What is up with the F-35? Part II

**Jimmy** · 28 Nov 11,, 11:09

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

While in the military, we really are serving with a bunch of Alpha Dogs. All super competitive. So its the little things and one time bumps in the road that end careers.

This is half true, but there's a tremendous amount of dead weight that doesn't show up in a UPRG, thus doesn't go before a RIF board. Like the guy who lost his qual for almost starting a fire on the jet. Or another who lost his qual then Q3'd (failed) an annual checkride for not having required flight gear (ie, checklists). #2 got picked up for major last year and got a sweet USAFE assignment. I stand by my assertion that it wasn't a quality cut. I know too many sharp officers who tried to hurl themselves at the VSP offer, then the ADSC waiver offer, only to be denied because we're undermanned. Then we cut a bunch of folks who want to stay in and will take years to replace (experience and training-wise). Just because we've made the same mistakes in the past is not an excuse to knee-jerk our way into repeating them.

**surfgun** · 29 Nov 11,, 23:51

Here is some talk of F-15 upgrades if the F-35 program flounders.

F-15s May Out-Maneuver Sequestration Impact | AVIATION WEEK

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...-35%20Program?

**diablo49** · 01 Dec 11,, 22:32

Originally Posted by Jimmy

I will be very surprised if the AF buys more than 3/4 of the current "plan." They're actively cutting people with combat experience and millions of dollars in training each (rated officers, people with 15+ years in). And I'm not talking about early retirement. I'm talking about 4 months' notice and a severance check of about 1 year's base pay.

A sad time considering this is supposed to be the mainstay aircraft up to 2040 at least

Quantity is a quality, and as a country with supposed global interests, less numbers means less flexibility.

**Zinja** · 01 Dec 11,, 23:16

On a more positive note, the F-35 keeps impressing......yet another mile stone

**Oldmike** · 03 Dec 11,, 02:39

Announcement today that the F-35C has fatigue problems and Navy is looking to slow production to deal with them. Some parts may have to be redesigned.

**Repatriated Canuck** · 05 Dec 11,, 17:40

The more I look at this bird the more I love how she looks. It is a cool looking aircraft. How did I not like it before?

**Jimmy** · 06 Dec 11,, 11:35

The cost. (not just in dollars)

**NUS** · 06 Dec 11,, 19:54

McCain calls F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program a 'tragedy' - The Hill's Floor Action

And comment to this:

I was part of the initial manufacturing trials for the JSF back before our government started to spend the $565B McCain is complaining about. I was involved before they down-selected the current model. At that time the plane was a clunky, inefficient, compromised, over weight, under powered PIG. This plane should NEVER have been built. That $56B would have gone a long way towards building our true air superiority plane, the F22.

**Stitch** · 06 Dec 11,, 21:59

Originally Posted by NUS

McCain calls F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program a 'tragedy' - The Hill's Floor Action

And comment to this:

Several people on this forum (including me) have long been saying that the money "wasted" on the F-35/JSF program should've been spent on the F-22 years ago; we'd probably have double the number of F-22 airframes by now, and they would've been OPERATIONAL, unlike the F-35 which is still in it's SDD testing phase.

**YellowFever** · 06 Dec 11,, 23:25

Way too many chefs for this broth and the customers keep changing what they want the broth to taste like....

**Skywatcher** · 07 Dec 11,, 03:32

Originally Posted by Stitch

Several people on this forum (including me) have long been saying that the money "wasted" on the F-35/JSF program should've been spent on the F-22 years ago; we'd probably have double the number of F-22 airframes by now, and they would've been OPERATIONAL, unlike the F-35 which is still in it's SDD testing phase.

The problem is that the allies wouldn't be too thrilled with that. Even if they did have access to the F-22A, it wouldn't be a very optimal multirole asset.

**Stitch** · 07 Dec 11,, 04:06

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

The problem is that the allies wouldn't be too thrilled with that. Even if they did have access to the F-22A, it wouldn't be a very optimal multirole asset.

The "allies" will be LUCKY to see their F-35 airframes by 2015; the US comes first, everybody else is next in line, and that's assuming we can get make the airframe operational. It wouldn't have been too hard to downgrade the F-22's salient features (stealth, avionics, offensive capability, etc.) like we have with the F-15 and F-16, to make it "sellable" to our allies; supply the AN/APG-81 (the F-35 radar) instead of the AN/APG-77v1, no provision for external hardpoints, no proprietary defensive avionics, etc. I know a lot of "allies" have signed on to the F-35/JSF program, but I think they're going to get the short end of the stick; this will make the F-104G fiasco of the the 1960's look like peanuts.

**Gun Grape** · 07 Dec 11,, 04:42

Originally Posted by Stitch

Several people on this forum (including me) have long been saying that the money "wasted" on the F-35/JSF program should've been spent on the F-22 years ago; we'd probably have double the number of F-22 airframes by now, and they would've been OPERATIONAL, unlike the F-35 which is still in it's SDD testing phase.

So we should have screwed the US Navy, USMC, Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and the Italian Navy for more Raptors?

How exactly would that have been a good thing?

**Stitch** · 07 Dec 11,, 05:03

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

So we should have screwed the US Navy, USMC, Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and the Italian Navy for more Raptors?

How exactly would that have been a good thing?

At this point, we still have some very capable airframes for the services you mentioned, in the form of the F-18 E/F, the Rafale M and, possibly, a navalised version of the EF-2000; the US Navy, USMC, RNAF, RAF and the Marina Militare WILL be screwed when they don't get their promised airframes until well after they need them, and they end up paying twice as much as expected.

I am a serious military hardware nut; I love the newest, greatest tech; but it's hard to justify a weapons program that's almost five years behind schedule, and is costing almost twice it's projected investment. Yes, I am sure it will be a GREAT weapons system when operational, but at what cost? This is the wrong time of the century (economically speaking) to be trying to fund a multi-billion dollar weapons system. Fifty years ago, even 20 years ago, this wouldn't be an issue; but, as Bob Dylan said, the times, they are a-changin'. In a phrase, I think it just comes down to bad timing; the F-35/JSF WILL be a helluva airframe, we (and the rest of the world) just simply can't afford it right now.

**Chunder** · 07 Dec 11,, 08:15

Originally Posted by Stitch

The "allies" will be LUCKY to see their F-35 airframes by 2015

Well, none of your allies will be coughing up for the F-22, because they can't.

Allegedly, this option has already been discussed - and even though it hasn't made the news, we certainly can deduct the Japanese wanted this route.

The F-22, even a dumbed down version, wasn't allowed to your closest allies, period.

Are you prepared to relinquish the World Fighter market to the Europeans?

Edit, additionally, your allies are going to have to fund all the development for the dumbed down F-22, because it isn't a plug and play system. I.E, all that C3I, that the F-35 program contributes to the F-22 program, will have to be funded by them, specifically for their variant of the F-22.

It's more than just the airframe.