The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[sublight]

The fact is, without dedicated research for the F-35, the F-35 would never have existed.

Its eventual existence in some form was all but guaranteed. Its preceding programs (ssf/mrf/calf/jast/etc) kept piling up and if JSF was added to that illustrious list, then surely the program that followed would have stuck.

 

[Arjen]

Concurrency Quick Look Review here

 

[Triton]

"JSF - What's Really Happening" by Bill Sweetman

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3abcb29d8f-6a85-40c5-8f1d-c84d20afe997&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What’s really happening with the F-35? Nothing new from the QLR, rather the reasons behind the change in production schedule to minimise the development-production concurrency. From the QLR:

In the team’s review of the F-35 data and analyses, no fundamental design risks sufficient to preclude further production were identified.

But don’t let that get in the way of a good headline. Further the QLR identifies a range of issues that “combined” has led to the change in production schedule. Which is why the various customers have all made statements/plans in the past few months to look at delayed ISD for the F-35 and contingencies to cover this delay. The only thing in a ‘death spiral’ is support for high reliance on modelling driven problem discovery.

 

[Arjen]

The only thing in a ‘death spiral’ is support for high reliance on modelling driven problem discovery.

No spiral, that one went 'splat' a while ago.

 

[Arjen]

Shoot the messenger.

 

[lancer21]

Did any of you who so easily bash "that Bill Sweetman anti F-35 EADS payee biased anti-american nutter ha!" bothered to read the report ? ( 55 pages btw)

The concurrency idea might well indeed be DOD's fault, but also LM did not delivered bigtime. It's not DOD who designed the plane, but LM. Even before the thing flew they got it wrong ( see SWAT ). And how the hell this suposedly unsurpassed aerospace company can't design a bloody tail hook ?!

Remember all these issues were discovered at roughly what 20% of testing ? (less for fatigue testing) . What else are they going to find in the rest 80%? And even if they devise fixes for most or all of the present issues , if they are implemented BEFORE the testing is finished , what makes you ( or them ) think these "fixes" are not going to cause problems in other areas.

Oh and how come they are so concerned about weight growth and keeping the weight in very tight reins for the whole life of the aircraft , if the F-135 is ( as some claim ) not 43, 000lb thrust but 50,000lb?

Oh well , grab some more popcorn folks the saga goes on. ;D

 

[Arjen]

...can't design a bloody tail hook ?!

Truth be told, they can. It's where the thing attaches to the aircraft that's troublesome.

 

[sferrin]

if the F-135 is ( as some claim ) not 43, 000lb thrust but 50,000lb?

Pratt & Whitney claims it. I suppose you know better than they?

 

[LowObservable]

You would think from the rantings above that Sweetman had written the report, rather than a team of senior Pentagon engineers.

Or that the report didn't comprise 55 densely packed pages of text and graphics, almost all of it pointing either to previously undisclosed problems (the IPP is a maintenance train wreck, the fuel dump design is a fire safety issue) or to things that are much worse than previously acknowledged (IR video to the visor needs new sensors and new central processor).

Lancer21 - However big the engine is, the wings and the fuel tanks stay the same size.

 

[Triton]

It would be interesting to see at the end of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program an analysis of whether this joint approach succeeded or if the Department of Defense would have been better off with three separate aircraft programs designed specifically to the requirements of each customer--the United States Air Force, United States Navy, and the United States Marines.

Are the advantages of the joint approach purely political in the current defense budget climate?

 

[sferrin]

It would be interesting to see at the end of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program an analysis of whether this joint approach succeeded or if the Department of Defense would have been better off with three separate aircraft programs designed specifically to the requirements of each customer--the United States Air Force, United States Navy, and the United States Marines.

Are the advantages of the joint approach purely political in the current defense budget climate?

Do you think they didn't spend YEARS up front studying this very thing? I swear, to hear some people, you'd think a few buddies got around a keg and made their decision that way.

 

[SOC]

It would be interesting to see at the end of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program an analysis of whether this joint approach succeeded or if the Department of Defense would have been better off with three separate aircraft programs designed specifically to the requirements of each customer--the United States Air Force, United States Navy, and the United States Marines.

Are the advantages of the joint approach purely political in the current defense budget climate?

Of course it was a good idea. It worked perfectly every other time. The F-111B was...ok, wait a minute.

I blame Lockheed, and the media. If Lockheed's F-117A hadn't made a mockery of what irrational elements in the media trumped up as some sort of modern, sophisticated IADS in Iraq in 1991, maybe the USMC wouldn't have been so keen on jumping into the stealth party. Keep them away from the F-35 and things might've turned out a whole lot different.

 

[Triton]

Do you think they didn't spend YEARS up front studying this very thing? I swear, to hear some people, you'd think a few buddies got around a keg and made their decision that way.

That is why I said it would be interesting to analyze the program after it is completed. Did the program succeed in meeting its objectives? Were the models, analyses, and assumptions that they made accurate, or close, before making the decision to proceed with the JSF program? I never said that the decision to proceed with the JSF program wasn't made without analysis and study.

 

[sferrin]

Of course it was a good idea. It worked perfectly every other time. The F-111B was...ok, wait a minute.

<cough> F-4 Phantom

 

[sferrin]

Do you think they didn't spend YEARS up front studying this very thing? I swear, to hear some people, you'd think a few buddies got around a keg and made their decision that way.

That is why I said it would be interesting to analyze the program after it is completed. Did the program succeed in meeting its objectives? Were the models, analyses, and assumptions that they made correct before making the decision to proceed with the JSF program? I never said that the decision to proceed with the JSF program wasn't made without analysis and study.

The problem with Monday morning quarterbacking is you DON'T know how the alternatives would have turned out. All you can know is what DID happen. How often have we heard "Oh my god, they should have awarded it to Boeing", or "Oh my god, the YF-23 should have won because Northrop wouldn't have had any problems"? Most likely they'd have had at least as many problems (and in Boeing's case it likely would have been cancelled already).

 

[Triton]

The problem with Monday morning quarterbacking is you DON'T know how the alternatives would have turned out. All you can know is what DID happen. How often have we heard "Oh my god, they should have awarded it to Boeing", or "Oh my god, the YF-23 should have won because Northrop wouldn't have had any problems"? Most likely they'd have had at least as many problems (and in Boeing's case it likely would have been cancelled already).

I posed questions that would be interesting to find the answer to after the JSF program is completed. I never made any conclusions.

 

[lancer21]

if the F-135 is ( as some claim ) not 43, 000lb thrust but 50,000lb?

Pratt & Whitney claims it. I suppose you know better than they?

Where, Sferrin ? Care to provide a link where it says black on white that the F-35 engine is rated at 50,000lb on the aircraft ? Again, why there is so much talk about keeping the weight tightly down, and even talk of squeezing another 100lb or 200lb ( for B i think- possible presumably whitout affecting TBO ) to meet bring back specs, if this engine is actually 50,000lb?

http://www.f135engine.com/proven-tech/engine_chacter.shtml

 

[Arjen]

Do you think they didn't spend YEARS up front studying this very thing? I swear, to hear some people, you'd think a few buddies got around a keg and made their decision that way.

I'm sure there are other ways to explain this grand failure of decision making - because that's what it was. The project is way out of schedule, way over budget. It's eating into other defense projects. Regardless of who is asking the questions, and why: what are the answers?

Did the program succeed in meeting its objectives? Were the models, analyses, and assumptions that they made accurate, or close, before making the decision to proceed with the JSF program?

Hindsight makes it easier to see where things went wrong. It would be foolish not to investigate the matter.

 

[sferrin]

You would think from the rantings above that Sweetman had written the report, rather than a team of senior Pentagon engineers.

Or that the report didn't comprise 55 densely packed pages of text and graphics, almost all of it pointing either to previously undisclosed problems (the IPP is a maintenance train wreck, the fuel dump design is a fire safety issue) or to things that are much worse than previously acknowledged (IR video to the visor needs new sensors and new central processor).

Lancer21 - However big the engine is, the wings and the fuel tanks stay the same size.

" If the programme's critics had hoped for a bonanza of revelations about technical show-stoppers, however, it is likely they were disappointed.
The panel concluded that the F-35 in fact faces no technical issue that would trigger a recommendation to halt all new production. Instead, it recommends that the DoD continue building production aircraft as flight-testing continues, albeit at a reduced level."

To hear "Bill" tell the story it's the end of the F-35.

 

[sferrin]

if the F-135 is ( as some claim ) not 43, 000lb thrust but 50,000lb?

Pratt & Whitney claims it. I suppose you know better than they?

Where, Sferrin ? Care to provide a link where it says black on white that the F-35 engine is rated at 50,000lb on the aircraft ? Again, why there is so much talk about keeping the weight tightly down, and even talk of squeezing another 100lb or 200lb ( for B i think- possible presumably whitout affecting TBO ) to meet bring back specs, if this engine is actually 50,000lb?

http://www.f135engine.com/proven-tech/engine_chacter.shtml

Pratt and Whitney speaking to Aviation Week. The engine produced 50,000. As for "installed power on the aircraft" well now you've done it. Pretty much everybody out there quotes test stand performance, not installed performance. Including the Russians.

 

[SOC]

Of course it was a good idea. It worked perfectly every other time. The F-111B was...ok, wait a minute.

<cough> F-4 Phantom

Nope. McMoron instructed the USAF to look at the Phantom II after it was already in USN service. He did the same thing with the A-7. Neither were joint programs from the outset, they were just USN designs that proved to be adaptable for the USAF as they were better than what the USAF was working with at the time. The first true joint program (at least as far as fast jets are concerned) was the F-111, and how well did that work out?

 

[sferrin]

Of course it was a good idea. It worked perfectly every other time. The F-111B was...ok, wait a minute.

<cough> F-4 Phantom

Nope. McMoron instructed the USAF to look at the Phantom II after it was already in USN service. He did the same thing with the A-7. Neither were joint programs from the outset, they were just USN designs that proved to be adaptable for the USAF as they were better than what the USAF was working with at the time. The first true joint program (at least as far as fast jets are concerned) was the F-111, and how well did that work out?

That's because the requirements were so far apart for the USN and USAF versions. Just because they weren't on the same page on the F-111 doesn't mean any future joint effort is doomed to failure. That's no different than pointing to the XFV-12 and saying "oooh VTOL will never work. After all how did that XFV-12 fair?"

 

[lancer21]

if the F-135 is ( as some claim ) not 43, 000lb thrust but 50,000lb?

Pratt & Whitney claims it. I suppose you know better than they?

Where, Sferrin ? Care to provide a link where it says black on white that the F-35 engine is rated at 50,000lb on the aircraft ? Again, why there is so much talk about keeping the weight tightly down, and even talk of squeezing another 100lb or 200lb ( for B i think- possible presumably whitout affecting TBO ) to meet bring back specs, if this engine is actually 50,000lb?

http://www.f135engine.com/proven-tech/engine_chacter.shtml

Pratt and Whitney speaking to Aviation Week. The engine produced 50,000. As for "installed power on the aircraft" well now you've done it. Pretty much everybody out there quotes test stand performance, not installed performance. Including the Russians.

I see what you meen about installed power , i misformulated my post ."Rated" thrust would be more accurate? Would apreciate a link to that article btw. Bassically what you seem to meen is that all those figures on PW websites, down to the last 100 pounds , are hogwash , correct ?

Don't want to launch into talking seeing some "stand" figures aswell, can't remember now if it was F135 or 136 , of 56,000lb , or asking if this 50,000lb you quote is the same as the 37,000lb on F-110-132 you mentioned elsewhere etc . I know this subject been done to death in other places, you want to believe 50,000lb fine , if that would be true everything would be absolutely perfect , no one would even care about a few extra hundreds of pounds needed, but obviously it's not.

 

[SOC]

That's because the requirements were so far apart for the USN and USAF versions. Just because they weren't on the same page on the F-111 doesn't mean any future joint effort is doomed to failure. That's no different than pointing to the XFV-12 and saying "oooh VTOL will never work. After all how did that XFV-12 fair?"

The XFV-12 was a failure of technology. Plus, of course VTOL worked. Just ask the Brits. Or the Argentinians...

The whole joint concept didn't work with the F-111, and it isn't working with the F-35. Unless a minimum of double the unit price is considered working. At least the B-2 has an excuse for its price skyrocketing; some genius decided to build 21 airframes, thus prorating the entire program cost over a very small fleet. At this point we're damn near better off building 400 more Raptors for the USAF, letting the USN drool over Boeing 6th-gen concept art while flying about in FLANKER food, and telling the USMC that they were never going to deploy a hundred+ million dollar stealth jet to a forward airstrip!

Or realize that 1) a war with Russia would mean the F-22 and F-35 are irrelevant as they lack an ABM role, 2) a war with China is so unlikely despite propaganda from the media and the DoD that it's not even funny anymore, and 3) ~200 Raptors can thoroughly slaughter any other foreign aggressor, and just cash in now.

 

[sferrin]

That's because the requirements were so far apart for the USN and USAF versions. Just because they weren't on the same page on the F-111 doesn't mean any future joint effort is doomed to failure. That's no different than pointing to the XFV-12 and saying "oooh VTOL will never work. After all how did that XFV-12 fair?"

The XFV-12 was a failure of technology. Plus, of course VTOL worked. Just ask the Brits. Or the Argentinians...

The whole joint concept didn't work with the F-111, and it isn't working with the F-35. Unless a minimum of double the unit price is considered working. At least the B-2 has an excuse for its price skyrocketing; some genius decided to build 21 airframes, thus prorating the entire program cost over a very small fleet. At this point we're damn near better off building 400 more Raptors for the USAF, letting the USN drool over Boeing 6th-gen concept art while flying about in FLANKER food, and telling the USMC that they were never going to deploy a hundred+ million dollar stealth jet to a forward airstrip!

And yet, they ran the numbers and three (or even two) brand new designs would have cost even more. No WAY was anybody going to go without stealth (whether they needed it or not. Personally I think a slightly scaled up Convair 200 would have served the USMC just fine.) You can thank the "Peace Dividend" that demanded the replacement of the F-16, F/A-18, and Harrier with a single design.

"The XFV-12 was a failure of technology. Plus, of course VTOL worked. Just ask the Brits. Or the Argentinians..."

And multirole aircraft work. Just ask the Russians, the French, or the USAF/USN/USMC. As for the USMC operating them off dirt-strips, it's more about 11 more aircraft carriers and integral fixed-wing air support than "operating off dirt strips". I don't recall the Harriers in Libya operating off "dirt strips". Come to think of it, how often have Harriers been used off "dirt" strips?

 

[LowObservable]

"11 more aircraft carriers" is a tad hyperbolic. To start with, there are not 11 big-deck amphibs today - eight Wasps and a superannuated Tarawa. The total gets to ten in '21, 11 in '25, and declines to 8 through the 2040s as the Wasps retire. That's if Navy shipbuilding holds to plan, which it hasn't for a long time.

And they're not "aircraft carriers". They are narrow-deck ships that carry Marines, combat vehicles, transport helicopters and landing craft (except for LHA-6 and LHA-7, with no well deck - a not-to-be-repeated experiment). The normal air wing comprises six jets. You can stuff 22 on board by offloading the helos, but the deck area is going to make operations interesting, and you have no tankers to keep aircraft flying if the deck is fouled (by something as simple as a jammed brake or burst tire).

Also, the Marines and their supporters make great play with austere-runway ops. One of their regular talking points.

 

[sferrin]

"11 more aircraft carriers" is a tad hyperbolic. To start with, there are not 11 big-deck amphibs today - eight Wasps and a superannuated Tarawa. The total gets to ten in '21, 11 in '25, and declines to 8 through the 2040s as the Wasps retire. That's if Navy shipbuilding holds to plan, which it hasn't for a long time.

And they're not "aircraft carriers". They are narrow-deck ships that carry Marines, combat vehicles, transport helicopters and landing craft (except for LHA-6 and LHA-7, with no well deck - a not-to-be-repeated experiment). The normal air wing comprises six jets. You can stuff 22 on board by offloading the helos, but the deck area is going to make operations interesting, and you have no tankers to keep aircraft flying if the deck is fouled (by something as simple as a jammed brake or burst tire).

In any other navy they'd be called aircraft carriers. Certainly they deserve the title at least as much as the HMS Invincible class.

 

[RyanC]

One thing to keep in mind with the tailhook and fuel dump issues; is that due to stealth being a major drive for the F-35; you can't do the kind of messy hackjobs to fix the problems you could in the past with previous non-stealthy designs.

 

[LowObservable]

Same goes for buffet - no fences, vortex generators &c.

Sferrin - Slogans are not argument. Charles de Gaulle is a carrier. Kuznetsov is more of a carrier than the LHD/LHA.

There's more to being a carrier than a flat deck and tonnage. All the current big-decks are based on the Tarawas, which were conceived before the Marines even thought of the Harrier. Primary role is amphib assault, and the aviation space is limited, as is the fuel capacity).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sferrin - Slogans are not argument. Charles de Gaulle is a carrier. Kuznetsov is more of a carrier than the LHD/LHA.

There's more to being a carrier than a flat deck and tonnage. All the current big-decks are based on the Tarawas, which were conceived before the Marines even thought of the Harrier. Primary role is amphib assault, and the aviation space is limited, as is the fuel capacity).

Sure, but integral TACAIR in ESGs is a vital part of the US and Allied arsenal. Before the Marines had their own at sea TACAIR they had Essex class carriers with attack wings configured with loads of A-1s, A-4s and A-7s. They also fought wars with long lead times (by contemporary standards) allowing for relatively luxurious air bases to be developed. The Harrier replaced part of this effort as the US carrier force contracted in the 1970s and the increased inter connectivity of the world placed much higher emphasis on early action in remote locales. These issues are even more pronounced today than in the 1970s and 80s.

Some of the arguments that are trotted out against the F-35 like the USMC doesn't need STOVL are completely out there. Mr Sweetman may be over enthusiastic in expounding problems with the F-35 program but those people who drag along on his coat tails making extreme claims are hardly making any kind of reasoned contribution. Arguments that the F-35 is not combat effective or the Marines should be grounded etc aren’t worth the electrons they are printed on.

The F-35 has its hiccups which are associated with the combination of the extreme complexity of its mission and vehicle system with the extreme paucity of flexibility designed from scratch into its program. So even the smallest bumps create tremors that cause schedule delays and billions in extra dollars. But no one is to blame for this other than the people who wanted it this way: the Governments that approved the scope and funded it so tightly. But despite this it remains the combat capability specified by the professionals to achieve extreme lethality and survivability on the battlefield. The J-20 and PAK-FA demonstrate very little towards matching this capability despite no doubt being faster, more agile and sexier looking. It’s not the can that counts but the beer inside it.

 

[sferrin]

Same goes for buffet - no fences, vortex generators &c.

Sferrin - Slogans are not argument. Charles de Gaulle is a carrier. Kuznetsov is more of a carrier than the LHD/LHA.

There's more to being a carrier than a flat deck and tonnage. All the current big-decks are based on the Tarawas, which were conceived before the Marines even thought of the Harrier. Primary role is amphib assault, and the aviation space is limited, as is the fuel capacity).

That's nice and all but it doesn't change the fact that they're flight decks the USMC deploy fixed-wing aircraft on regularly. (Pretty sure their hangars and fuel storage is larger than the Invincible class too.) You may not like it, and I'm sure you'd prefer to stick to the letter of the law, but for all intents and purposes they're aircraft carriers.

 

[LowObservable]

AG and Sferrin - Wrong in both cases.

There is absolutely no vital need, worth the money, for the Marines to have a stealth supersonic fighter on LHA/LHD ships. Maybe there is a case for something more than an AH-1Z after the Harrier requires, but it is absolutely not an F-35B. There is no conceivable scenario where you need LO/supersonic and not AEW/EA, and don't give me the Marine-fan propaganda about how the F-35B provides AEW/ESM because it has neither the persistence nor the connectivity.

Sferrin - "Intents and purposes, letter of the law" be blowed. The LHA/LHDs can't support an air wing that can do CAP, support antiship missile defense and carry out offensive ops (CAS/SEAD-DEAD/strike) at the same time. No, the Invincibles could not do that, but it was acknowledged that they had a limited mission (a big part was "Hack the Shad").

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There is absolutely no vital need, worth the money, for the Marines to have a stealth supersonic fighter on LHA/LHD ships. Maybe there is a case for something more than an AH-1Z after the Harrier requires, but it is absolutely not an F-35B. There is no conceivable scenario where you need LO/supersonic and not AEW/EA, and don't give me the Marine-fan propaganda about how the F-35B provides AEW/ESM because it has neither the persistence nor the connectivity.

[stuff deleted -Admin]


But to the topic at hand: So the 7 MEU/ESGs of the US forces don't need a strike fighter for some nebulous value for money reason? Well it’s a good thing the USG doesn't value their expeditionary capability and the lives of those people involved in delivering it so lowly. Or are so willing to write something off based on such a shallow assessment.

Any look at the threat matrix facing the ESG indicates they need a high end strike fighter. Why do you think the USMC spent all that dosh to fit the APG-65/AIM-120 to the Harrier? So they can fight in air to air and against other medium level threats. In the forward deployed, out there on your lonesome situation, even a small bit of something is of value.

But heah what do they know? Only had 30 years of floating MEU/ESGs around the world, wouldn’t learn anything during that.

 

[LowObservable]

What's the scenario that would demand a stealth, supersonic aircraft, but where, at the same time, it would not be lunacy to send a CSG with AEW, EA/SEAD/DEAD and tankers?


[stuff deleted -Admin]

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What's the scenario that would demand a stealth, supersonic aircraft, but where, at the same time, it would not be lunacy to send a CSG with AEW, EA/SEAD/DEAD and tankers?

Ahh hows about any type of air to air threat or ground based air defence? Or are Marine TACAIR expendable whilst Navy and Air Force aren’t?

As to the lunacy of not having a CSG on hand that may sound like something reasonable to say from your armchair but out at sea in the world's trouble spots a crisis can emerge before carriers can be positioned and/or change their threat levels very quickly. If you are going to require a CSG to be on hand for all ESG operations that’s going to cost you a lot more than 200 odd F-35Bs.



[stuff deleted -Admin]

 

[Broncazonk]

[size=12pt]

What's the scenario that would demand a stealth, supersonic aircraft, but where, at the same time, it would not be lunacy to send a CSG with AEW, EA/SEAD/DEAD and tankers?

This is only my second post to Secret Projects, but I'm a former Marine Corps officer, and I have to say: I'm with LowObservable on this one. The Marine Corps needs a simple, reliable, all-weather, non-supersonic, non-stealth STOSL (Short Take Off Short Landing) aircraft that can safely operate off the Gators, something that can loiter over the battlespace for about 8-hours and be Johnny on the Spot with CAS when someone asks for help, something more like an A-10 in concept.

I would MUCH rather see the Marine Corps spending limited coin on developing an airframe that can operate off a LHA/LHD without having to VL every time to recover and not cost so much that nobody ever wants to use them. You don't want the command structure worrying about putting time on the airframe when it should be in the fight every damn day.

The Marine Corps needs supersonic stealth aircraft like it needs a division of war elephants.

Bronc

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This is only my second post to Secret Projects, but I'm a former Marine Corps officer, and I have to say: I'm with LowObservable on this one. The Marine Corps needs a simple, reliable, all-weather, non-supersonic, non-stealth STOSL (Short Take Off Short Landing) aircraft that can safely operate off the Gators, something that can loiter over the battlespace for about 8-hours and be Johnny on the Spot with CAS when someone asks for help, something more like an A-10 in concept.

I’m not really sure how you are going to get a STOL CAS platform with >8 hours endurance small enough to fit on an LHD. Unless its payload is under 2,000 lbs. In which case such a light strike platform would really be a replacement more for attack helicopters rather than a strike fighter. And while enhancing CAS persistence is a noble objective it isn’t going to cover all the capabilities needed for medium and high intensity scenarios.

I would MUCH rather see the Marine Corps spending limited coin on developing an airframe that can operate off a LHA/LHD without having to VL every time to recover and not cost so much that nobody ever wants to use them. You don't want the command structure worrying about putting time on the airframe when it should be in the fight every damn day.

Come 2020 when F-35s are rolling off the production line for close to the same price we now pay for Super Hornets or F-16s this won’t be an issue. The high program unit cost is because of the high development cost but the USG doesn’t amortise this over every unit.

The Marine Corps needs supersonic stealth aircraft like it needs a division of war elephants.

Well go back in time and make you war elephant declaration before the Marines acquired every state of the art combat aircraft: Corsair, Tigercat, Phantom, Intruder, Hornet… The Marines were even up for 200+ A-12As at one point. All of these aircraft (‘cept the A-12) have more than paid back the shekels it cost to acquire them. What about applying the same logic to the V-22? Compare the cost of the V-22 to a H-47 and it makes the F-35 look like the A-4 Skyhawk for VFM.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

"Intents and purposes, letter of the law" be blowed. The LHA/LHDs can't support an air wing that can do CAP, support antiship missile defense and carry out offensive ops (CAS/SEAD-DEAD/strike) at the same time. No, the Invincibles could not do that, but it was acknowledged that they had a limited mission (a big part was "Hack the Shad").

LHD can support such an air wing when it is utilised as a sea control ship. The Invincibles class certainly could and I guess you must have missed that whole Falklands Islands thing that proved it. “Hack the Shad” was the argument used by the RN to fund the Sea Harrier but the Invincibles were designed to be an ASW/AAW helicopter cruiser. All that space and weight needed to operate a squadron of Sea Kings provided ample logistics capability to operate a squadron of Sea Harriers. The systems needed to be a major AAW unit also provided the C2 capability to operate the SHARs. As to the SHAR itself the RN very cleverly speced and funded avionics that allowed a high level of multi mission capability for a then very small aircraft. To be a simple shadow hacker it could have dispensed with the nav attack system and just relied on FCI for intercept.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Topic is locked for a cool down period.

Some users of this forum have strong opinions either way about the F-35 program. For some reason, this has spilled over into personal attacks. This is never acceptable on this forum. Its perfectly possible for intelligent people to hold differing views on a subject without ulterior motives. Would the forum really be better if all we ever saw were posts about how great the F-35 was?

The job of public officials, like the Pentagon guys who wrote this report, is to ensure that the companies like Lockheed are providing good value for the billions of taxpayers' money they are spending. This includes giving criticism where there are areas of concern. Many good programs have been sharply criticised at times but have eventually delivered. Criticism can be healthy and is a normal part of the procurement process.

The job of journalists like Bill Sweetman is to investigate things that might be of interest to their readers. A critical report about F-35 issues is a perfectly legitimate story of interest to Aviation Week readers and website visitors, even to ones that are F-35 supporters.

Bill's a valuable member of the forum and deserves common courtesy. Disagree with other members' opinions all you like, but questioning their motives and integrity is extremely unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

I've deleted a few posts and edited others which I found especially objectionable. To the recent posters in this topic, I ask you to look back over your posts and consider your actions. If you want to tell the story of how great the F-35 program is, to counteract some negative publicity, don't shoot the messenger, post some news showing the good progress being made. I'm sure we'd all be interested.