The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[AeroFranz]

to keep it short i'll stick to my main beef - affordability

back in 2000 flyaway costs were projected to be some 38-40-some millions (of then) bucks apiece depending on version. The F-35 was going to cost more or less like an F-16. I think we can all agree this will not be the case. By a long shot. Same goes for $/FH. Now, if something more glamorous such as max speed had been blown by a similar margin, say you promise M1.6 and your plane can only break M1.0 in a dive, we'd all be screaming bloody murder. Well, because F-35 is causing militaries worldwide to rob Peter to give to Paul, it's kind of a big deal. I would like to think that someone is accountable for screwing the pooch. Granted, when you are breaking new ground on a lot of disciplines in order to make your airplane work, you are bound to find problems. But the art of engineering involves taking reasonable risks, applying margins, and occasionally telling the customer that they are insane and need to relax the requirements.

As to what can be done about this, well it is said that 80% of the costs of an airplane are locked in the first 20% of the development phase. At this point I would pray that the learning curve predictions on manufacturability cost, and the production run numbers can somehow hold (or better yet increase). Those are the first order effects (AFAIK) that can keep cost down.

 

[jsport]

needing the F-35 and more manned and unmanned craft is not the issue. F-35 is not the problem Financing would be better discussed on the 'industrial consolidation' or new thread addressing the real and more basic political and industrial problems.

http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/11/gen-cartwright-on-defense-acquisition-.html

24 November 2008
Gen Cartwright on Defense Acquisition
This kind of statement has been long overdue. And it's just like General James "Hoss" Cartwright to step up to the plate and deliver.

The military must end its quest for “exquisite” weapon systems that are too costly, take years to design and build, and don’t reach troops fast enough, or in quantities large enough, to address ever-changing threats.

The critic here isn’t a Washington think tank or a beltway consultant but Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the U.S. military’s second highest ranking officer.

Cartwright recalled the wry observation made by some critics of current weapon-buying practices that, by 2015, America’s armed forces will have one airplane and one ship operating in the Pacific, one airplane and one ship in the Atlantic and a single space vehicle orbiting the Earth.

“What they’re really saying, in my mind, is we have gone overboard with exquisite” ships and aircraft, Cartwright said, and “that we have got to get back to scale [and] platforms that are adaptable and flexible.”

The problem, of course, is that the four services and Congress don't feel compelled to listen to logic, even when it hits them smack in the face during a world-wide financial crisis. No, when the DOD tries to reel in very expensive pork packages such as Congress's move to force 20 more F22 planes on the military, its reaction is to push back rather than work with OSD. Go get 'em, Hoss!

 

[SteveO]

.

 

[sferrin]

It would have been great to see the Boeing X-32B and/or the MDC/NGC/BAe team go head to head with the X-35B.

Boeing did. They lost. If Boeing had won the F-32B would likely already be cancelled. McD/NG failed to even get out of the gate. How that is a qualifier for "would be better than the winner" is beyond me.

I just have the feeling the F-32 or the MDC/NGC/BAe design would have been less trouble than the F-35 if they had proven themselves in STOVL.

Grass is always greener. . . More likely than not (a virtual certainty) Boeing's design would have already gone down in flames. And you think the F-35 is getting beat on now, just imagine if it looked as pig-ugly as the X-32. Bottom line is all this Monday-morning quarter-backing is so much hot-air. They did the trades for years before deciding on the route they went.[/quote]

 

[LowObservable]

GTX -

I suppose that one could break those responses down into three sections.

Programmatic -

* Projected program acquisition cost for DoD has risen by $40m/day since program inception, in BY2012 $, with stable funding and 400 fewer aircraft.
* IOC still undefined despite vast cost overrun
* Op costs costs undefined, well above prediction
* Procurement cost well above prediction, even if planned production rates are met
* Large cost-to-go (that is, discounting sunk cost) to provide marginally useful STOVL capability
* Not enough money to execute program of record, even if all goals are met from now on - therefore, more cost increases are certain.

Operational -

* Detectability compromised, because adversaries have had 20-25 years pre-IOC to counter technology
* Air to air lethality/effectiveness being clearly addressed by adversary technology (IRST/wide-angle radar/evasion)

Strategic -

* Program has eaten, will continue to eat, funds needed for more appropriate (longer range, more survivable) US systems for the 2020s and out.

What to do next?

Trash B and C, save what can be saved from A (a super F-117). Pursue wideband/all-aspect LO platform/missile combos for CTOL and CV air. Continue evolutionary fighter/weapon combs with EW and UCAS support to address double-digit threats in near term.

There you go.

And a question for JSF fans: Why don't you acknowledge that critics have been right about cost and schedule so far, and that capes are unproven?

 

[bobbymike]

The reason F-35 eats into procurement is that the procurement budget is too low. The US could easily be spending $100 billion more per year, in fact, overseas contingency operation budget should be rolled into procurement as it drops (it is about $97 billion FY2013) Then I would be building a couple hundred NGB and enough PGS to hit every friggin time critical target in the mid east or far east

F-35 is going to be a war winner after the chinks are smoothed out IMHO

 

[sferrin]

Trash B and C, save what can be saved from A (a super F-117). Pursue wideband/all-aspect LO platform/missile combos for CTOL and CV air.

So let's see, your arguement is that the F-35 is behind the curve so we should replace it with the even older Super Hornet? Or do you think this fantasy "wideband/all-aspect LO platform/missile combo" will somehow materialize out of thin air the day after the F-35 is cancelled? Oh, one more nit. How do you fill the requirement for STOVL for the USMC? (This is where the detractor's fall flat on their faces. Watch.)

Continue evolutionary fighter/weapon combs with EW and UCAS support to address double-digit threats in near term.

Oh yeah. You forgot that because development cycles are so long we would be in the same situation albeit much more worse off because another 20 years would have elapsed and we'd still be trying to squeeze hours out of the 4th gen. I really wonder if you've ever actually thought further than "ZOMG the F-35 is gonna kill the European fighter industry!!!". : [/quote]

 

[LowObservable]

USMC STOVL? Is its strategic usefulness worth the enormous amount of money that it will cost through its life?

(Put it this way: The reason that we're in the hole we are in on JSF is that the first question that it was trying to answer, back when it was ASTOVL, was "How does the navy's army get to keep its own air force?")

Likewise, the F-35C may, possibly, have advantages over an evolved SH in the spectrum of CV missions that justify (a) its acq and op cost and (b) its reduced capes in other areas (no two-seater, yet-to-be-added CAS and geo-referenced targeting, &c). But it ain't clear-cut at all. "But... stealth" is not the answer, the point that the CNO made in July.

Re: alternatives - Our development cycles are too long. That needs to be fixed, or we are dead militarily. There is absolutely no reason for 25-year real-money-to-IOC times, which simply guarantee that the system is obsolete three times over before it enters service.

 

[sferrin]

Re: alternatives - Our development cycles are too long. That needs to be fixed, or we are dead militarily. There is absolutely no reason for 25-year real-money-to-IOC times, which simply guarantee that the system is obsolete three times over before it enters service.

You'd think there would be a way around it but the situation seems to feed on itself. We only build a new fighter every 30 years so it has to have a new everything and everything is integrated. And since so much time has passed you have less experienced people, too many forgotten "lessons learned" etc. etc. I shudder to think how difficult the NEXT cycle will be.

 

[CJGibson]

Funny you mention development timeframes, I always saw US fighter development as punctuated equilibrium while Russian fighter development was more gradualistic and the British suffered extinction events. But I'm a geologist.

Chris

 

[Arjen]

At this rate, we'll be approaching geological timescales for the next project. That should make you an expert.

 

[LowObservable]

If there is no way around it, why did it not start happening until the 1980s program starts?

Even the B-1 took 16 years (major $ to IOC) despite being cancelled completely. Now we see the 20-year V-22 and F-22, and the F-35 is at 16 years and counting (and full funding all the way) and we don't have an IOC date.

Quick answers:

Requirements compounding: Stealth + agile + supercruise (and "silent" air combat, which is hard in itself); stealth + STOVL + regular fighter qualities; special operations range + CH-46 envelope, &c.

Underestimation, with the contractor desperate to sell to the service and the service desperate to sell to Congress. The result is a schedule that is chaotic and never in control, and hugely inefficient.

I'm not addressing the Typhoon or Rafale here. Some of the same factors were in play but there were also powerful external forces (like the Germans wanting to bail out and post Cold War France not having the budget to do everything).

And say what you like about SH and Gripen, but they tackled the problem in bite-size chunks and have by now delivered more utility than the F-22 or V-22, or Typhoon for that matter.

 

[jsport]

If there is no way around it, why did it not start happening until the 1980s program starts?

Even the B-1 took 16 years (major $ to IOC) despite being cancelled completely. Now we see the 20-year V-22 and F-22, and the F-35 is at 16 years and counting (and full funding all the way) and we don't have an IOC date.

Quick answers:

Requirements compounding: Stealth + agile + supercruise (and "silent" air combat, which is hard in itself); stealth + STOVL + regular fighter qualities; special operations range + CH-46 envelope, &c.

Underestimation, with the contractor desperate to sell to the service and the service desperate to sell to Congress. The result is a schedule that is chaotic and never in control, and hugely inefficient.

I'm not addressing the Typhoon or Rafale here. Some of the same factors were in play but there were also powerful external forces (like the Germans wanting to bail out and post Cold War France not having the budget to do everything).

And say what you like about SH and Gripen, but they tackled the problem in bite-size chunks and have by now delivered more utility than the F-22 or V-22, or Typhoon for that matter.

LO has requirements compounding correct.. too much turnaround in careerist PM leadership desperate to sell to Congress. PM's primary focus is hip skiping to land back at the juicey tit of the contractor. "The result is a schedule that is chaotic and never in control, and hugely inefficient." thereore can not be overstated. Personal witness of a UAV PM who didn't know the difference between a tube and wing aircraft and BWB and this when he was a former F-18 pilot.. Please someone tell us who is in charge of this scatter cat rabble.

 

[bobbymike]

If there is no way around it, why did it not start happening until the 1980s program starts?

Even the B-1 took 16 years (major $ to IOC) despite being cancelled completely. Now we see the 20-year V-22 and F-22, and the F-35 is at 16 years and counting (and full funding all the way) and we don't have an IOC date.

Quick answers:

Requirements compounding: Stealth + agile + supercruise (and "silent" air combat, which is hard in itself); stealth + STOVL + regular fighter qualities; special operations range + CH-46 envelope, &c.

Underestimation, with the contractor desperate to sell to the service and the service desperate to sell to Congress. The result is a schedule that is chaotic and never in control, and hugely inefficient.

I'm not addressing the Typhoon or Rafale here. Some of the same factors were in play but there were also powerful external forces (like the Germans wanting to bail out and post Cold War France not having the budget to do everything).

And say what you like about SH and Gripen, but they tackled the problem in bite-size chunks and have by now delivered more utility than the F-22 or V-22, or Typhoon for that matter.

LO has requirements compounding correct.. too much turnaround in careerist PM leadership desperate to sell to Congress. PM's primary focus is hip skiping to land back at the juicey tit of the contractor. "The result is a schedule that is chaotic and never in control, and hugely inefficient." thereore can not be overstated. Personal witness of a UAV PM who didn't know the difference between a tube and wing aircraft and BWB and this when he was a former F-18 pilot.. Please someone tell us who is in charge of this scatter cat rabble.

What about software? I read an article in the early 80's after Reagan's SDI speech where there was speculation a nationwide system 'may' require a million lines of code, what's the F-35 up to? 15 million lines of code?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I just have the feeling the F-32 or the MDC/NGC/BAe design would have been less trouble than the F-35 if they had proven themselves in STOVL.

If you thought defending the JSF was hard before, justifying picking the failed X-32 would be seriously hard to explain. I like betting on the horse that never crosses the finish line too, but its not a winning formula. ;D

USMC STOVL? Is its strategic usefulness worth the enormous amount of money that it will cost through its life?

The USMC may be the Primary customer behind the F-35B but it is far from the only one. the UK payed a pretty handsome amount of money to replace their harrier as well, and other nations are going to be buying them too. They feel there is a pretty good use for them, and they are still drastically cheaper than super carriers. There will probably be more F-35Bs produced than F-35Cs. So its not just critical to the USMC but to all the "little people" our allies, out there that want to have naval air, at a still much cheaper price than CTOL. Not only is your thinking American-centric, but it even discludes one third of American military aviation!!

(Put it this way: The reason that we're in the hole we are in on JSF is that the first question that it was trying to answer, back when it was ASTOVL, was "How does the navy's army get to keep its own air force?")

Just because you don't understand the value of Marine Aviation doesn't mean it is unneeded, its also a very weak cop out to say that the trick to solving the issue of "jointness," is to cut a vital component of the Marines that has been along on nearly every Marine mission since the 1920's. Marine Air has also been involved and supported the other 3 services on multiple occasions. This is like me saying the cure to your hang nail is to cut your arm off. Problem with Marine Aviation? "Cut aviation" is not a solution.

I wonder why the Navy needs its own air force, and surely the massive expense of a 5,000 man Nuclear ship with wires and catapults that must be maintained, along with a fleet of escorts is not worth the strategic usefulness...

Besides, We aren't really bringing up the validity of USMC Aviation which predates the USAF by 3 and a half decades, and is mandated to have 3 air wings with 1 in reserve since 1952 are we? Because that would not only be downright nutty, but probably belongs in another thread...

So a lot of the angst about the F-35 isn't about the F-35 but the Military procurement process in general? No way!? A process that has been in trouble for decades and should not surprisingly, be even more extreme when it comes to the biggest weapons program in human history? Frankly the F-35 is a poster child of dysfunctional parents and that is not the child's fault. The Next kid will be even worse. killing this kid while letting the parents continue irresponsibly will simply result in more of the same.

now delivered more utility than the F-22 or V-22, or Typhoon for that matter.

Just trying to make everyone mad aren't we? Going after the V-22? Its not like you to bash a Marine program. When we talk about Super Hornet "utility," we mean its amazing ability to haul stand off weapons and essentially act as nothing more than a "glorified weapons range extender" while it avoids getting anywhere near the enemy right? Because if so, the SH rocks.

 

[kcran567]

The F-35 is just a blown up money pig that is the perfect embodiment of current western corporate greed and corruption.


And for all you x-32 haters out there, the x-32 could have been made cheaper than the f-35. Boeing had the Harrier style direct lift system which was cheaper and would have worked well enough with a few tweaks. The F-32 was superior in up and away performance and agility. Boeng had the one-piece wing mold system to lower cost even more.


That being said, x-32, f-35 they/are were both failures.


Incredibly expensive and compromised. Just like the earlier poster said, soon we'll have two airplanes to protect the entire Pacific area at this rate.


I've said it before and will say it again. Purpose built aircraft better suited to their role is cheaper in the long run. The f-35 tried to do it all and became overly sophisticated, complicated and extraordinarily expensive.


I'm still hoping for a future f-5/Mig-21 type aircraft (low cost and simple) that is a flexible and modular/adaptable design. Stealth shaping, low cost, agile. Air to air and ground capability. Maybe a small phased array radar and advanced optical/IR system like the f-35 has...and that's it!


Something that could be bought in numbers and actually defend a nation.


Many in the Air Force would rather have a 1000 of these type aircraft than 200 f-35s.


Imagine 30 of these (or even 10) small, agile and stealthy manned aircraft going against a flight of 2 or 3 f-35's. The f-35s would lose.


I say manned because I always believe there should be manned fighters flying even though unmanned aircraft are the trend.


But the corruption within Government and business means common sense will never rule the day.

 

[sferrin]

The F-35 is just a blown up money pig that is the perfect embodiment of current western corporate greed and corruption.

Oh brother. :

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

And for all you x-32 haters out there, the x-32 could have been made cheaper than the f-35. Boeing had the Harrier style direct lift system which was cheaper and would have worked well enough with a few tweaks. The F-32 was superior in up and away performance and agility. Boeng had the one-piece wing mold system to lower cost even more.

source? is there an alternate universe machine to prove this?

I'm still hoping for a future f-5/Mig-21 type aircraft (low cost and simple) that is a flexible and modular/adaptable design. Stealth shaping, low cost, agile. Air to air and ground capability. Maybe a small phased array radar and advanced optical/IR system like the f-35 has...and that's it!


Something that could be bought in numbers and actually defend a nation.

If you have to buy a lot of "throw away" aircraft that rely on numbers, you need lots of them, along with lots of people to fly and fix them, along with lots of bases and runways, along with lots of hangers, along with lots of calibration equipment, lots of fuel, lots of simulators, lots of training schools. Lots of people means lots of military families so lots of housing, lots of hospitals for military families along with lots of money for their healthcare, along with schools for the kiddies. My point here is that the logisitics get out of hand even if the aircraft are cheaper initially. It gets even tougher with naval aviation that has limited ships, with limited space that needs to make the most of the limited aircraft they have. Also, lots.

Many in the Air Force would rather have a 1000 of these type aircraft than 200 f-35s.

Not really. Western Militaries are adverse to casualties and avoid attrition as much as possible. Do you have a source for the above statement? It probably doesn't help that western equipped and trained militaries have been using big, expensive, complex fighters (like F-15s) to kill light, cheap, and numbers based air forces in droves. in fact the F-15 is undefeated in air combat, with over 150 kills to its name ... a large majority of them are single engine MiGs. why would any air force want to change that kind of ratio? 150-0? even the soviets gave up on a numbers only strategy and started to develop more limited numbers of advanced fighters before the break up.

Imagine 30 of these (or even 10) small, agile and stealthy manned aircraft going against a flight of 2 or 3 f-35's. The f-35s would lose.

I'm glad you have given your imaginary aircraft such awesome ability. Imagine an F-14 with A Tyrannosaurus Rex flying it, it would beat all 30 of your planes. ;D

Also How would it have Stealth, F-35 electronics, agility, compact size and still be kept cheap? I'm all ears about your super cheap "mini F-35." you are going to build it better and smaller and somehow make it cost less? You said it would carry bombs also, so whats the internal capacity of bombs and missiles to keep it stealthy? in order to keep it small and light, it can't be very much. you have to sacrifice so what are you sacrificing? fuel? weapons? Do tell. I want to see how you bend the laws of physics and economics at the same time.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I'm glad you have given your imaginary aircraft such awesome ability. Imagine an F-14 with A Tyrannosaurus Rex flying it, it would beat all 30 of your planes. ;D

You're not thinking extreme enough. Make it a Lockheed NATF with a full strike capability, then put in a genetically enhanced T-Rex in both seats.

McD/NG failed to even get out of the gate. How that is a qualifier for "would be better than the winner" is beyond me.

Maybe it is just the F-101 Voodoo-ish wing, but I've always found the McDonnell Douglas JSF proposal rather impressive. I do wonder if it would have fared any better than the Boeing X-32 if it had been chosen for further development.

 

[LowObservable]

CM - There was much to be said for the Macs proposal.

It needed a new lift engine, but I have the deeds right here to Tower Bridge if you think it would have cost more to develop than the F-35 system, and it didn't need a new propulsion engine. Putting the VL nozzles ahead of the augmentor made sense, too. (Avoids the bl***y great doors of the 3BSM.)

That said, they lost fair and square because they underestimated Boeing and took too long getting the "Dream Team" working. RIP.

TT - I spend my life trying to think of ways to annoy the Marines.

Basically, Marine CAS on the big amphibs was, originally, a one-time, relatively cheap fix to a Cold War problem. Big Carrier Air had a serious and nasty threat to handle in order to not lose the SLOCs in the event of Major Unpleasantness in central Europe and had decided that big nuke carriers were the way to go - hence no direct replacement for the many hardworking Essexes, and less likelihood that a CVN would be detached to support the MEU.

The solution was to buy 114 small and fairly inexpensive Harriers, right off the shelf. This was followed by the B, which was likewise the cheapo (no new engine) upgrade, later stepped up to the B Plus.

The next looming problem (through the 1980s) was how to pay for a follow-on. The Harrier had always been on the cheap (the RAF GR1, you will recall, was a hybrid of some bits and pieces from the cancelled HS1154 and the P1127/Kestrel tech demo) but the new aircraft would be new from the ground up. Actually, the big breakthrough of CALF/ASTOVL was not only technological - it was the idea that you could pull the fan, insert extra fuel and have an AF/CV version.

Unfortunately, the cost and difficulty of all this was hideously underestimated, which made it look so good that alternatives were not even considered.

Today we are confronted with the real bill, and it's not pretty - and as has been stated many times, nobody, but nobody has a coherent answer to the simple question: "What is the scenario that demands stealthy, supersonic fighter support for the MEU, but where the national command authority would not send a CVN?"

That gets us to another question: "Is there a "Harrier" solution out there - something that addresses probable scenarios and that would expand the range of situations where the MEU could go it alone?" That's to say, something that can do CAS and NTISR and survive against MANPADS. That could be an X2 or a prop ultra-Stol.

As for the V-22, that aircraft and the Comanche have done an inestimable amount of good... for the European helo industry, which has expanded from a niche player to domination of the civil/government markets, and competitiveness in most military markets, while US engineering resources were diverted down two blind alleys.

The V-22 is very good at long-range, small-payload missions and its speed can be good when time is a crucial factor. It's the special operators' dream (within limits). On the other hand, most day-to-day vertical lift operations are still executed much more efficiently by a helicopter, and any amount of environmental crud makes the operating costs get nasty. (And real-world costs - not the seat-mile irrelevance, because it's not a regional civil transport.)

 

[jsport]

Our friend F-14D had much to add on the 32 vs 35 STOVL choice (not NG-BAE etc solution though) ... appears a separate propulsor competition would have been in order first...a Gov'n requirements issue.

"Today we are confronted with the real bill, and it's not pretty"
yes, displays the broken procurement system.

"- and as has been stated many times, nobody, but nobody has a coherent answer to the simple question: "What is the scenario that demands stealthy, supersonic fighter support for the MEU, but where the national command authority would not send a CVN?"

EVERYBODY repeatedly has exclaimed the USN has penchant for leaving the USMC on the beach and USMC wants organic capability. Stealth and supersonic are needed to survive. Even when the carrier is initially present it may end up running away (faster than the MEU) , dead, mission limited by defending itself etc. etc. One would imagine the requirements document tediously explains.. glade I’ve not seen it.

“That gets us to another question: "Is there a "Harrier" solution out there - something that addresses probable scenarios and that would expand the range of situations where the MEU could go it alone?" That's to say, something that can do CAS and NTISR and survive against MANPADS. That could be an X2 or a prop ultra-Stol. “

No, the solution is even more risk to assure the survival of distributed ground forces in A2AD environments..the real goal and genuine fear..
Nothing short of a lengthy restart and development of a program like a fast CRW or multipurpose fast duct fan solution would be useful at high enough altitude to accomplish NTISR, carry a heavy enough payload for real CAS, and be able to survive MANPADS. X2 although fast, is not fast enough. The solution has to be fast and somewhat heavy, otherwise it would be desert patio furniture like the Firescout in Libya. A prop-ultra STOL would be AAA, not even missile, target practice.

 

[LowObservable]

EVERYBODY repeatedly has exclaimed the USN has penchant for leaving the USMC on the beach and USMC wants organic capability.

Let me put this as delicately as possible. BU**ER GUADALCANAL, IT WAS 70 FREAKING YEARS AGO. If the USMC leadership can't sort that out. fire them and disband the Corps.

No, the solution is even more risk to assure the survival of distributed ground forces in A2AD environments..the real goal and genuine fear..

In any serious A2AD environment, you need the AEW&C and EA that the CVN provides. Alles anderes is Unsinn!

 

[kcran567]

Taiidan Tomcam and Colonial-Marine you both blew my arguments out of the water and it was funny too, esp. the genetically engineered T-Rex's.


Still, I have to believe that a 21st century F-5/Mig-21 affordable fighter is possible with the new manufacturing technologies that are being developed such as used on the Bird of Prey for example. Also smaller and lighter engines with very small cross sections compared to today's engines, i.e- the next Gen Japanese fighter studies. Cheaper and smaller does not necessarily mean throwaway or lack of payload.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

EVERYBODY repeatedly has exclaimed the USN has penchant for leaving the USMC on the beach and USMC wants organic capability.

Let me put this as delicately as possible. BU**ER GUADALCANAL, IT WAS 70 FREAKING YEARS AGO. If the USMC leadership can't sort that out. fire them and disband the Corps.

No, the solution is even more risk to assure the survival of distributed ground forces in A2AD environments..the real goal and genuine fear..

In any serious A2AD environment, you need the AEW&C and EA that the CVN provides. Alles anderes is Unsinn!

But of course STOVL props properly vectored with AEW&C and EA that a CVN provides will work wonders in A2AD environments right? that makes sense!! I find it funny though that you think the Idea of fighting without AEW is madness, that losing AEW is the worst thing that can possibly happen, and that if we lose it we just kind of call a "War Time Out" and the enemy stops. We are planning for the worst, not the most ideal. I could go on about how the F-35s sensors and comm devices will be vastly superior to any previous aircraft, And although not as perfectly capable as an AEW&C Aircraft They are pretty darn good... Hey, and last I checked the Navy wasn't the only service with AEW&C --and the USAF Birds can fly a lot longer and from further away. Another problem with the Prop STOVL is they make lousy SAM dodgers and can't augment the Navy in big situations like Alpha or deep Strikes or fleet defense. So lets cool it on the JATO Cessna's shall we?

I do love the irony that you scream that Guadalcanal was 70 years ago... and yet you want the USMC back in prop planes!! "Times have changed you Jarheads now get in your propjobs and strafe some SAMs!"


Shocking that now you suggest disbanding the Corps. Why stop at just the air wing? There are plenty of battles that the other services take to heart that are well over 70 freaking years ago, and yet the leadership of the other services still don't forget. I think we should fire Naval Leadership because US Submarines haven't sunk anything in 70 years... and yet they insist on having submarines!! This isn't WWII you guys!! In fact what major sea battle has the USN fought since WWII that makes it so they insist they hang on to hundreds of surface ships, subs, super carriers, etc? Quit living in the past USN, you are just wasting money. The Forrestal fire happened like 50 year ago, and yet you insist on wasting everyone's time with this "shipboard firefighting" mumbo jumbo. The Navy leadership needs to be Deep Sixed, and all their ships turned over to the USAF. Midway? oh Please! we have stealth bombers that can hit Japan from Missouri, you don't need aircraft carriers stupid.

The Marines aren't insisting on using a 70 year old rifle, or a 70 year old airplane, or just trying to be difficult, Guadalcanal is about not having enough resources to protect everyone and the Navy making a critical decision to abandon thousands of men to their own fate. Its not about technology, The Marines are refusing to "move on" because of a Command Decision. So whether it happened yesterday or over a century ago its a good thing to remember that "command decisions" and picking the "lesser of two evils" is just as likely in the next war. If it comes down to losing 15,000 men, or a fleet with 30,000 men, then the 15,000 will be on their own-- Thats as true now as it was then, and no amount of tech or time will change that. There is no way you could ever guarantee that large groups of forces won't be left to save even larger groups of forces for other more important objectives.

Its not just about the Canal, its about relying on another service to help you in a scenario where there may not be enough help to go around. In that case you are going to have the Marines thinking that holding some godforsaken piece of earth is the priority while the Navy thinks that protecting its fleet and living to fight another day is the priority-- It makes a difference. So its not always something as dramatic as being abandoned (But again, that DID HAPPEN) its about not being ignored, and having your weapons in the fight. Plenty of folks in the Army have torn their hair out over the years as they try to convince the USAF to hit tactical targets and the USAF says "don't you get it? The big targets are command bunkers in far off cities. Kill your own tanks/arty/weapons emplacements, we are going after sexy targets"


Its going to be even more prevalent, now that the US has shifted from a "Two Ocean" or "Two front" war strategy to a "One war, one hold" strategy where one side gets the lions share and the other just trys not to give ground until the first front is won... Why do I have a sinking feeling the USMC is going to be one of those services nearly by itself in the "hold" strategy? And even if you think I'm being overly dramatic, the new strategy is essentially conceding that the "second front" will be undermanned and under equipped. if there is only one or two CVNs on that front you can bet the Navy is going to be extra cautious, and not having enough AEW&C is the least of our worries.

We always go on and on about "the Next Generation failing to learn the lessons of the old." Very proud that the Marine Corps doesn't make that mistake. I like that the Marines plan for the worst, even 70 years on. Its probably one of the biggest keys to the USMC's success-- We learn lessons, pass them through generations, and rarely have to relearn them the hard way.

Taiidan Tomcam and Colonial-Marine you both blew my arguments out of the water and it was funny too, esp. the genetically engineered T-Rex's.


Still, I have to believe that a 21st century F-5/Mig-21 affordable fighter is possible with the new manufacturing technologies that are being developed such as used on the Bird of Prey for example. Also smaller and lighter engines with very small cross sections compared to today's engines, i.e- the next Gen Japanese fighter studies. Cheaper and smaller does not necessarily mean throwaway or lack of payload.

The Bird of Prey is a fantastic looking aircraft. Thats from the same company that built the X-32!? exciting amount of stealth and engineering, but it needs to be remembered it is a test bed, so it won't be weighed down with gadgets and gizmos and whiz bang weapons. Doesn't use fly by wire which saved development time. since it was developed in the 1990's I would assume that a lot of that engineering was probably already used on the X-32... But that is a guess.

 

[LowObservable]

TT - I'm not suggesting props or X2 in full-blown A2AD, but in a mid-level conflict where ground troops need CAS or ISR and there are no fighters or radar-guided SAMs on the defending side.

I am saying that, at the A2AD level, you are not going in without the toolset that the CVN brings. Because it's not just a question of dealing with a few rusty MiGs or SA-11s, but of serious ASCMs running up and down the littoral, looking exactly like any other truck on SAR/GMTI. Or fast-boat swarm attacks. Or guided rockets against troops on shore.

And you can't use JSF as the AWACS because of radar field-of-regard and endurance. And using USAF AWACS or similar starts to get extremely expensive and difficult unless you have a major land base within 1000 miles (beyond that and time-on-station declines precipitously).

The Marines should soon discover that they can't go on indefinitely with fighters close to the price of the F-22, a super-helo that's priced like a fighter, and an amphibious IFV that costs as much as a helicopter (assuming that they still strive for EFV performance in its replacement). If nothing else, the maintenance will kill combat capability faster than an IJN cruiser force.

Update: Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Internetz: http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/08/used-cars-and-f-35s.html

PS - Adm Fletcher was right.

 

[jsport]

Although, the F-35 STOVL is the only near term solution at least website points out the disaster the entire procurement system is...

The Marines system integrating their own jamming pod is one glimmer -o- hope . A restructured procurement system lead by the nation's executive or the Senate is really is the only hope. Yikes squared. Bloomberg reported today head of NG makes 'moe $' than the head of JP Morgan...not going to repeat the long diatribe from the "Industry consolidation thread" about better capitalism and better procurement.

"Rotary wing platforms, like attack helicopters lack the payload capacity, speed, altitude and survivability to completely replace a manned CAS platform for the Marines. "

Long -term Marines survival on the ground is going to need some long-term S-Curve absorption by the USGov and small businesses. CRW as pointed out in the recent "aircraft strafing" thread meets all the above "payload capacity, speed, altitude and survivability" goals while providing the geniune 'helicopter like' CAS in highly contested environments as pointed out the Grunt officer who was on the ground in real theater..
This will be a long long wait.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

And using USAF AWACS or similar starts to get extremely expensive and difficult unless you have a major land base within 1000 miles (beyond that and time-on-station declines precipitously).

LOL Wut? Any sailor will tell you that Big Wing Tankers and AWACs are far more helpful than Hawkeyes and buddy refueling hornets and increase time on station immensely. As for it being more expensive can you please explain to me how using some converted 707s is going to cost more than a Carrier Battle Group?

The Marines should soon discover that they can't go on indefinitely with fighters close to the price of the F-22, a super-helo that's priced like a fighter, and an amphibious IFV that costs as much as a helicopter (assuming that they still strive for EFV performance in its replacement).

Why do you care about their budget? One second its "disband the Corps!" and the next its "poor things are outta money!!" The Marines are the most frugal service by a wide margin, and have published a myriad of papers about how the JSF is going to allow them to retire 3 airframes and save a bunch of money and personnel. the Marines don't have hordes of personnel to turn wrenches on ancient legacy aircraft for the next few decades. Before the "well the F-35B is the most expensive variant and its gotten an exorbitant price tag, so much for the USMC being thrifty" garbage-- The price has risen significantly on all variants, that has nothing to do with the Corps and that price will go down once serial production kicks in. The Marines will be fine, thanks for asking.

The most fundamental job for USMC aviation is ground support. In order for this to happen the USMC needs an aircraft that won't die its first 30 seconds over the battlefield, it has to be able to survive and protect itself from other threats to complete its primary mission. There is no point in having fixed wing support, that can only be used in very narrow conditions, and if those conditions are not met, then not used at all (A-10, Harrier, Spectre Gunship). So if surviving in the 21st century means stealth, speed, A2A capability, then the Marines need it. Marines are small war specialist but they fight in all wars of all sizes. There will be conflicts where the F-35 will be overkill. (according to you and other critics there will be wars where the F-35 will be underkill.) Whatever the debate, Marines will be needed to augment other services with air power. Super Tucanos won't get that job done, and everyone knows this. OR to paraphrase another great slogan "The Marines will give up their Air wing when the Navy and Air Force give up theirs" Until that day, we rely on ourselves.

Which brings up my final point. Seeing as we have all these little triffling wars that "don't require a massive expensive fighter force" according to the critics, why aren't the USN and USAF giving up larger portions of their fast jets for Combat ready Tucanos or Texans? If the first to fight, door kicking, Shock troop, MArines don't need them, surely The USN and USAF can look into disbanding large groups of fast jets? How come only the Marines have to give up the fancy toys?

 

[LowObservable]

LOL Wut? Any sailor will tell you that Big Wing Tankers and AWACs are far more helpful than Hawkeyes and buddy refueling hornets and increase time on station immensely.

The op cost of AWACS, even without tankers, is huge. It takes at least three AWACS to maintain one orbit, with multiple large crews/ac, and crew effectiveness limits TOS-at-range even with tankers.

As for it being more expensive can you please explain to me how using some converted 707s is going to cost more than a Carrier Battle Group?

That is such a silly comparison that it is barely worth responding to, but clearly the AWACS does the role of a small number of the CVBG's assets.

The Marines are the most frugal service by a wide margin...

They have a small budget, but also the smallest range of missions. They rely on the Navy to get them into action intact and unsunk and on AF overhead to know what's waiting when they get there.

and have published a myriad of papers about how the JSF is going to allow them to retire 3 airframes and save a bunch of money and personnel.

Compared with a projection of flying Prowlers into eternity, the JSF is cheap? Possibly, but that's not a serious alternative.

"well the F-35B is the most expensive variant and its gotten an exorbitant price tag, so much for the USMC being thrifty"

Is true, of course. And as explained elsewhere, that has a lot to do with STOVL (in fact STOVL makes the A & C cost more), and the F-22-zone price is the best estimate at full rate.

The most fundamental job for USMC aviation is ground support. In order for this to happen the USMC needs an aircraft that won't die its first 30 seconds over the battlefield, it has to be able to survive and protect itself from other threats to complete its primary mission.

I agree entirely, but it doesn't have to be launched from an LHA/LHD.

Marines are small war specialist but they fight in all wars of all sizes.

And when they fight in large wars, they will fight as part of a combined force, whether they like the idea or not.

Whatever the debate, Marines will be needed to augment other services with air power.

Why?

Which brings up my final point.

I can only hope...

Seeing as we have all these little triffling wars that "don't require a massive expensive fighter force" according to the critics, why aren't the USN and USAF giving up larger portions of their fast jets for Combat ready Tucanos or Texans? If the first to fight, door kicking, Shock troop, MArines don't need them, surely The USN and USAF can look into disbanding large groups of fast jets?

Because in big time A2AD an amphibious force without full-scale combined-arms support that tries "door kicking" on its own will get torpedoed and missile-blasted into oblivion, singing the song that they ripped off from a French opera all the way. It's a joint-force, combined-arms world. Content yourself with the fact that the USAF isn't going to buy hovercraft or frigates.

 

[jsport]

..like ticking off Marines as much as the next...but to claim a "full-scale combined-arms" task force augmenting the Marines is the only means of A2AD is more 'shadow cloud boxing for ghosts'.. Marines better secure a space off the beach w/ the "firstis with the mostist" or there won't be a A2AD window. It will be shut and locked before it is opened. The AF nor the USN provide limited support, but ground taken it is the Gyrenes alone and the Army (the better) won't even be there. Anyone thinking otherwise should go back to playing 'Risk' on cardboard.

Why would another service's airpower be needed to augment AF and USN.. Ask anyone who has needed air support and couldn't get it.. All the airpower you can get from whomever..Certainly anyone questioning the uniqueness of each service's airpower has had no US military experience and should not be claiming expertise.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The op cost of AWACS, even without tankers, is huge. It takes at least three AWACS to maintain one orbit, with multiple large crews/ac, and crew effectiveness limits TOS-at-range even with tankers.

Is that why we are retiring all the AWACs planes? If a war requiring AEW starts are we really going to hold back the USAFs AEW based on COST? Thats a pretty bizarre time to suddenly start penny pinching.

That is such a silly comparison that it is barely worth responding to, but clearly the AWACS does the role of a small number of the CVBG's assets.

I'm sorry but I don't think its silly, and this is the first time I have ever been told that AEW is so critical in aerial warfare... and yet it is so expensive that it can't really be used. I am not seeing the logic in that. What is the comparison of Hawkeyes and Super Bug Refuelers per hour in cost, not even counting the carrier that has to carry them? I'm willing to bet an AWACs with a Kc-135 is cheaper, and seeing as the KC-135 is probably going to be around anyway (NKAWTG afterall) how much are we really talking?

Its not that crazy to have a scenario where the Marines are closer and need to hold the line for a few days at least before the big bad CVN arrives, in which case you can use AWACs in the meantime. We can probably both think of dozens of scenarios and counter scenarios to prove each others points. Its not a zero sum game. My point is just that there is more than one way to skin a cat. No idea why some F-35Bs with some impromptu help from AWACs is so unfathomable.

I just missed the part in the rule book that said only the USN with Carrier based AEW can provide help in future wars.

Echo what Jsport says, When the next big war jumps off, you really can't have "too much" Support from the Air. And if you take what Kcran mentioned, the idea that there already are not enough aircraft to go around, its not such a bad thing to have more capable warplanes that can augment not just ground support, but other missions as well.

Content yourself with the fact that the USAF isn't going to buy hovercraft or frigates.

They would if they felt another service couldn't do the job as well, or if it was critical to performing their primary mission. Why does the USAF have its own Special Forces? Why do they have their own security forces? Why do they have their own FACs? Couldn't the Army or USMC easily fulfill those roles? Maybe the USAF needs to give Its Ospreys to the Marines, its Pavehawks to the Army, and just let the Marine TRAP or Army A-teams go get their pilots? They are kinda treadin on ground side turf there... Why does the USAF have AWACs when clearly (to you) that's a Navy job? Maybe the USAF feels that these missions are so important, they must be done themselves.

When the world is nice and safe enough to use Tucanos and Texans the Marines will happily jump aboard after the other services switch to them too. If its good enough for them, its good enough for us. But we don't want to be fighting in the first world with a third world air force.

You need to be better about your Marine trolling as well, far too obvious. And where is all this venom for the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy? Expand a little, there will be plenty of F-35B operators for you to insult.

 

[LowObservable]

AWACS is effective in its theater role, albeit very expensive. (See IAI-Elta CAEW for comparison.) However, it is inherently difficult to provide effects at very long distances from a base.

AEW in a naval context is pretty essential, whether the threat is a Kamikaze, an Exocet or a Sizzler.

And, as you know very well, long-range delivery of SF is a mission assigned to the AF. One of those expensive things that the Marines forget they don't do when they brag about how economical they are.

Jsport - Marines better secure a space off the beach w/ the "firstis with the mostist" or there won't be a A2AD window.

You have Air Sea Battle backwards. The point of A2AD is to impose high risks and losses on a force deploying into theater, rather than trying to fight a US force after it deploys. If there is an A2AD threat, it needs to be broken at extended range before thinking about "taking and holding ground". If you have sources saying otherwise - that taking and holding ground is step 1 of counter-A2AD - I would be interested in seeing them.

 

[jsport]

Jsport - Marines better secure a space off the beach w/ the "firstis with the mostist" or there won't be a A2AD window.

You have Air Sea Battle backwards. The point of A2AD is to impose high risks and losses on a force deploying into theater, rather than trying to fight a US force after it deploys. If there is an A2AD threat, it needs to be broken at extended range before thinking about "taking and holding ground". If you have sources saying otherwise - that taking and holding ground is step 1 of counter-A2AD - I would be interested in seeing them.
[/quote]

Anti-Anti-Access is establishing beachhead. USN and USAF can only be depended on the fight the SEAD/interdiction, deep strike etc.-deep battle. Marines must provide CAS to the beachhead being established for themselves. This must all happen simultaneously further proving the AF and Navy can not be depended on to provide Marines CAS. Step two is expand the beachead battle thus more simultaneous deep airstrikes further limiting Marines from receiving CAS.. Waiting for available CAS is death. Why must this be repeated ad infinitem?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

AWACS is effective in its theater role, albeit very expensive. (See IAI-Elta CAEW for comparison.) However, it is inherently difficult to provide effects at very long distances from a base.

AEW in a naval context is pretty essential, whether the threat is a Kamikaze, an Exocet or a Sizzler.

And, as you know very well, long-range delivery of SF is a mission assigned to the AF. One of those expensive things that the Marines forget they don't do when they brag about how economical they are.

Great rebuttals, that explains everything! :

Again AWACs works, but you think its cheaper to send an aircraft carrier. (of course!)

Wait a minute, now you are upset that the Marines aren't trying to take on more expensive missions? (Of course!) It still doesn't explain why the USAF Needs PJs-- Can't the Army SF just hitch rides on the USAF's Spec ops helos? Again why do they need PJs? Can the Army SF not take long helicopter flights or something? Also, didn't the USMC's Horrible V-22 and TRAP ream Rescue an F-15E crew in Libya last summer? Because in that case the Marines did a USAF job cheaper. Got Scott O Grady in '96 too... Damn those braggy Marines!

Still doesn't explain why the Air force "needs its own army" as you would put it. Why does the Navy need its own Air Force again? Or SF troops? Why does the Army need its own helicopter force?

I really don't know which came first, your USMC Bias or that the USMC ruined the F-35 and biased you that way. It really doesn't matter. The Requirement was for an aircraft that could be used jointly by all three American services, and allied air forces and navies.

If you have three hungry children you make food for all three. Its a lot easier if you can make a meal that all three can eat, rather than an individual meal for each. However, Killing one child so its easier to feed the other two is not an option.

As long as "projecting power from the sea" is important so is the USMC. The second that is not needed, you can disband the USMC and the USN along with it. As long as the Naval Mission is important, so are Marines. The Navy and USMC are so interlinked in that mission that you really can't have one without the other (But of course Marines have been doing more overland work overall than the squids). So all your grandstanding, lame Sweetman rip-off trolling, can move to another thread.

The USMC will not be the only service using the F-35B, but if you feel that you can lump one and then the other into an argument to get rid of it all, that's your problem. Far better and smarter people than you have questioned the need for the USMC, and Marines stopped worrying about that question a long time ago because they always have the answer. Most Marines enjoy proving the critics wrong, even the weak ones without original ideas or thoughts (Any more Collin Powell quotes you would like to drop? Don't bother giving him credit, LO ...you would have thought of that too given enough time.) How about his Peer General Schwarzkopf? who has said some mighty sweet things about Marines through his career and even had high praise for the Harrier, are we leaving him out?

So lets try and divide your arguments into three categories from here on out:

1. Marines are unneeded (Another thread perhaps?)
2. the F-35 is a poor performer
3. The procurement process has hurt the F-35 to the point of failure

You seem to mix all three or move from one to other when you are refuted. Lets cherry pick facts from one area at a time to avoid confusion in the future.

 

[AeroFranz]

"If you have three hungry children you make food for all three. Its a lot easier if you can make a meal that all three can eat, rather than an individual meal for each. However, Killing one child so its easier to feed the other two is not an option."

Well, call me an infanticide and naif, but why is it not an option? It seems to me that no one is willing to consider that there is indeed a point where the Marines mission becomes prohibitively expensive. We can debate whether we have reached that point or not, but we should stop using the assumption that the Marines mission set is untouchable.

Allow me to continue with your analogy. Your argument works well assuming your resources are not finite (resources = baby food = $$$). But we know this is not the case, and even if you poured all you had on F-35, that would simply mean that you are robbing other equally important programs.

Instead of killing off one of the children in the cradle (not conceiving it would have been better, but we drank too much one night and were careless with contraception...) and allocate the remaining resources to raising two healthy ones, we have spread the resources across the children so thin that they are all malnourished, underdeveloped and mentally challenged (late IOC, carrier qualification, helmet display, weight growth, etc.). The teachers in school have to make the test easier otherwise they'd have to flunk them (relaxation of requirements). The meals you are preparing are not really the same because one of the kids in particular has all sorts of food alergies (the Bee is allergic to weight).
I am going to stop the baby analogy because taking it further would be creepy.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

"If you have three hungry children you make food for all three. Its a lot easier if you can make a meal that all three can eat, rather than an individual meal for each. However, Killing one child so its easier to feed the other two is not an option."

Well, call me an infanticide and naif, but why is it not an option? It seems to me that no one is willing to consider that there is indeed a point where the Marines mission becomes prohibitively expensive. We can debate whether we have reached that point or not, but we should stop using the assumption that the Marines mission set is untouchable.

Allow me to continue with your analogy. Your argument works well assuming your resources are not finite (resources = baby food = $$$). But we know this is not the case, and even if you poured all you had on F-35, that would simply mean that you are robbing other equally important programs.

Instead of killing off one of the children in the cradle (not conceiving it would have been better, but we drank too much one night and were careless with contraception...) and allocate the remaining resources to raising two healthy ones, we have spread the resources across the children so thin that they are all malnourished, underdeveloped and mentally challenged (late IOC, carrier qualification, helmet display, weight growth, etc.). The teachers in school have to make the test easier otherwise they'd have to flunk them (relaxation of requirements). The meals you are preparing are not really the same because one of the kids in particular has all sorts of food alergies (the Bee is allergic to weight).
I am going to stop the baby analogy because taking it further would be creepy.

But what if the kids are starving because the parents (IE The military procurement process) is devouring all the food before it gets to the babes mouths? Lockmart has already complained that everytime a new overwatch is in place they get to hire new people to appease the overwatchers.

so chicken/egg time. Is the F-35 screwing up the procurement process? Or is the F-35 the result of a screwed up procurement process? If a kid is born to dysfunctional parents, is that the kids fault? And can the kid be saved with some time and TLC?

The biggest problems with the anti-JSF crew is they have a hard time separating the PLANE from the PROCESS. Can a horrifically managed defense system still create superior aircraft? Can good kids come from bad parents? and if we decide to put this kid up for adoption and try again with the same set of parents will the result change?

You could take it to an extreme and say the entire JSF concept is a result of a procurement process that has become so terribly expensive and time consuming that the only way to make it feasible is to lump 3 planes into one. In which case, the procurement process created the JSF. and not the need for it.

Discuss.

 

[AeroFranz]

"You could take it to an extreme and say the entire JSF concept is a result of a procurement process that has become so terribly expensive and time consuming that the only way to make it feasible is to lump 3 planes into one. In which case, the procurement process created the JSF. and not the need for it."

The procurement process is the root cause for the current situation. I believe the F-35 is the best airplane that can be built given the circumstances. I am not faulting LM for the technical execution, they are some of the smartest people around and came up with a workable solution to an exceedingly difficult problem. Not that they had any choice, but I also think they bit off more than they could chew with what is arguably the most complicated weapon system in the history of the world.

Going back to the issue of military acquisition, the 'winner-takes-all' aspect of the JSF competition did (my guess, but it wouldn't be surprising) lead to unwarranted rosy predictions by managers either trying too hard to win the competition and/or save their a**es, and poor engineering practices as far as margins are concerned. Mind you, this is not limited to LM, any other company would have sold their mother to win the biggest contract in military acquisition history, but as a taxpayer i resent the fact that some decisions were taken in bad faith.

The fate of JSF was sealed the second the decision was taken to combine VTOL, stealth, and supersonics. You could take any combination of two and be ok, but adding a third just pulls the design in too many directions.

 

[LowObservable]

"Part of the problem".

"In the military procurement process, what is ruthless parochial one-service lobbying to save programs that should be dead, Alex?"

Of course the process is damaged, but the last people who should complain about it are the ones seeking gold-plated toys of marginal utility.

To take your other points:

1. Marines are unneeded (Another thread perhaps?)

Did not say that, except rhetorically in the case of the Guadalcanal mythos. (Fletcher was right!) Amphibious forces are needed. They may need CAS. The question is whether a six-pack of complex and expensive aircraft crammed on to a boat with helos, landing craft, trucks and marines is a sensible way to provide it. We are discovering the answer, which is that it is not.

2. the F-35 is a poor performer

We know that it is a cost and schedule failure. Flight performance is not a significant advance over aircraft that it replaces. Everything hinges on stealth, which adversaries will have had 20-25 years to anticipate by IOC.

3. The procurement process has hurt the F-35 to the point of failure

The procurement process, exploited by greed and unwillingness to acknowledge failure and move on.

 

[jsport]

The FOV of the DAS sensors is known. The pixel count can't be made greater without either a bigger FPA, optics and aperture, or smaller pixels, which is running up against an edge-diffraction limit.

So the result is that nobody knows how to make a higher-rez DAS sensor, and that limits its effectiveness.

http://defensetech.org/2011/10/13/f-35-pilots-new-helmet/

"F-35’s Distributed Aperture System onto the pilots’ visors, giving them an almost bubble-like view around the aircraft in any weather ( the system would literally allow the pilot to look down and see below the aircraft.) However, projecting very high-quality images onto the visor is proving difficult."

 

[LowObservable]

jsport - "Very high quality" is a squishy measure. I have seen live DAS imagery and it is somewhere between seeing with glasses and seeing without, and I don't go out of my front door without my glasses. More objectively, the VSI HMD has always incorporated an additional low-light sensor, higher-rez than DAS, to provide the acuity needed for a landing visual aid, and the initial version of that was rejected because still higher acuity was needed.

 

[jsport]

jsport - "Very high quality" is a squishy measure. I have seen live DAS imagery and it is somewhere between seeing with glasses and seeing without, and I don't go out of my front door without my glasses. More objectively, the VSI HMD has always incorporated an additional low-light sensor, higher-rez than DAS, to provide the acuity needed for a landing visual aid, and the initial version of that was rejected because still higher acuity was needed.

Would take this to mean you would imagine the real DAS rez is better than you experienced or that is will soon be. ;D