavy fire power based on the needs of any given sortie “I think for our adversaries will be quite worrisome, for us should be a source of great comfort,” Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation Lt. Gen. Jon Davis said Wednesday at an event cohosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the U.S. Naval Institute.

“No other airplane can go from fifth to fourth and back to fifth again. I’m buying pylons for the airplane. I get the pylons in 3F software, which comes in 2017. [With the pylons] I can load up an F-35B with about 3,000 pounds more ordnance than I can put on an F-18 right now,” Davis said.
“So I can have an airplane that does fifth-generation stuff for the opening salvo of the fight. When I have to go to level of effort, I can load the pylons on, load ordnance on there, do level of effort, come back, sail to another part of the world, take the pylons off and go do the fifth-generation thing again. … It offers us tremendous capability for the Marine Corps that’s going to have one type/model/series aircraft that can go fourth and fifth gen, give us that fighter capability, give us that attack capability that we need in the out years.”

F-35 Lightning II Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova told USNI News that the F-35 was designed to be relevant both on Day 1 of a fight and Day 365 of a fight. To that end, the services needed to leverage the stealth capability that the Air Force already had in its Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor fighter and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bomber, as well as the fire power Marines needed to support their Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF).

The low-observable design of the F-35B, when left unaltered, would allow the Marines to sneak into anti-access/area-denial airspace, take out the integrated air defense system and other high-value targets with its 4,000 pounds of ordnance in the internal weapons bay, and leave. Once the pylons are ready in 2017 to be affixed to the exterior of the plane, “after you dismantle the enemy’s air defense system…then that F-35 can be loaded up like a traditional legacy fighter and become an 18,000 bomb truck, when you don’t have to rely on the low-observability any more,” DellaVedova said. The pylons optimize the F-35B for close-air support, anti-air missions and more.

DellaVedova said testing for the pylons and development of the rest of the 3F software upgrade package is ongoing. The Marines’ current 2B software allows them to carry two air-to-ground weapons and one air-to-air weapon internally: the 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), the 500-pound GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb and the AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).
An F-35B test aircraft flies in short takeoff/vertical landing more in external pylons and stores loaded March 20, 2013. Photo courtesy F-35 Lightning II Program Office.

An F-35B test aircraft flies in short takeoff/vertical landing mode with external pylons and stores loaded March 20, 2013. Photo courtesy F-35 Lightning II Program Office.

The 3F software upgrade will bring the external weapons pylons, 4.1 or 4.2 will bring the all-weather Small Diameter Bomb, and in the future the Marine Corps will look to adapt foreign weapons used by partners in the international JSF project, Davis told USNI News last month.

Davis made clear at Wednesday’s event that the F-35B with its current 2B software configuration can handle challenging threat environments today.

“Bottom line, [Marine Fighter Attack Squadron] VMFA 121 just did an Operational Readiness Inspection to get them ready to convince us that they were actually indeed ready to go be declared initial operational capable, and they did a fantastic job in the interdiction mission we had them do, and the defensive counter air, the offensive counter air, the close air support and the armed reconnaissance,” Davis said
“The armed reconnaissance one was the most interesting one. We gave them a really high-end threat environment to go against, and normally to go do close air support and armed reconnaissance you want to be able to get into a kind of low-threat environment to go out there and look for targets. … We gave them difficult targets to find, and we also gave them a difficult threat that in my world, as [former executive officer and commanding officer of Marine Aviation Weapons & Tactics Squadron One (MAWTS-1)], would be a prohibitive threat. They went out there, they found those targets, they dealt with that, and they came back.”

Now that VMFA 121 passed the ORI and Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford declared initial operational capability for the platform, the Marines will begin the slow process of standing down squadrons of F/A-18 Hornets, EA-6B Prowlers and AV-8B Harriers, and standing up squadrons of JSFs. All active-duty squadrons will be stood up by 2031, with the Marines buying 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs.

The Marines “intend to extract maximum value and service life out of our Harriers, Hornets and Prowlers,” Davis said in a statement, but the four remaining Prowler squadrons will be short-lived, with the Marine Corps retiring one a year beginning next year. Though a final decision on Harriers and Hornets won’t be made until 2019, the service expects that the Harrier squadrons will transition by 2026 and the Hornets by 2030.
 
"US Navy considers reduced annual F-35C buy"
by James Drew
Washington DC
Source:
01:28 13 Aug 2015

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-considers-reduced-annual-f-35c-buy-415654/

The US Navy believes budget pressures and competing priorities could drive it to purchase fewer Lockheed Martin F-35Cs per year in the 2020s, and a worst-case scenario could see it procure as few as 12 aircraft per year, or one squadron.

Naval Air Forces commander Vice Adm Mike Shoemaker says the current plan is to purchase around 20 carrier variants per year in the 2020s, but depending on the resources available, annual output could fall to anywhere between 12 and 20 aircraft.

“I think the current realities of the budget and other priories inside the navy may drive something between those two numbers, but we’re still on the path to [initial operational capability] for our first squadron in 2018,” Shoemaker said at the US Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“I’ll keep working as hard as I can with our leadership in the [Pentagon] to ensure we can stay on the path and get out of Classic Hornets and replace them with our F-35C as quick as we can.”

The admiral had two charts with him at the forum, one showing an annual buy of 12 C-models per year through the 2020s and one showing a buy rate of 12. The navy’s latest five-year spending plan shows production peaking at 12 in 2020 as it works toward a total purchase of 369 aircraft to replace its legacy fleet of Boeing F/A-18C/D Hornets.

Talk of decreased production rate comes just one month after incoming chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen Joseph Dunford told lawmakers the Pentagon was reviewing how many F-35s it should purchase given new defence strategic guidance and budget pressures, casting doubt about the current requirement for 2,443 aircraft, which was set about two decades ago.

The navy is by far the least enthusiastic recipient of the F-35, with the Marine Corps and Air Force holding firm on their annual buys despite facing similar budget pressures. The C-model was designed specifically for carrier-based operations and has larger wings and horizontal tails as well as stronger landing gear than the A- and B-models.

The reason boils down to simple mathematics, with the navy paying $265 million per F-35C in fiscal year 2014, but also because the navy has a more modern combat fleet comprised mostly of newer F/A-18 Super Hornets. Even though the cost per jet is expected to fall to $144 million in 2020, it far exceeds the $80 million to $90 million the navy was paying for Boeing Super Hornets over the past few years.

The air force, on the other hand, relies mostly on aircraft it purchased during the Cold War with the exception of the F-22 Raptor. The Marine Corps’ aviation fleet is in worse shape, since it is stuck with war-weary F/A-18 Hornets and AV-8B Harriers, both decades old.

The navy, however, is faced with a fighter gap and is developing a service life extension programme to keep its Super Hornets in flying condition into the 2030s. The programme will draw on lessons learned from the life extension of the Classic Hornet, and will start overhauling E- and F-models sometime in the early 2020s.

“I think we’ve got a pretty good plan right now to move forward and avoid a significant reduction or gap in our strike fighter inventory as those airplanes come out of service to get repaired and get back into service,” Shoemaker says of upgrading F/A-18s. “It’s not an inconsequential challenge we have ahead of us.”

Lockheed Martin aims to bring the average cost of an F-35A down to $80 million by 2019, but much of the anticipated savings come from increased quantities. The company expects to ramp up Joint Strike Fighter production to more than 160 aircraft in 2019, and is also eyeing a multi-year block buy for about 450 jets that combines domestic and international orders.
 
Published on Aug 14, 2015

How would a 4th generation fighter compete against a 5th generation fighter? F-35 test pilot Billie Flynn, a former Canadian Armed Forces aviator who has flown everything from the CF-18 to the F-16 to the F-35, explains his theory.

https://youtu.be/tuz0ob4aGP8
 
"Marines pushing forward with F-35 conversion after IOC"
By: James Drew
Washington DC
Source: Flightglobal.com
15:12 13 Aug 20

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/marines-pushing-forward-with-f-35-conversion-after-ioc-415678/

The US Marine Corps must “extract every ounce of life” from its inventory of ageing combat types as it transitions to the multi-mission Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) over the next 16 years, says the general in charge of the service's aviation branch.

The USMC is wholly dependent on buying 353 short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs and 67 carrier-based F-35Cs to replace its larger force of Boeing AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18 Hornets, and Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowlers. It recently declared initial operational capability with the first F-35B combat squadron based in Yuma, Arizona.

On 12 August the service revealed the timeframe to transition to the JSF, saying the switch from the Harrier to the F-35B will take 11 years with the last aircraft retiring in 2026, “subject to review, assessment and a final decision in 2019”.

Replacing the F/A-18 Hornet will take 15 years, concluding in 2030. In the interim, the US Navy and USMC are extending the service life of their legacy Hornets from 6,000h to over 9,000h. The Hornets are being overhauled at the navy’s Fleet Readiness Centre-Southwest in San Diego, California, at a rate of 40 to 50 aircraft per year.

“You have to take care of the Harrier and Classic F-18 for this major transition,” US Marine Corps deputy commandant for aviation Lt Gen Jon Davis said at the US Centre for Strategic and International Studies on 12 August. “It’s a strategic imperative to the Marine Corps to take good care of these airplanes.”

The F-35’s electronic warfare suite will allow the marines to get by without the EA-6B, which entered service in the 1970s and is the service’s primary asset for jamming and attacking enemy air defence radar sites and communications hubs. The four remaining Prowler squadrons at Cherry Point in North Carolina will be retired at a rate of one per year beginning in 2016.

“The F-35 for us is that fifth-generation platform that is going to change the battlefield, much like the [Bell Boeing] V-22, giving us access to the contested battle space,” says Davis. “For our adversaries it will be quite worrisome, but for us it will be a source of great comfort.”

To date, the Marine Corps has trained and qualified upwards of 50 F-35B pilots and about 500 maintenance personnel. The first combat squadron, VMFA-121, was declared operational on 31 July, with the next unit, VMA-211 – which currently flies Harriers – to receive its first F-35 in 2016.

The first Hornet squadron to transition will be VMFA-122 based at MCAS Beaufort in South Carolina. That squadron is being stood up about one year earlier than planned due to the purchase of six additional F-35Bs to replace F/A-18s destroyed in combat.

Davis says the Marine Corps is moving away from single-purpose aircraft to multi-mission platforms, and the F-35’s upgrade to Block 3F in 2017 will allow it to carry about 1,360kg (3,000lb) more ordnance than the F/A-18. Block 3F will allow the F-35 to carry external weapons.
 

Attachments

  • MarinesF35.jpg
    MarinesF35.jpg
    162.7 KB · Views: 150
Published on Jun 18, 2015

Military.com is reporting from the 2015 Paris Air Show. After issues that grounded F-35s last year, the makers of the jet’s F-35 engine are on a comeback.

https://youtu.be/wJEhIso7ics
 
The following report has been the basis of some recent articles and television news reports concerning the F-35, I am adding it to this topic for discussion purposes. YMMV

Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Program
Policy Report by Bill French with Daniel Edgren
August 2015

Source:
http://nsnetwork.org/report-f-35-thunder-without-lightning/

The National Security Network (NSN) is pleased to release a new policy report, Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35. According to our analysis, the F-35 lacks the capabilities to execute its primary mission, and costs too much relative to its predecessors. The Department of Defense should examine ways to reduce its commitment to this albatross of an acquisition program.

From the report:

“To perform against near-peer adversaries, the F-35 will have to be capable of executing a range of missions, from defeating enemy aircraft to penetrating enemy air defenses to strike surface targets. But the F-35 will struggle to effectively perform these missions due to shortcomings in its design and program requirements, despite costing between three and nine times more than the 4th-generation aircraft it is designed to replace.

The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors. Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft. To avoid such a catastrophic outcome, Congress and DOD should begin the process of considering alternatives to a large-scale commitment to the F-35. Staying the present course may needlessly gamble away a sizable margin of American airpower at great expense and unnecessary risk to American lives.”

http://nsnetwork.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/08/F-35_FINAL.pdf
 
Triton said:
The following report has been the basis of some recent articles and television news reports concerning the F-35, I am adding it to this topic for discussion purposes. YMMV

Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Program
Policy Report by Bill French with Daniel Edgren
August 2015

Source:
http://nsnetwork.org/report-f-35-thunder-without-lightning/

The National Security Network (NSN) is pleased to release a new policy report, Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35. According to our analysis, the F-35 lacks the capabilities to execute its primary mission, and costs too much relative to its predecessors. The Department of Defense should examine ways to reduce its commitment to this albatross of an acquisition program.

From the report:

“To perform against near-peer adversaries, the F-35 will have to be capable of executing a range of missions, from defeating enemy aircraft to penetrating enemy air defenses to strike surface targets. But the F-35 will struggle to effectively perform these missions due to shortcomings in its design and program requirements, despite costing between three and nine times more than the 4th-generation aircraft it is designed to replace.

The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors. Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft. To avoid such a catastrophic outcome, Congress and DOD should begin the process of considering alternatives to a large-scale commitment to the F-35. Staying the present course may needlessly gamble away a sizable margin of American airpower at great expense and unnecessary risk to American lives.”

http://nsnetwork.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/08/F-35_FINAL.pdf

Fanboys frothing at the mouth in three, two...
 
Same old crowd of haters. David Axe, CDI, even got Sprey in the mix.
Nothing interesting or new in this.
 
JeffB said:
Triton said:
The following report has been the basis of some recent articles and television news reports concerning the F-35, I am adding it to this topic for discussion purposes. YMMV

Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Program
Policy Report by Bill French with Daniel Edgren
August 2015

Source:
http://nsnetwork.org/report-f-35-thunder-without-lightning/

The National Security Network (NSN) is pleased to release a new policy report, Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35. According to our analysis, the F-35 lacks the capabilities to execute its primary mission, and costs too much relative to its predecessors. The Department of Defense should examine ways to reduce its commitment to this albatross of an acquisition program.

From the report:

“To perform against near-peer adversaries, the F-35 will have to be capable of executing a range of missions, from defeating enemy aircraft to penetrating enemy air defenses to strike surface targets. But the F-35 will struggle to effectively perform these missions due to shortcomings in its design and program requirements, despite costing between three and nine times more than the 4th-generation aircraft it is designed to replace.

The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors. Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft. To avoid such a catastrophic outcome, Congress and DOD should begin the process of considering alternatives to a large-scale commitment to the F-35. Staying the present course may needlessly gamble away a sizable margin of American airpower at great expense and unnecessary risk to American lives.”

http://nsnetwork.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/08/F-35_FINAL.pdf

Fanboys frothing at the mouth in three, two...

Nice troll. ::)
 
sferrin said:
JeffB said:
Triton said:
The following report has been the basis of some recent articles and television news reports concerning the F-35, I am adding it to this topic for discussion purposes. YMMV

Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Program
Policy Report by Bill French with Daniel Edgren
August 2015

Source:
http://nsnetwork.org/report-f-35-thunder-without-lightning/

The National Security Network (NSN) is pleased to release a new policy report, Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35. According to our analysis, the F-35 lacks the capabilities to execute its primary mission, and costs too much relative to its predecessors. The Department of Defense should examine ways to reduce its commitment to this albatross of an acquisition program.

From the report:

“To perform against near-peer adversaries, the F-35 will have to be capable of executing a range of missions, from defeating enemy aircraft to penetrating enemy air defenses to strike surface targets. But the F-35 will struggle to effectively perform these missions due to shortcomings in its design and program requirements, despite costing between three and nine times more than the 4th-generation aircraft it is designed to replace.

The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors. Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft. To avoid such a catastrophic outcome, Congress and DOD should begin the process of considering alternatives to a large-scale commitment to the F-35. Staying the present course may needlessly gamble away a sizable margin of American airpower at great expense and unnecessary risk to American lives.”

http://nsnetwork.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/08/F-35_FINAL.pdf

Fanboys frothing at the mouth in three, two...

Nice troll. ::)

Should have said supporters instead?

It's like PaulMM said though, there's really nothing new or original in the article, just the same old tired complaints. You'd think someone would give the writers a spray.
 
JeffB said:
sferrin said:
JeffB said:
Triton said:
The following report has been the basis of some recent articles and television news reports concerning the F-35, I am adding it to this topic for discussion purposes. YMMV

Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Program
Policy Report by Bill French with Daniel Edgren
August 2015

Source:
http://nsnetwork.org/report-f-35-thunder-without-lightning/

The National Security Network (NSN) is pleased to release a new policy report, Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35. According to our analysis, the F-35 lacks the capabilities to execute its primary mission, and costs too much relative to its predecessors. The Department of Defense should examine ways to reduce its commitment to this albatross of an acquisition program.

From the report:

“To perform against near-peer adversaries, the F-35 will have to be capable of executing a range of missions, from defeating enemy aircraft to penetrating enemy air defenses to strike surface targets. But the F-35 will struggle to effectively perform these missions due to shortcomings in its design and program requirements, despite costing between three and nine times more than the 4th-generation aircraft it is designed to replace.

The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors. Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft. To avoid such a catastrophic outcome, Congress and DOD should begin the process of considering alternatives to a large-scale commitment to the F-35. Staying the present course may needlessly gamble away a sizable margin of American airpower at great expense and unnecessary risk to American lives.”

http://nsnetwork.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/08/F-35_FINAL.pdf

Fanboys frothing at the mouth in three, two...

Nice troll. ::)

Should have said supporters instead?

Was there a reason you had to say anything at all? You obviously thought it was very important given you created your account just to do it.
 
eh.
This is the "no holds barred" discussion after all. Triton has been posting a lot of relevant articles, he didn't mean nuthin' by it. ;)
 
AeroFranz said:
eh.
This is the "no holds barred" discussion after all. Triton has been posting a lot of relevant articles, he didn't mean nuthin' by it. ;)

You should probably go back and read what you're commenting on. (I wasn't talking about Triton's posts.)
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Same old crowd of haters. David Axe, CDI, even got Sprey in the mix.
Nothing interesting or new in this.

Authors Bill French and Daniel Edgren have taken the existing information and repackaged it as a "new report" for the National Security Network (NSN). One would presume that a new report would contain new information. I would ignore it except for the fact that recent articles and news reports have been written based on this "new report" critical of the F-35. For example:

"F-35 slammed as 'inferior' to older American & foreign fighters incl. Russia's Su-27, MiG-29"
Published time: 14 Aug, 2015 12:36

Source:
https://www.rt.com/usa/312446-f-35-inferior-foreign/


"Why the F-35 Is Particularly Ill-Suited to Succeed in the Asia-Pacific"
by Ankit Panda
August 11, 2015

Source:
http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/why-the-f-35-is-particularly-ill-suited-to-succeed-in-the-asia-pacific/

The press in Canada has also used the report as the basis for articles as part of the debate to replace the CF-18 with the F-35.
 
"We would especially like to thank David Axe, Winslow Wheeler, Mandy Smithberger, Pierre Sprey, Larry Korb, Kate Blakeley, and Bill Hartung for reviewing drafts of the paper and providing valuable feedback that immensely benefited this work."

That should give you guys an idea. Looking at their sources they even threw APA into the mix.
 
JeffB said:
Fanboys frothing at the mouth in three, two...

It is not, nor has it ever been, my intention to goad members of this forum with my posts.

AeroFranz said:
eh.
This is the "no holds barred" discussion after all. Triton has been posting a lot of relevant articles, he didn't mean nuthin' by it. ;)

I post reports and articles that I believe are germane to the discussion. These reports and articles may not necessarily reflect what I believe to be true or reflect my opinions.
 
Triton said:
JeffB said:
Fanboys frothing at the mouth in three, two...

It is not, nor has it ever been, my intention to goad members of this forum with my posts.

AeroFranz said:
eh.
This is the "no holds barred" discussion after all. Triton has been posting a lot of relevant articles, he didn't mean nuthin' by it. ;)

I post reports and articles that I believe are germane to the discussion. These reports and articles may not necessarily reflect what I believe to be true or reflect my opinions.
Triton you've been an invaluable source for many threads and I thank you for that, post away.

On the separate 'fanboys' note I will say this; I enjoy a robust discussion with people in the know both proponents and detractors of the F-35 IF IT IS BASED on information that can add light to the program.

I am clearly a supporter of the F-35 and think it will be a fine aircraft. As someone who would double the DOD budget tomorrow, if I were King, I want the best weapons for the US so am never blind to possible shortcomings in any US defense programs.

That said posting one sentence of basically "Hey fanboys" sticks in my craw because it is meant to dismiss my points and arguments because it implies someone 'under the spell of the cult of F-35' how many times have people accused others of EVEN BEING on LockMart's payroll to post here.

So let's continue the debate without being dismissive of one another, it is a very important debate one worth having.
 
sferrin said:
JeffB said:
sferrin said:
JeffB said:
Triton said:
The following report has been the basis of some recent articles and television news reports concerning the F-35, I am adding it to this topic for discussion purposes. YMMV

Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Program
Policy Report by Bill French with Daniel Edgren
August 2015

Source:
http://nsnetwork.org/report-f-35-thunder-without-lightning/

The National Security Network (NSN) is pleased to release a new policy report, Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35. According to our analysis, the F-35 lacks the capabilities to execute its primary mission, and costs too much relative to its predecessors. The Department of Defense should examine ways to reduce its commitment to this albatross of an acquisition program.

From the report:

“To perform against near-peer adversaries, the F-35 will have to be capable of executing a range of missions, from defeating enemy aircraft to penetrating enemy air defenses to strike surface targets. But the F-35 will struggle to effectively perform these missions due to shortcomings in its design and program requirements, despite costing between three and nine times more than the 4th-generation aircraft it is designed to replace.

The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors. Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft. To avoid such a catastrophic outcome, Congress and DOD should begin the process of considering alternatives to a large-scale commitment to the F-35. Staying the present course may needlessly gamble away a sizable margin of American airpower at great expense and unnecessary risk to American lives.”

http://nsnetwork.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/08/F-35_FINAL.pdf

Fanboys frothing at the mouth in three, two...

Nice troll. ::)

Should have said supporters instead?

Was there a reason you had to say anything at all? You obviously thought it was very important given you created your account just to do it.

There's no need to be so aggressive sferrin, I was going for humor, I honestly didn't think that an adult audience would see the epithet 'fanboy' as anything other than a joke, especially given how long this 'debate' has been going on now. Mea culpa.

These articles by Axe & Co. seem to be deliberately intended to get a raise out of the pro-F35 camp as well as spreading some well-intended FUD, that's aĺl I was referring to.

And no sferrin, I've had an account here for a while, I've just refrained from posting up till now. I foolishly thought a bit of humor might be safe on the 'no holds barred' thread. I'll think again.
 
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/28/air-force-secretary-acknowledges-wide-range-problems-f35.html

While the guy is probably correct about his "understatement of the day", his "hundreds of miles" quote may be the overstatement of the day.
 
lastdingo said:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/28/air-force-secretary-acknowledges-wide-range-problems-f35.html

While the guy is probably correct about his "understatement of the day", his "hundreds of miles" quote may be the overstatement of the day.

He's a she:-
images


Interesting to see she confirmed that the F35 really didn't do that well against the F16 recently, or at least not as well as many had hoped.
James said the dogfight against the F-16 provided the F-35 program with valuable data but she also stressed that the F-35 will be a different plane when it's fully operational.

Different how? Can more software upgrades make that much of a difference?
 
Modern fighters have high authority autopilots. Those are in control all the time, and the pilot's inputs are mere suggestions. A pilot may signal to pull a tighter turn, and the software of the high authority autopilot says "No".

Engineers can change the flight envelope limits coded into the software and change the aircraft's agility this way.


I suppose this late in the development of the program (years after the first planes were delivered, after all!) they should be close to maximum (for peacetime safety standards) already. It's just another indication for a too slow development IMO if they have still much unused agility potential.
 
lastdingo said:
Engineers can change the flight envelope limits coded into the software and change the aircraft's agility this way.

I suppose this late in the development of the program (years after the first planes were delivered, after all!) they should be close to maximum (for peacetime safety standards) already. It's just another indication for a too slow development IMO if they have still much unused agility potential.
I don't see how they could have much more agility potential to play with, if they had more surely we'd have seen it by now. Flight control systems are very clever but they aren't magic, eventually they must run into the physical limits imposed by the aircraft's design and weight and IMO that's pretty much where they are now.

They do seem to have a bit of wiggle room though. I'm still impressed that they've essentially gotten rid of the TRO issue, or at least reduced the impact of the effect significantly, I think simply by playing with the FCS.
 
In a way we have seen it; the aircraft has been able to get itself almost instantly out of 60 deg/s flat spins, and we know it has enough control authority to hit angles of attack of 110 degrees and then return when the fuel is shifted rearward and the pitch limiter is overridden.
 
The recommendations in the leaked report pointed to the CLAWS being tweaked to improve performance.
 
There isn't much new in the NSN report, but it's a useful summary (for its intended audience) of the case against the program of record. It would be interesting to see some criticisms of the paper and its sources* rather than name-calling.


That's particularly so since the third largest intended operator of the F-35, and the only US customer that has an alternative in being, is, on the record, considering slowing down its purchases to the lowest rate short of actual cancellation.


As for software: Some of the concerns in the F-35-vs.F-16 report may be mitigated by S/W changes, but remember that the S/W limiters are there to provide carefree handling (that is, where pilot inputs cannot depart the aircraft). The limits considered appropriate by an experienced pilot in test conditions may not be the same as those needed by a nugget in training or combat. And the limiters will do little if anything to change energy-maneuverability limits.


* By the way, I've seen APA material in LockMart F-35 briefs, not to mention the current DepSecDef pulling out a magazine in public and using a Carlo Kopp story to underscore a point.
 
I wondered at that statement by the secretary that "the F-35 will be a different plane when it's fully operational". I'd have imagined that they'd tried out just about every combination on the FCS by now, certainly in the simulators. It's difficult to believe they haven't already wrung every 'tweak' they can out of it. Possibly though the rest of the test program precludes any real tweaking or experimenting with the FCS and they are still confident that, once they have the time, they'll be able to fine tune it a bit more. That would certainly jibe with secretary's comments and with others who weren't overly concerned with the issues that turned up.
 
Could either one of you give a rational explanation as to why the services would lie to the audience in order to get an aircraft "inferior" to those they're already operating?
 
LowObservable said:
That's particularly so since the third largest intended operator of the F-35, and the only US customer that has an alternative in being, is, on the record, considering slowing down its purchases to the lowest rate short of actual cancellation.

You'll note they're not proposing buying a different type of aircraft in it's place. Lots of things are getting cut back due to budgets. But hey, let's not be bothered by those pesky facts right?
 
sferrin said:
Could either one of you give a rational explanation as to why the services would lie to the audience in order to get an aircraft "inferior" to those they're already operating?

That's rationally possible once one acknowledges that the institution's (bureaucracy's) self-interest is not the same as its mission.
I don't think the F-35 will be outright inferior, though - it's too different for such a one-dimensional comparison.
I think the program was exceptionally poorly managed, LM (and Boeing, and BAe) is an extremely inefficient contractor that delivers gold-plated products over budget and late, and what the F-35 brings to the table as improvements will be very little once the avionics novelties such as HMD and DAS were used in upgrades of planes like Super Bug, Typhoon or Gripen NG (Rafale already has a HMD IIRC).
LO or VLO won't make much difference since conflicts that non-VLO plans aren't sufficient for would tend to see hostiles with appropriate counters to "stealth". This whole "stealth" thing has been in the headlines since the 1980's, after all - the Russians no doubt have plenty countermeasures ready by now.

Both "stealth" and "STOVL" weren't worth all the trade-offs made and it was unnecessary to develop a new engine at all (better would have been one F119 for F-16 successor, two F414 for F-18 successor).
 
lastdingo said:
sferrin said:
Could either one of you give a rational explanation as to why the services would lie to the audience in order to get an aircraft "inferior" to those they're already operating?

That's rationally possible once one acknowledges that the institution's (bureaucracy's) self-interest is not the same as its mission.

That in itself is not rational. The "institution" defines the mission, and is responsible for carrying it out, so they'll want to maximize possibility for success in achieving their mission. Furthermore, if it were the way you claim, it would make no never mind to them WHAT they spent the money on, as long as they got to spend it. In such a scenario they'd want to go with the LEAST controversial option, to maximize the opportunity for money to spend. You're wandering into tinfoil hat territory.
 
Actually, nobody's suggesting that the F-35A and B are inferior to what the USAF and USMC currently possess, because most of the USAF fighter force and the entire USMC force comprises aircraft that are obsolescent and falling to bits.


The Navy is not proposing a different aircraft, obviously, but is going to spend relatively more on F-18 SLEP and less on F-35C, which is a value-for-money judgment. There's a TacAir shortfall in the late 20s - but that could be filled by an F-35D, a UCAV or who knows what.
 
sferrin said:
That in itself is not rational. The "institution" defines the mission, and is responsible for carrying it out, so they'll want to maximize possibility for success in achieving their mission.

No, sorry, that's naive. That's not how groups of humans actually work.

High-ranking officers care about A LOT more than a mere mission statement.
There are parties, privileges, prestige, feuds, the quest for prestigious and career-enhancing posts, the desire to save face, group think obscuring reality before judgment and much more.

Besides; go read the USAF mission statement. Half of it are obvious lies.
 
Congress is angry about cost overruns and schedule delays...

"Program managers targeted for 'accountability'"
by Andrew Tilghman, Staff writer 12:04 a.m. EDT August 17, 2015

Source:
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/08/13/program-managers-acquisitions-reform/31235407/

For most individual service members, the renewed push on Capitol Hill to reform the military's acquisitions system will have little impact on their day-to-day life.

But for the thousands of senior officers who rotate through "program manager" billets that help the Defense Department develop and buy new weapons systems and other military gear, the proposed law could have a direct — and potentially disturbing — impact.

Increasing "accountability," lawmakers say, is the primary impetus for changing the rules for how the military buys its equipment from the private sector. Political support for acquisition reforms have intensified as budget pressures are forcing the Pentagon to make hard decisions about modernization programs.

Some final versions of the proposed legislation in Congress would require the program manager to "enter into a performance agreement" spelling out key "parameters" and agreeing that "the program manager will be accountable for meeting such parameters."

Some defense experts have suggested that could include financial penalties for those officers if the programs ultimately fail to meet expectations.

Todd Harrison, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, suggested penalizing program managers by knocking them down a paygrade — a change that would also affect their retirement — if their program fails to meet promised requirements.

"If you have acquisition professionals who are in charge of these programs, who are selling these programs and promising to deliver a certain set of capabilities at a certain price, if you had them sign on the line that they are committed to that and they will take a cut in their pay and future retirement pay if this did not come true, I think we might see better incentives at work," Harrison said at a June 24 event organized by the Lexington Institute focused on acquisition reform.

It's unclear whether any specific new commitment for program managers will be included in this year's annual defense authorization bill.

Harrison, however, acknowledged that a rule to essentially dock the pay of a program manager would face stiff opposition .

"I think in DoD, in the government bureaucracy, people are not prepared yet for being held personally accountable for their actions or performance," he said in a recent interview.

The Defense Department invests a lot of responsibility in program managers, who are often O-6 officers with limited backgrounds in business and project management. The acquisitions process can put those individuals at the center of complicated and high-stakes tussles between the government and large defense contractors.

It's common for acquisitions projects to result in massive cost overruns or performance problems that force program managers to rework initial requirements.

"But it's difficult to apportion blame in changes and overruns. And it's difficult to decide who should be punished," said Richard Aboulafia, a defense expert at the Teal Group in Virginia.

He pointed to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the largest weapons program in history that has been plagued by cost increases, schedule delays and questions about its performance.

"There is no perfect formula here," he said. "How do you isolate fault and blame in really complex problems?"
 
LowObservable said:
There isn't much new in the NSN report, but it's a useful summary (for its intended audience) of the case against the program of record. It would be interesting to see some criticisms of the paper and its sources* rather than name-calling.

Yes, that would be very interesting.
 
Triton said:
LowObservable said:
There isn't much new in the NSN report, but it's a useful summary (for its intended audience) of the case against the program of record. It would be interesting to see some criticisms of the paper and its sources* rather than name-calling.

Yes, that would be very interesting.

It's not hard to find if one is looking. Generally it won't be found on blogs that make their coin off click-bait however.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom