On the F-35
From
Aviation Week and Space Technology
12:53 PM on
1/24/2014
This is a 3
monkey situation. Our assessment and comparison is based on restricted
information and at this moment we don't know what the aircraft envelope is
designed for and conversely what it can or can't do in a hostile environment.
This may apply to all JSF fighters and of course Chinese and Russian
counterparts. When I flew fighters, published data was eighty percent correct.
Until a skilled fighter pilot wrings out the aircraft and the data is made
public we will remain ignorant and continue to compare apples and oranges.
4:28 PM on
1/24/2014
I wouldn't
expect anything less from someone who is paid to be the spokesperson for
defence industry.
By the time
Pierre Sprey left the Pentagon, in 1986, he had come to a conclusion: "The
level of corruption had risen so high that it was impossible for the Pentagon
to build another honest aircraft."
It's quite frankly a brilliant strategy," said General Bogdan, acknowledging that it is effective even if it is not admirable. Political engineering has foiled any meaningful opposition on Capitol Hill, in the White House, or in the defense establishment.
Near the end of my interview with General Bodgan, I thanked him for his candor. His reply was a broad one, not directed at any branch of the military or any particular company. "It is unfortunate," the general said, "that you can't get straight answers, because we're at a point in this program where transparency leads to trust, leads to advocacy or at least support.
- Vanity Fair article.
Making high performance aeroplanes is a complicated business where truth and honesty are prerequisites, otherwise the end product turns out to be a mess.
It's quite frankly a brilliant strategy," said General Bogdan, acknowledging that it is effective even if it is not admirable. Political engineering has foiled any meaningful opposition on Capitol Hill, in the White House, or in the defense establishment.
Near the end of my interview with General Bodgan, I thanked him for his candor. His reply was a broad one, not directed at any branch of the military or any particular company. "It is unfortunate," the general said, "that you can't get straight answers, because we're at a point in this program where transparency leads to trust, leads to advocacy or at least support.
- Vanity Fair article.
Making high performance aeroplanes is a complicated business where truth and honesty are prerequisites, otherwise the end product turns out to be a mess.
11:47 PM on
1/24/2014
When Bill
Sweetman talks, I always listen! He's AW&ST's equivalent of FOX News'
Charles Krauthammer.
It totally escapes me what is so superior about the JSF?! It doesn't have a gun; can't employ nukes; can't check 6--no rear visibility; it overheats; can't fly near thunderstorms (is it EMP resistant?); obnoxiously loud; cost a fortune; can't turn any better than a Phantom II--why are we betting he farm on this...
It totally escapes me what is so superior about the JSF?! It doesn't have a gun; can't employ nukes; can't check 6--no rear visibility; it overheats; can't fly near thunderstorms (is it EMP resistant?); obnoxiously loud; cost a fortune; can't turn any better than a Phantom II--why are we betting he farm on this...
9:13 AM on
1/25/2014
If the U.S.
were to start again with a clean sheet of paper, we would have something like
the PAK-FA. The USMC can learn to use an attack helicopter based on the S-97,
UAVs and USN air support (includes EW, tankers, and E-2C).
If the PAK-FA and F-35 had the same EW and missiles, I bet the PAK-FA would prove superior.
Our European competitors probably have one F/A in their future and it will look like the PAK-FA.
If the PAK-FA and F-35 had the same EW and missiles, I bet the PAK-FA would prove superior.
Our European competitors probably have one F/A in their future and it will look like the PAK-FA.
1:42 PM on
1/25/2014
I appreciate
that after such long ban on opinionated articles now AW&ST implicitly
recognize their value as we readers do.
I do support to have diversified supporters of opinions face to face and marking those articles as "opinion".
Internet is full of news but analisys, deductions, correlations, in a word, opinions are as rare as the intellect needed to distill them.
I do support to have diversified supporters of opinions face to face and marking those articles as "opinion".
Internet is full of news but analisys, deductions, correlations, in a word, opinions are as rare as the intellect needed to distill them.
10:11 AM on
1/26/2014
Always
interesting how no one here questions reports about the F-35 being too
expensive (and the more dramatic, the more they are believed), but reports that
contradict this are always discredited.
10:27 AM on
1/26/2014
Mr. Thompson
has stated very clearly in the past that his "opinions" and those of
his organization are up for sale to the highest bidder. As such using the term
"analyst" in reference to him is clearly inaccurate and any
information provided by him should be regarded as questionable at best.
In all honesty you could have skipped the middle man and just asked the appropriate leadership at LM to write a response to Bill's original article.
While I respect AW&ST for attempting to provide viewpoints from both sides on the true cost of the F-35, I would advise caution in the future when contemplating running an article from such a questionable source.
You have provided Mr. Thompson free advertising for one of his most important and longstanding corporate clients.
In all honesty you could have skipped the middle man and just asked the appropriate leadership at LM to write a response to Bill's original article.
While I respect AW&ST for attempting to provide viewpoints from both sides on the true cost of the F-35, I would advise caution in the future when contemplating running an article from such a questionable source.
You have provided Mr. Thompson free advertising for one of his most important and longstanding corporate clients.
4:07 PM on
1/27/2014
There are
good things and bad things about the F-35 program. I would tend to disagree
with any opinion that is all negative (Sweetman et al) , or all positive
(Thompson). Whereas this platform may not be able to do some things that legacy
platforms can do, there are many things it will be able to do that legacy
platforms can't. I think stealth and STOVL are more key to future engagements
than dogfighting is.
7:28 AM on
1/28/2014
This thing
became unstoppable when the first copy went into production. When the military
makes up its' mid to buy something it becomes almost impossible to stop them.
One of the prime requirement of any new fighter is ground support, and with the possible exception of the Marine version, this is going to be an ineffective ground support weapon. Gulf War II has shown that it would take several fighters to do the work of one or two A-10's.
One of the prime requirement of any new fighter is ground support, and with the possible exception of the Marine version, this is going to be an ineffective ground support weapon. Gulf War II has shown that it would take several fighters to do the work of one or two A-10's.
7:28 AM on
1/28/2014
I am not
presently in the aviation field as evidenced by my moniker. However I did earn
a BS in aeronautical engineering in a prior life. I still have a tremendous
passion for anything related to aviation. I only know what I have read in
various publications regarding the F-35. If I understand correctly the F-35
doesn't offer the same capabilities as the F-22. The F-35 doesn't have super
cruise, it has only one engine, it isn't as maneuverable as the F-22 among
other things. If I am incorrect I apologize, but I only know what I have read.
The F-22 was halted because it was deemed "too expensive". With all
the cost overruns hasn't the F-35 matched the price tag of the F-22? If their
costs are now the same why did we give up a program for a superior aircraft?
10:23 AM on
1/30/2014
The key
words at this point in development cost the point is you can buy three F-18
aircraft for the cost of one F-35 that the Navy does not want.
10:28 AM on
1/30/2014
South Korea
wanted the new F=15 but our defense department made a special deal on cost to
take the F-35 why to eliminate any F-15 or F18 vehicles to push this pig they
are backing the pork barrel F-35
10:52 AM on
1/30/2014
F-35 First
vertical landing on USS WASP Oct 3 2011. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates
has decided to put the Marine Corps's ...( on youtube )
why not force the Navy to buy the M.C. version?
it has landed and taken off their flat tops.
why not force the Navy to buy the M.C. version?
it has landed and taken off their flat tops.
11:24 AM on
1/30/2014
My son is
going into USAF flight school this August. He might likely fly an F35 in his
career. You have to ask yourself - if your son or daughter were going to be
serving their country and flying one of these aircraft - wouldn't you want the
best quality and best capability that the US could produce?
I don't care about the price! With our military equipment of all types - especially fighter aircraft - we should be only concerned with quality, reliability, and superior capability - NOT COST!
I don't care about the price! With our military equipment of all types - especially fighter aircraft - we should be only concerned with quality, reliability, and superior capability - NOT COST!
1:27 PM on
1/30/2014
Focusing on
the F-35's costs is a futile exercise without knowing what it will do and won't
do. A year or two ago this magazine reported that U.S. and Israeli experts
opined the F-35's stealth was perishable technology that had a probable shelf
life of perhaps five years.
One unfortunate fallout from the chronic delays in fielding this aircraft has been the opportunity it has given our potential adversaries to develop countermeasures from advanced IR sensors, L-band radars, multi-sensor tracking, targeting and guidance systems and so on. This means that we may have to heavily discount the stealth factor in evaluating the merits of this airplane.
What we need but curiously won't have is a direct fly-off between the Lightning II and Typhoon, Rafale, Griffon and Super Hornet. It would be great to see how the F-35 stacks up in range, speed, agility, payload in air defence, air superiority, ground support and strike profiles.
It's bad enough that Lockheed was required to build this aircraft before it was tested but it's bewildering that air forces are expected to buy it before they get to test the proof of concept. Utterly bewildering.
One unfortunate fallout from the chronic delays in fielding this aircraft has been the opportunity it has given our potential adversaries to develop countermeasures from advanced IR sensors, L-band radars, multi-sensor tracking, targeting and guidance systems and so on. This means that we may have to heavily discount the stealth factor in evaluating the merits of this airplane.
What we need but curiously won't have is a direct fly-off between the Lightning II and Typhoon, Rafale, Griffon and Super Hornet. It would be great to see how the F-35 stacks up in range, speed, agility, payload in air defence, air superiority, ground support and strike profiles.
It's bad enough that Lockheed was required to build this aircraft before it was tested but it's bewildering that air forces are expected to buy it before they get to test the proof of concept. Utterly bewildering.
3:50 PM on
1/30/2014
We can Buy
this aircraft from Russia at half the cost and better performance watch the
video
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77e_1389637750
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77e_1389637750
7:29 PM on
1/30/2014
F-35 is a
new-gen cash cow for LM and US. Plain and simple. F-15/16/18 will be obsolete
and unwanted once Gen-5 fighters get wider spread. And F-35 is what US and LM
are trying to use to destroy Western European military aviation industry. F-22
was cancelled because it was made unexportable through legislation and thus even
watered down version wouldn't make it to the market. Thus F-35 was born in the
state we know. The EU already ruled out own development of Gen-5 (through
corruption/coersion) so thus Dassault and Eurofighter will eventually either
have to build a gen-5++ to compete, a gen-6 fighter drone or turn to
manufacturing something else to survive. EU won't buy Russian of Chinese so
F-35 is all they have. After all who is going to Invade EU? Or is it they want
to finally make a move on Russia?
7:12 PM on
1/31/2014
So much
disinformation. Here is my rebuttal;
1. Vanity Fair's expose is part of a conspiracy, a media beat up perpetuated by Vanity's parent company, Conde Naste (Advanced Publishing) owned by a Samuel Newhouse, Jr.
Check out Wired (David Axe especially) and all of the other Conde publications, and those their partnered with such as Allure & Gawker (gizmodo, lifehacker etc). They all publish anti-F-35 articles, regularly trotting out the same tired old talking points with no context, history or detail the $1.5 trillion price tag, design & development delays and the F-35's flight testing issues.
The F-35 has many enemies. A lot of money F-18/15s aren't being purchased because of the F-35. As a recent AW article indicated the production lines for the F-15/18 are about to be terminated. Its now or never to kill the F-35 and the efforts have reached a bloody frenzied.
Why does Mr Newhouse care? I suspect he has some sort of interest in Boeing seeing the massive amount of positive/pro-Boeing articles that can be found across his media empire are easily contrasted by the dozens of anti-lockheed articles.
2. The $1.5 trillion price tag over 50 years is such utter crap. Seriously how many companies/analysts have ever predicted that far in advanced? Defence projects have all shown significant reduction in costs as they mature. Look at the cost per hour for the F-15a and such when it first launched and compare it to today's cost (even after inflation).
The F-111 was delivered late and with excessive cost per flight hour and yet turned it turned into cost effective, powerful and very useful platforms that lasted almost fifty years (but was curtailed ultimately because of.....
3. Aging airframes. The thousands of aircraft out there were produced in the 70s and 80s. These aircraft are showing significant issues i.e. 2008 F-15 grounding . They can be repaired only so much before safety and capabilities are compromised.
Manufacturing new F-15/16/18s doesn't solve the problem. In 2020 these platforms will be utterly out classed.
1. Vanity Fair's expose is part of a conspiracy, a media beat up perpetuated by Vanity's parent company, Conde Naste (Advanced Publishing) owned by a Samuel Newhouse, Jr.
Check out Wired (David Axe especially) and all of the other Conde publications, and those their partnered with such as Allure & Gawker (gizmodo, lifehacker etc). They all publish anti-F-35 articles, regularly trotting out the same tired old talking points with no context, history or detail the $1.5 trillion price tag, design & development delays and the F-35's flight testing issues.
The F-35 has many enemies. A lot of money F-18/15s aren't being purchased because of the F-35. As a recent AW article indicated the production lines for the F-15/18 are about to be terminated. Its now or never to kill the F-35 and the efforts have reached a bloody frenzied.
Why does Mr Newhouse care? I suspect he has some sort of interest in Boeing seeing the massive amount of positive/pro-Boeing articles that can be found across his media empire are easily contrasted by the dozens of anti-lockheed articles.
2. The $1.5 trillion price tag over 50 years is such utter crap. Seriously how many companies/analysts have ever predicted that far in advanced? Defence projects have all shown significant reduction in costs as they mature. Look at the cost per hour for the F-15a and such when it first launched and compare it to today's cost (even after inflation).
The F-111 was delivered late and with excessive cost per flight hour and yet turned it turned into cost effective, powerful and very useful platforms that lasted almost fifty years (but was curtailed ultimately because of.....
3. Aging airframes. The thousands of aircraft out there were produced in the 70s and 80s. These aircraft are showing significant issues i.e. 2008 F-15 grounding . They can be repaired only so much before safety and capabilities are compromised.
Manufacturing new F-15/16/18s doesn't solve the problem. In 2020 these platforms will be utterly out classed.
7:13 PM on
1/31/2014
part 2;
5. Design/Development/Delays & flighting testing issues.
Well considering the capabilities of the F-35 I daresay we should expect major issues. The helmet alone is a massive advancement in VR/headsets (just read the articles about the Ocular Rift and the latency issue – extremely complex).
However when you look at the F-1111, F-17 and F-15 these platforms, especially the F-1111 had massive development issues and delays and took at least a half-decade before they were delivered in significant numbers (after their operational start date).
The F-16/18 all benefited from massive taxpayer paid studies that throughout the 60s investigated the lightweight fighter concept.
6. Pierre Sprey - what a bitter old man who can't believe that people don't give a crap about what he thinks anymore.
Really of course he is going to argue that they should pump several hundred billion into the planes he made. Going back to the point I made earlier, these platforms made be valid in today's uncontested air environment but tomorrow when a F-16 has to go up against a PAKFA we all know what the outcome is going to be.
Its clear from the Snowden material the US sees competiton for natural resources to be a major flashpoint (some of the indacted/blacked out PDFs were hacked, with the hidden text being made visible).
There are significant concerns over the next two decades there will be significant conflict. These legacy platforms just won't be able to cut it.
5. Stop comparing the A-10 to the F-35 and whinging about how the F-35 won't have the same amount of firepower/on station ability etc etc.
Firstly UAV are being constructed to provide close air support which makes sense considering how long they can stay on station.
Secondly the F-35 is a fighter/bomber and is somewhat more flexible and multi-role then an A-10.
Thirdly the F-35 can operate in contested air-space whilst the A-10 isn't exactly known for its ability to evade SAMs.
Fourth, overkill (whether its the A-10 or F-35). The cost per flight hour on either platform, plus weapon costs means its far cheaper to operate UAVs then to keep running A-10s.
5. Design/Development/Delays & flighting testing issues.
Well considering the capabilities of the F-35 I daresay we should expect major issues. The helmet alone is a massive advancement in VR/headsets (just read the articles about the Ocular Rift and the latency issue – extremely complex).
However when you look at the F-1111, F-17 and F-15 these platforms, especially the F-1111 had massive development issues and delays and took at least a half-decade before they were delivered in significant numbers (after their operational start date).
The F-16/18 all benefited from massive taxpayer paid studies that throughout the 60s investigated the lightweight fighter concept.
6. Pierre Sprey - what a bitter old man who can't believe that people don't give a crap about what he thinks anymore.
Really of course he is going to argue that they should pump several hundred billion into the planes he made. Going back to the point I made earlier, these platforms made be valid in today's uncontested air environment but tomorrow when a F-16 has to go up against a PAKFA we all know what the outcome is going to be.
Its clear from the Snowden material the US sees competiton for natural resources to be a major flashpoint (some of the indacted/blacked out PDFs were hacked, with the hidden text being made visible).
There are significant concerns over the next two decades there will be significant conflict. These legacy platforms just won't be able to cut it.
5. Stop comparing the A-10 to the F-35 and whinging about how the F-35 won't have the same amount of firepower/on station ability etc etc.
Firstly UAV are being constructed to provide close air support which makes sense considering how long they can stay on station.
Secondly the F-35 is a fighter/bomber and is somewhat more flexible and multi-role then an A-10.
Thirdly the F-35 can operate in contested air-space whilst the A-10 isn't exactly known for its ability to evade SAMs.
Fourth, overkill (whether its the A-10 or F-35). The cost per flight hour on either platform, plus weapon costs means its far cheaper to operate UAVs then to keep running A-10s.
7:14 PM on
1/31/2014
This comment
is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
6. F-22 vs
F-35. Well one is an air superiority aircraft with massive cost per flight hour
issues and the second is a multi-role aircraft with strike capabilities
designed into the fabric of the aircraft.
The F-22 is like shooting a gun to a hammer a nail into a wall. That said the two platforms do have some similarities namely the ability to operate in contested airspace.
6. What else is there? If you drop the F-35 and realise the other platforms cannot be advanced into a 2020-30 timeframe then what else do you have?
You can't exactly go out buy some Su-35s.
7. Its a badly run program filled with profiteers and corruption. Yep this is utterly true and one of the real problems with the F-35.
Could this aircraft have been designed cheaper, faster and better? Sure, on all accounts Lockheed and their colouring department (marketing) have utterly failed to hide their corruption and incompetence.
Does this make the F-35 a bad platform? Nup. Can the F-35 dominate its roles i.e. strike, close air support & stand-off engagements. Yep sure can. Will the F-35 surpass the F-15/16/18 in capabilities, and fly at a cost per flight hour equivalent or lower then todays platforms. Yep.
So there you have it. I think F-35, and its unpublished and latent abilities will make it a premiere platform for the 21st century. In 30 years time when we're old and grey, we'll be sitting around watching F-35 pound Chinese positions with impunity, laughing at how easy the Airforce makes it look.
The F-22 is like shooting a gun to a hammer a nail into a wall. That said the two platforms do have some similarities namely the ability to operate in contested airspace.
6. What else is there? If you drop the F-35 and realise the other platforms cannot be advanced into a 2020-30 timeframe then what else do you have?
You can't exactly go out buy some Su-35s.
7. Its a badly run program filled with profiteers and corruption. Yep this is utterly true and one of the real problems with the F-35.
Could this aircraft have been designed cheaper, faster and better? Sure, on all accounts Lockheed and their colouring department (marketing) have utterly failed to hide their corruption and incompetence.
Does this make the F-35 a bad platform? Nup. Can the F-35 dominate its roles i.e. strike, close air support & stand-off engagements. Yep sure can. Will the F-35 surpass the F-15/16/18 in capabilities, and fly at a cost per flight hour equivalent or lower then todays platforms. Yep.
So there you have it. I think F-35, and its unpublished and latent abilities will make it a premiere platform for the 21st century. In 30 years time when we're old and grey, we'll be sitting around watching F-35 pound Chinese positions with impunity, laughing at how easy the Airforce makes it look.
2:12 PM on
2/2/2014
I would have
been a lot more impressed with Chugs detailed, elaborate, unstinting and
unqualified support of the F-35 if:
1: He had bothered to notice that criticisms of the F-35 and its cost structure were infinitely more widespread than in publications owned by Conde Nast
2: He had offered some details, rather than hagiography such as ""Will the F-35 surpass the F-15/16/18 in capabilities, and fly at a cost per flight hour equivalent or lower then todays platforms."" to justify the claim of its perfection.
In reality it is an extremely expensive plane with but one redeeming quality - its stealth. It is utterly inferior as a fighter or interceptor compared with any competing contemporary fighter such as the Eurofighter Tranche 2, Rafale or F-15; it is superb as a short-range interdiction and attack aircraft (short range as its sole asset, stealth, prohibits external fuel tanks or air refueling); it will be inferior in both respects once advanced air radar platforms (Eurofighter Tranche 3, Rafale 2, Gripen D in Europe alone) and ground radar installations already in production are established (or just copied from those in US Navy ships!).
It is not that I disrespect the quality of its design or the ability of its creators or pilots, but rather that it is an aircraft built without competition in accordance with a single tactical dogma held firmly in excess of all others by just one air force - qualified stealth of course.
Now had both prototypes been selected for productions (ie the Boeing as well) the insistent competition that would have resulted is likely to have created much more justified and probably much cheaper products - at the very least the US would not be held hostage to Lockheed and its innumerable hacks by the plaintive cry of 'this is all that we have so we must have it no matter what it costs or what it can or cannot do'. It certainly explains why Lockheed made sure that the F-22 could not be restarted.
1: He had bothered to notice that criticisms of the F-35 and its cost structure were infinitely more widespread than in publications owned by Conde Nast
2: He had offered some details, rather than hagiography such as ""Will the F-35 surpass the F-15/16/18 in capabilities, and fly at a cost per flight hour equivalent or lower then todays platforms."" to justify the claim of its perfection.
In reality it is an extremely expensive plane with but one redeeming quality - its stealth. It is utterly inferior as a fighter or interceptor compared with any competing contemporary fighter such as the Eurofighter Tranche 2, Rafale or F-15; it is superb as a short-range interdiction and attack aircraft (short range as its sole asset, stealth, prohibits external fuel tanks or air refueling); it will be inferior in both respects once advanced air radar platforms (Eurofighter Tranche 3, Rafale 2, Gripen D in Europe alone) and ground radar installations already in production are established (or just copied from those in US Navy ships!).
It is not that I disrespect the quality of its design or the ability of its creators or pilots, but rather that it is an aircraft built without competition in accordance with a single tactical dogma held firmly in excess of all others by just one air force - qualified stealth of course.
Now had both prototypes been selected for productions (ie the Boeing as well) the insistent competition that would have resulted is likely to have created much more justified and probably much cheaper products - at the very least the US would not be held hostage to Lockheed and its innumerable hacks by the plaintive cry of 'this is all that we have so we must have it no matter what it costs or what it can or cannot do'. It certainly explains why Lockheed made sure that the F-22 could not be restarted.
No comments:
Post a Comment