On that last point, the F-35 team itself seems to agree, because an explosive report this week disclosed that it has been fudging the plane’s performance numbers to bolster the case for more appropriations funding. According to a Defense-Aerospace.com report (h/t James Fallows at The Altantic):If that isn't bad enough then check out this piece from that paragon of conservative values...The Weekly Standard...
Recent improvements in F-35 reliability figures are due to changes in the way failures are counted and processed, but do not reflect any actual improvement, according to the latest report by the Pentagon’s Director Operational Test & Evaluation. […]
Three different types of data “massaging” are identified in the report: moving failures from one category to another, less important one; ignoring repetitive failures, thus inflating numbers of failure-free hours; and improper scoring of reliability. In all these instances, data reporting and processing rules were changed during the year for no other reason than to paint a more favorable picture.
Last fall, the Air Force tried a final gambit. Its spokesmen claimed that the F-35 program would be even more over budget and delayed if the A-10 weren’t “divested.” The latter’s defenders responded that getting rid of all 280-odd A-10s would save enough money to buy just 12 F-35s.How many of you are familiar with the days leading up to the truncated buy of the F-22?
But the USAF wasn’t done yet. It claimed in November that the F-35’s crisis was a matter of maintenance personnel shortages and that the program could not flourish without the 800-odd maintenance people who currently work on the A-10. This was not true. As the well-informed War is Boring website quickly pointed out, there are thousands of maintenance personnel working on other aircraft types (including rarely used B-1B bombers and F-15 interceptors) who could easily be diverted to support the F-35.
Fortunately, Congress wasn’t gulled, and the latest National Defense Authorization Act forbade the USAF from retiring the A-10. It helped that the politicians fighting for the A-10 included not just McCain but also Sen. Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire, whose husband flew A-10s in Iraq, and Represent-ative Martha McSally, a retired Air Force colonel who herself flew A-10s in combat.
We heard that the airplane would perform not only air superiority but also attack targets on land...they even went so far as to label it F/A-22 at one point. There was a push to retire F-15's early because it would make the USAF more efficient, even while putting into service an airplane that was more expensive to run.
The messaging got crazy. The desperation was apparent. In the end it failed.
The same thing is happening with the F-35. I'm happy as hell that it is.
The question they ought to be asking the Air Force is:
ReplyDeleteWhy are you spending four billion dollars a year for faulty restricted-performance F-35 prototypes that have no earthly purpose except PR promotions, like the Pro-bowl fly-over?
Meanwhile, the A-10 "maintainer problem" got blown away by Lorraine Martin's (project manager at Lockheed) year-end video promo, in which she bragged that 1,500 F-35 maintainers had been trained at Eglin. This is four years before a Milestone C production decision on this 'flying brick.'
They are fudging the reliability figures because they plan to sell over a hundred faulty F-35 prototypes to foreign countries this year, after really scoring last year with fourteen such sales. How foolish will they be to buy planes with bum engines, buggy software and bungled sensors?
The F-35, acknowledged to be no good at CAS and A2A, falls back on deep strike and sensor fusion. The latter doesn't work, and so the strike aspect remains. But nothing stays the same.
ReplyDeleteA key element of the new "Third Offset Strategy" is the Long Range Strike Bomber, and this program seems to be further along than we realize (because of the lack of publicity). Now, reportedly, the Air Force plans to award a contract to build its new bomber to a single vendor by this coming spring or summer. Read all about it here.
So as I see the scenario, when in several months the F-35 performance continues to tank, the engine still goes un-fixed, the buggy software causes Marine Corps headaches, and opposition mounts, heads will turn to the LRS-B.
from the article:
Although much of the details of the LRS-B development are not publically available, Air Force leaders have said the aircraft will likely be engineered to fly unmanned and manned missions. Air Force officials also want it to be nuclear capable and have the ability to cross the globe in hours.
if what you're saying is true then what we're seeing is earth shattering for the USAF. the fighter mafia has painted itself into a corner and we're about to see the re-emergence of the bomber cabal. overall i think it will save money but it will radically rearrange the USAF. it will also make these small brush wars more attractive. orbits of four or five bombers covering a country...or a squadron covering a region is much more cost effective versus doing the same with fighters.
DeleteSee A-10 in action here in Iraq at about 0:10. (It has a gun that works.)
DeleteAlso, I should add, the expanded foreign sales won't materialize.
DeleteThe B-2 has the ability to 'cross the globe in hours' too. Thirty six of them.
DeleteOTOH, if it truly is a hypersonic platform, I can all but guarantee you that LRSB will not be doing anything like 15hr hangtime missions over AfG.
It will be an in-and-out system,. specifically designed for the ultrahighspeed transit and laydowns that release ordnance anything up to 500nm from the target.
CAS begins and ends when you send the leader's body parts in five different directions with a Hellfire or APKWS. If you do it soon enough, the threat doesn't typically care to continue advancing into the teeth of a "We see you coming." a prepared defense.
Gun CAS as the ability to go danger close is about Fast Ambulances and lost Situational Awareness as remedial damage control. It is what leads to casualties and body bags.
no way in hell it can be a hypersonic airplane. supersonic? yeah...we're really looking at a refined B-1 from what i can tell. it'll be semi-stealthy but not real stealth like the B-2 because of the cost range they're looking at. the CAS mission set isn't being discussed because its no longer applicable to the airforcces of the US. they can drop bombs from altitude but every grunt that's paying attention better be able to call for artillery fires or he's fucked.
DeleteThe Weekly Standard article basically says everything about the campaign to kill (again) the A-10, from USAF intellectual lassitude - or worse - to contractor (LM) meddling.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to MV-22 accounting.
ReplyDeleteWhat is more surprising for me is not the fact they want to scrap the A-10 but how the marines will giving up the electronic warfare capacity they have today to protect their troops against electronic improvised devices or to detect and jamming enemy telecommunications.
ReplyDeleteThey say the F-35 will do it in the future but I wonder how an airplane that needs to cool and with a single pilot will deal with all the task for several hours. The USNavy will have to do the job not only for the Marines but also for the army.
US Marine Prowlers Provide Electronic Security Throughout Afghanistan:
http://youtu.be/ylrsUmAAFaA
Boeing Company WSO Talks Growler: http://youtu.be/rwNCGCifsXo
All you need is an irst sensor with detection range to finalise officially the stealth era. That's what the super hornet will have pretty soon.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-lockheed-move-super-hornet-seeker-to-export-408315/
Rarely used B-1B? WTF? B-1 has been continuously deployed to the Middle East since 9/11 racking up 10,000+ combat sorties. The B-1 maintenance force already has been cut several times which is why its mission capable rate is so poor right now. There are definitely no spare maintainers that could be sent to the F-35 from the Bone community. This article is dead wrong.
ReplyDelete