^can't do better than a one-liner? You aren't able to read more than one line so my posts frustrate you? What part of my post was an "embarrassment" or incorrect? If there are mandated cut backs to F35 program due to budget issues / cost over-runs (which is being predicted by a number of military and financial analysts as quite likely right now), how would you like to see it done?
F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
WOW!!! Your intellectual prowess and powers of argument have beaten me, how could I possibly beat that
This is probably the most I have responded to a fanboi in the last 12 months, unless as I put in my edit (and sincere apols if you did not get it in time) you can prove otherwise ? Then I will make a response to what you are saying, not that half a dozen people in the know have not already told you anyway
The only embarrassing fanbois here are those who blindly claim that everything about the F35 program, the most costly military project ever, has been a success and cannot be questioned (especially since pilots who haven't flown it aren't complaining about it). I notice for example, you don't reply to my question regarding what you would cut if the program funding is reduced. If you don't want to discuss the current issues, that's fine, go on believing that this has all been perfect and that no cut-backs are coming.
This is the concern right now, I don't think it will happen, but it is worthy of discussion given it is a hot topic in the US right now:
The defence industry: The last manned fighter | The Economist
PS. do you require that the authors at the economist provide their military credentials? I guess not because they conclude the F35 program will likely proceed as is?
Point out where I said Australian pilots in any of my below comments? Stop inferring what I mean from what I haven't written and start comprehending what I mean from what I have. You seem to be the only person unable grasp that meaning...
As to your rumour, I think I'll wait for something a little more substantial than an AW story before concerning myself about the USN's plans. So far no F-35C's have been cut from the plan, rather the opposite has occurred in reality with no USN cuts formally announced but with USMC planning to buy 80 instead of -B models and the RAF switching from B to C's...
To be perfectly honest I see the -B model in more trouble. It's the one on probation, it's the one with cut orders and the loss of political support from the UK etc.
OK, I won't mention the pilot issue again. I don't disagree with you that forces personnel prefer US equipment, and I agree there are very good reasons for this.
I agree with you there. There are issues with the C as well though, Boeing is getting more aggressive in targeting it. While this is a more than year old source, the USN has been wanting to get more involved in the project to control / mitigate projected operations costs:
http://startelegram.typepad.com/files/navy-don_f-35_total-cost-of-ownership_04jan10.pdf
I agree with you there. There are issues with the C as well though, Boeing is getting more aggressive in targeting it. While this is a more than year old source, the USN has been wanting to get more involved in the project to control / mitigate projected operations costs:
http://startelegram.typepad.com/files/navy-don_f-35_total-cost-of-ownership_04jan10.pdf
I can, if they decide the choice is between a significant reduction in the future USN carrier force and retaining LHD's with half a dozen F-35B's...
I can see a very strong argument anyway that USMC's air support should come soley from the USN. Arguing that the USN air wings can't properly support the USMC because they "don't know how the Marines operate" is a bit like arguing he USAF can't properly support the US Army for similar reasons, but I don't see many calling for the US Army to get it's own integral TACAIR force...
If costs have to be cut so dramatically that one of the F-35 models has to be eliminated, then I see the -B model as the lowest hanging fruit.
The USMC would kick and scream no doubt, but at the end of the day, it would simply mean changing it's CONOPS to the way every other ground force in the world has to operate and that is with it's aerial fire support provided predominantly by the airforce and navy...
On top of which USMC would still have it's own F-35C Squadrons to support itself and perhaps could afford a few more -C Squadrons worth, as well as it's rotary wing fire support capabilities.
In terms of the loss of the F-35B's overall impact, I see the USMC as the only significant support for it and if the US's financial position gets more dire then I can see these sort of "nice to have" capabilities being amongst the first to go.
As to money being pumped into a program recently, when has that ever saved a capability when it's future expenditure that needs to be reduced?
Those GR-9/A Harriers operated by Joint Force Harrier had plenty of coin spent on them too. How are they looking now?
I wonder how much fight they will put up, in some respects, they are probably more concerned about the Amphibious vehicle, and the Osprey. This article is interesting, because while the pilots praise the F35b, and say it is needed, the more senior officer is a bit softer in his comments, a "realistic cheerleader":
Read more: F-35B aircraft: Is it worth the cost? - Charles Hoskinson - POLITICO.com
$41 billion for 311 planes is a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere in the military.
JoeMcFriday
New Member
That would be the same General Amos who said:-
"There’s not a backup for this. There’s no Plan B,” he said. “To do the things this nation requires of its Marine Corps, we need this airplane.”
Doesn't quite reconcile with his other description of his position.
I can't see why the F35b would be a 'failure' as a weapon system, it already flies, lands and performs according to script. It will use known weapons for the most part, if they can't get them to work then the fan will get a work-out.
The F35 will eventually be made more reliable and robust over the term of its production run as all new planes are. The 'B' had better be most of way there by now, as time/money is short and the critics are sharpening their blades which is a little sad IMO.
Having a supersonic fighter bomber with all the [published] advanced functions it has, able to operate off nearby mini flat tops brings a lot of flexibility to the battlespace. This should ease a lot of pressure on the CVNs and the even more distant USAF. Think of the extra transit fuel and wear and tear costs. All in all, as conceptualised, it's a special capability well worth having, not just for the Corps but to the US force structure overall.
If it really is now as robust as is claimed and the bagmen need to save $41bn then reduce the F35a buy for a time, close a few tax loopholes and streamline a few expense accounts. They could pickup quite a few bucks that way.
Cutting the 'B' wouldn't save $41b anyway, not unless one cancelled the USMC air arm entirely, they would have to replace those 311 airframes with rotary attack and surveillance platforms wouldn't they?
Those units may not cost as much as an F35B but they won't be free and they're not cheap to run. Forgot to mention above, if there are no 'B's, how much would it cost to bring CBG to a small USMC show requiring some Tacair for, say, a week?
I hope the F35B hasn't got any secret terminal defects and survives any ill thought out cost cutting, it promises a unique capability and would provide a powerful force multiplier even if it only ever operated from the mini-flattops.
Please note, I am not defending Lock-Mart, the US pollies or anyone else of influence involved in this program, just the unique potential of the F35B.
Cheers,
Mac
Last edited by a moderator:
^but is better to have 300 odd F35B's, or 600 to 700 more F35A's (or superhornets), which aside from requiring a longer airfield, will be a superior aircraft in terms of fuel and capability? Or perhaps close to 3,000 A-10s?
Has there actually been a conflict where the STOVL capability of the Harriers proved to be decisive in gaining an advantage for the US military? Isn't the whole point of having super-carriers that power can be projected anywhere close to the ocean (i.e. the traditional role of the marines), anyway?
Has there actually been a conflict where the STOVL capability of the Harriers proved to be decisive in gaining an advantage for the US military? Isn't the whole point of having super-carriers that power can be projected anywhere close to the ocean (i.e. the traditional role of the marines), anyway?
This is insane accounting. You are just looking at a limited snap shot of the flyaway cost of an aircraft. Wow 3,000 A-10s, that's great but where will you get the personnel to operate 2,700 of them? Plus of course those 300 A-10s you can actually man and afford to fly (fuel, spares and ordnance) will be pretty useless in supporting a MEU in the first two weeks of operations and if it is outside the radius of an accessible air base.
Well when has ICBMs armed with nuclear warheads been a decisive advantage in a conflict for the US military? By this idiot's version of logic the US doesn't need ICBMs.
The US Marines have plenty of experience deploying airpower as part of their operations. While since the move to VTOL these opportunities have been more limited due to world events (but not lacking) they baseline their requirements on pervious experience. Like if we had VTOL at Iwo Jima, Inchon, Hue, etc it would have made a huge difference.
All this series of posts by Moahunter has demonstrated is that it is very easy to be critical of the F-35 if you don’t know anything of substance about it. Time and time again factually incorrect data is being presented to support an opinion. Is this not a text book definition of idiocy?
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Actually AD, the USMC has had a very strong, and successful argument about Marine CAS, plus there is the matter of military and naval history to support Marine air combat forces.
Some of the combat aircraft which are carrier capable and operate from USN carriers are Marine squadrons. In effect, the USMC is providing a portion of the air wings which operate from USN CBG's. While there are (or at least had been) separate Marine Corps Air Stations (MCAS) there are/were routinely Marine aircraft units which were based and operated from Naval Air Stations (NAS), Pensacola NAS is a prime example, being a shared USN/USMC aviation training facility in Florida.
As for the USAF and suitability/willingness to provide CAS... I suggest people spend some time reading up on the 1948 Key West Agreement, and the impact that had upon US force structure until well into the Vietnam Era. The quick version is that after that policy paper, US Army Aviation was supposed to be confined to recce and medevac, and that the USAF was be responsible for all strategic, as well as most tactical and logistical air assets.
This occurred just as the Jet Age was beginning, and the USAF was interested in purchasing jet fighters, strategic bombers, nuclear weaponry and long-ranged rockets and missiles. The USAF was not particularly interested in developing rocket/gun-armed helicopters, when helicopters were just starting to enter US service. Nor was the USAF as interested in providing CAS to Army units, as the Army units were in receiving it. Given the doctrine which the USAF was developing in the immediate post-WWII period, of atomic and/or strategic heavy bomber strikes to deter war, as well as launching said strikes in the immediate opening of a war to end it, and the pressure which SecDef Johnson applied vs. the USN and USMC prior to the Korean War when both services were trying to keep tactical units available as they would be used in the event of war...
Such history does show that the structure and doctrine of the USAF has not always been, nor will always be in the future, set to provide for Army and Marine Corps aviation wants and needs.
An Army example of differences in doctrine between the Army and USAF revolves around tactical airlift and the C-27J Spartan. Due to Army tactical airlift needs, they wanted additional, smaller airlifters to support intra-theatre missions, while the USAF has had a lesser need for such aircraft. IIRC the Army chose to 'go it alone' because the intra-theatre airlifter was not a USAF priority, which was delaying any joint Army/USAF purchase past what/when the Army needed to receive aircraft to meet mission requirements.
Granted a bit long-winded, unless/until there can be significant reduction in US interservice rivalries, as well as joint service agreements on doctrine and force structure, there are mission sets which Marine and/or Army TACAIR can perform which the USAF either could not do, or would need additional training to perform as needed.
-Cheers
fretburner
Banned Member
Some bit of news: Australia to decide on F-35 fighter purchase in 2012: Govt
Aug 17 (Reuters) - Australia will decide in 2012 whether to continue with a $16.8 billion purchase of 100 of Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters or seek an alternative amid continuing delivery delays and cost overruns, the government said on Wednesday.
And all the while I thought this was already etched in stone? Or will they be downsizing in favor or more SHs?
Aug 17 (Reuters) - Australia will decide in 2012 whether to continue with a $16.8 billion purchase of 100 of Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters or seek an alternative amid continuing delivery delays and cost overruns, the government said on Wednesday.
And all the while I thought this was already etched in stone? Or will they be downsizing in favor or more SHs?
Aren't you being a bit hard on a Ra**le fanboy ?
After all, he used an article by Bill Sweetman to validate his hypothesis
nfloorl:I feel that the above example is part of the problem and not the solution to interservice rivalry and lack of cooperation. In this day and age of accountability, "reining in", and budgetary concerns of the Pentagon with its habits and trends, we should be demanding more prudence and discipline from the people and organizations that manage (and I use that term loosely) the US military to prevent the kind of situations that lead to that lack of communication between services which, in the end, add even more cost and redundancy in the already bloated defense budget.
All true, but those arguments were made when there was plenty of money available for defence too...
Besides, the USMC has already ordered the -C model and my comments only related to my belief that cancelling the -B model would be the most attractive and least detrimental option to overall capability...
Again, I think this is very valid and something that definitely needs to change if it hasn't already. Again, in a perfect world with sufficient funding all the services would get everything they need. Unfortunately that era is ending even for the US...
While that may be true to some extent, no government will survive in the future when inadequately equipped armed forces personnel come back in body bags in larger numbers either... Sadly we are to the point if the government did decide to zero the defense budget, we still would have a budget deficit... The defense budget has been dropping as a percentage of the annual budget, its the social programs which have increased significantly...
I was comparing flyaway cost, the point though is that you cant just blindly disregard the cost of a program, by spending on F35b's in a time of constrained budgets, it is sacrificing other potential capabilities be it in the marines or elsewhere. For close air support, I don't think an F35b is 10 times better than an A10, and for strike missions, a longer range F35C, F35A or Superhornet can likely do the job more effectively. The USN tried to get the Marines on board with this logic when the last superhornet order was placed, but there is too much ego at stake to justify the marines independent (as opposed to interdependent) strategy for logic to rule the day.
ICBM capability was cut back, various upgrade programs were cancelled that concerned hypothetical scenarios where programs 'could' have been valuable (e.g. the rail mounted peacekeepers). Given that no other military will likely have STOVL aircraft in operation by the time the F35bs are deployed, and that most of the capability can be met with carrier based aircraft, maybe with help in the future from ucav's it is understandable why this program was put on probation, not idiotic like you claim. The sky wont fall in if this program is cancelled, IMO such a decision will relieve pressure for cuts to other programs like the F35A order quantity.
Here's an interesting blog from another site which also concludes the F35b loss wouldn't be the end of the world:
http://xbradtc.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/the-f-35b-keep-it-or-kill-it/
Last edited:
JoeMcFriday
New Member
F35 Return to Test Flight
From Lock-Mart:- Top Issues - F-35 Lightning II Website
It's actually limited to test aircraft, not the two production craft delivered but why be accurate, it's only a headline.
"Integrated Power Pack
F-35 authorized to return to flight
UPDATE: August 18, 2011 - The F-35 Joint Program Office authorized the return to flight operations for F-35 developmental test aircraft. This follows the reinstitution of ground operations for these aircraft Aug. 10.
An Air Force Safety Investigation Board continues to review the circumstances that led to the failure of an Integrated Power Package (IPP) aboard AF-4, an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant assigned to Edwards AFB, Calif., on August 2. The F-35 Integrated Power Package is a turbo-machine that provides power to start the engine and generates cooling for the aircraft. The government and contractor engineering teams determined the program could resume developmental test flight operations while the investigation continues. This assessment was made after reviewing data from ground and flight tests which showed, with revised test monitoring procedures governing the IPP, the aircraft can be flown safely.
The root cause investigation indicates that an IPP valve did not function properly. Monitoring of valve position is a mitigating action to allow monitored operations. A permanent resolution is in work.
The return to flight has been authorized for all aircraft assigned to Edwards AFB and Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md. This does not allow ground operations for Eglin AFB, Fla. delivered aircraft (AF-8, AF-9). The completion of the root cause investigation and any corrective actions are required to return to unmonitored operations.
Impact to System Development and Demonstration test flight execution and production operations continues to be assessed. The program, however, has built margin into the test schedule to accommodate incidents that occur in the development effort."
From Lock-Mart:- Top Issues - F-35 Lightning II Website
It's actually limited to test aircraft, not the two production craft delivered but why be accurate, it's only a headline.
"Integrated Power Pack
F-35 authorized to return to flight
UPDATE: August 18, 2011 - The F-35 Joint Program Office authorized the return to flight operations for F-35 developmental test aircraft. This follows the reinstitution of ground operations for these aircraft Aug. 10.
An Air Force Safety Investigation Board continues to review the circumstances that led to the failure of an Integrated Power Package (IPP) aboard AF-4, an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant assigned to Edwards AFB, Calif., on August 2. The F-35 Integrated Power Package is a turbo-machine that provides power to start the engine and generates cooling for the aircraft. The government and contractor engineering teams determined the program could resume developmental test flight operations while the investigation continues. This assessment was made after reviewing data from ground and flight tests which showed, with revised test monitoring procedures governing the IPP, the aircraft can be flown safely.
The root cause investigation indicates that an IPP valve did not function properly. Monitoring of valve position is a mitigating action to allow monitored operations. A permanent resolution is in work.
The return to flight has been authorized for all aircraft assigned to Edwards AFB and Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md. This does not allow ground operations for Eglin AFB, Fla. delivered aircraft (AF-8, AF-9). The completion of the root cause investigation and any corrective actions are required to return to unmonitored operations.
Impact to System Development and Demonstration test flight execution and production operations continues to be assessed. The program, however, has built margin into the test schedule to accommodate incidents that occur in the development effort."
- Status