Trump orders F-35 review, first nail in the Money Pit fighter coffin

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Jan 27, 2017.

  1. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    A week after being sworn in Def Sec James Mattis ordered a review of the F-35 boondoggle!

    A move that will improve US Defense by being smarter with acquisitions and not all our Def Budget $$ on technology that still has not delivered, going by endless promises with few results.
    It was Obama and the disgraced John Boehner who heavily supported without challenging the massive overruns and endless redesigns (results in 3 very different non-compatible versions).
    What a joke!! There is another 2 to 3 years of work left to do!
    Anyone who hates Obama should resoundingly cheer this decision to kill off F-35.

    The F-35 is a perfect symbol of Washington and Lobbyist screwing the American people with gold plated projects when Main Street rots from neglect.
    Trump is indeed draining (some parts of) the swamp.


    To the F-35 lovers:
    The technology created for F-35 will go to other current and future aircraft, the success and failures of F-35 will make the true 5th Gen fighter a real success, not just "OK".
    Lockheed is also put on notice they can no longer cheat on tests and must deliver what they promise, and THAT will make America Great Again!
     
  2. 5684697, Jan 27, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2017
  3. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #3
    I don't think you read what the article actually said.

    To make this easy for the duller-witted reader: The F-35C is the version scheduled to be flown off US Navy fleet carriers. In other words, the same ones that might very well be called on to fight a battle with an advanced, fully integrated air-defense system, such as (uh, I don't know) China might deploy over the Taiwan Strait or one of those islands it's busy building in the South China Sea.

    If Mattis and his people can squeeze a few billion out of the F-35 program: Good for them. But the F-35 is too good an airframe; and too far along in its program development, to stop now - simply to satisfy the idiotic blatherings of the Tweeter-in-Chief.
     
  4. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #4
    US already spent a few billion to build new sets of wings so A-10 can fly till 2040.

    So, its too late, money already spent.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 27, 2017 ---
    It is a sub-par air frame with superior WCS and SA systems to compensate.

    The naval F-35C I think is has value and should be produced, but only that (sorry Marines 35B).
     
  5. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #5
    Secretary of Defense James Mattis spent his entire adult life as a US Marine.

    And one thing to remember about the Marines is this: The entire reason for their existence is their ability to launch an amphibious assault, coming off of US Navy ships, and attacking a hostile shore. Yes: They might perform heroic and effective duties fighting at Khe San and in Helmand province (many miles from the sea.) But the reason Marines exist is to attack, capture and defend enemy coastal battlespace. If that wasn't a thing, we could let the US Army do all of our ground fighting jobs.

    And here's the thing: The F-35B is the absolute bestest, most awesomest air support aircraft that can operate from the US Navy's Amphibious Assault ships. As I've noted previously: The Harrier VSTOL airframe is old and obsolete. Helicopters fly too low and too slow to take on a modern military air defense system.

    The F-35C will be flown by Marine aviators. Meaning that if a bunch of Marines get into a tough spot on some island in the far western Pacific ocean, they can call on their Marine aviator comrades flying F-35B airplanes from an Amphibious Warfare ship operating a few score miles from the beachhead they are defending.

    I don't see Marine General James Mattis (retd.) leaving his former comrades in the lurch. Do you?

    Then there is the little matter of the British Royal Navy. Which is busy completing construction of its two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. The only vessels in the world that come even close to equalling the capabilities of the US Navy's carriers. And would be pretty much useless without a VSTOL fifth-generation airframe.

    The F-35B ain't going away.
     
  6. 5684697, Jan 27, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2017
  7. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #7
    Both the F-35 and the Marine Corps are superfluous and theft of the taxpayer's dollar.
     
  8. PracticalMac, Jan 27, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2017

    PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #8
    There is a reason why VTOL aircraft almost don't exist,
    They Suck.

    Falklands war proved they had severe limits, causing loss of a few UK ships because they (Hawker Harriers) could not maintain adequate cover.

    US ended up purchasing rights to the Harrier because the US was for several reasons unable to make one them selves.
    Soviet Union did not want be showed up so they made their own Yak-38 Froger but lasted only 10 years with no notable benefit.

    Dornier 31 was a very successful VTOL design (meeting all goals) that in end died because of fundamental limits of power-lift.

    VJ101 promised high supersonic Mach number, but it compromised to much on weapons load and flight time.

    It would be FAR more cost effective and efficient to use V-22's with (slightly) faster and heavier armed F-35C's.

    As one Marine told me, he considered A/V-8B's are "pop-up targets".

    That is like a pilot death sentence!
    Super Tucano is for "low threat environments", which Afghanistan is OK as Taliban has almost no large caliber guns, but in Iraq/Syria/Libya, fatal!

    AD-2 / A-1's losses was one of the main reasons to develop the A-10, an aircraft designed to resist ground fire/missiles.

    The OV-10 is a far better choice, however it will need major updates to address its few weaknesses.
    OV-10 is STOL and can operate off short carriers used by Marines.
    It would also be a far cheaper to make being based on existing deigns.

    Most interesting about the OV-10 is it has a small cargo area for dropping para-troop, supplies, 3 litters for wounded, or anything one can think of.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. 5684697, Jan 27, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2017
  10. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #10
    Marine are Americas best (as a branch), they most certainly need to stay, and need the best equipment.

    F-35B is not good enough, the Marines deserve far, far better equipment.
     
  11. Abazigal macrumors 604

    Abazigal

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Location:
    Singapore
    #11
    Sunk cost fallacy. The project needs to be evaluated objectively irrespective of how much money has already been spent on it. If it doesn't show much prospect, then no point continuing to throw in good money after bad. Scrap the programme if need be and consider all the money spent as an expensive lesson learnt.
     
  12. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #12
    Yeup, why waste money on demisied returns.

    However not a total loss, many parts of it can (and will) be migrate to new projects.
    I do see some areas where F-35 can be viable, but a planned replacement of most US air force would be disaster.
     
  13. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #13
    Operation Corporate (the British plan to retake the Falklands Islands from Argentina) would have been totally impossible without the existence of British Navy Harrier V/STOL aircraft.

    The handful of airstrikes carried out by RAF Vulcan bomber aircraft, flying from Ascension Island on an 8,000-mile round-trip, illustrated conclusively the limitations of relying exclusively on land-based aircraft in support of amphibious operations. Each bomber mission required multiple in-flight refuellings, leading to a logistical bottleneck that could never be overcome.

    The Falklands operation was the only air/sea battle between fought between developed nations since the end of the Second World War. It has therefore been the subject of extensive study by military analysts, and the "lessons learned" - such as the need for stealth and close-weapons support have been incorporated into every naval and marine weapons system introduced since. The vulnerability of naval craft to anti-ship missiles is one very good reason the US Navy does not want to place its crown jewels (ie it's deep water nuclear aircraft carriers) anywhere near a shore held by hostile forces equipped with them.

    And apparently, one of the "lessons learned" is that a V/STOL aircraft is a pretty darned useful thing to have if you need to assault an island many thousands of miles from your nearest base.
     
  14. 5684697, Jan 28, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2017
  15. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #15
    The failure was UK not just foolishly but stupidly decided to scrap ALL their full size flat-tops.

    And you just nailed why the F-35B is utter lunacy! Power Lift takes enormous power (FYI: helicopters are not power lift), and more load means more power.
    Full of fuel to have CAP time means limiting weapons. The UK devised Jump Ramp helps, but then the face slap is if the F-35 has to return early it will need to lighten its load (ie: dump weapons and fuel) before it can safely land.

    The insult to injury is the forward lift-fan, only used for hover application, is dead weight and dead space that further diminishes already sup-par performance of F-35. At leas with Harrier 100% of engine power is used for both modes.

    Not just huge, tragic mistake.
    Most USN aircraft cannot land on RN carrier.
    Remember the time when a FAA squadron of Phantom FG.1 (F-4K) flew off a USN carrier for join exercises?
    Worse decision than F-35 :(
     
  16. 5684697, Jan 28, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2017
  17. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #17
    I think the first thing to do is to make sure that they way the F-35, the new aircraft carriers, the littoral combat ships, etc. were designed and procured is never, ever used again. Ever. Whether we can salvage these programmes is debatable, and we're risking war for the lack of a deterrent. Heads should roll, both at the Pentagon and at the contractors.
     
  18. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #18
    You where stationed on the Mighty Ike?
     
  19. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #19
    It's a truism, but in military procurement, the saying that "The perfect is the enemy of the good" holds true more often that you might think. Certainly, you could make the argument that back when they started the XF32/35 program they asked too much of the plane builders. But it would be repeating a similar error today by canceling all or part of the F-35 program.

    The F-35B's V/STOL requirement resulted in the F-35A and -C models having an engine and fuselage body that is sub-optimal for the roles they are expected to fulfill. But the goal of commonality in components among the three variants meant the plane had to have a very large diameter engine and ducting system. Also playing into the equation was the need to bring in international partners, primarily Britain, as customers. And most nations, even those as wealthy as Britain, simply cannot afford to build, man, and maintain a fleet of nuclear-powered catapult and trap aircraft carriers. Emphasis on the plural. Because you can't really run a Navy with just one carrier - since at least one will periodically need to undergoing maintenance that will take it out of action for several months at a time. During which your options become very limited.

    The F-35B is not just a modernized and stealthy Harrier. It has capabilities in such roles as intelligence and suppression of enemy air defense tha allow it to replace a whole range of aircraft. Its effective combat radius is about 450 miles. Short, but combat radius is a problem for just about every modern fighter aircraft. The Navy is working on a version of the V-22 Osprey that would allow it to do aerial refueling of the F-35B. That's a few years in the future, but that should allay any concerns about its range. The Navy is also considering making modifications to the landing areas of the San Antonio-class LPD Amphibious Transport Dock ships to allow limited use by lightly-loaded F-35Bs. This would further expand the range and options of the Navy.

    Developing a new, "perfect" aircraft to replace any of the F-35 versions will take a minimum of ten years. Probably many more before they entered active service. During that time that would leave the US, and our allies, dangerously deficient in world-beating combat aircraft. And at a time when we need the best possible equipment to counter a range of potential threats and adversaries.
     
  20. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #20
    i don't think the problem with f-35 was necessary the development of an extra VTOL version but the fact that they also managed to yet again make different planes for air force (A) and navy (C).
    Sure a lot of parts are exchangable but still many are not. Which also will add extra costs in the future for maintenance, upgrades, supply lines etc.

    At least the there actually is a good argument to have a VTOL version (for use of marine invasion ships/aircraft carriers) but having different A/C version ? pointless
     
  21. 5684697, Jan 28, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2017
  22. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #22
    Concurrency is a fairly stupid idea, I agree.
     
  23. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #23
    Riding in the back of a C-2?

    Oh, snap!
     
  24. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #24
    WTG!

    May fave explanation of night time carrier landings:
    --- Post Merged, Jan 28, 2017 ---
    1. Commonality is less than 30% among all 3 types. Flight performance is different enough too.
    2. The inability for foreign carriers to trap and launch US aircraft constrains our options, not theirs.
    3. It would be better for US to sell 2 carriers to UK, then have UK make a functionally limited one themselves (then, we could "borrow" their carrier like US did in WW2)
    4. How many F-35 can a V-22 top off? Still a less than ideal way to overcome a limit on critical platform.
    5. Yes F35 is better than Harrier, but against potential adversaries, NOT.

    Finally,
    Not asking for perfect, something performance wise unquestionably better in most stats than potential opponents.
     
  25. 5684697 Suspended

    5684697

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    #25
    Pointy end of an F14, 425 times.

    I do have four or five traps in the back of C1's and C2's, they don't count, and I hated them!

    The F35 is amazing coming aboard the ship. No bolters during the initial CQ trials, instant lift control using active flaps and slat articulation. Very cool.

    Navy version has a lot of gas, almost 20,000 pounds. Better range and capability than the Hornet.

    Again, the airplane is needed and is much better than lay people understand. The program is a mess, meaning that it is typical.
     

Share This Page