Since Bruce Mcquain was kind enough to send me the F-35 talking points (be advised, you're my hero for that!)...I've been thinking that a list of "anti" F-35 talking points should be examined....
Talking Point 1.
The F-35 is too expensive. A total misnomer. The F-35 is on a cost curve that will have it being a very cost effective and affordable fighter. The critics are using historical data but fail to take into account the scale of the buy. Just the US Navy/Marine Corps buy will be bigger than the Typhoon program.
Talking Point 2.
The F-35 isn't a real stealth fighter. This one annoys me to no end. What are the critics basing this on? Unless they have the airplane and access to a radar range then they're spitting in the wind. To compare the F-35 to foreign stealth fighters is equally silly. Somehow they continue to do so and get away with it.
Talking Point 3.
The F-35 is short ranged. This one in particular irks me. The F-35 has a range greater than the legacy Hornet...greater than the Harrier...and all this on internal fuel. To add insult to injury, these same people tout the F-22 as the solution to future conflicts in the Pacific but fail to acknowledge that the F-35 is longer ranged than the Raptor.
Talking Point 4.
The F-35 is poorly managed. It has had its difficulties. But to lambast an airplanes capabilities based on program management is silly. And to be honest, name one major program that hasn't its issues.
And there are many more I'm sure. Suffice it to say that the critics of this program are emotional, have ulterior motives/agendas and are not being honest.
A couple of arrows to add to your quiver. Point 1. The F-35 is a different type of program. When the DoD buys an F-18, that is all they get. It costs more money for replacement parts, but these costs are not put into the advertised cost of the airplane. The F-35 comes with an hours guarantee and Lockheed Martin provides parts. The Polish bought F-16s with this type of plan and their F-16s cost around $73 million a copy.
ReplyDeletePoint 2. Completely guessing by "experts" like Dr. Carlo Copp. They do not know the RCS of the aircraft so they guess.
Point 3. The F-35B has greater combat radius than a legacy Hornet and is comparable to an F/A-18E/F. The F-35A/C has a greater combat radius than an F/A-18E/F if you believe online sources like global security.
Don't forget the F-35 Helmet Mounted Display System, is supposedly plagued with problems too. I personally think it's the defense contractors gouging the US armed forces for more time, which means more money and less units to produce in the end, it's happening now with so many programs. I wish there were more cohesion in the branches when it came to dealing with the defense contractors, they should stand their ground and make it happen. If this is how procurement will be in the 21st century for the US, then I hope those top generals are changing their tune, and their strategy here at home.
ReplyDelete1) Cost curves push up the longer developement takes. The real cost issue is that if even the smallest pressure pushes the cost even a little it can be a tipping point that results in cancelations of orders. Based on developement costs you add nearly $500K to each plane when one is canceled.
ReplyDelete2) I think people who have problems with the F-35 as not being a "real steath fighter" are people who percieve air superiority the only purpose of fighters at the cost of all others. When you look at the intended roles of F35 its more of an attack fighter, like the F117, but with the breeding stock to fill other roles. Its been stated to have a poorer radar crossection at the rear, but given its role its moot.
4)It's mismanaged and while other programs are as well thats not really an excuse. I think the program is a case of trying to do too much at a time. That if they had focused on the first variant and then only the other two after production of the first started it would have been a smoother program.