Trillion Dollar Trainwreck: How the F-35 Hollowed out the US Air Force by Bill Sweetman

Sintra said:
No.
The YF-23 was incapable of doing VSTOL or taking off/landing from/on a carrier, in other words it was entirely incapable of meeting the JSF program specifications, on top of that it was a huge, twin engined, bloody expensive aircraft and one that had lost the ATF competition to LM´s YF-22 at that.
If the JSF program got scraped because the chaps at the Pentagon prefered a land CTOL only, big, twin engined, extremely expensive, strike fighter instead... then the Raptor was already in service with the USAF.
Click to expand...
While I understand your points, if we're talking about fielding an air force that is comprised of the best stealth aircraft that money can buy, I would think that a duo of The F-22 & YF-23 would have been a far better choice than pairing The Raptor with The F-35.

*Shrugs*.
 
Joint Soviet Fighter said:
While I understand your points, if we're talking about fielding an air force that is comprised of the best stealth aircraft that money can buy, I would think that a duo of The F-22 & YF-23 would have been a far better choice than pairing The Raptor with The F-35.
Click to expand...
I mean, if you wanted the best Stealth Fighter, Just do F-23. Nuf said :D

F-22 is an awesome fighter bird that was limited by the fact that it wasn't as stealthy as its competitor (and still isn't.) That being said. If Congress didn't interfere there would be no F-35.

While most in the USAF would HATE to admit it. What they needed to do was just pay the US Navy to develop the Stealth fighters. Any US Navy Aircraft is AUTOMATICALLY capable of being a USAF Aircraft. If the US Navy AND the USAF are buying the same aircraft, unit cost and maintenance costs drops significantly. Of course if it fails to materialize it affects both services.


After all, TWICE in the history of supersonic Jet Fighters, NAVY aircraft were deemed superior to USAF's own designs and taken on hand. First, the F4D Skyray was "loaned" to the Air Defense Command because it was more capable of the then in service aircraft and much more capable than the F-102 in the state it was in (prior to gaining area rule) And then Later the McDonald F-110 Spectre *Cough Cough* F-4 Phantom.... Just Imagine what would have happened if the USAF went to the US Navy before starting their anti Foxbat programs and said "Hey we know the F-111B isn't working for you. What if we work with you on your new replacement (what became the F-14) and instead of the F-14 and F-15 we achived something that was beter for both services. But the problem is USAF tends to think THEY are the only ones that know what is best for them. And sometimes they are right... most of the time, the alternat path however seems better in hindsight.

Oh, please note, F4D Skyray was NOT area-ruled.... F5D (an Area Ruled F-4D with a longer forward fuselage) flew almost twice as fast on the same engine. F4D could outperform F-102 Delta Dagger as built, and was mostly comparable to production standard F-102s....
 
Past performance does not necessarily 'the future prepare'.

Air superiority as the baseline continues to be a self-licking ice cream cone ie when the plane's focus is the essentially protecting itself first and foremost. If the idea is to clear the sky of enemy air defense (SAM, AD fighters), a Penetrating Counter-Air (PCA) in the form of a standoff B-1 bomb truck should be considered, especially for the number of HARMs, AAMs it carries.

Cost demands the most capable FB or FA first & foremost. AAMs provide AirSup and are just another payload. A gun, sure, Vietnam etc., but if a pilot ends up in gunfight/firball they have already lost, in a sense, as that action detracts from the A & B primary mission consuming time/fuel while also allowing adversary awareness.
 
Last edited:

Find, Fix, Track, and Assess
Penetrating Counterair (PCA). Capability development efforts for PCA will focus on maximizing tradeoffs between range, payload, survivability, lethality, affordability, and supportability. While PCA capability will certainly have a role in targeting and engaging, it also has a significant role as a node in the network, providing data from its penetrating sensors to enable employment using either stand-off or stand-in weapons. As part of this effort, the Air Force should proceed with a formal AoA in 2017 for a PCA capability. Consistent with an agile acquisition mindset designed to deliver the right capability on the required timeline, this AoA will include options to leverage rapid development and prototyping in order to keep ahead of the threat.

Find, Fix, Track, and Assess
Stand Off Arsenal Plane. For this capability development, the Air Force will continue to partner with the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) on concepts utilizing long-range mission effects chains.

PCA. In addition to F2TA capabilities above, the penetrating capabilities of PCA will allow the stand-in application of kinetic and non-kinetic effects from the air domain.

B-21. Long-range strike against counterair targets is a critical part of gaining and maintaining air superiority. The penetrating capability of the B-21 will allow survivable and repeatable attack operations.
 
Thinking about it. https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/no-kill-switch

The European air forces picking the F-35 are trapped in a dilemma. The F-35 is the first mass produced stealth aircraft, available in large numbers for export. An apealing entry ticket to stealth, for sure.

On the other hand...

Lockheed-Martin has the full control over all the software for F-35 (is one of reasons why the jet is that expensive: constant maintenance and upgrades of software, which is so complex that the US government considers it a 'weapons system' on its own). Moreover, the software on export F-35s (except Israel's, of course), is 'dumbed down' - and it’s maintained in centralised fashion.
Lockheed-Martin has so much control over the software, that it can literally turn off single, selected F-35s. Own (those operated by US services) and/or those of export customers.

Sure, export customers have the option to disconnect their F-35s from the centralised software system. However, then the jet is also dumbed down: operational, but with much reduced capabilities.

Bottom line: as long as the USA are still friendly - and other people and nations doing what the USA demand - Lockheed-Martin is continuing to provide software updates for F-35s.
Click to expand...
That said, F-16s - and then especially such old examples like delivered to Ukraine - are not that advanced, nor connected to any similar kind of centrally-operated software systems, like F-35s are.
Click to expand...

So, may I ask : did Lockheed and the USG used the F-35 data fusion (between them all, and support platforms) - to take customer "hostages", via software upgrades ?
 
@Archibald How many of the export partners / customers do you think are technically able to provide their own software maintenance capability for an aerospace system of this scale and complexity? Then filter again for how many do you think are willing to pay for this?

If LM has control of a "kill switch" for all F-35s then I'd be much more worried about unfriendly countries being able to access this vs the US aircraft.
 
Last edited:
@Archibald How many of the export partners / customers do you think are technically able to provide their own software maintenance capability for an aerospace system of this scale and complexity? Then filter again for how many do you think are willing to pay for this?
Click to expand...
I'm not denying this. I'm just saying that a) a F-16 didn't need that and b) it can be use as a restraint against the customer, perhaps for political reasons.
Also c) related: is a fly-alone F-35 "dumb" and "worthless" - since not in sensor fusion network with other F-35s (US and NATO) ? Once again, this can be used as a restraint against the customer, for political reasons. And F-16s had relative "freedom", compared to that...

Bottom line: can "F-35 sensor networking" be used as a restraint, for political reasons ?

(crap, so much repeating. This is the moment when my scholar english fails spectacularly)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom