F-35 News

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Seaward**

In a bit of a carryover from the A-10 thread, a couple items caught my eye recently regarding the F-35.

First, John McCain calls the F-35 one of the "great national scandals" of American history.

Senator John McCain wrote:Days after the U.S. Defense Department signaled an improving relationship with Lockheed Martin Corp. over the cost of the F-35 fighter jet, Sen. John McCain called the program “one of the great national scandals.”

McCain, a Republican from Arizona and the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, was speaking during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to consider the nominations of several White House appointments, including Deborah Lee James to become the next secretary of the Air Force.

McCain criticized the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as the government’s first trillion-dollar acquisition program (including sustainment costs). Its repeated cost overruns “have made it worse than a disgrace,” he said. Despite recent efforts to reduce prices on the next batch of aircraft, “it’s still one of the great, national scandals that we have ever had, as far as the expenditure of taxpayers’ dollars are concerned,” he said.

McCain, who also noted that the Navy’s new USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier is more than $2 billion over budget, was responding to James’ comment that the current budget environment is “chaotic” and makes planning difficult.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, who oversees the F-35 program, this week said the relationship between the service and Lockheed — the plane’s manufacturer and the world’s biggest defense contractor — along with engine-maker Pratt & Whitney, part of United Technologies Corp., is “orders of magnitude” better than it was a year ago.

“I’m encouraged by where we are today,” he said Sept. 17 at the Air Force Association’s Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition at National Harbor, Md. “I’d like to be a little further along.”

The comments were a stark contrast to those Bogdan made at the same forum last year, when he called the relationship the “worst I’ve ever seen.” This year, Bogdan indicated his previous remarks were deliberate. “I threw a hand grenade into the crowd … that was intended,” he said.

Second, it seems the Dutch have gone ahead and picked it.

New York Times wrote:PARIS — The Dutch defense ministry said on Tuesday that it had selected the F-35 fighter jet from Lockheed Martin to replace its aging fleet of F-16s, bringing an end to years of uncertainty over the Netherlands’ commitment to a program that has been plagued by technical delays and mounting development costs.

Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the Dutch defense minister, proposed to Parliament the purchase of 37 F-35s — far fewer than the 85 planes initially envisioned before the financial crisis put a squeeze on military budgets across the region.

The plan sets a budget of 4.5 billion euros, or $6 billion, for the aircraft and a further 270 million euros a year for maintenance and operating costs — equivalent to the annual operating costs of the current F-16 fleet. It also builds in a “contingency reserve” of 10 percent to account for any unforeseen rise in the final cost.

Deliveries of the first planes are expected to begin in 2019 and be completed by 2023, when the F-16 fleet will be discontinued.

“The cutbacks in defense budgets which many NATO member states, including the Netherlands, are facing demand careful consideration and astute choice,” the defense ministry said in a statement. “Above all, opting for a modest number of the best aircraft attests to a sense of reality.”

However, one of the Dutch coalition parties has threatened to oppose the deal.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Well John's right. The F-35's a good plane, the F-35B is a pretty great plane, BUT there are plenty of places in it that are imho kinda fethed up. So the 35B is replacing our (the Marine Corp's) Harrier jump jets, this is excellent. We /really/ need the replacement and the 35B is an absolutely massive improvement for us. However, we use our jump jets primarily as CAS and battlefield CAP to keep rude strangers from harassing our advancing armor and infantry, this makes me question the usefulness on the very expensive stealth elements included on the 35B as defensive mechanism as opposed to powerful radar jamming units and other defenses. So maybe some change needs to be saved there.

At this point with the massive sunk cost in this program the solution is NOT to abandon the JSF program, what we do need to do is a total picture evaluation (maybe by a combined IG task force) to figure out what exactly happened to cause this, so we can make changes to the R&D process to keep it from happening again.

Lastly we should remove John McCain from Congress for unrelated reasons.

**djones520**

6 billion should net about 30ish F-35's. Kinda a small fleet, but I guess they're not that big of a country.

**Seaward**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well John's right. The F-35's a good plane, the F-35B is a pretty great plane, BUT there are plenty of places in it that are imho kinda fethed up. So the 35B is replacing our (the Marine Corp's) Harrier jump jets, this is excellent. We /really/ need the replacement and the 35B is an absolutely massive improvement for us. However, we use our jump jets primarily as CAS and battlefield CAP to keep rude strangers from harassing our advancing armor and infantry, this makes me question the usefulness on the very expensive stealth elements included on the 35B as defensive mechanism as opposed to powerful radar jamming units and other defenses. So maybe some change needs to be saved there.

At this point with the massive sunk cost in this program the solution is NOT to abandon the JSF program, what we do need to do is a total picture evaluation (maybe by a combined IG task force) to figure out what exactly happened to cause this, so we can make changes to the R&D process to keep it from happening again.

Lastly we should remove John McCain from Congress for unrelated reasons.

I'll say, because I've seen it publicly speculated upon elsewhere and thus I'm not revealing anything classified that I may or may not know, that some people believe the F-35's going to have about 85% of the EA-18G Growler's electronic warfare capability. Which is pretty amazing for a standard, non-EW variant.

You're right, though, that the Marines don't need its low observability. One of the many reasons why "three services, one airframe," was a bad idea that I hope we never, ever repeat.

As for what happened, we basically know. We chose a really, really risky program strategy - design it, then go into production and testing at the same time, rather than testing it before producing - and didn't ride Lockheed Martin with much of any oversight at all.

**KalashnikovMarine**

I hadn't heard that about the 35's EW capacity. If true that's fething incredible. It kinda reminds me of what happened with the C-130J model though, to balance that aircraft they had to add a 500lb weight to nose because when they replaced the ancient electrical and computer systems with a modern set up the nose was too light to balance for. I'm guessing a similar thing came up with the 35. We can literally fit that much powerful gear in the relatively small space of a 35 airframe now.

**d-usa**

As an outsider looking in, this looks a lot like the parents (Government/Military and Contractor) just staying together for the kids...

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
As an outsider looking in, this looks a lot like the parents (Government/Military and Contractor) just staying together for the kids...

How so?

**Kilkrazy**

In management accounting terms, the key point of sunk costs is you cannot recover them and should therefore ignore them for the purpose of evaluating the termination of a project.

That said, how much would it cost in money and delay, to switch horses in mid-stream? Is there even a different horse available?

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
In management accounting terms, the key point of sunk costs is you cannot recover them and should therefore ignore them for the purpose of evaluating the termination of a project.

That said, how much would it cost in money and delay, to switch horses in mid-stream? Is there even a different horse available?

Switch to what? There isn't an alternative that offers anywhere near the capability. The French like to push the Rafale, but it's a 4.5 gen fighter at best, and it's got rather limited strike capability. The Canadians are making noise about looking into it and the Eurofighter, but neither are viable options.

**Crablezworth**

The Canadians will likely do whatever they're told sadly. Lockheed's running adds on our transit here in the capital trying to drum up support for this piece of gak. We don't want it, don't need it, the price has ballooned up to insanity, but sadly the consesrvatives are in charge and apparently no ammount of scandal will make thier regime fall.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
In management accounting terms, the key point of sunk costs is you cannot recover them and should therefore ignore them for the purpose of evaluating the termination of a project.

That said, how much would it cost in money and delay, to switch horses in mid-stream? Is there even a different horse available?

Switch to what? There isn't an alternative that offers anywhere near the capability. The French like to push the Rafale, but it's a 4.5 gen fighter at best, and it's got rather limited strike capability. The Canadians are making noise about looking into it and the Eurofighter, but neither are viable options.

Go for the Swedish JAS 39 Griffon - just like Windows, it crashes regularly.

**Fafnir**

Crablezworth wrote:
The Canadians will likely do whatever they're told sadly. Lockheed's running adds on our transit here in the capital trying to drum up support for this piece of gak. We don't want it, don't need it, the price has ballooned up to insanity, but sadly the consesrvatives are in charge and apparently no ammount of scandal will make thier regime fall.

Even if they have to blatantly lie about it.

Nope, we're stuck with a jet that we don't want or need, but hey, Harper looks really cool in the promo shots with it, so we have to spend 15 billion dollars --or wait, was it 35 billion? I'm not sure which books we're using, the ones the government released to the public, or the ones they kept hidden to themselves-- for this broken, overpriced novelty.

**Seaward**

Crablezworth wrote:The Canadians will likely do whatever they're told sadly. Lockheed's running adds on our transit here in the capital trying to drum up support for this piece of gak. We don't want it, don't need it, the price has ballooned up to insanity, but sadly the consesrvatives are in charge and apparently no ammount of scandal will make thier regime fall.

I'm genuinely interested as to why you think it's a piece of gak. I think part of the F-35's problem is that so much of what makes it amazing is extremely difficult to explain to people who don't fly fighters for a living.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Go for the Swedish JAS 39 Griffon - just like Windows, it crashes regularly.

I'm not a big fan of the Euro canard jets.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fafnir wrote:
Even if they have to blatantly lie about it.

Nope, we're stuck with a jet that we don't want or need, but hey, Harper looks really cool in the promo shots with it, so we have to spend 15 billion dollars --or wait, was it 35 billion? I'm not sure which books we're using, the ones the government released to the public, or the ones they kept hidden to themselves-- for this broken, overpriced novelty.

Your CF-18s are getting awfully old.

**Andrew1975**

I'm genuinely interested as to why you think it's a piece of gak. I think part of the F-35's problem is that so much of what makes it amazing is extremely difficult to explain to people who don't fly fighters for a living.

You mean like the fact that the naval variant can't successfully land on an aircraft carrier?

The aircraft is a victim of trying to do too much with a single airframe. Some peanut counter thought it would be a great savings...it was a terrible idea.

**Seaward**

Andrew1975 wrote:
You mean like the fact that the naval variant can't successfully land on an aircraft carrier?

The aircraft is a victim of trying to do too much with a single airframe. Some peanut counter thought it would be a great savings...it was a terrible idea.

The C's certainly in bad shape, but last I heard the hook problem's still pretty much been fixed. It's still likely to be a pain in the ass to land on a deck, simply due to how close the hook is to the main gear, but we've had ensign eliminators before and done alright.

Plus, we're the only ones even considering purchasing the C; Canada would be picking up the A.

**Fafnir**

Seaward wrote:

Fafnir wrote:
Even if they have to blatantly lie about it.

Nope, we're stuck with a jet that we don't want or need, but hey, Harper looks really cool in the promo shots with it, so we have to spend 15 billion dollars --or wait, was it 35 billion? I'm not sure which books we're using, the ones the government released to the public, or the ones they kept hidden to themselves-- for this broken, overpriced novelty.

Your CF-18s are getting awfully old.

Which was never much of an issue, since military technology was never a Canadian priority. Sure, there's a history of doing some crazy stuff in military history, and having a well trained military, but it's generally been understood that should we ever need aerial support, that's something the US would be far better at providing.

**djones520**

Fafnir wrote:
Seaward wrote:

Fafnir wrote:
Even if they have to blatantly lie about it.

Nope, we're stuck with a jet that we don't want or need, but hey, Harper looks really cool in the promo shots with it, so we have to spend 15 billion dollars --or wait, was it 35 billion? I'm not sure which books we're using, the ones the government released to the public, or the ones they kept hidden to themselves-- for this broken, overpriced novelty.

Your CF-18s are getting awfully old.

Which was never much of an issue, since military technology was never a Canadian priority. Sure, there's a history of doing some crazy stuff in military history, and having a well trained military, but it's generally been understood that should we ever need aerial support, that's something the US would be far better at providing.

Yeah, no need to provide for our own defense, when we've got America to do it for us.

Maybe we should just bill you guys?

**Seaward**

Fafnir wrote:
Which was never much of an issue, since military technology was never a Canadian priority. Sure, there's a history of doing some crazy stuff in military history, and having a well trained military, but it's generally been understood that should we ever need aerial support, that's something the US would be far better at providing.

Man, I hope you're not one of those guys who complains about our defense budget.

**Fafnir**

djones520 wrote:

Yeah, no need to provide for our own defense, when we've got America to do it for us.

Maybe we should just bill you guys?

Considering the benefits that America gets for being such close allies, Canada's protection is in their own best interests.

Seaward wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
Which was never much of an issue, since military technology was never a Canadian priority. Sure, there's a history of doing some crazy stuff in military history, and having a well trained military, but it's generally been understood that should we ever need aerial support, that's something the US would be far better at providing.

Man, I hope you're not one of those guys who complains about our defense budget.

I'd argue that the US probably spends too much on its defense budget, but that a lot that might have to do with your offensive operations.

**Seaward**

Fafnir wrote:
Considering the benefits that America gets for being such close allies, Canada's protection is in their own best interests.

I'm not really sure having all of your best hockey players entertain the twenty or so of us who actually like hockey is really a fair trade for covering your air defense.

**Fafnir**

Seaward wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
Considering the benefits that America gets for being such close allies, Canada's protection is in their own best interests.

I'm not really sure having all of your best hockey players entertain the twenty or so of us who actually like hockey is really a fair trade for covering your air defense.

Might have something to do with having all those natural resources just locked away for a rainy day up here in the pantry.

**djones520**

Fafnir wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Yeah, no need to provide for our own defense, when we've got America to do it for us.

Maybe we should just bill you guys?

Considering the benefits that America gets for being such close allies, Canada's protection is in their own best interests.

All trade agreements and such are a two way street. It's not as if your getting nothing in return already. 75% of your exports are to the US while only 19% of ours is to you, so again the relationship is rather lop sided. Sure, we receive a lot of benefits from you guys being on friendly terms, but you guys receive much more from the deals.

**Peregrine**

Fafnir wrote:
Which was never much of an issue, since military technology was never a Canadian priority.

It's not a question of technology, it's a question of how many pilots you want to kill when your planes start breaking up in midair. There's a limit on how many hours of abuse you can put on a fighter before you start to get structural failures and/or maintenance costs reach unsustainable levels. And at that point you either buy new planes, or give up on having an air force.

**Crablezworth**

Our country has the population of mexico city and is spread out over the second largest landmass after russia. The concept of defending ourselves in any meaningful way is a bad joke. I could give a feth if we have an air force.

As for the f35 being a giant piece of gak and how I personally came to said conclusion, I won't bother with the details as they are unlikely to alter your perspective. I've had fun in the past pointing out just what a huge piece of gak the f35 is but in truth it’s performance is irrelevant. I see no value in it.

My plan for replacing the F18's is not replacing them. Dissolve the "royal" canadian air force and while we're at it we should also leave nato.

**Seaward**

So it's a giant piece of gak, but you can't explain why?

Fair enough, I guess.

**Crablezworth**

Seaward wrote:
So it's a giant piece of gak, but you can't explain why?

Fair enough, I guess.

It could be the greatest combat aircraft in existence and I would still think it's a waste of money, but it just so happens that in addition to me seeing no value in purchasing new fighter aircraft, it just so happens this particular aircraft is a giant piece of crap by just about any metric.

**Seaward**

Crablezworth wrote:
It could be the greatest combat aircraft in existence and I would still think it's a waste of money, but it just so happens that in addition to me seeing no value in purchasing new fighter aircraft, it just so happens this particular aircraft is a giant piece of crap by just about any metric.

I'd disagree quite strongly with that. It's going to end up with a performance envelope similar to a legacy Hornet's, which gets pretty impressive when you factor in that said envelope won't adjust much when it's fully loaded, unlike everything else (other than the F-22) out there.

It doesn't play by the old, "survive to the merge, then win the turning battle and get nose on," rules. It completely changes them. The EODAS allowing you to cue up over-the-shoulder shots alone is going to be a thing of beauty.

**Fafnir**

But it doesn't change the fact that there's no point in Canada actually buying any of them.

**djones520**

Fafnir wrote:
But it doesn't change the fact that there's no point in Canada actually buying any of them.

If you guys don't want to have anything resembling a military, there is no point. But as was pointed out, your current AF is old, and will start falling apart, costing more money to maintain then replace.

Maybe you're cool with playing "Lets leech off the American's", but your government, and I'd wager your citizenry at large, isn't.

**Crablezworth**

djones520 wrote:
But as was pointed out, your current AF is old, and will start falling apart, costing more money to maintain then replace.

Maybe you're cool with playing "Lets leech off the American's", but your government, and I'd wager your citizenry at large, isn't.

We'll invest the savings into education. This one's on the house:

than

/T͟Han/

Conjunction

1.Introducing the second element in a comparison: "he was smaller than his son"; "Jack knows more than I do".
2.Used in expressions introducing an exception or contrast: "he claims not to own anything other than his home".

then

/T͟Hen/

Adverb

1.At that time; at the time in question: "I was living in Cairo then"; "by then I was exhausted"; "Adams, the then president".
2.After that; next; afterward: "she won the first and then the second game".

Synonyms

afterwards - next - after - at that time