Saturday, January 25, 2014

F-35. In light of budget cuts, there is no way the program will remain untouched.

I ran a tally of weapon systems that I know (meaning have been stated publicly) are either delayed or canceled...

Ground Combat Vehicle, Armed Aerial Scout, AAV Upgrade, ACV, MPC, and LCS, B-1 Bombers, C-27J, KC-10 and A-10.

What we have seen reduced in service...

Numerous Air Force Squadrons, Army Brigades, Marine Corps Battalions and now Navy Aircraft Carrier deployments.

Personnel cuts are fuzzy and I've only payed attention to the Army and Marine Corps but the worst case numbers look about right....

380,000 Army end strength and 150,000 USMC end strength.

Having made cuts of this magnitude (and I'm sure I've missed some) then there is no way the F-35 comes away unscathed.  Interservice politics won't allow it.  Additionally there is no way that the US Navy signs on to buying F-35's at what appears to be an outrageous price when they can sustain their air arm with cheaper and more plentiful F-18's.

Sequester will do what Congress didn't have the balls to.  Additionally I expect more economic bad news to strike.  The Dow Jones was down 381 points on Friday and the day of reckoning in China is still looming.

Not only does the Pentagon have to contend with Tea Party and Republican budget hawks, Democrats that are doves and hate the military (the majority of that party) but they also have to worry about a public that thinks we've spent enough on the military, and doesn't want to see us involved in any foreign interventions.

The "cut personnel" and modernize the force gambit is not going to pay off.  Instead they're going to get the worst of all worlds.

No modernization.  Not even upgrades...and even smaller forces than they planned on.

I bet the JCS are all alcoholics by now.

7 comments :

  1. Dear Solomon

    Random Question, but has anyone done an analysis on how much cheaper the Boeing version might have worked out at? Because, looking at this (www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kNszWU7hTw&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1kNszWU7hTw&has_verified=1) it doesn't seem to have been that much different, but was produced within cost and on time/early as a rule.

    yours sincerely

    Alex

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boeing's X-32 shows just how difficult it was to build a "do everything" fighter. It's testing did not go nearly as well as LockMart's X-35, and its final design would have had a more traditional tailed design instead of the tailless delta of the demonstrator.

      What you don't see reported very often however, is that LockMart's X-35 had a HUGE advantage in the competition. It did not have weapons bays. It was decided that the F-22 had been enough to prove LockMart had enough weapon bay experience. (never mind that the JSF was smaller, single engined, and had to accommodate a lift fan)

      Well, as any engineer will tell you: "Holes can be heavy". You need to add structural reinforcement. Just look at comparison shots between the X-35 and production F-35. You will see that the F-35 is considerably more bulbous and lumpy.

      http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=28

      Delete
    2. images of open (complex) weapons bays.

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Be2DGEnCYAAwPQ7.jpg

      http://www.businessinsider.com/new-pictures-of-the-f-35-with-its-weapons-bay-doors-wide-open-2012-3

      The B only carries a 1,000 lb JDAM internally, A & C 2,000 lb, all carry AMRAAM.

      Delete
  2. My Solomon you seem strangely quiet on this:

    http://news.usni.org/2013/12/12/lockheed-new-carrier-hook-f-35

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. because Harlan there is nothing to see there! SO FUCKING WHAT! Lockheed Martin delivers a NEW tailhook because the ORIGINAL tailhook DIDN"T FUCKING WORK!!!!!!

      i'll believe it when NAVAIR certifies the F-35C to be carrier capable. and that won't be till they risk a pilot to land on an actual aircraft carrier...and unless NAVAIR is as corrupt as HQMC then they won't do that until they're confident that it can work.

      Delete
    2. I do not know how about the part that the Navy provide the wrong specification??
      "faulty wire dynamics model supplied by the Naval Air Systems Command"

      Or did you actually read the article? Like the you did on the USAF is getting its CRH a few weeks back? Of course it was probably news to the Army that they do not fly Medivac birds anymore. Per you.

      Delete
    3. you moronic dumbass! the USAF IS getting their CRH !!!!

      bye bitch.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.