If this report is true then the F-35 is a bigger clusterfuck than the EFV EVER was.
I find it interesting that the USMC was able to unceremoniously cancel a armor program at the cusp of its success and start all over again but is unable to do so when it comes to an aviation project.
Come to think of it, the USMC did the same thing with the Marine Personnel Carrier Program. Once BAE and Lockheed Martin finally showed that they had capable wheeled, amphibious combat vehicles that met blast specifications they canceled the program.
Something stinks in the Commandant's office. We have a Commandant in charge of aviation and an Assistant Commandant in charge of aviation. How about we get a Commandant for the Infantry/Ground Combat Element?
Amos has to go. Read the story of the F-35's woes here.
"Bill Sweetman" Yeah, that should tell you all you need to know right there.
ReplyDeletesweetman isn't the issue. Marine armor is. the Marine Corps reputation is. the future of the Marine Corps and how its orientated is.
Deletemy point was simple. the Marines canceled the EFV and MPC for budget reasons yet the F-35 continues to soak up money and is falling behind. i'm sorry but Marine Air knows the deal that's why i haven't gotten pushback from aviators.
this is rumbling hard beneath the surface in Marine Land and for those that are debating the future of the Marine Corps, you see much concern about how this issue is being handled.
one day the Marines are going to be sent on a disaster relief mission and then you're going to have attacks by insurgents. Marines need protected transport and we don't have it now.
"If this report is true then the F-35 is a bigger clusterfuck than the EFV EVER was."
ReplyDelete"sweetman isn't the issue."
If course he is. His article is the entire premise of your first assertion. "B.S." may as well stand for "bull shit" when Bill starts writing about the F-35. He's long since jettisoned any pretense to objectivity. If you want to know how Marines feel about the F-35 ask an F-35 or Harrier pilot.
"one day the Marines are going to be sent on a disaster relief mission and then you're going to have attacks by insurgents. Marines need protected transport and we don't have it now."
ReplyDeleteBetter that than, "one day the Marines are going to be sent to fight and they're going to be on the shit end of enemy airstrikes the likes of which haven't been seen since WWII".
you really and truly don't get it do you?
Deletei'm talking about the very essence of the Marine Corps. if one weapon system or a couple of weapon systems are changing the very essence of the Corps then i'm going sit up, take notice and ask what the fuck.
Bill is biased against the F-35. fair enough, but the son of a bitch was right when he talked about the airplane eating up the budget of the Marine Corps...i'm watching it happen right now and it pisses me off.
What's not to get? The USMC has LVTP-7s and LAV-25s. It's hardly starving for armored vehicles. Yes, they're old but it's a HELL of a lot easier to replace an armored vehicle (or even buy one off the shelf) than it is to replace a STOVL aircraft. I'd rather them soldier on with what they've got for a few more years, and take their chances with the occasional IED, than to get rid of their integral air cover and get the living shit kicked out of them one day. Look further than 2-5 years down the road.
DeletePretty soon the Marines are going to be Navy number 2 lol.
ReplyDeleteWhen I see Sweetman name, I know there will be a negative bias and F35 is a giant turd. When I see Sferrin, I know I will see a positive bias where everything is great and nothing is ever wrong. I figure they cancel each other out, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
ReplyDeleteI think we would all like to see more progress, most of all the services! The comments are from Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E), if anyone should know what the hell is going on, it should be this guy, not Sweetman or Sferrin. He said that "Radar and electro-optical system snags have delayed weapons integration, consuming all the margin built into weapons testing. Buffet and transonic wing-drop “continue to be a concern to achieving operational combat capability.”
I think LMT will figure out the helmet and software issues eventually, a point that I find disturbing is the knock on effect of not getting the helmet right, the ETOS and radar seems to be pushing back weapons testing. Let's face it, without weapons, jet fighters are very expense Cessna's.
"Buffet and transonic roll-off—wing drop in high-speed turns, associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves—still affect all variants of the JSF, despite control law changes. The program will conduct flight tests this year to assess the problem, but has now reached a limit on what can be done with control laws, Gilmore reports. Further changes would degrade maneuverability or overload the structure." This is definitely not good, sounds like they might have reached the point where software and small "tricks" aren't cutting it...not good news at all.
The last one deals with the bad weather "Gilmore observes that lightning-tolerance testing is yet to be completed and that even then, the fighter's airframe will have to be inspected after known lightning strikes—including skin penetration—because it does not use lightning-tolerant fasteners, Conventional fasteners were selected to save weight." This is just plain stupid on the part of LMT. One accident and the regular press will have a field day with the $150 million dollar jet fighter that can't fly thru rain...stupid.
The program will continue, that's obvious now but we are not getting the best bang for our buck here.
The USMC is the service that is going to suffer the most and turn into something else than what it was created for. You can't subjugate the entire service to getting one pet program into service, Marines will pay the price for this...
"When I see Sferrin, I know I will see a positive bias where everything is great and nothing is ever wrong."
DeleteOh, I've NEVER said the program was perfect. All I've ever maintained is that it's not the dog some would paint it to be (ask the pilots) and that if we wanted to replace the F-16, F/A-18, AND Harrier this was the only way it could be done from a cost standpoint. Obviously it would have been better to have a unique design for each of the three replaced aircraft but had we done so the STOVL version would have already been cancelled, thus putting the USMC out of the fixed wing business when the Harriers started falling out of the skies (spare me the "but, but they could put Marine aircraft on CVNs"). Blame Bush 1 and Slick Willey for putting off fighter (and ship) procurement because of the "peace dividend". This trainwreck has been in the making for 20+ years and everybody could see it coming. And did nothing.
The writing was on the wall years ago. The main issue is not the F-35. Rather it's buying very few aircraft the past two decades and then deciding to replace the entire tactical aviation force with one aircraft. As that program was delayed the age of fighters kept getting larger because no other aircraft were being built while also making the F-35 that much more important to the Corps because it's seemingly now the only alternative.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, and I haven't seen this discussed, but going to one aircraft type is also going to create the same problem all over again in future. Instead of having to replace part of the fighter force at a time now the entire force will have to be replaced all at once all over again in future.
The next bad decision was deciding a 32,000lb empty aircraft was an economical replacement for the 14,00lb empty weight attack AV-8B. The Corps decided to replace it's STOVL attack aircraft with a strike fighter that weighed twice as much. Anyone who believed that was ever going to be cost effective was not properly analyzing the situation.
Whether the F-35B should even exist is a matter of debate. It will certainly be a great naval aircraft for those nations not willing to purchase and operate a CATOBAR carrier but I'd argue the Corps has no business operating such an aircraft. STOVL is entirely over rated. To the degree it's useful it certainly doesn't need to be more than half the fighter force, much less all of it, and if the cost is being forced to operate an entire force of expensive strike aircraft than with respect I'd suggest the Corps was never going to be able to properly afford such a force and the F-35B should not be a Corps aircraft.
At this point, however, there's no chance of another STOVL fighter so I'd suggest the Corps is stuck with it if STOVL is really required for some aircraft. The Corps can stick with the all F-35 plan if it wants to rob every other procurement account the next couple decades but there are alternatives.
One would be both delaying and cutting the total buy for the B. I'd suggest cutting it to about 160 and operating around 10 squadrons eventually replacing the AV-8B squadrons and a few F/A-18. Either SLEP enough F/A-18C/D to fly another 20 years or buy some F/A-18E/F's and eventually replace these with F/A-XX. This way the Corp isn't trying to replace every fighter at once. Forget about the F-35C, the E/F can task aboard the Navy's carriers so they'll be fine with this.
Right now the Corps has 20 fighter squadrons. It might be worth asking if that's affordable and/or the right mix long term? I'd suggest 16 makes more sense, with 8 F-35B (another training), 8 with the F/A-18 and eventually F/A-XX, and maybe 2 with a light attack/ISR prop aircraft but with 20 to 24 aircraft.
All this aside I'd bet the F-35 turns out to be the world's best strike fighter and that all the developmental issues eventually get worked out. I also bet it will get delayed further and that it never achieves the original program goal of being affordable. How can it be when it weighs as much as an F-15C and more than a Typhoon but is supposed to replace aircraft that weigh half as much like the AV-8B, A-10, and F-16? Exactly why did anyone ever imagine cost effective attack aircraft could ever be "replaced" by expensive strike fighters and that cost effective attack aircraft weren't often exactly what is required and best fill mission requirements?
I am going to quote this for future arguments.
Delete