 |
| “In many ways, it won’t have the some of the capabilities of our current platforms,” Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, head of the service’s Air Combat Command, acknowledged during a briefing with reporters on Friday at the Pentagon. |
via Defense Tech.org
Carlisle said the F-35A won’t initially be able to perform “advanced” close air support “because those are systems that are going to be coming onto the airplane in later blocks.”The airplane is now being acknowledged to be less capable than the current version of the Harrier that its slated to replace and that the USMC is retiring early.
The technologies the aircraft will initially lack include the large area, high-definition synthetic aperture radar known as “BIG SAR,” which is needed to get the best functionality out of the electro-optical targeting system, as well as a pinpoint glide bomb known as the Small Diameter Bomb II, or SDB-II, the general said.
Carlisle said the systems are slated to be integrated into the aircraft as part of a Block 4 software upgrade, the first version of which isn’t scheduled to arrive until 2021. “All of those are things that are going to be coming on in Block 4,” he said.
Even the F-35’s 25mm, four-barrel GAU-22 gun won’t be ready for at least a couple of more years.
So which weapons will the airplane initially carry? The Marine Corps’ F-35B will enter service with Block 2B software, which lets pilots fire a pair of AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missiles, AMRAAMs, or drop a pair of satellite-guided bombs or laser-guided weapons — not exactly the armament of choice for close-in missions.
What is HQMC thinking?
Why are they so determined to get this airplane into service when it is so obviously substandard?
WHAT IS GOING ON!
You know what is going on... and you keep repeating yourself.. for the right reasons and because almost literally every day there is new information to back the point you make.
ReplyDeleteThe F 35 is a death-nail, well several for the defense of the USA and several allies. It does not preform as it should, is a fighter/bomber but has to replace real fighters and mostly: it is so expensive it is a black-hole for the budget.
On the other hand this and previous administrations are fully committed to it along with many military leaders , like the band playing wile the Titanic sank. They are not willling to let the monstrous amount of money already spend was wasted nor are they willing to let LocMar go belly up.
Talking about Lockheed going belly up.. isn't it time to change how military projects work?
Do away with these competitions between manufacturers and have the military take the lead on projects, using and combining the best ideas the market has to offer. Or even nationalize defense industry.. call me a communist.. but when the government soaks up all cost overruns anyway wile basically guaranteeing the continuation of these companies you can not call it capitalism anymore anyway.
Or.. go the opposite route, hold manufacturers to their offers. 300 planes at 55 million each according to these design requirements. Deliver or go bust trying. If that method had been chosen for the JSF LocMAr would now be gone and the project would be taken over by some other manufacturer who could finish the contract without the burden of the development cost so far.
Talking about Lockheed going belly up.. isn't it time to change how military projects work?
ReplyDeleteDo away with these competitions between manufacturers and have the military take the lead on projects, using and combining the best ideas the market has to offer. Or even nationalize defense industry.. call me a communist.. but when the government soaks up all cost overruns anyway wile basically guaranteeing the continuation of these companies you can not call it capitalism anymore anyway.
Or.. go the opposite route, hold manufacturers to their offers. 300 planes at 55 million each according to these design requirements. Deliver or go bust trying. If that method had been chosen for the JSF LocMAr would now be gone and the project would be taken over by some other manufacturer who could finish the contract without the burden of the development cost so far.
( I separated these two posts on purpose, because I did not want to lump my controversial theorising together with the 'analysis' above. )
This was a political decision, made to feed the constituents and not do the mission. The acquisition system has been corrupt for a long time, and this is the result.
ReplyDelete"Or even nationalize defense industry." It might be actually a good idea, there is no true competition in the weapon market after all and you ensure all this cronies go fuck themselves and get there money from elsewhere.
ReplyDelete"Or.. go the opposite route, hold manufacturers to their offers." This would be the perfect solution, you deliver what you promised at the cost you promised or go bust. Im sure as hell they will held you or me acountable if we ever contracted some services with the government.
And at last, im glad my government decided to keep its harriers serviceable and turned down the offer for this piece of garbage.
Separate the R&D costs from the production costs. That might be a way to get clearer picture on where the money is going.
ReplyDeleteIt was mentioned on another board that a large piece of the fiasco called the USN building program is that the USN doesn't design or build anything in-house anymore. They give the specs to the contractor and then just wait for the finished production. Back in the day, the naval shipyards could build whole ships or do refits. That gave the private yards incentive to keep costs low and quality high.
IOC F-35B will reportedly replace operational Harrier IIB squadrons first. Which means that additional capabilities being removed from current USMC force structure capacity, such as game-changing Maverick AGM missiles. IOC F-35B aircraft will not be able to perform such precision stand-off attack against fast-moving threat ground targets.
ReplyDeleteCorrect. Why are they so determined to get this airplane into service when it is so obviously substandard? It's all about the money.
ReplyDeleteThe F-35 testing phase was originally supposed to end in 2013, but is now officially scheduled to continue until 2019 or later. The F-35 development program should have been terminated in 2010 or 2012 and not extended, but it wasn't. It will go to 2019 or later.
The contractor wants to take advantage of this mistake and increase production of faulty pre-production prototypes, to go to full production before the completion of testing in violation of the law. It's about money, according to NationalDefenseMagazine:
Industry analysts said Lockheed is navigating through treacherous waters as it tries to bring costs down and make profits for its investors. Wall Street views the F-35 as Lockheed Martin’s “growth-engine,” noted industry consultant James McAleese, of McAleese & Associates. Even if the Defense Department’s budget is cut across the board under sequestration in 2016, many investors are bullish on Lockheed both because the company continues to pay substantial dividends to shareholders and also because of an anticipated F-35 production ramp-up, McAleese wrote in an advisory to clients.
There are growing concerns, though, that F-35 profits are not moving in the right direction. Lockheed Martin is “struggling with F-35 production operating margin,” said McAleese. F-35 production sales grew by more than $800 million in 2014, but operating profit was flat compared with 2013. Lockheed Martin is “under tremendous pressure to drive to double-digit F-35 production operating margin by 2017,” McAleese added. He predicts the company will resist any additional large-dollar affordability investments in F-35 “unless there is clear profit upside … and matching DoD funds.” Investors are hopeful that Congress will approve the administration’s budget proposal for 2016 that funds 57 F-35s, he added. Lockheed Martin is “hungry for the expected jump to 57 F-35 aircraft.”
In business it's grow or die, and Lockheed-Martin and Pratt & Whitney need increasing orders to maintain growth in revenues, earnings and stock price. That's just good business. And with the Pentagon, what a major contractor wants, it usually gets, with help from congressional friends. That's the intent of the McAleese advisory to clients quoted above.