"Using Syria to justify the F-35, seriously?" Topic

Forbes commentary on why we need the controversial fighter project:

link

I can see it as a justification for the A-10, or B-52.

Doesn't fly with the F-35 though, due to the $200 USD+ mil pricetag, and its anemic payload.

Adding more bombs under the wings negates the stealth aspect, which we are paying dearly for.

Perhaps it is time to build more Predator and Reaper drones, and/or give them a heavier ordnance carrying capability.

Then again, I'm all for sitting this one out, since neither side is exactly friendly to us.

No, no, it totally makes sense. See, with the nuclear-armed Al-Qaeda state of the future that forms out of all this mess, we'll want that high-tech edge. Amiright?

What a feeble musing.
Who writes this crap, and do they think anyone is buying it?

Very highly paid F-35 marketing people, and/or their friendly politicians, who hope for a lucrative position with the manufacturer, once they leave government office.

And yes, hook, line, and sinker, since most don't have a clue.

I agree with Darthfozzywig, this is legit. If Al-Qaeda has nearly 10,000 fighters world wide, we're going to need the F-35 to shoot them all down. A lot of F-35s.

And it's stealthy, so they won't see us coming.

(I should mention that all of these companies, and their competitors, give money to my think tank).

Love unbiased, independent think tanks.

You know, like the ones the tobacco companies used to have that kept proving that smoking was not only healthy but positively beneficial…

Here's my favorite offhanded remark:

It would also be hard to use unmanned aircraft or cruise missiles to take out the system, because it has been designed to track and target them even if they are flying close to the ground.

And we know this how? Has this particular system variant actually shot down even a single aircraft of any kind in anger let alone a small, low-flying drone or cruise missile? Perhaps. Does he have some data? How many Predator's have these things shot down? Or Tomahawk missiles?

Tell me it has a proven 25%+ kill record against those two systems, and that will get my attention.

There is actually the possibility of a Arab state with very very advanced weaponry becoming radicalised in the near future (just look at Egypt). I'm pretty sure that there are several variants of the F35 but this airframe was designed as a air superiority fighter with a limited attack capability. So the light payload might be unfairly touted as a detriment…That said I'm not really sure that this thing is not a total piece of crap. I don't know, Air force stuff is out of my lane….Mikey

It's definitely not an "air-superiority" fighter, given its poor performance.

It's an overly expensive, poorly designed, 5G capable aircraft, assuming they get the bugs worked out.

Note, that 5G capability is for sustained turning, in a dogfight, which puts it on a par with most 1960's era fighter aircraft.

I suspect that makes it one of the poorest, if not THE poorest turn performing, "modern" fighters of its time. I'll bet even those home-made Iranian fighters have better turning performance than that. A statistic sure to give even the most ardent, die-hard believer in the program rather severe, and uncontrollable heartburn.

See the links on my $1.4 USD trillion project posting, on the Modern Aviation board, to read more about the issues related to the F-35 Coot.

See here:

TMP link

If this is the best reason to buy the F-35, I am now convinced it is a waste of money.

Mako, really I love you man. You have a lot of great posts here and typically I like seeing your comments, but I have to finally call BS to your F-35 misinformation. Clearly you hate the program, and that's ok, but for the love of pete, could you at least widen your sources of information? Are you aware that most of what you spout is just plain factually wrong?

I'm no fanboy of the f35. It is over budget and has had development problems, but please read a few more unbiased threads before spouting off?

$200 USD million per plane? Really? Come on. Pricing modern aircraft isn't as simple as buying an orange at the market, and there are a lot of factors (like does it come with an engine, spare parts, etc..) but $200 USD million as a production figure is way out of the ball park. This Reuters report from two weeks ago puts the estimated price of an F35A production aircraft at $76.8 USD million. link

The 1.4 Trillion figure you quote is based on the lifetime of all three variants of the plane OVER 50 YEARS.

The 4.5G figure is based on the current cleared block envelope of the plane- not the final production aircraft. Please read this block roadmap- link

Please note that the figure you are touting isn't what the plane is capable of- but what it is cleared to do. The program is advancing in babysteps. Now that's frustrating, as the aircraft won't hit promised performance levels until block 3F, but it's not our butts on the line if they accelerate flight testing. The F22 took forever to get to final production. The Typhoon took forever to get to final production (and still isn't cleared for the full weapons payload). Modern Western flight testing is slow. Too slow, probably, but since we're not in a war, they want to make sure they are thorough and safe. Please note that there has been not a single Class A mishap with the F35 fleet during all flight hours. That's pretty impressive for a program that has now cataloged over 7500 flight hours.

Yes, the above chart was before the recent downgrade by .5G, but even if the final production model is reduced by that level, you should look at the data on this blog (there are several great posts):

elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au

You rail on the fact that they are putting external stores on the airplane. How is this a reason to foam at the mouth? The strategy of the F35, and probably ALL future stealth aircraft is that you have what is called 'Day 1' capability, or VLO class payloads, and routine payloads. In basic terms, what this means is that they can add a whole boatload of stuff on the plane if it's just doing a bomb truck mission where stealh isn't needed.

The F35 is supposed to replace F16's, AV8B, F18 A-D, F15E and A10 aircraft (and I will be right in front of the charge of folks claiming that last one is laughable- there's no way an F35 can do what an A10 does).

The external stores are placed on removable weapons stations. They only go there when they want or need the extra firepower and don't need stealth. When they need stealth, they have a fair amount of firepower (which varies per variant- here's a nice reference diagram on what goes where link

Shouldn't the fact that they can add external stores be considered an efficient use of resources and not a failure? The F22 isn't currently rated for external stores, meaning that even if you don't need stealth, you have the same payload, either way. Having the ability to have external stores seems to show forethought, not stupidity.

Finally, please check out a wider array of sources for your info. A great site is this one- link or this one defencetalk.com

Both are populated by folks who work in the arms industry and by ex military pilots. There are a few fanboys, and also a few haters, but for the most part, facts are given, bs is called out and people can decide on their own.

If by chance any of your facts come from air power australia, Carlo Kopp, or Winslow Wheeler, expect to take flak on those sites. These guys have been widely discredited and are not well loved on either site.

Caveat- I completely agree that using Syria as an excuse for funding the F35 is lame and classic marketing approach.

Look, I have no objection to you railing on the F35. I see you do it often and loudly here and usually I just bite my tongue. I do object when you spout facts that, well…aren't.

If you hate the plane based on facts, I don't object. You can question the wisdom of creating one end all be all plane to replace most of the current US inventory. You can question the idea of making one plane that the Air Force and the Navy should both use and then throw in the super complex requirement of having a STOVL version thrown in for good measure. You can question how long it is taking, and how badly Lockeed Martin is at managing a complex program. You can laugh at the need to redesign the tailhook, or the helmet system or the incredibly loud nature of the engines, but please, stick to the facts, not the hyperbolic propaganda some folks with an agenda are putting out there.

Thanks for your time.

@TGerritsen

I just would like to say thanks for a very interesting and informative post.

Lockheed Martin gave me a free lunch at Farnborough last year, so they're ok with me. :D

TG, I get where you are coming from, and I just report what I've read, since I don't have any inside intel on the subject.

However, their pricing is way below what appears to me to be the "actual cost" of the aircraft. They are subtracting out the R&D costs for the jet, which hides the true costs of the program:

"It said the average cost of the conventional F-35A model, excluding R&D costs, had dropped to $76.8 USD million per plane in 2012 dollars, compared with $78.7 USD million a year earlier".

Note – "….excluding R&D costs…".

In my opinion, that is not the appropriate way to assess the true cost of an aircraft, or a weapons program, but I know some people like to do that (usually the manufacturers, their marketing personnel, politicians, and fans).

However, even if you wish to use their cost figures (Reuters), dividing 2,443 jets into the new, 1% lower, $391.2 USD billion figure results in $160 USD million for each F-35 delivered.

"The cost of the developing and building the F-35, a new radar-evading fighter jet, is now projected at $391.2 USD billion, down from last year's estimate of $395.7 USD billion, according to the Pentagon's "selected acquisition report".

"President Barack Obama's proposed budget for next fiscal year would give $6.36 USD billion to plan to build 29 F-35s for 2014….".

Source:

link

The above total comes to $219.3 USD mil a piece, if my math is correct. Granted, I don't know what's included in those figs, but it seems pretty pricey to me. I suspect probably some spare parts, and other things, given the discrepency between the above cost and the one listed below.

Estimated costs from another source, show $5.1 USD billion being approved for 2014 spending, resulting in a per unit jet cost of $175.9 USD billion per F-35.

Source:

link

In either case, that's more than double the $77 USD billion you are quoting.

The project has been delayed by 5 – 7 years from the original target for delivery, and is 68% over budget.

I'm guessing that will only get worse, in the next decade, and not better, based upon the current pricing vector, so expect the per unit cost to increase. That will really climb, if more countries back out of the program, push out their purchases, or cut quantities ordered, as many have threatened to do, or are considering doing.

I also understand what you are saying about the aircraft's performance, but given they are trying to shave weight, and reducing its G force turning capabilities by doing that, I'm more than a bit concerned.

Perhaps it will eventually be uprated at some point, but it appears to me that the overall design doesn't leave a lot of room for future capability enhancements. I'm not the only one that thinks that.

If you want to build a stealth bomb truck/fighter, you might want to consider how much ordnance you want to carry, when first starting out, and then design it with internal carrying capacity in mind. The anemic capabilities of this jet are just sad, when compared to other, much older, and less expensive craft.

I do like the all around sensor capability they are working on. Hopefully, if they can get that to work as advertised, that'll more than make up for some of its shortcomings, and high cost.

As mentioned though, with only half the ordnance carrying capacity of the F-22, in terms of AAMs, you need twice as many of them, and twice as many aerial refueling tankers to support them as well.

Sadly, they aren't half the cost of the F-22s, and I suspect they will probably end up costing more than them in the long run, so once again, we'll have been saddled with less capable fighters, at a higher cost.

"There is actually the possibility of a Arab state with very very advanced weaponry becoming radicalised in the near future (just look at Egypt)."

The ultimate irony to this, of course, would be that where would an Arab state with advanced weaponry have acquired said weapons? Yep, gifts from the U.S.

See how the military industrial complex works? First they say we have to arm country X, because it' s in our national interest. Then, since country X is now armed, they say we have to arm ourselves even further to defend ourselves.

As soon as I saw title, I thought Lexington Institute.

And lo and behold it's auther is Loren Thompson of Lexington Institute who are known to be on Lockheed Martin payroll.
link

). I'm pretty sure that there are several variants of the F35 but this airframe was designed as a air superiority fighter with a limited attack capability. So the light payload might be unfairly touted as a detriment

Actually F-35 was designed as ground attack first with secondary yet highly advanced A2A capability.

As to costs, the latest Air Force F-35 operational cost estimates show that over it's life F-35 will be 28% more expensive to operate than an F-16.

Current procurement cost estimates are showing about $85 USDm – $90 USDm per air frame and current air frames are selling at $120 USD-odd million due to lack of economies of scale.