Is this analysis of the F-35 accurate?

F35 is a complete and utter debacle. You CANNOT have a jet fighter that does everything. We have tried this and it has failed because of basic physics. With any design of any machine you have trade offs. Its basic engineering 101. If you want payload you give up manueverability. Probably the most successful fighter in the world is still the F15 Eagle. I think to this day none have been shot down. We need an updated version of that type of fighter. Not some little single engine, multirole fighter. Fighter jets and tanks were the few things that the Russians could build really really well, even better than ours historically. Because of that history I am not so quick to dismiss Russian fighters even if they are strapped for cash. Now Chinese fighters I don't have any concerns over as those are just hyped up pieces of crap.

 

Stupid plane that does not suit our needs...

 

Will come true. Anything that man thinks up will eventually come true if the technology is available.

 

A truly impressive reply on this topic reallybigjohnson.

In my opinion.... all the money that seems to have been wasted on the F-35.... has not really been wasted because all the innovations that has been added to it....... could be added to an updated F-15 or F-16..........

We also need to admit that we are becoming too greedy......… and our love for our country and for each other is not at the level that it should be at.

Also... the question of how much money was wasted on the F-35 can help us to look at problems in our money supply system that need to be addressed in order to prevent the dollar from going through a serious devaluation?!


http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...-could-utah-state-dollar-save-usa-dollar.html

Could a Utah State Dollar save the USA Dollar?



Have you seen any of the following films:

1. The Future of Food
2. Food Inc
3. The World According to Monsanto.

If so..... then you know that the USA dollar to some degree is linked to and backed up by a plan to control the world's production of food in such a way that could eventually produce global famine.


"George Soros says that America must give up the dollar and accept world currency."
http://www.examiner.com/article/geo...aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582


Back in 1994 I found out that President Lincoln had saved American taxpayers four billion dollars in interest payments and since that time I have been wondering what alternative was available to improve monetary policy that would not scare the investors on Wall Street.

A Utah State Dollar could perhaps be the answer!????!!!

 

Multi-roles reflect the shift from aircraft to weapon in technology. Aircraft need to be survivable intelligence and weapon platforms, not dogfighters - its the weapons which do the work more and more - hence shift to UCAV's being like weapons which carry weapons! F15C's havent really had any real combat AFAIK so they havent really had a reason to be shot down - it does not reflect what you reckon, but they are great jets IMO.

 

Separate currency is only going to complicate things. The country started out with each state printing and backing their own money and it turned into a complete mess.

If we are expected to spend over $1 trillion on a fighter jet that has excessive maintenance downtime like the F35 does then we have wasted A LOT of money.

 

You still need dogfighter. Israel is one example but any area with small countries packed together where the distance is measured in a few miles versus hundreds of miles is going to need fighters that can dogfight successfully. This same exact assumption was made when they designed the F4 Phantom's and didn't bother to put a gun on them because they figured that dog fighting was outdated and all future conflicts would be with missiles. That turned out just swell in Vietnam. Technology doesn't stand still. Stealth can be defeated with ever better radar systems. And long range missiles can be defeated with ever better stealth systems.

At some point some other country like Russia or China or Canada will develop their own stealth fighter in which case what happpens? We are back at square one with fighters having to get within close range of each other to engage.

Also keep in mind dog fighting ability isn't just useful against other fighters. Those same maneuverability characteristics are used against incoming missiles as well to avoid them.

 

Not really, the F35 is designed to carry sufficient fuel 'and' weapons internally so to retain a good level of stealth and still be able to fight. You cannot make those modifications to an F16 etc without hugely detracting from its performance (if at all), and then you'd also not have the finished product streamlined for all other systems to be integrated as efficiently as possible in a stealthy design.

 

Sure, to an extent... but you cannot outturn or outrun a missile unless your positioned just right.... and that assumes just one missile. Multi-roles can still fight, but to specialize in air-air you need a different design then for jets which specialize in air-ground. Your choices are either a fleet of mixed specialty types, or a fleet of a single multirole type. People cannot complain about the cost of these things and then argue for tripling the number of aircraft and logistical systems because they want better jets. So cutting all the fantasy, with a given amount of money, the people in the know, know that its better to have a larger number of modern multirole, then small numbers of various specialty types. The reason they think this is for the reasons I stated earlier.... weapon tech has been moving BVR more and more, but importantly the weapon's are more capable in different domains. It doesnt need the jet to specialize when the weapon does. The priority for jet design becomes survivability, weapon systems and sensor fusion.

The old argument about putting a cannon on the F4 was not about the mistaken belief in missiles solving everyones problems, but rather the projected role of the F4 would be chasing down high altitude bombers where closing to gun range would have been impossible, and therefore redundant. They just didnt expect regional wars would predominate, because in those days it was thought a confrontation with the USSR might evolve as a conventional 'world war'. Vietnam and ICBM's quickly made people realize any conflict with the USSR would be nuclear, and that the Cold War was going to be played out through proxies like Vietnam and Afghanistan.

 

Except that a smaller number of multi-role fighters is still more expensive than a larger fleet of specialized fighters. There is a reason that they are so expensive not only to build but also maintain. Historically (and now with the F35) multirole fighters are maintenance nightmares. We are far better served by specialize aircraft that excel in their functions. The absolute most critical feature of a fighter besides its actual combat performance is their flight to maintenance ratio. The F35 requires vast amounts of downtime for every hour that it flies. It now has a 3:1 ratio of hours of downtime per hours of flight if a critical failure occurs. Which on a jet as complicated as the F35 is about a million different possible things.

 

Completely disagree with you. Multi-roles do not cost more to build or maintain.

A mixed fleet is going to cost a lot more. Assuming the same amount was spent on the actual jets... your plan is going to have to have additionally the different pilot training programs for each different type, and different maintenance systems for each different type - that is a huge part of the expense of the aircraft so I'd guess at least double perhaps triple the cost. Multi-role does not add any extra maintenance requirement.... actually a specialized platform generally ends up costing more because to take full advantage of the specialization you need to add features specific to that area of specialty - it cannot all be gained by 'design' alone. To specialize costs money to add specialty features, otherwise why bother.

The downtime/maintenance stats are not representative of what the jet will end up requiring, because its a new jet not yet in operation.... ie still being sorted out and tested. Its just now they are getting to the harder to fix problems because they are harder to find.

All modern jets are going to be complicated. Its for survivability and therefore effectiveness - deciding to ignore those two things sounds like your argument is not to have an effective air force at all, then its a different story. Acquisitions tend to future proof as much as possible, unless already in a war, so looking at the current crop of underperforming options and saying a few are good enough might be true for now, but not much longer.

 

The F35 is costing over $1 trillion dollars. There is no arguing that that is far to expensive for what we are getting. While I have my issues with F22s they at least perform there jobs and they didn't cost nearly as much to develop as the F35 has. Building 3 different variants for the Army, Navy and AF of F35 is going to cost us $250 billion more than if we just developed three separate aircraft for each branch. So not only is using the F35 more expensive in the mid and long term but because it is being designed for all three branches they are forced to make compromises on its design. Saying that all modern fighter jets have more maintenance issues is a non sequitor. The F35 has prohibitively high maintenance requirements compared to other modern aircraft, even compared to the much the maligned F22.

Here is an article linking JUST the purchase costs, not even including development. The cheapest version cost $188 million per plane and the most expensive version (Navy) costs over $330 million per plane. That is a monumental (*)(*)(*)(*)ing waste of money. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398

This article shows the cost difference between having just one "magical" multi role fighter versus three separate planes. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/th...ter-jet-costs-more-than-three-separate-planes

All that money is being wasted on fighter jets which are slowly becoming obsolete. While we will still need them in the future more and more of the workload will be done with drones which are far less expensive and have significant advantages over manned fighters.

 

There's been suggestions that Australia may have to buy F-15s converted to growlers to fly cover for the F-35s which has lead some military analysts to suggest that we just save us money and buy F-15s instead which are cheap in comparison.

 

I think you mean FA18F's, we are not and never getting any type of F15.

 

OK I see your just quoting parts of that page, and I'm not going to bother argueing about unit cost/price in this sort of production program, its too complex and if your being told it isnt, your being fed BS. For example, recently;

The LRIP 8 contract procures 29 U.S. aircraft including 19 F-35As, six F-35Bs and four F-35Cs. It also provides for the production of the first two F-35As for Israel, the first four F-35As for Japan along with two F-35As for Norway and two F-35As for Italy. The United Kingdom will receive four F-35Bs. The contract also funds manufacturing-support equipment as well as ancillary mission equipment.

Cost details will be released once the contract is finalized; however, in general, the average unit price for all three variants of the airframe in LRIP 8 is approximately 3.6 percent lower than the previous contract. Additional cost savings from the F-35 cost reduction initiative will begin to be implemented in the next batch of procurement – LRIP 9.

...but what are the prohibitive maintenance requirements of the F35 compared to other aircraft?

Also, the design does not comprimise things because of its joint service applicability. The design has 3 variants with modifications for specific applications - that is different from comprimising one design to try and do three jobs. That page about 3 jets v 1 jet didnt say anything useful at all!!!

 

We already have F/A-18s. We want to get rid of them, hence the F-35s.

 

Sort of, we are replacing FA18A/B's from 81WG with F35, but we replaced the F111 from 82WG with FA18F, with the option to modify new FA18F to FA18G Growler spec. They are different aircraft, different roles.... note no F15's though.

Random F35 pic

 

Where are you getting this under budget stuff from? EVERY SINGLE news story says that the F35 has ballooned far beyond initial projections. Its seven years behind schedule and no matter what they do the range of the plane is far to short to be practical when carrying a size able payload. Not to mention the plethora of tech issues that everyone keeps posting about. It is a boondoggle pure and simple. When you are planning on future war scenarios you must account for the Middle East and Asia with Asia in particular having large battle theaters. Range cannot be underestimated and the F35 simply doesn't cut it. If you want it to fly far enough you have to limit its payload making it less efficient in sorties.

It should have been twin engine.......single engine was a huge mistake and using the same airframe for all designs was just stupid. They could have homogenized many of the electronics and stuff to simply maintenance but the Navy in particular needs longer ranges on their aircraft and should have a signifcantly longer airframe to accommodate more fuel. With the advent of new technologies against carriers coming around the corner they will have to launch from further away.

 

Well, I'm not making it up so your clearly wrong when you say 'EVERY SINGLE'. Perhaps you just read wongo page's. Anyway, this page has the quote;

http://defense-update.com/20141027_lrip-8-f35.html

Range on 'internal' fuel is about the same as the FA18E/F's which is a pure Navy jet. The way it works in the real world is they add external tanks for the departure transit phases of a mission, and conduct aerial refuelling at points during the flight - like it is done with any other fast jet.

Two engines would have made the VSTOVL impossible I imagine, and it would have been much more expensive to build three different types. Single engine is not new, but sure not ideal.... though much easier to maintain. The USN operated Skyhawks from carriers for ages, and the F16 has been a very popular jet with lots built and lots of operational flying. A lot of US commentary is professional I think.... with many writers affiliated with the pro and anti lobby groups - remembering building jets is big business. The same thing happened with the MV22 introduction. Don't believe everything you read.

 

I think the confusion is that you are talking about a drop from the last contract. I am referring to the initial estimates versus what it is actually costing now. The program is waaaaaaaaaay behind schedule and its waaaaaaaaaay over the initial estimated costs. The original costs per fighters was supposed to be around $80 million if I recall and not it ranges from $130 million to over $330 million for the Navy's version. Even if I go to the official sight they say its around $100 million and up depending on the version WITHOUT THE ENGINE. What the hell is the point of advertising the cost of your jet without its engine?

LM customer service: "Hello, my name is Stanley with Lockheed Martin customer support. How may I help you?

Me: "Hi, I just bought one of your fighter jets and no matter which buttons I press nothing happens except a lot of blinking. I have been stuck out here on your lot for three hours now."

LM customer support: "Did you remember to turn the key? HAHA! Just kidding we don't actually have keys. Did you read the entire sales contract when you signed it?"

Me: "Of course not, it was 3,589 pages long in size 6 happy fun time font"

LM customer support: "Oh that explains it. See when we sell our fighter they don't actually come with an engine."

Me: "WHAT! Every car I have ever bought had an engine in it why wouldn't you guys include an engine?"

LM customer support: "Well isn't it obvious? Jets fly in the air while cars drive on the ground, silly. That's why we don't include the engine."

Me: "WTF! Seriously! :321: Oh wait! Nevermind, I just found the button that fires the missiles and there is a nice big yellow building in front of me to test them out on"

LM customer support: "Wait what? Yellow building........NO WAIT! That is customer support building!"

Me: "I know BEEP BEEP BEEP VROOOOOOOOSH!

Actually regarding the twin engine thing I always thought they were superior (and they technically still are) but the difference is minimal with today's fighters, as you pointed out the F16 and the cost is literally twice as much over a single fighter. So I have changed my view on the single engine aspect of the F35. I remember seeing the differences between the F15 and F16 though and they were pretty dramatic but more modern single engine fighters have closed the gap.

 

The problem is they forecasts are for the total program, but the way the acquisition goes is its lots of little contracts for each purchase and its always more expensive for the first batch because they have greater costs to cover without the surety of a bulk purchase. What happens is as more and more are bought, the price goes down each time (generally speaking). I think all revolutionary new fighter jet programs are over budget and out of schedule, but the jets are up and flying all over the US at the moment and they seem to be really good from what I read.

 

True……. but the article that I quoted in the O. P. could influence potential buyers away from the F-35 and toward something…."Made in the USSR" or India or perhaps even China?

 

Perhaps I am naive….. but I do have a method in mind that could save the F-35.

Step one…… all the employees working on the F-35 be hired as actors who are playing out the role of themselves in a series of documentary and reality films……. and we might even be able to expand into Semi-Reality Science Fiction?! The footage of their comments and ideas should be classified as secret and so the film cannot be released until at least a decade or two from now….. but….. knowing that they will soon be well known by a majority of Americans will tend to stir up these experts to a higher level of energy, patriotism and enthusiasm.

Step two….. the introduction of at least one or more State Currency units……(not necessarily dollars)……. to liven up the thirty percent of the economy that falls into the category of "volunteerism."

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...-could-utah-state-dollar-save-usa-dollar.html

Could a Utah State Dollar save the USA Dollar?
Have you seen any of the following films:

1. The Future of Food
2. Food Inc
3. The World According to Monsanto.

If so..... then you know that the USA dollar to some degree is linked to and backed up by a plan to control the world's production of food in such a way that could eventually produce global famine.


"George Soros says that America must give up the dollar and accept world currency."

http://www.examiner.com/article/geo...aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

 

Surely some of the footage would not need to be classified as secret………. and could be released to combat the type of article that I quoted in the OP.

Semi-reality Science Fiction films could play a significant role in stimulating the economy of America.

https://m.facebook.com/notes/dennis...cian-the-film-series-concept/310416062401072/

What I mean by Semi-reality…. is that the money used to partly finance these films…. .is real….. and can be used by people to purchase at least a percentage of what they are going to buy anyway.

A Utah or Texas or New York or Massachusetts Volunteerism Hour……… could be one possible way to actually partly pay our young athletes?!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...s-violate-minimum-wage-laws-lawsuit-1.2806008
Canada's junior hockey teams violate minimum wage laws: lawsuit

 

I asked the following question over in another discussion:

http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...ing-russia-actually-abandoning-dollar-53.html

Russia Is Doing It – Russia Is Actually Abandoning The Dollar