Thanks to SpazSinbad for the link...
via Breaking Defense...
This should have been done long ago and for any other program would have been.
What should you watch carefully?
Lt Gen Bogdan.
"His people aim to do what is prudent for the enterprise at large without compromising the ongoing mishap investigation"?
That's short hand for we're going to push on with flying this plane across the Atlantic unless the boss says otherwise.
They shouldn't.
Hagel needs to step up and shut down the idiocy now. I'd love to see this money pit end but barring that he at least needs to keep the planes on the ground until they know for certain what caused the mishap.
That's what leadership 101 demands.
Sidenote: I stole the term White Elephant from American Mercenary. Check out his latest on this ongoing theft of public funds here.
via Breaking Defense...
UPDATE One decision has finally been made. Late Thursday evening the Office of Secretary of Defense announced that the F-35 fleet was officially grounded. That’s right. Both OSD and the Joint Program Office used the term grounded, meaning the fleet will not fly until further notice and the causes of the fire have been found and ameliorating actions recommended.Its good to see that the SecDef finally took a bit of responsibility and is now protecting his people from the folly of his generals.
“The technical air worthiness authorities of the Department of the Air Force and Department of the Navy have issued a directive to ground the F-35 fleet based on initial findings from the runway fire incident that occurred at Eglin Air Force Base on Monday, June 23. The root cause of the incident remains under investigation. Additional inspections of F-35 engines have been ordered, and return to flight will be determined based on inspection results and analysis of engineering data,” the release says.
The Joint Program Office release says teams searching for a cause of the June 23 fire “have been unable to pinpoint the precise cause of the malfunction.” The head of the F-35 program. Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan release, said his people ”aim to do what is prudent for the Enterprise at large without compromising the ongoing mishap investigation.” That language about compromising the investigation is a clear sign of the political sensitivities of the investigation.UPDATE ENDS
This should have been done long ago and for any other program would have been.
What should you watch carefully?
Lt Gen Bogdan.
"His people aim to do what is prudent for the enterprise at large without compromising the ongoing mishap investigation"?
That's short hand for we're going to push on with flying this plane across the Atlantic unless the boss says otherwise.
They shouldn't.
Hagel needs to step up and shut down the idiocy now. I'd love to see this money pit end but barring that he at least needs to keep the planes on the ground until they know for certain what caused the mishap.
That's what leadership 101 demands.
Sidenote: I stole the term White Elephant from American Mercenary. Check out his latest on this ongoing theft of public funds here.
Fact of the matter is...........A nations defence is only as good as its options.
ReplyDeleteThis points to another question or an observation about the F35. What options do we have to replace it. The only way the all powerfull people on the top will stop this program is if they see an option or a viable alternative.
A viable, practical option/alternative.
You take a look at all other partner nations buying the F-35 and all of them uniformly say its the 5th gen best aircraft out there for the capability that it offers. Read deeper into that statement and they are all actually saying- we are shit out of options. Cant buy Russian, Cant Buy Chinese, Cant revive our Native industry from a scratch to build a collosal 5th gen or future gen aircraft, etc. etc. etc.
Look at all these reasons and that is why sooo many people all over the world are either buying or steadfastly sticking with the F35. For one reason or another, genuine reason or not.....they feel a lack of viable practicle and acceptable Option/alternative.
You have to understand this problem from a Defence Ministers Perspective as well. Political considerations, domestic considerations, science, tech, diplomacy, budgets etc. When we the bloggers talk about improved F-15's, double engined upgraded F-16's, Gripens, EuroCanards etc. its easy. For a defence minister, these "Options" are more complicated and risky as than they seem.
Tipping point will be when "Risky Options" become cheaper than the current F35 Progam in their perception.
Mind you, my comment is not for or against any aircaft. Its just that when a person in charge makes a decision about the continuation of a weapons program he has to ask these questions and then make his decision matrix. Thats how the top brass and civil bureacuracy the world over makes decisions.
DeleteSuper Hornet is the best interim option for replacing old worn out USAF airframes. It is the most advanced strike aircraft flying anywhere, and will be for the next decade. Even if the F-35 meets its IOC goals later this decade, it won't have all its promised capabilities until the 2025 timeframe. By that time, a longer ranged F/A-XX could come online - essentially making the F-35 an interim aircraft. It can be done *if* specs are kept reasonable, and quit trying to be "revolutionary." It has not worked well for the USAF, wit the F-22, B-2, and now the F-35 - all too costly to meet stated requirements.
DeleteI wouldn't be surprised to see a full court press pushing the Advanced Super Hornet as an alternative.
DeleteIt won't be popular with everybody, however. The Rhino was the "next-best thing" after both the A-12 and NATF were cancelled. You can only make so many trips to the well. At best, the ASH would be an interim solution.
At this point, I got a feeling that the upcoming T-X program is going to be more than just a T-38 replacement. If they are smart (big if), they will use it as a basis for a "no-frills" fighter to bolster lower than planned F-35 numbers.
The ASH F-18, along with the various new add-ons CWPs, CFTs, EPEs, EDEs is the interim solution to keep the Navy TAC-Air viable. Countries like Denmark, Netherlands, Norway should just move on and look maybe at the Gripen NG.
DeleteThe new F-16's rolling off the line would be a better fit for the USAF than Super Hornet. Mainly because they've already got Vipers in their fleet and the Hornets have to sacrifice a little performance capability due to the weight penalty from making it carrier capable.
DeleteThe problem with the F-16 is that LM will make them more expensive than necessary, as to not compete with the F-35. When you tart up an F-16 to get Super Hornet capabilities, you lose whatever weight advantage the F-16 started with, plus the SH is comparable in performance to the F-35. The USAF adopted two Navy jet designs that worked out well for them, the F-4 and A-7, so the weight issue is more of a canard than anything else.
DeleteDid you see the Plywood mock up F-35 they had on the New British carriers today Solomon? Better structural integrity than the real thing.
ReplyDeleteAlso, no operational aircraft on this carrier till 2020? Basically we paid billions for a 65'000 ton target. Fuck this government man, voting yes and ditching this sinking ship.
...and to think that they sold the Harriers to the Americans for less than the engineering costs to design catapults vs ski jump on the QE carrier.
DeleteWhat boggles the mind is that GEN Hostage (USAF) came out and explained in great detail about why the USAF needs so many F-35s, and put the USAF position as "all of them or it isn't worth it."
ReplyDeleteSo far nobody is asking "where does that leave our allies who bought into this thing?" If the F-35 really only works as part of a large fleet of compatible craft (using stealth, data links, etc) then what in the world would Denmark do with 40 of them? How can those smaller buyers get any value from their purchase if the unstated caveat is, "these things will work great as long as America happens to be fighting the same war as you."
Those "smaller guys" then have no option but to partner up with the one nation that has it all- USA. The moment you buy that aircraft you are an Instant US Ally whether you want to be or not. For spares, maintenance, long term supply agreements spanning decades, electronic communication monitoring, regular monitoring visits to see if somethings missing or being pirated etc.
DeleteThis aircraft through its cost and materials and specialization ensures that once bought, the nation is embedded to the USA for the forseable future.
Notice how this came about late last night... Right before the long weekend?
ReplyDeleteThis is the very example of an info dump. Send out the bad news just as everybody takes off for a few days, hoping things blow over a bit by Monday. I'm sure LockMart is hoping the tropical storm Arthur is the big news by then.
Classic case of news shaping. Announce bad news late in the evening over a holiday weekend. Nobody's around to comment, or to make inquiries. PR / crisis management at its finest. Kirby is no dummy, not so much can be said about the F-35 PO's PIO.
DeleteWhen I saw this article elsewhere, I couldn't help but recall how very much Solomon loves the F-35 - and had to come back to SNAFU to make a comment.
ReplyDeleteI think the F-35 needs to go the way of the drone. And by that I mean the pilot should be removed, the project cancelled and then take all this technology and design an unmanned version where the limitations of the pilot do not inhibit the airframe and the airframe doesn't kill the pilot before the enemy does.
Just my 2 cents.
We're still 50 years (at least) of having an unmanned fighter that is equally capable as a manned one. It's not as simple as removing the pilot from the cockpit and putting a computer in.
Delete@ AM
ReplyDelete"then what in the world would Denmark do with 40 "
....Ahahahahahah....are you on crack ??....there is no way we wil get 40 fighters of ANY kind , not even if they were sopwith camels !
...Shit!..we'll be lucky to get half that number.. ..and if we stick with the F-35 it will probably be closer to 4 :D
My big fear is that it makes it into service and then does a Starfighter. The RN would be screwed.
ReplyDeleteThe statement by some that there are no options to the F-35 is weak. Consider that the aircraft won't be able to stand up to high end threats and is too expensive to own and operate compared to using exiting aircraft designs. As for the UK that will be the largest helicopter carrier of all time. Notice that the program before JSF was called "JAST". Joint Affordable Strike Technology. The word "aircraft" is no where in it. HIMARS, Tomahawk Block IV, JASSM-ER etc.
ReplyDelete@ Morten, not smoking crack, just commenting that even the "up to 48 planned purchases" mentioned in press releases by Denmark. I do agree that someone was smoking crack when that number was mentioned, because it seems weird that Denmark would replace 45 F-16s with 48 F-35s.
ReplyDeleteI honestly expect that Denmark will back out of the F-35 at least until costs per plane are brought under control and go with the Gripen instead. Lower maintenance cost, lower cost per flight hour, and still a decent upgrade in performance from the F-16 fleet in terms of being able to get more sorties due to short servicing times on the ground.
A lot of people here who need to put things in context: In it's first 8 years of flight the F-16 had at least 40 aircraft written off, the F-15 had 22, the F-18A/B had 4, the F-18E/F had 2 and the F-22 had 1. None of them got cancelled! Now the F-35, a program bigger than those, MAY, I repeat MAY, have 1 and suddenly you think it is going away? Surely you jest?
ReplyDelete