I was tweeting with two other bloggers this morning and one of them, when confronted with the painful truth that the F-35 was hopelessly behind schedule and sucking all of the investing nations dry, retreated to the biggest lie ever told about why we should stick with the F-35.
We have no choice because we have no alternatives.
That is the most stupid thing I've ever heard in my life. You always have a choice. If you're walking on train tracks and you see a light coming in your direction you get off those tracks!
We've seen the light coming for awhile now with the F-35 yet we refuse to get off the tracks. The alternatives are there. We just have to have the courage to say that we made a mistake in continuing with this program even when we knew it was not worth further investment of time or money.
For the USAF, that can swing into a much upgraded F-16. I won't go into what type of upgrades would be needed, I'll leave that to others. What I can say is that such an airplane will be quickly developed, fulfill the majority of missions envisioned for the F-35 and be cost effective.
The USN and USMC can use the Advanced Growler. The CNO has basically told us that NAVAIR believes that electronic attack is the wave of the future when it comes to aerial warfare. Additionally he's a big believer in payloads. Advanced missiles can be launched where we don't want to send aircraft. For everything else and a little bit more, the Advanced Growler will get the job done.
For the LHD/LHA needs of the Marine Corps an upgrade to the AV-8B Harrier II would be in order. As things stand now, NAVAIR says that it will be viable until 2030 and beyond. For Marine Corps missions its all about putting steel on target. That means improved missiles, rockets and bombs. The laser guided 2.75 is a good start. We should do the same with the 5in rocket and get other improved munitions to this airplane.
Our allies have a range of airplanes to choose from. The Gripen E, the Typhoon, the Rafale or even one of the airplanes that I'm recommending for the USAF in upgraded form.
Its obvious but the supporters of the F-35 don't want to admit the truth. This program is placing tremendous strain on not only our budget but also the budgets of our allies.
Canada has almost seen governments fall over this airplane. The Netherlands have seen their air force reduced to almost nothing in order to maintain "commonality" with the US. The Brits have reduced their order and so have the Italians....only the Italians aren't finished. The Japanese bought fewer than planned and so did the S. Koreans.
This plane is unaffordable. Cuts in number have already occurred and will continue. Moving purchases to the right to keep the numbers "right" is just an accounting gimmick...one of many that the program office uses to hide how much is being wasted.
My blogging buddy was wrong. We do have a choice. We just need the courage to pursue alternatives to the blackhole known as the F-35.
NOTE: Just got a note from my buddy. He's saying I'm spouting fantasy. I disagree. The Advanced Super Hornet is here. The F-16 Block 60+ is here. The Harrier is said to be good past 2030. WE HAVE ALTERNATIVES! So do our allies. Toss in the work being done on unmanned combat aircraft and you have an affordable, survivable, highly effective alternative to the super expensive, super late, and under performing F-35.
All those famous russian and chinese incoming threats that are supposed to doom the F-35, are going to be faced by ancient, subsonic Harriers, souped-up F-16s and Super Hornets, with the latter in particular which have kinematics comparable to the F-35 but inferior sensors and inferior low observability? I think not. Even that famous junky simulation usually used to bash the F-35 had the Super Hornet completely annihillated, you know.
ReplyDeleteIs your long term solution to jamming a non low-observable platform which when loaded with jamming pods is limited to subsonic flight, and with terrible kinematics? Really? I think not, unless you are going to tell me that the super advanced incoming chinese and russians products can't find the source of all that jamming and go tear it down from the sky. Is your hope a merry, happy, cheap, perfect UCLASS that does everything you remove from manned platforms? How many chances there are that when ambitious requirements start to pile up to compensate what you remove from the manned capability mix, the costs and complexities will go up and up, as always happens with any big air program? Let's say 99%, to be generous?
There is only so much stretch you can impose on old airframes and systems. Are you going to resume producing Harriers to compensate for having so pitifully few of them, and a logistic line that has been run down so much that you had to buy the ex-british GR9s? At which cost, for what gain, building an aircraft which has so many limitations? Even giving it a new radar is not going to fundamentally change what it can and what it can not do. Are you going to start a whole new STOVL platform, all over again? How long will it take, how much money? Who the fuck knows. Are you going to merrily prevent the allies from getting low-observability capabilities and, worse, to condemn them to lose what's left of their naval aviation, after spending big shares of their limited budget on it? Because this is what will happen, unless the US pays back the billions of dollars allies have paid into the F-35, so that at least the british can use the money to tear down the carriers and put catapults in them. And even that, is assuming the RN can get the government to take the RAF by the back of the skull and ram its face into accepting the return of a truly independent naval air branch, which catapults training needs make practically unavoidable. That, and not the cost of the F-35, is what could really, really damage allies, and create true friction in relationships.
In industrial and political terms, are you really going to suggest messing up, at this stage, with the long term plans and investments of allies which have little to no budgetary room for such shocks?
And again, in the american homeland, are you really going to suggest, even encourage, allies to build more Typhoons, Rafales and Gripens instead of buying the american F-35? See your senators and industries, explain that to them, and see how they react to your genius.
A good plan for sure, yours. There's only about a million black holes in it after just a ten minutes reflection, full of things that will go horribly wrong, and with the enduring need for starting whole new aircraft programs just a few years into the future, because upgrades and life extensions can (at most) just buy some time.
But don't worry, of course starting again will go perfectly well this time around, if Boeing or whoever else says so.
As they always, always say with any program. We know how it usually goes with those promises.
simple question Gabrielle.
Deletewhen do you say we've waited long enough? if another delay to the program comes because the software isn't sorted out do you say 5 more years is not too big a price to pay? what if that 5 years become 10. do you then say enough is enough?
we've waited almost 20 years for this program to be completed and for the airplanes to be in service. after all that time you still say that we must ride this horse.
my solutions aren't perfect but they end this misery, let us learn from our mistakes, allow us to harvest technology and let us move on.
the US Army shows us how that can work out with the M109A7. its the XM2001 Crusader in all but name. additionally it takes bits from the Crusader and the FCS programs and puts them in an affordable package. no, it doesn't give the full Crusader or FCS advances but it works, its affordable and its ready for production now.
we should follow that example and fix US airpower. when we start again we can do it with an eye toward doing it right, not simply following a flawed philosophy.
Partnerships that make sense. the RN and USMC and Italians can design a STOVL jet for LHA/LHDs. the USAF can build a pure air superiority fighter. the US Navy can get a naval interceptor. the allies can do what they wish. that is the way for a successful airplane program.
oh and be advised. we haven't even begun to talk about the maintenance cost of this airplane. quite honestly if the predictions of some are correct then you'll be lucky to have airplanes to put on the deck of your proud new warships.
Gabriele, You've asked quiet a lot of questions. A lot, and answered none. The world is full of people who ask questions and then conveniently go off air for when answer time comes up
DeleteBut Solomon, do you really think further modifications on the Single Engine F-16 is the best way forward ? It could be the Interim, but the best ?
DeleteYou dont have to be "The Best". Just better than the other guy. One of your Generals said that recently in some blog. The Russians have done just that. They didnt go in for the Mother of ALL Aircraft. They simply went in for the something that would make then Better Than The Other Guy. I am sure they had F-35 Fanboys in Russia begging Vlad "The Putin" for GazProm Billions to match the F-35 inch to inch. But, they also had the common sense to feel their limitations early on when developing their new aircraft.
DeleteThe best way forward from here is to give the Air Force full ownership of the Next American Dog Fighter, just as the Russians have done. Save money, buy more B-2's and your A-10's. And Please, have twin engines.
DeleteEven though both the aircraft (F35 and PAKFA) are in prototype/testing stage the world view of the PAK-FA looks a lot brighter. Its already got a well proven reliable engine with reams of data on engine usage, maintenance, wear and tear, power capacity etc. across all environmental conditions in the AL-31. Every Ruskie AF chap is comfortable with the maintenance of it and its replacement in the AL-41 will build up from where 31 left off. Its got a twin engine advantage over the F-35 coupled with canards. Like i said previously elsewhere in this blog, take away the stealth of both aircraft, and the PAK-FA still ends up as a powerfull agile dogfighter. And this is where the US Air Force people would like to take the F-35 if it werent weighed down by so many other servise requirements.
DeleteAnd Yes, I am here to defend any of my views or answers posted here anytime. Wont go Off-air when answer time comes.lol.
DeleteWow, what a good morning read...I can still smell the cordite settling.
DeleteSarabvir, I have enjoyed reading your point of view lately. I'm guessing your'e in aerospace, and we can leave it right there, as we know how are respective fields can be. I'm a simple pilot. No engineer or scientist by any means. I just know enough to help where I can. And yes, the F-35 is the wrong plane for many reasons. Cost, capability, engine, reliability, avionics, structure, Chinese parts, etc. I think Sol, you once equated it to something like: If you have a dying limb, past its point of recovery, do you keep trying to save the dying limb, or cut it off? Or I'll put it in my simple pilot terms... If you're going down, and you've done all you can to save your plane, do you punch out, or ride it?
They've lost sight of the original goal, the whole point of the program, which was to build a cheaper alternative to the F-22 for home and allies. Now, you have a platform that is so overweight, over budget, and over sold, that we're between a rock and a hard place. There is no real easy answer. As a pilot you must evaluate (quickly) the situation at hand. And the best answer is, arguably, cut our losses and regroup. People will be hurt over this. Jobs will be lost. But the in the overall scheme of things, cutting this program seams to be the best solution for all parties involved.
Upgrades simply put off having to build something new and leave you stuck with old tech, developing new stuff is painful but it's got to happen.
DeleteI don't know if you've ever developed anything Solomon but it's not a simple process, the way America does it right now isn't the way to go and situations like this are going to happen. The idea of having a multi-role aircraft fully equipped for every possible use just doesn't work and refusing to accept compromises causes chaos.
Take the Harrier for example, designed by Hawker Siddeley in Britain in the 60s it was a compromise of an aircraft, maneuverable and V/STOL but to achieve this they had to make it subsonic and it wasn't the best equipped. At the end of the day though they designed an aircraft that proved itself in the Falklands and the Americans even bought them.
The F-35 is the opposite, firstly Washington decided that they were only going to build one aircraft to replace those operated by the USAF, USN and the USMC. That alone isn't that bad an idea, carrier based fighters and land based ones have roughly similar capabilities. The problem is who they let write the specifications for it, they had the Air Force, Navy and Marines all demanding everything they could possibly need to be mounted on the plane. Complicated by the fact that some of those negotiating (some navy officers and ground based marines) weren't even that knowledgeable about systems so instead of accepting reasonable compromise many rejected it.
So, basically the demands for the aircraft to jump through hoops like being "full stealth" whatever that means and being able to do certain things in arbitrary scenarios have resulted in a plane that is overburdened with systems and is overly complex.
This is in contrast with the Russians who just went to Sukhoi and said "give us something better than the Americans have".
Lets hope that Sarabvir isn't waiting on the HAL Tejas abomination delivering ANY time soon.
DeleteThat jet is a national embarrassment.
As for the PAK-FA, the Indian AF thinks it is an overpriced piece of shit, it has had engine flameouts already with that "reliable" AL-31.
A twin engined super-fighter already exists, it is called the F-22. A non-stealth superfighter exists, it is the F-15C. Twin engine jets are more expensive to buy and operate than single engine jets.
"dogfighting", is for the most part, a relic of the 20th century.
Look at 1982 and 1991 to see how many "dogfighters" were fought vs. how many jets were destroyed.
The F-35 was never meant to be a "cheaper" F-22, it was meant to be a stealth replacement foe the F-16, Harrier, and F-18C rolled into one.
Solomon, that IDIOT the Italians have for a PM would NEVER spend that cash to develop a new STOVL jet. He is more concerned with being on TV 6 hours a day than maintaining the Italian military.
DeleteJulietCharlie22 said it best. this limb is diseased and rotting. better to kill the F-35 now then let it fester and infect the rest of the DoD.
DeleteScot. we wouldn't be throwing away the work done on the F-35. we would salvage what we could and put it into upgrades on the aircraft I mentioned. its already being done anyway, I'd simply remove the F-35 from the equation as a money pit
David. i don't know the Italian situation well, but i do know that they have a budget deficit and gasp! they're doing something about it. if that gains the people working to solve the problem time on TV then so be it, but i consider that a positive development. if it means that the Italians lose the F-35 so that there financial situation can improve then i consider that as them becoming STRONGER allies. we can work with anyone that will go to war with us. even if our equipment and tactics are different we can make it work, we have in the past and can in the future.
David McSpadden, you out of context jellybean. Where the heck did the HAL Tejas come into this discussion about the F-35 ? Are they even comparable ? And for the record, I will admit that Tejas was doomed from the very beginning. Having an Indegenous aircraft with an US engine just when you go about testing your nuclear arms. Thats why we understand our limitations and buddy up with partner nations who also understand their limitations. For your information, the Flame Outs happened in 2011. Its 2014 now. What was the status of the F-35 in 2011 and now ? I am not insulting any country out here nor any foreign weapons program. I can only insult my own programs because i am the taxpayer who paid for those doomed projects. I will also again admit Publicly my Bias for the PAK-FA. Again, on those Flameouts, the engine in question has been powering Sukhois since 1981. The new AL-41 is a new line being derived from the AL-31F varient. Twin engine aircraft are more expensive than single engine ones, I agree. They also provide more margin for error and a sense of an Insurance policy if one engine stops. It is exactly that kind of "Expensive" that rich countries, existing world powers and potential world powers should spend on, and already are. Any nation which expects to go to combat and has pilots with combat history will always maintain a fleet with twin engines.
DeleteThe Indian Airforce thinks PAK-FA is an overpriced piece of shit cause the Indian Rupee got its ass kicked from 40 to a dollar to 62 to a dollar. Coupled with that, an impending buy of Rafaels in this adverse foreign exchange rate scenario. They think that the PAK-FA is a piece of shit not because of any technical/technological point of view but from an Internal Politicking/budgeting point of view. For now, that budget is being spent on AH-64's, P-8, C-17, C-130, Phalcon Awacs, Hawk Jet trainers, Pilatus Trainers and reserved up for the Rafael. Belive me, its all about money here rather than technical limitation. And money we have plenty off, inspite of maintaing our defence budget at 2.5% of GDP
DeleteJC22, a humble thanks for considering me an Aerospace Engineer. I also enjoyed your Pilot Point of view. Which is why if you want to save the F-35 or for that matter the next mass produced dominance aircraft, the Air Force must take single and complete ownership of the program. Navy/Marine will scream bloody murder.......so what, Go suck a lemon. Nobody invites the Air Force to develp the Joint Fighter Tank.
DeleteYou know, all this talk about Stealth. In an aircraft being propelled by an giant heat emiting machine with thousands of moving parts, emitting out thousands of foot pounds of thrust, sound and flames.......what you get in the end taking into account existing technology is not Stealth but Deception. The process of decieving your opponent into thinking something else from what actualy is. And that "Deception" is as old as warefare itself. Just ask Ariel Sharon what he did in Sinai.
DeleteDon't forget the Silent Eagle and why not a Super Raptor with some gadgets from the F-35.
ReplyDeleteSilent Eagle is 100 million USD+, Super Raptor would be even more.
Deletefrom James Hasik writing for The Atlantic Council --
ReplyDelete"The F-35 accounts for just over 40 percent of all openly planned spending on major programs after 2015."
Here's the article and here's the graph..
Hasik: Is the F-35 the Industrial Base?
Consuming 40 percent of the Pentagon's future spending plans, the JSF may come to dominate defense planning.
Solomon,
ReplyDeleteFor the USAF, that can swing into a much upgraded F-16. <= Doesn't stand a chance against Chinese and Russian advanced types.
The USN and USMC can use the Advanced Growler. <= Growler to drop bombs?
For the LHD/LHA needs of the Marine Corps an upgrade to the AV-8B Harrier II would be in order. <= The Harrier is no longer in production and resurrecting the line will be costly and difficult. The F-35B does make sense here, regardless of its cost.
The Gripen E, the Typhoon, the Rafale or even one of the airplanes that I'm recommending for the USAF in upgraded form. <= Both Typhoon and Rafale are going out of production by 2020 so they are non-options. Only the Gripen E can be considered.
the Gripen E is Swedish, and the LAST time the US military used a "foreign" jet was the Harrier.
DeletePlus, the Gripen E will not exist until 2017 at the earliest.
The Typhoon is an overpriced EU made F-15, and the Rafale is an overpriced French made Superhornet.
David McSpadden
DeleteAnd what prevents the US government from adapting the Gripen into US services? Timing is perfect too.
Because what we need in a strike fighter is an aircraft with less thrust to work with than the F-16?
DeleteI think everyone should relax and remember that it is NEVER one single weapon system that wins a war.
ReplyDeleteIt is having the RIGHT MIX of weapon systems.
The Superhornet, Growler, Stealth UAV mix the Navy is working on is going to work. A flying network of sensors, jammers, and missile platforms is going to be damn tough to beat.
The F-16, F-15, F-22 mix the Air Force has now is already working.
The USMC needs to ditch the Harrier and start working with the US Army to bring down the cost of helicopters (seriously why is the USMC paying more for a UH-1Y than the Army is for a UH-60M?), in addition to exploring more cost effective fixed wing troop support assets (such as taking those A-10s the Air Force just dropped like a rock and putting them back to the troop support mission).
The Army needs to knuckle down on the basics, accept that the Bradley Fighting Vehicle won't have a significantly better replacement with the current level of technology available, but continue with an internal combustion engine for the Abrams so we can lower the maintenance costs to be more in line with the rest of our land fleet. The Army also needs to start conducting joint amphibious training with the USMC. Because if there is an incident in the Pacific the Marines could definitely stand to have a few Stryker Brigades along for the fight. And those Stryker Brigades will need to task organize into a hybrid "Stryker/Light Infantry" unit because you can't fit even a BN's worth of Strykers on anything that will get it to a beach. So infantry fights dismounted, but Main Gun Systems get to support the infantry. HMMWV's need to have 50's and Mk19's mounted to support the Infantry. Damnit, now I need to do a blog post on a potential Task Organization of a Stryker BDE to support the Pacific....
i look forward to reading that. its a simple thing that would add tons of credibility to our pivot to the Pacific.
DeleteNone of our potential enemies will be fielding all-stealth fleets so the idea we need to bankrupt ourselves to field one is absurd.
ReplyDeleteor that it may not be stealthy at all considering the compromises to the contractor's security lapses (network breached, parts made in China) OR advances in enemy defenses with sensor fusion, multiple radar bands, passive detection.
We could very well be placing all of our chips into the pot hoping that we have a stealthy silver bullet that can defeat all enemies when in actuality, we may just purchase an overpriced, compromised aircraft that isn't the "5th generation" wonderplane, but is instead just a Gen 4.8.
Maybe the talk of downloaded specs or parts made in China is all just disinformation and this aircraft really is beyond the reach of all of our enemies, but I doubt it.
The fact we will come to depend upon this plane in a future conflict and that we won't have any alternatives to fighting a war without is the 'lack of alternatives' the should scare the shit out of people.
Paralus is right, there is no single country out there whis has a "MasterPlan" to convert its entire Air Force into Stealth. Unless you are competing against Space Aliens
DeleteStealth is not a silver bullet when it can be detected
ReplyDeletehttp://theconversation.com/the-f-35-jsf-what-is-a-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-26088
The AF should purchase Superhornets for the ANG and reserve squadrons that have worn out F-16s or F-15s. We'd save money on logistics and commonality. A couple of units could get growlers for E/W and wild weasel operations. Sell it to the congress critters as "An affordable stopgap" To the F-35. Then.... forget to the buy the F-35, buy the General Atomics Avenger instead.
ReplyDeleteThe Avenger which can't do 3/4 of what the F-35 can do? Brilliant.
Deletei'm not a fan of the Avenger. it has tails and tails mean less stealth. i like the Boeing or Northrop products. they can fill the bill of getting on deck, going deep...much deeper than you would ever risk a F-35, can carry more missiles to be directed to fire at targets from an E-2 or the Advanced Super Hornet/Growler and will be cheaper.
Deletethat's the plan.
Block 60 F-16? Could have been a viable alternative a decade ago pending the F-16s definite replacement sometime in the 2020s. One of the more extensive F-16 redesigns would be more capable but you'll still never achieve the low radar cross section of the F-35.
ReplyDeleteThe Super Hornet will be in service for many years to come despite the original thinking that it would have a relatively short front-line service life as a bridge to the Navy's next generation of aircraft. Upgrades to the Super Hornet are a good idea but we don't need more airframes and it is still a short-term solution.
If we could go back to the early days of the JSF program knowing what we know now it may have been wise to skip the CATOBAR variant but it's a bit late for that now. 20/20 hindsight is of little use.
As for the Harrier you want to operate a dwindling number of airframes until 2030 and then what? Hope there are some more airframes somewhere we can cannibalize? By 2030 the Harrier will only be able to operate in a permissive environment anyway.
In the international market we want other countries to buy OUR fighter, not Eurocanards. Cancelling the F-35 and giving them a coupon for F-15s, F-16s, or F/A-18s probably won't work.
We need LONG TERM solutions, not the short term fixes of updating our current designs.
ReplyDeleteIrregardless of the capabilities argument, (the F-35 is a "silver bullet", etc.) I keep seeing the fallacy of "sunk cost" at play in many of the supporter's arguments. Many of the supporters of the F-35 argue that since we have spent so much money on the program already, we might as well go the distance. This is commonly known as "throwing good money after bad."
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs
The correct economic decision should be "where do we go from here?" Irregardless of any money already spent, decisions must be made that only consider present and future costs, not just in money, but also in "opportunity costs" What are we giving up if we stay the course? What are the consequences? And, most importantly, what do we REALLY have to work with. If we had to go to war in 2015, what would the F-35s that we have in inventory bring to the fight? Could that same job be done quicker and cheaper with other assets?
Too many supporters have fallen in love with the F-35s potential based on paper projections. Big deal. My so-far unbuilt airplane that I'm going to pitch will be invisible in ALL wave lengths (if only the tech comes on-line in time) My point is that perhaps someday the F-35 will be capable of all that has been promised but can we, should we, continue to wait and bleed cash, time and goodwill. Can we as a nation even afford that luxury? Can our allies?
I think the best decision could be arrived at if we come to the conclusion that we WILL be at war within five years with a near-peer adversary. What assets do we currently have to bring to the fight and what can we get our hands on that will get the job done in the next five years if not sooner. Perhaps this will help sharpen the focus of our decision makers. Perhaps the events in The Ukraine and the South China Sea are already doing just that. One can hope.
Especially if those near-peer ones are deliberatly not trying to match the US money to money in the defence sector. Now that the whole world know about the US plan to outspend the USSR into bankruptcy and extension, the Chinese and the Russians will not go in for that same mistake again putting billions on the line on a matching weapon/capability just because the media is full of the fact that the Americans are doing the same.
ReplyDelete