CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION
July 23, 2009 – 2:19 p.m.
Report: F-35 Work Falls Behind Two More Years
By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff
An internal Pentagon oversight board has reported that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is two years behind schedule, according to multiple congressional aides familiar with the findings.
Talk of the program’s problems comes amid intense debate over the future of another fighter plane, the F-22. Defenders of the F-22 argue that continued production is vital to national security.
The White House and some lawmakers who favor halting the production of any new F-22 warplanes say the F-35 will fill the gap and meet the nation’s combat aircraft needs.
Senators and aides now lament that the Pentagon oversight panel’s more pessimistic view on the F-35 program was not publicly released during the F-22 debate. They are calling for more open disclosure of the problems with the development of the F-35.
The Pentagon’s Joint Estimating Team (JET), which was established to independently evaluate the F-35 program, is at odds with the Joint Program Office, which runs the F-35 program, the aides said. The oversight panel’s calculations determined that the fighter won’t be able to move out of the development phase and into full production until 2016, rather than 2014, as the program office has said.
That’s assuming there are no further problems with the program, which has already faced cost overruns and schedule delays. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the delay could cost as much as $7.4 billion. The discrepancy between the Joint Estimating Team and the Joint Program Office was noted in a March report by the GAO, but it received little attention at the time.
“In every parameter and in every respect, the Joint Program Office’s projections were always a hell of a lot rosier than what the Joint Estimating Team found,” said one Senate aide who was briefed on the findings.
Sen. Christopher S. Bond , R-Mo., who has often criticized the F-35 program and has called it the “Joint Strike Failure,” said his attempts to get internal Pentagon data on the program have often been rebuffed.
“They are wrapped so tight on that Fa?`35,” said Bond, who added that the Pentagon is so invested in the program that it is loath to release negative information, especially during a debate over Air Force funding.
“They bet too much on the F-35. It’s too big to fail,” Bond said. “It’s like Citigroup.”
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said there is no delay in the completion of the first production aircraft, which is due next year, but he said more testing is needed to determine whether full production would be able to begin on schedule.
“The JET is not the gospel. It is but one view, albeit an important one, of our testing program,” Morrell said. “The program office has a very different view. The truth is that we don’t know which will prove to be correct, but there’s no reason to believe our testing regime will result in the kind of delays the JET is predicting.”
The Joint Estimating Team’s report was given to congressional committees last year and was not hidden or suppressed by the Pentagon, Morrell said. He said it is now being dredged up by F-22 supporters.
Moreover, the Pentagon has the ability to fund increased testing to make up for any potential delays, he said.
The administration has requested billions of dollars more than last year to hasten the production of F-35 test aircraft, Morrell noted, saying that the program’s success depends on the funding.
John R. Kent, a spokesman for the F-35’s main contractor, Lockheed Martin Corp., said that, despite the estimating team’s findings, there has been no change made to the official F-35 production schedule.
Cheryl Limrick, spokeswoman for the Fa?`35 program office, said the “JET analysis is grounded in past performance of other legacy fighter programs and does not fully acknowledge proactive F-35 management steps.”
Air Superiority
Administration officials and senators repeatedly touted the F-35 program as the best bet to preserve U.S. air power superiority and as a primary reason to cap the F-22 program at 187 planes. The Senate voted to remove funding for production levels over that cap, 58-40, on July 21.
“If properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of America’s tactical aviation fleet for decades to come,” said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in a July 16 speech at the Economic Club of Chicago, “if — and it’s a big if — money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft.”
Experts said Gates’ efforts to pressure senators to end F-22 production would have been hurt had the Joint Estimating Team’s findings been widely known.
“If this information had been part of the debate over the last couple of months, several Democrats, many of whom switched their votes at the last minute, would have been much harder to persuade,” said Tom Donnelly, director of the Center for Defense Studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Any delay in full production of the Fa?`35 would affect the entire fighter fleet, Donnelly said, because the F-35 is meant to take the place of so many planes, including the F-15, F-16 and F-18.
Although the Senate voted to strip the defense authorization bill (
Even senators who were fighting to save the F-22 referred to 2014 as the Pentagon’s official estimate for commencing full production, although there were hints that it might change.
“The F-35 was scheduled to begin construction in 2010. Since then, of course, it has been pushed back four years to 2014,” Sen. Christopher J. Dodd , D-Conn., said during floor debate. Dodd, an Fa?`22 supporter, added, “There are some rumors that this date may be pushed back even further.”
A delay in F-35 production could have international implications as well, because several allied countries are tied into the Fa?`35 program and are depending on that plane to contribute to their defense structures.
“Customers such as the United Kingdom, the Air National Guard, the Marine Corps and others are on very tight schedules because their current equipment is rapidly aging out,” said Douglas Birkey, director of government relations for the Air Force Association. “They need the F-35 as a backfill.”
Delays Attributed to Design Changes
The Joint Estimating Team reports internally to the Pentagon and includes representatives from each of the military services.
After extensive evaluations that included site visits and meetings with the program’s contractors, the team determined that added delays were caused by ongoing complications with the engineering and design changes to the plane, as well as software problems, Senate aides said.
The team’s findings were based on data from September 2008, and the next report won’t be available until at least October, likely well past consideration of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations and authorization bills, the aide said.
The GAO reported in March that delays to the F-35 program schedule, as noted by the Joint Estimating Team, could add as much as $7.4 billion to its cost, and the Defense Department’s desire to accelerate production could cost an additional $33.4 billion,
F-35 “development will cost more and take longer than reported to the Congress last year,” the GAO report stated, adding that the Pentagon wants to accelerate procurement “despite cost and schedule troubles.”
Appropriators are dubious about speeding up F-35 production and have already reduced the president’s request for Fa?`35 procurement by $530 million in the House Defense appropriations bill, shifting much of that money toward research.
“This is a cut because we think they just can’t spend the money [that they requested],” said Rep. John P. Murtha , D-Pa., chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. “They’ve got to do a better job of oversight.”
Comments
Americans reading this article: the f35 is NOT a replacement for the f22. They are apples and oranges. We were meant to have both and for good reasons.
I was very concerned about the F-35 IOC date when I wrote the following for The American TF-22 to Japan and Israel: A debt of Honor By Ed Timperlake "For a plane to fly well it must be beautiful" -- Spoken like a true Frenchman the great aircraft designer Marcel Dassault did bequeath to the world of Fighter Pilots a magnificent series of Fighter aircraft. While the Dassault Mirage was being perfected in France, we Americans would have had to say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The US successfully produced a 5000 aircraft production run of a truly unique looking fighter the F-4 Phantom II. It may look ugly but it became a proven killer in both the air-to-air mission and air-to-ground role. For the Israeli Air Force (IAF) the beauty of the Dassult Mirage III was also in its proven ability to keep Israel safe and free by also being a proven killer of all enemies. "Israeli delta fighter pilots have been credited with almost 300 kills between 1996 and 1974," quoted in a good book: Israeli Mirage and Nesher Aces. Over time a lot of American visionary leaders and aircraft designers insisted on proven performance with realistic training. The result is an America fighter that caught up with those very impressive IAF Mirage statistics. The USAF next generation Fighter from the F-4 was the F-15 Eagle. Since the Eagle's introduction to actual combat, between AF Fighter Pilots and IDF Fighter pilots flying the Eagle, the F-15 has scored over a 100 to 0 kill rate. High performance aerial combat is a dynamic business of kill or be killed. Dating to WW I Manfred von Richtofon, The Red Baron, with eighty aerial victories, said it best; and his words echo to this very day about the Fighter Pilots mission: "... when they spot an enemy they attack and shoot him down; anything else is rubbish." American and Israeli fighter pilots became very close, especially in the formative years of Top Gun. The IAF was very generous in sharing their proven aerial battle tactics paid for in their blood, to help the US training syllabus. Top Gun, the Navy Fighter Weapons School, trained students on unique and successful tactics pioneered by the IAF -- especially during the F-4 period. Top Gun grads would then carry that knowledge out to the fleet. The Marine counterpart to "Top Gun," Marine Air Weapon Training Squadron or MAWTS, went as far as to purchase the Israeli Kfir fighter to use as a realistic adversary. While America has been selling the IAF our very best Fighters we have been concurrently making our best Fighter aircraft also available to Japan. America, Israel and Japan are now at a crossroad. America may not be able to sell an export version of the best fighter in the world, the F-22, to Israel and Japan. The reason is the Administration's current insistence on holding fast to a DOD-budgeted production run of F-22s that will stop soon at 187. The harsh reality of stopping F-22 production will be two American allies who are in increasing mortal danger will not have access to the absolute best when they really need America's help. It has been argued that the F-35 is a great substitute for the F-22. It is true the F-35, which is still slipping on delivery schedule, promises to be a very capable air-to-ground aircraft. However to determine the best aircraft to insure total Air Dominance, the F-22 production line should be kept open pending results of a real world instrumented and calibrated Air to Air fly off against the F-35. The old saying "fly before buy" might just work for equipping the USAF, Israel and Japan with sufficient F-22s. I jumped into discussing Japan after focusing on Israelis' needs for Air Dominance because Japan has a similar problem, but also a unique military situation. Make no mistake: the Japanese WWII Zero Fighters flown by capable fighter pilots defeated a lot of Americans in aerial combat. But after the war Japan embraced the great vision of General MacArthur and renounced offensive war. They have a very capable self-defense force but need significant help because the military threat against Japan is growing. In return for a limited Self Defense Force, Japan trusted America for strategic protection. That trust may tragically now be put to a harsh and real world test as North Korean Missiles fly over Japan and a Nuke is cooked off by an insane regime practically in their back yard. Currently the Administration's challenge to the rogue actions of North Korea's "Dear Leader is to use stronger "Diplo speak" language and nothing more except still giving the PRC diplomatic credit for being helpful. The reality is The Peoples Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) is rapidly modernizing in both quantity and quality and the PRC is enabling North Korea and the Dear Leader to go crazy. Japan is facing their most significant military problem since they renounced offensive war. The F-22 would be a huge and unambiguous signal of American support in this increasingly dangerous time in Asia. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, Iran is questing for a nuke to wipe Israel off the map. Both Israel and Japan are longtime trusted allies desperately needing the best Fighter America can provide. Bad actors such as Iran, North Korea and the PRC, should know their actions will trigger real world consequences from America. The F-22 Raptor puts a marker down that America stands with our allies when it really counts. The F-22 is the ultimate deterrent Aircraft for Israel and Japan, because it is so dominant and therefore would increase stability in both regions. Any adversary will think twice before attacking because it has no defense against F-22 including hiding behind a Russian state-of-the-art S-300 Air defense missile system. Israel and Japan gave us their trust and we must be able to sell both countries the best fighter in the world the F-22 - the Raptor. It is a debt of honor that transcends marginal American DOD budget debates. I firmly believe for all critics ---Japan, Australia and Israel would not express an interest in the F-22 if it was a maintenance nightmare and combat ineffective hanger queen. Ed Timperlake is a Former CO Marine Fighter Attack Squadron --VMFA-321hinker--
The F-35 being behind schedule doesn't really matter. What Obama and Co. just did was take the most advanced fighter the world has ever seen and cancel the remaining orders. What next? Are we going to bring back the Sherman as our main battle tank?
This F35 program is filled with graft and corruption and lies, this is another V22 program that the USMC and other nations will be trying to get off the ground billions of dollars and 20 years later. The statement about the F22, we need to cut programs with cost overruns, WAKE UP AMERICA
WTF??? No kidding huh? who would have thought that the false prophet and the weakest republican of all time were behind the discontinuation on the F-22 while we have no new alternative. McCain and Obama - two mental midgets.
Sen Chris Bond is representing the partisan pleas from his constituents at the former McDonnell Douglas plant at St. Louis. The F-35 puts the nails into the coffin of the McDonnell Douglas F-15, F-18, and the AV-8B. Sen Bond will never say anything good about the F-35. I have intimate knowledge of the F-35 program. It is being well run, and will produce a magnificent capability for our forces and our allies.
Having flown 86Fs & Hs; 100s; 101s; 102s; 104s; 105s; 106s; & F-4s ; > among others; I was intensely impressed by the quantum progression in > air-superiority represented by the F-15; but, some 30 years later with the > progressive introduction of modern day fighters by many potential > adversaries, some with well trained aircrews, the F-15s days of dominance > are fading. > > The fundamental premise in the application of any aerial asset, is the > absolute necessity of "1st" achieving air dominance over the > battlefield. The A-10s, Specter Gunships, Apaches, etc. can ONLY be > deployed under the umbrella of air dominance over the selected > battlefield. Were we to cede air dominance to an advanced foreign > air-to-air fighter, the A-10s, etc. would be confined to ramp duty at > their home base; since, to venture into hostile airspace, would simply > provide the opposition CAP with target practice. Can you ever imagine an > ARMY Commander advocating the sending of ground forces into a combat zone > where control of the skies belonged to the opponent ! The primary supply > asset would be "body bags". > > Consider the Iraqi Ground Commanders in the recent conflict who, > without air dominance over the battlefield, had lost critical Command & > Control and Communications nodes; were being acutely constrained in > tactical maneuver; and, suffering severe attrition in equipments & > personnel, to include the decimation of their Republican Guard units, by > the horrific aerial pounding they were being subjected to. The result was > the ability of U.S. ground forces to penetrate all-the-way to Baghdad in > an unbelievable three days, while by-passing innumerable burned out hulks > of Iraqi armored vehicles. Can anyone find a single U.S. Ground Commander > who would reject the battlefield prep that preceded the armored thrust > into the heart of Iraq -OR- would deny the tactical benefit of air-cover > enroute?? > > (( As a point of emphasis, we NEVER want to be in a position of commiting > American Ground Forces into a combat theater where they would be exposed > to aerial bombardment by an opposing air force that controlled the skies > over that engagement zone.)) > > We can take a critical lesson learned from the recent Cope India > exercise which so convincingly validated the necessity to modernize our > 30yr old premier air-to-air assets. Cope India was a U.S./India joint > training exercise wherein 8 F-15s from Elmendorf AFB deployed to India to > engage their top line fighters in a variety of air-to-air combat > scenarios. NOTE: this was a diligently scripted exercise with a well > trained, highly experienced, highly professional Indian Air Force (IAF) > group of fighter pilots flying top-line combat aircraft, and who have been > emulating USAF training regimens for some time. (( THIS WAS NOT comparable > to past engagements with Iraqi, Syrian, and Libyan forces wherein American > equipments have enjoyed lopsided exchange ratios; and which, has fueled > modernization opponents/critics with the argument that we have no need to > upgrade our air-to-air assets. Recall that Saddam buried his frontline > MIGs in the desert rather than have them humiliated in combat with > significantly better trained U.S. jocks. )) Cope India proved to be a > brilliantly executed joint military exercise that yielded significant > dividends to both Nations, not only on the military side of the equation; > but, also from the Country-to-Country interface which fostered cooperation > at the highest levels of our mutual governments. > > The anticipated "lesson learned" from the Cope India engagements is > simply what the USAF has been proclaiming for several years now; i.e. > confronted with the introduction of an array of modern tactical fighters > in todays potential zones of engagement - when such equipments are > employed by a well trained, professional cadre of fighter pilots - the > 30yr old F-15 design can no longer anticipate previously achieved > lop-sided exchange ratios. A well anticipated circumstance, further underscored by the recent rapprochement between India and the ChiCom, which has been astutely addressed by the introduction of the: hi-stealth; advanced > avionics; highly maneuverable; supercruise F-22 that is specifically > designed to give a USAF air-superiority fighter force, first look(s), > first shot(s), first kill(s) against any anticipated adversary for the > foreseeable future. Design objectives which have been comprehensively > validated in intensive Operational Testing. > > The F-22 is designed for significantly more than combat against an > adversarial fighter force; but rather, for the penetration of a highly > integrated air-defense in order to engage those enemy assets in the depths > of hostile airspace. ((Consider the potential need to penetrate Iranian > airspace in-depth to strike a nuclear production facility that is defended > by advanced surface-to-air missiles, and an overhead CAP of advanced Migs. > _ _ _ The need for F-22 technology becomes painfully apparent.)) > > As an aside: it's a fallacy to ever evaluate a combat weapon system > solely on the basis of unit cost. Rather, combat systems should be > evaluated in terms of Pk/$ ; (i.e. Probability Of Kill -per- unit > procurement cost.) For example, if it takes nine(9) $30,000 missiles to > achieve the Pk of a single(1)$60,000 missile ( neglecting the fact that > it's highly unlikely you would ever have the opportunity to take the nine > shots in a single engagement ), the $60,000 missile is by far the cheapest > alternative in actual operational employment. The above facts, among > multiple others, were the specific reasons for selecting the AIM-9L over > the AIM-9J in a previously contested procurement decision process. In > brief; employing the logic of similar operational factors, the F-22 is by > far the cheapest USAF alternative for the sustenance of air-to-air > superiority over anticipated combat regions of future conflicts. A fact > which Administration procurement specialists have failed to astutely factor into > their weapons programs decision process. > > Greg Neubeck >
OK- re-wing 250 F-15 C/D models with leading-edge slats and install the Silent Eagle FAST conformal tanks with the weapons bays. RE-engine with PW-100-229 engines (the 29,000lb. thrust models on the F-15E's ) and install the Silent Eagle canted vertical tails. Retrofit with AESA radars. Total cost for upgrades: 26 million per plane. They will beat any SU-30/35 threat out there or projected. They will also ensure enough stealth to handle counter-air in hostile airspace. Coupled with Predator-C and Navy UCAVs to degrade 300 class anti-air systems, this should provide the hedge we need for any upcoming crises.
The F-35 only has 2 percent of its flight testing complete, (including the fact that the flight test schedule is behind) Over 300 were scheduled for FY2009 (we have over 30) Over 1200 for FY2010 (think we will make it?) Yet the imperious leaders want to build hundreds of "mistake jets" before flight test discovery is done. An "affordable" fighter? Good luck... And in this debtor fed budget.... it will take a swan dive to pull an expensive program like this out of the crapper.
Behind schedule and much slower than the F22. Crazy.
Cutting the F-22 program short is a mistake!! Two highly qualified combat aviators clearly state the importance of dominance of the third dimension of battle space. In Gulf War I and Operation Iraqi Freedom Dominating the Air Space was the first combat task, hence the surgical destruction of command nodes, communications facilities, air defense sites. Each of these destroyed in order enabled the next successful air strike on a strategical target. To do this, a hard to see, or virtually invisible penetrator is needed to win the first day of the war and enable dominance over the foe. Limiting the numbers of these F22 aircraft will diminish the advantage of first day air dominance, or make it more costly to gain . Our air leaders recognize the need for hard, challenging training as a multiplier of the combat capability of a combat aircraft-and that will not change, thankfully. The policy decision makers in Congress and the B.O. administration need to wake up and smell the coffee.
The JSF and the F-22 are both claimed to be 5th Generation Fighter aircraft yet . . . . One has full spherical broad bandwidth stealth, high agility and high speed, acceptable growth margins, high service ceiling and super-cruise . . . and the other does not.
Rick R . . . What do you mean when you say - "I have intimate knowledge of the F-35 program. It is being well run, and will produce a magnificent capability for our forces and our allies." Does your intimacy extend to believing what is discussed here - http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-290309-1.html
The F-22 is simply the most agile, the most advanced air superiority weapons platform to date.
Greg Neubeck just owned all arguments from all sides with pure facts and logic. Its too bad that the politicians wouldn't be caught dead listening to any of that reasoning. Democrats don't really respond to reason. Anyways, why would they fight the states that they aspire to be. Massive central planning, spreading out of wealth, massive increase in the federal government, massive decrease of individual freedom through earnings, choice of healthcare, and a foreign policy that rewards the dictatorships and condemns nations like Honduras that stand up for freedom. Even though a democrat has been at the helm of every major declaration of war (technically the Civil War was not an official war), I seriously doubt the democratic parties ability to make unbiased, logical, and efficient military decisions. They are too obsessed with garnering the vote of illegal immigrants to worry about national security. I can't possibly imagine them taking any stances against China or Russia, as they just want everyone in the world to love us.
To cjp - You stated "This F-35 program is filled with graft, corruption, and lies ...." Those are serious charges and, if correct, warrant immediate legal action. Upon what do you base these charges? Titus
The funny thing is, the cost of the extra planes: 1.25$ Billion dollars is being pushed as the reason for cancellation. However, HR 1018 - Restore Our American Mustangs Act : http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1018/show was just passed at a cost of 700$ Million dollars. Which some experts ( American Horse League and Cattlemen Assc. ) are opposed to since the bill will not solve the problem. 1.2$ Billion for continued safety for our allies and ourselves too much. 0.7$ Billion for continued safety of wild horses, just right. Misplaced priorities?
To Timberlake: The biggest problem about the United States selling our latest technology to the Israelis is the fact that they reverse engineer it then export it to the Chinese. They have done this before stabbing us in the back. I say sell to the Japanese and Australians but the Israelis have lost our trust for now.
Heh, and while we're cutting our air-to-air assets, our rivals due east are moving to produce Sukhoi's "Flanker" series in larger quantities as well as research their own stealth technology. Could Obama's timing be any more impeccable?
Now Obama can use the funds to provide health benefits to illegals - yeah that will keep us safe,
If you will recall, every important technologically advanced program has delays and cost overruns. The M1A1 Abrams is an example. So was the B1 bomber. It isn't an unknown event.
Let's not get all wingnutty here. The F-22 is a technological marvel that just happens to be more than we can afford ($361 million per copy. WTF ?). The F-35 shows promise but we need a more robust program management that is not Lockheed. It'll work people.
Rick R, huh what? The program is run well, you know about it? What are you talking about, if its run well what happened to all the flight certifications the F35 does not have and the cost is gonna be way over budget. Program Run well, what people in the government are running this cash cow should be fired and lockheed should have their feet put to the fire this F35 jet is a funnel for money to never never land, are you serious? Run well. How many years has this boondoggle been suckin defense money into a Black hole,how much is each jet going to cost and since you know about it! when are the jets gonna be in the inventory ready to Deploy. Run well WOW! intimate knowledge WTF are you talking about. Lets see missed all time lines ever set, What models will be ready within the next five years to deploy as combat ready and I say again what was the original cost as compared to the boondoggle that this F35 has become, single engine, no second source engine. OHH and by the way your intimate knowledge said nothing about how we have been at the mercy of Boeing for years now we have one source again for our fighters, Lockheed Martin, what a crock, The V22 and F35 are two pots full of money that are a complete and total waste. So now Boeing and Lockheed can continue to steal for years to come. Intimate knowledge, sounds like propaganda to keep gettin paid for something not made.
Oh, that's not good. With the cancellation of the contract for the remaining F-22's (a plane that hasn't been used since before Clinton was in office) we could fall behind in the ability to defend our country. Government contracts are convuluted enough. My fear is that there will be problem after problem after problem, creating a hazard for our military personnel, if this gets pushed thru at all costs, regardless of safety error.
The essence of the argument for the F-22 is that we can not afford to take the risk of not continuing production and in this period of serious economic stress the cost of not producing the aircraft is very substantial. We have trillions of dollars to bail out bankers or to distribute to non-taxpayers so they can buy TV's , cars and iPods made in foreign countries. The difference between war and sports is that you only loose once, there is NO next year. The same goes for our good friends who would also operate the aircraft. Vaporware may buy time in the computer industry but it does nothing when the shooting starts. With our exceptionally long, politically manipulated aircraft development and deployment process we need to be building the aircraft our children will fly two or three wars from now. As others ( with far more intimate knowledge ) have noted, the certainty of kill is higher and the cost to kill enemy aircraft is lower with the F-22. I'm old enough to remember the arrogance of McNamara and his band of whiz kids. This has the same look and feel as the imposition of the F-111 on the services. It is ironic that the Navy surrendered hundreds of thousands of square miles of airspace control for each carrier when it retired the F-14D's and the capability to deploy the Phoenix missile and its subsequent improved version. How tragic that we will continue to squander our wealth so that the lifestyle of the bankers, politicians who got us into this mess is not affected but we prepare to put all of our citizens at a greater risk with the cancellation of the F-22 program.
It's not about the F22 or F35. Don't you get it yet? I's about tearing America down. The Washington DC thinking is, "Why should America have these air dominance aircraft that compliment each other perfectly in any envisioned conflict when no one else does? It's just not fair." Enjoy the change, I hope you live through it.
Perhaps, if America STOPS selling each new fighter/tank/whatever, as soon as the blueprints are dry, to any country that would rather buy hi tech weapons then feed it's citizens/manage it's infrustructure, we wouldn't need such expensive 'toys'!!
As Brad wrote... the F-35 is NOT an alternative or a replacement for the F-22. They're not in the same league, hence why we bid them both.
Ed T: "a truly unique looking fighter the F-4 Phantom II. It may look ugly but it became a proven killer" Pff! Only because it faced off against even uglier planes. Every angle and jut on the F4B Phantom II is a hack designed to keep it from destroying itself. Even its name is a hack! It should have been called the F4 missile-carrying-bus-with-two-big-ass-engines. The F4B Phantom 2.0 Mark 4 Rev J Service Pack 8.4.1.3.4 is not a marvel of design, but rather a horrid mutant bastard that's lucky to get off the ground. Proper design doesn't -have- to be pretty, but slapped together hacks are -always- ugly. That the F4 was ugly enough to kill is still no excuse.
Anybody remotely familiar with military readiness knows that the F-22 is the future USA air superiority option for the USAF and the F-35 is the option for NATO and our Navy, Marines and some USAF functions. The F-35 platform is the one we share with our allies. The F-22 is the one we keep to ourselves and don't share with anybody because it is so far advanced that we don't want to risk our enemies getting the technology from our allies. The F-35 is theoretically brilliant in that it will bring about a supply chain efficiency for the entire NATO force and allow for the US to design a platform usable for all three US armed forces needs but also one which is exportable to NATO allies. We can save money on training, parts, maintenance, future development and everything else by standardizing the aircraft platform. Smart thinking, (the EU finally signed on) which pushes NATO ahead a generation and still allows the US to equip its own F-35s with features we DON'T share with allies so we can do things that client countries (Saudis, Israelis, India, etc) cannot. The F-22 is the apple to the F-35 orange. The F-22 is the fighter/bomber of the future. It is designed FOR the USAF so that we don't face anything in the skies for the next 20 years which can match our firepower, speed, maneuverability and tactical capabilities. The F-22 can be killed by producing so few of them that there is no economy of scale and the price is double what it SHOULD be if we simply replace our existing inventory with the new aircraft. With a socialist President and a $4T spending spree, the need to cut costs ALWAYS comes first to the military. It did with Clinton and Obama is going to make Clinton look like Dwight D Eisenhower. And 'cutting costs' is essentially the accounting/political trick being used to kill off the F-22 (which is all by all accounts a generation or two of air domination which pays for itself by replacing a variety of other existing planes and the hundreds of thousands of parts needed).
The F-35 is a well run program and there should not be too much concern with its progress. There is a lot to developing a variant style aircraft and the engineers are being very careful prior to production to get it right. The F-22 is meant for air-to-air and the F-35 ground-to-air primarily. The pentagon is behind the cancellation of the F-22 because they are only for the USAF and they cost 200 million. The F-35 is for Navy, USMC, and USAF and they run about 50 million. The engineers I have spoke to say the F-35 will run circles around the F-22.
As a former F-16 maintainer both military and civilian, I can say with certainty the F-22 and the F-16's replacement F-35 are the last manned-fighters our military will ever need. We have fighter pilots in charge of the Air Force, who love to go play with their toy jets. They have done everything possible to prolong the F-16's life and slow the transition to UAVs. We have fighter pilots whos grand fathers flew in WWII now wanting to see jets for their sons. The idea of a non-rated stick actuator sitting at a console sickens them. The technology applied to the newest fighters nearly exceeds the military's ability to maintain the weapns platform. Every F-16 receiving battle damage in the Gulf War was repaired by contractors, and not by trained military personnel using standard aircraft battle damage procedures, so how can we expect anything less on ships od stealthy carbon fibre and more exotic composits? Its sad but true, the day of the fighter jock, the Chuck Yeagers and the 'Nam air aces are over, and its time to let go of the control stick and the ejection handle. The future doesn't include either F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, or F-35.
Rick R writes: "I have intimate knowledge of the F-35 program. It is being well run, and will produce a magnificent capability for our forces and our allies." It is being well run, asserts the Lockheed lobbyist, and yet the delivery date slips years at a time, and the allies are looking around for alternatives. Only a month or two ago, Aviation Week published a scathing assessment of the F-35 program, noting that its prime movers were seeking to solve many of the aircraft's myriad problems in the test phase rather than in the design phase -- a disaster in the making for any program. Any time a plane is put forward to serve multiple platforms, huge problems surface on one or more of those platforms, and that is what is happening to the F-35. Senator Bond may indeed be the "Senator from McDonnell Douglas," but his "too big to fail" label fits the F-35 program to a tee, and no one is offering any viable evidence to the contrary. Before it is all said and done, the F-35 will flat-out dwarf the A-12 as a military aircraft debacle.
But don't you understand, gentle readers? The F22 is no longer needed is the word on the street. Why do we no longer need it? Well because the cold war is over- duh. Good Lord in Heaven are we in trouble. I seriously heard some member of Congress argue that we no longer need the F22, because it was engineered to fight against enemies like the USSR, that we no longer face. What? Does the world look safe to everyone but me? And excuse me, but with the dissolution of the USSR, I don't think that we magically lost all need for modern fighter aircraft. But apparently I forgot the new rules: one should not arm oneself in advance, with defense capabilities in mind. One should wait until a weapon is needed before beginning construction on it. We are in trouble, ladies and gentlemen, huge trouble. Our national security has truly been undermined, and our insecure nation is beginning to collapse in a well planned manner. Hold on tight, and may God be with you and yours.
Want to know what's even more hilarious? The F-35 is the biggest victim of Chinese technology theft. What useless garbage.
The USAF has for too long focused on strategic bombing instead of developing weapons systems for current and future conflicts. You may be wondering what the F-22 and F-35 have to do with strategic bombardment, but in truth the USAF will use the F-35 as a strategic bomber. It will drop bombs on strategic targets such as communications facilities, head quarters, etc and will achieve the range of a strategic bomber through the use of in-flight refueling. Of course like the F-16 and F-18 it will also be used in a close air support role which it (as well as the other F prefix fighter) is ill equipped to do. Aircraft as strategic platforms are not ideal. There is little evidence that strategic bombing has ever worked. It certainly didn't work in WWII (for either side) and there is an abundance of evidence that interdiction and close air support are what actually make a difference. You might as well and forget using aircraft in a "Gulf War" scenario ever again. Our adversaries such as China, Russia, Iran & N. Korea have learned from our success. They realize that the US is to dependent on aircraft carriers and regional bases to to wage an air war. You can also forget about having months to build up your assets in a region. The proliferation of submarines and antiship ballistic missiles is making the aircraft carrier the new battleship. Massive regional bases are also likely to be destroyed by cruise missile or ballistic missile attack. The only hope for the US is dispersing aircraft and troops throughout a geographic region via partnerships and even this will require the use of long range aircraft to gain air superiority. Once in, attack aircraft will be the most valuable asset. When I say attack aircraft I mean A-10, not F-16, F-18 or F-35. They fly too fast and too high to be accurate. Engaged troops never call for a B-1 or F-16 when in a fight. They always ask where the A-10s are. We currently fight adversaries that are dispersed, selectively fight and blend in with the populace. What is needed is an aircraft that can loiter around the front lines and identify targets through actual observation. Future wars, even with larger adversaries will probably take a lot of cues from today. You won't see massed armies or equipment. Strategic targets will be dispersed and hardened to be virtually impenetrable. How will the F-35 fare in this type of environment. It won't be a good fighter or bomber or CAS aircraft. It is half the fighter plan that the F-15/F-16 and it certainly will be no better at bombing. All that it has going for it is that it is relatively cheap and it is stealthy. The stealth aspect may be more of a liability than an asset. Stealth add cost and complexity to the aircraft. It is likely to become ineffective within the next decade. Stealth can be defeated by old long wave radars. In the conflicts in Bosnia in the 1990s two F-117s were lost. What's more amazing is that only one A-10 was shot down in this high threat environment. So what does the USAF need? A fleet of F-22s sizable enough to overpower any adversary. There are over 700 F-15s today and reducing our fleet of dedicated air superiority fighters to less than 200 is unacceptable. At this level general attrition becomes a problem. If 20 plans are lost in accidents, that is essentially loosing 10% of the fleet. I do admit that the F-22 is too expensive. The cost can be reduced by doing several things. (1) Purchasing more F-22s so the fly-away price is lowered. (2) Create a water-down version of the F-22 with 90% of the capability at a much lower price. This is essentially what the Army did with the Long Bow Apache. (3) Sell the F-22 to our allies. Japan would kill to have an F-22 even if it is a watered down version. Allies such as S. Korea, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia may be takers. You don't have to sell the top of the line model to these nations. These orders would further decrease per unit costs. Finally, the USAF needs to create a new dedicated attack aircraft. Think of a modern A-10. As a matter of fact, I'd lay down the same specifications today as were proposed when the A-10 was created in the 1970s. The aircraft has to fly slow and low, carry a variety of weapons and be survivable in environments full of AAA and man portable SAMs. The aircraft also needs to be built around a heavy caliber weapon. It must be cheap, introduced into service in a short period of time and be produced in a number north of 1000. This is what I believe the USAF needs to fight a future war. The F-35 is not it and is beginning to resemble the F-111 program which ended up costing way too much and delivering very little to the partners in the initial program. Of course these solutions will never come to fruition. The USAF hates the A-10 (even though the Army loves it). The service is addicted to stealth and is still fighting the Cold War (2G war) versus the modern 3G and 4G wars. How do F-35s fight enemies that are highly mobile and are not bound to loyalty of a particular state?
The F-22 is a hanger queen with a 50% mission availability rate. Which in peacetime does not bode well for the rigors of sustained aerial combat. The problem is that it is a 'plastic plane' (70% carbon fiber laminates) and the synthetics used are not durable and ablate easily. These materials, especially RAM, is not durable and definitely not combat operations sustainable. This is why the F-22 requires a maintenance hangar that is actually a Hospital grade clean room. The F-22 and the F-35 even have to be parked in the shade all of the time due to the plastics turning to powder in the presence of sustained sunlight (less than six months of daylight UV). There is not a single F-22 squadron that we could send to the deserts of SWA, park it next to – take your pick – a F-15 or F-16 or A-10 for two weeks and then have it fly the same number of mission hours for one AEF rotation. They would all be bone-yarded tits-up in thirty days and probably less. In short the F-22 may be a terrific aircraft for a few days but it is not combat effective past one week of normal combat operations. The F-22 does exactly what the pilots in the USAF wanted back in 1993, when it was known as the YF-22. But 'operators' are not logisticians, maintainers, installers, or flight test engineers or Top Gunners. None of these key people were asked what they thought or were part of the ATF USAF process. I was surprised when representing the US Navy, I was introduced to the ATF Operational Requirements and Program Management staff at Wright-Patterson AFB. Eight USAF Officers all pilot rated, four Federal Civilians (none were Engineers or even former aviators) and 300 contractors. They got what they deserved. Lockheed got a gravy train. Back then the USAF promised Congress that this aircraft would not exceed $120M each (roughly twice the cost of an F-15C) and they promised that it would be twice as combat effective. Working for COMOPTEVFOR three of us, wrote the report that killed the US Navy participation in the F-22 procurement. We killed it back then because we could see that this aircraft was going to blow all of it's cost projections by at least 200%, the USAF had abdicated all adult supervision over their contractors allowing them to set their Requirements and Program Plans (still has and it is worse today), the fact that the USAF picked an aircraft that was only about 20% better than an F-15C. We could calculate that the Navy would be bankrupted by the Navalized F-22. Today the F-22 is well over $280M each. What a deal for the taxpayers. Too expensive to buy, too expensive to fly and too expensive to lose. My expectations for the F-35 is the same as the F-22 as to over-priced, over-budget and years behind schedule. With a strong possibility of actually being a worse combat ineffective and unsustainable aircraft. It seems that the USAF, Marines and Navy young inexperienced 'operators' took every bad 'operator' idea and operationally failed aerospace innovation from aircraft since 1972 and rolled them all up into the F-35. Naturally the contractor gave them what they asked for. No adult supervision required in this process. Single engine, VTOL, thin-skinned, over-weight, low weapons payload capacity, short operational range, F-pole energy envelope is nothing to brag about, and no spare internal volume for future avionics capacity. But hey! It is Low Observable.... I could have PM'd a program to give the Marines a Marine grade STOL version of the A-10 (with 25mm main gun) for one third the unit cost for an F-35. A survivable, operable, sustainable, and combat effective design. It would not take much to PIP the F/A-18's and F-15's to give them ALL of the mission and operational capability of the F-22 but without all of the unsustainable LO materials. But we could provision a substantial temporary LO/RAM war-modes capability for them. Here is your trick question for the day. Which aircraft did the Flight Testers at Edwards AFB use to Flight Test all of the key F-22 subsystems on prior to the first flight of the early production F-22? The answer is F-18E, F-15C and E. All of the F-22's avionics and those wonderful F119 engines can be installed into the existing F-15's. Giving them the essential capability of the F-22 for a whole lot less cost. It is the super-cruise capability that is responsible for the majority of the F-22's combat effectiveness improvement over the current F-15 models. I would never trust an AFOTEC or ACC report that extols the virtues of the F-22 in a combat environment. Both have a long history of stretching the truth and misleading TE reports. Their reports are written by their contractors and they are the best that money can buy. What I would like to observe is the following. Pit a squadron or two of F-22's or F-35's against the killers in VX-9 Vampires at China Lake flying their strike package. Green Flag war scenario and no script. Let the China Lakers "Call it as they see it." I fully expect that the F-22's would be mauled just as when we annihilated an entire Wing of F-15C's with a mix of F-18's and mostly USMC VMFA-112 F-4S Phantoms in 1986. The USAF predicted a quick aerial victory back then. The simulator guys predicted a very one-sided USAF victory due to the performance differences between the F-15C and the F-4S. Three days later the USAF had not won a single day or match. Our killers bagged even their AWACS and Tankers. The only thing the USAF brass could do was cry that we somehow cheated them. It is not about just one plane versus one plane anymore and has not been since the advent of low cost high performance digital processors or missiles that can perform 14G turns. It is about the team effort in tactics, synergy and cooperative engagement. I will conclude with this quote by an unknown author/editor: "Conclusion - What makes a top five legendary fighter? In this authors opinion, it's production numbers, combat service history and multi-purpose use." So far the F-22 is a strike out on all three of these very simple assertions and the F-35 is going to be down one strike right out of the gate. [source url: http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=24 ] By Sam Waite, former Flight Test Engineer/Test Pilot. Seven years with the Cold War COMOPTEVFOR VX-5 Vampires and twenty+ years in the weaponeering business.
Plant flowers and don't build warplanes!
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf Congressional Research Service: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs June 18, 2009 The 10 F-35As requested for FY2010 in the Air Force budget have an estimated procurement cost of $2,220.3 million, or an average of $222.0 million each. The 16 F-35Bs and four F-35Cs requested for FY2010 in the Department of the Navy budget have a combined estimated procurement cost of $4,212.1 million, or an average of $210.6 million each. So essentially the US and it's allies are paying almost the same amount for a sub-par product. F-22 with increased production is expected to cost $200 million per-plane, and would be decreasing further with ramped up production. F-35 will not even be ready by 2016, Obama, Gates, and some in Congress have just placed the national security of the united States, and it's allies at risk for political reasons...
Ahhh - Ed and Greg - do I get some sort of college credit for reading your posts? Isn't our air power the best because of the layered capability of AWACS, Tankers, Fighters, and Recce capabilities in a synergistic capability? 2+2=5 Who could we NOT defeat in a war where our only fighter was 500 F-4s? Seriously - what country has our total force capability? The manned fighter is dead. Are we really NOT going to take out the enemies MiG-Xs etc on ground anyway? In the 30+ year life cycles of the US F-15/F-16/F-14 how many enemy aircraft were shot down in air combat? <50? Our country is in a fiscal nuclear meltdown - what we need is a cheap standoff capability, a couple hundred F-22/F-35s to humor guys who like shooting their watches down, and a load of cheap UCAVs to man the defensive line.
Remember Col. John Boyd and cohorts that helped deliver the A10 and F15. What type of curves to the f22 and f35 have? Do they compare faverably to the f15? If not do not buy any of them.
The pentegon pushed back the schedule for the F-35 after coming in and speeding up production. They are very arbitrary due to unrealistiic budget constraints and CQ is misinformed. I know schedulers and technicians.
The mantra of this administration seems to be "If you will it, it will be so." There seems to be a real ignorance of what it takes to develop and implement technology. There is a troubling parallel between this path and Jimmy Carter's cancelling of the B-1 bomber.
Maybe it's time for the RAAF to seriously consider buying the latest f15, since the US seems committed to shooting itself in the foot by denying the legitimate need of close allies for the F22. Why support an aircraft (the F35) which is probably going to be outmatched by its potential adversaries?
F22 or F35 - the real issue is what enemy we are preparing for. There is really no need to prepare for a conventional war against an enemy that could present a challenge in the air. We will never fight Russia, China, France, or Great Britain with anything other than nuclear weapons. We need air superiority fighters to fight the South Africa's, India's, Egypt's, and Brazil's of the world. Currently our fleet of F-16's, F15's, and other aging aircraft are enough for our conventional enemies. We only need to produce enough F22 or F35 quality aircraft to keep up with the exporting of equal aircraft to those countries by china and Russia. A fighter should be inexpensive enough to afford to lose on a mission. We don't need one so expensive that we can't afford to risk it on the front lines.
The comments I have read posted here are very astute and for the most part based upon real world experience. I for one am a rank amateur...so here goes... Lets crank out a large number of stripped down F-16 XL's converted to become semi-remotely piloted uav's. Taking off in all weathers under mutually guided semi autonomous computer aided control ( using borrowed and updated cruise missile type terrain aware computer navigational systems) and escorted at a distance by a couple of F-22 manned fighters, these unmanned fligh packets would proceed to a target piloted by their remote operators who are in radio contact with their squadron leaders in the manned fighters. Based on the ground the pilots of these super maneuverable punishing G capable machines would be relatively cheap, almost as fast as the escorts and above all...expendable, They could be fitted with laser guided bomb capability. Extended range fuel tanks could be fitted if needed,. These robot packets would multiply the firepower of their escorting force of manned aircraft, and in addition would be able to protect the manned flight leaders by inserting themselves between them and an incoming missile if needed. Such "robot wingmen" could drive first into the air to air or air to ground combat fray acting as a screen and attack force multiplier. Prospective manned pilot trainees could fly these machines without risk to themselves and still participate in actual combat before graduating to the real manned machines, and would due to their ability to out turn any opposing manned fighter would help to protect the manned aircraft an still help to carry the day in any resulting close in scrap. Such un-manned "wingmen" drones could easily present themselves as sacrificial bait or perhaps even forming a physical screen for incoming ground to air or air to air missiles if needed, and in the end, if all the uav wingmen are downed there are still the manned super potent fighters in the mix to attack the enemy... Or is this way too wild?
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: