A few Sukhois would be nice but I personally prefer the MiGs. I'd love to have the MiG-29M OVT demonstrator in 1/72. Cool livery.
I always appreciated the MiGs myself. In fact I own a 1/72 Witty Russian Falcons MiG-29 Fulcrum-A which I truly admire. I also have a 1/72 MiG-23 Flogger and MiG-31 Foxhound, all IXO releases. They are nice but I can't get over the cheap materials from which they were constructed. Blows my mind! It's a shame CW, FOV, HM or Witty didn't concentrate more on producing these MiGs with detachable ordnance loads in 1/72, especially the ones mentioned above and the MiG-25 Foxbat!
I agree i have been waiting for a nice Russian SU-35 to come out for a long time and the first camo (grey, black and white one) really interests me. Would definitely buy if it came out.
That being said i would also enjoy an F-35 in any colour
these two planes are pretty high on me list right now
@I am the ACE, I'm still waiting on a response from Witty concerning my inquiry of an Su-35/37 release. The Su-35 would be great but I would love to see the first variant of it with the canard winglets. I'd definitely buy it. As far as the Su-37 is concerned, a fully armed Witty version of the "White 711" (or Blue 711) Su-37 test demonstrator would be really cool and would definitely be on my "to buy" list as well
i'd rather wait for HM to do the SU 37/27. But i wonder why didn't WW do an iraqi MiG-29, that would be a real nice one to make given the history. And, oh yes, the f-35 by HM is a great project.
Home / USA /
Pentagon considers cancelling F-35 program, leaked documents suggest
Published time: August 02, 2013 16:42 Get short URL
F-35 JSF (AFP Photo / HO)
Share on tumblr
Tags
Air Force, Arms, Conflict, Military, Planes, Politics, Scandal, USA
Leaked documents from a Pentagon budget review suggest that the agency is tired of its costly F-35 fighter jets, and has thoughts about cancelling the $391.2 billion program that has already expanded into 10 foreign countries.
Pentagon officials held a briefing on Wednesday in which they mapped out ways to manage the $500 billion in automated budget cuts required over the next decade. A slideshow laid out a number of suggestions and exposed the Pentagon’s frustration with its F-35 jets, which are designed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corp. based out of Bethesda, Md. The agency also suggested scrapping plans for a new stealthy, long-range bomber, attendees of the briefing told Reuters.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel spoke to reporters on Wednesday and indicated that the Pentagon might have to decide between a "much smaller force" and a decade-long "holiday" from modernizing weapons systems and technology.
Pentagon briefing slides indicated that a decision to maintain a larger military "could result in the cancellation of the $392 billion Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 program and a new stealthy, long-range bomber," Reuters reports.
When officials familiar with the budget review leaked the news about the F-35s, the agency tried to downplay its alleged intentions.
The F-35 program is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapon system. A fleet of 2,443 aircraft has an estimated price tag of $391.2 billion, which is up 68 percent from the projected costs measured in 2001. Earlier this year, Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program manager, condemned the manufacturer for “trying to squeeze every nickel” out of the Department of Defense.
Although the warplane is the most expensive combat aircraft in history, its quality is lacking. In February, the US military grounded an entire fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters because of a crack found on a turbine blade on one of the jets, marking the fourth time that a fleet was grounded because of manufacturing problems. In April, Bogdan told a Senate committee that he doubted the planes could withstand a sophisticated cyberattack.
But before the sequestration took effect this year, the Pentagon secured several contracts with Lockheed Martin to ensure the continued production and maintenance of the costly F-35s. This week, the Defense Department struck another deal with the company to produce 71 more jet fighters, claiming the costs per aircraft have been reduced by about 4 percent – an insignificant reduction when compared to the 68 percent price increase that has occurred since 2001.
After news broke of the Pentagon’s prospect to cancel the program, officials tried to control the damage of such an alarming statement that runs counter to the claims they publicly make.
"We have gone to great lengths to stress that this review identified, through a rigorous process of strategic modeling, possible decisions we might face, under scenarios we may or may not face in the future," Pentagon Spokesman George Little told Reuters in an email when asked about the slides. "Any suggestion that we're now moving away from key modernization programs as a result of yesterday's discussion of the outcomes of the review would be incorrect.”
An unnamed defense official familiar with the briefing told Reuters that the leaked budget document indicated possibilities for a worst-case scenario. He admitted that the Pentagon considered scrapping the program, but said it was unlikely, since “cancelling the program would be detrimental to our national defense.”
Regardless of the Pentagon’s intent, Congress is responsible for authorizing Department of Defense spending, and has often forced the agency to make costly and unnecessary weapons purchases.
Last year, US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said that the US has no need for new tanks. But even though senior Army officials have repeatedly stated that there is no need to spend half a billion dollars in taxpayer funds on new 70-ton Abrams tanks, lawmakers from both parties have pushed the Pentagon to accept the useless purchases.
Earlier this year, an investigation revealed that lobbying efforts by Northrop Grumman have kept a costly Global Hawk drone flying, despite the Pentagon’s attempt to end the project. A defense authorization bill passed by Congress requires the Air Force to keep flying its Block 30 Global Hawks through at least 2014, which costs taxpayers $260 million per year.
The US spends more money on defense than any other nation, but lawmakers from both parties often insist that the agency continue to buy tanks and keep ships and planes it no longer needs. Although the Pentagon has expressed its frustration with the costly F-35 fighter jets, there is little the agency can do without congressional support.
The cost on these are just too high. Until the military can learn how to adapt to trimming down the bureaucracy involved to cut much of the cost of "production", they are better investing in a new fleet of Silent F-15 eagles and new F-16s. As 2/3rds of the F-15 fleet are falling apart due to stressed wing spars and the F-16 fleet is being ordered destroyed by this administration, as well the F-117 have been destroyed, The C-5's mothballed, the C-7 being used more for political missions than military, A-10 ordered mothballed in a short period of time as well if kept in deep need of upgrades/service...
The Air Force has been decimated under this administration with no real upgrades and needs to be overhauled. I disagree with taking the pilots out of the cockpit and going with drone technologies as we don't know what really can happen in the future with defensive technologies used against them. But we have seen some failures in spectacular manners already.
I believe we will see the F-35 produced in much lower numbers but like the F-22 program, it will never see the intended numbers by far. Thank goodness for the super hornets.
I agree with you @tripoli, the air force should put some money into upgrading their F-15s and F-16s. If I'm not mistaken, there was a time when a variant of the F-15 was provided to NASA for research on air combat maneuverability and I believe it was called the F-15S/MTD. Instead of ridiculous amounts of moolah building a totally new aircraft like the F-22 to incorporate these ACM advancements, it would have probably been more cost efficient to upgrade the current F-15C's as the F-15S/MTD or as you said, the F-15 Silent Eagle (if you want the stealth capability ). All they would have to do for the F-15S/MTD is to add canard winglets and replace the older PW-100 turbofan engines with newer square-shaped pivoting turbofans.
That's what I'd do but then again, I'm not the Department of Defense lol
I think a big part of the problem is that if the US backs out, the other countries involved in the project are left high and dry. I think the US government probably feels that pressure, especially from the UK, Italy and Netherlands. That said, even these other countries have cut back. Australia has bought Super Hornets for the interim. In Canada, the media has had a field day with the project. CBC called it a "global wrecking ball" for the nations involved. Nobody expects these aircraft to be delivered on time or anywhere remotely close to the projected budget. They haven't proven to be reliable either which is making people uneasy about the projected maintenance and upkeep of their airforce. Even if the aircraft are delivered and put into operation, unfortunately, the project has already been deemed a worldwide fiasco and the jet will probably never rise above the controversy that surrounds it.
The F-15 MTD, as well the X-31, was a early precursor design for the vector thrust used in the F-22 aircraft. Research at that time was focusing on cold war application including both maneuverability as well slower stall speeds. The F-22 real innovations as well as the F-35 center on stealth and fuel efficiency. They also "were" to cut down on maintenance but those results are yet to be seen.
I have no doubt this administration would love to just flat out cut the F-35 program and they have already several times proposed such. But there are huge political hurdles to overcome. Part of the high cost of these was procuring which politician's district was going to get the business of producing parts and service. Cancelling such a political power fund once established can be incredibly difficult. Throw in international agendas and it gets to be almost impossible to do if certain powers have their own agendas.
After all the budget cuts they had to use an existing design which they bought abroad. Plus it is stealth, at least in aerial warfare against Sukhois. ;-)
Its a beautiful plane design but still bucking the etiquette of forum post by taking the subject matter away from this F-35 thread when there is another thread about this elsewhere.
Without slapping you in the face further as other already have tried to, keep the SU-27 post in its own thread.
Its a beautiful plane design but still bucking the etiquette of forum post by taking the subject matter away from this F-35 thread when there is another thread about this elsewhere.
Without slapping you in the face further as other already have tried to, keep the SU-27 post in its own thread.
As Sachiel tried to note, Stay on Target.
Conversations sometimes wander. There's no real news about the F-35 and people are simply being social and talking about cool jets. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's just a little bit of sidebar to the continuing saga and controversy surrounding the F-35 - both the real version and the diecast model. I know you weren't directing your comments at anybody in particular because there are a half dozen people in here who have wandered from the F-35 to Russian jets, but I was merely commenting on existing posts in this thread. Trying to get the conversation back "on target" is only going to kill the thread dead in its tracks because there's nothing to discuss regarding the F-35 right now. Once there's some actual news, people will get back on track. Don't worry.
Looking good! It looks kind of weird in some places though. I guess it's the full weapons loadout and the fact that the panels on the plane are highlighted like crazy! Also I don't recall ever seeing any F-35 JSF jets having a communications antenna.
Would like an A model to sit along with my 1/72 Raptor
And definitely would love to see Sukohi family being released!!
__________________
Sir! We have acquired 1/200 Air Superiority! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Great to hear tat! I would go for both F-35 1st since i alrdy have 1 F-15 by Witty Wings in my collection. I personally feel that WW have more moveable part compare to HM.
Since our airforce will only purchase another 35 F-35s after the two "training/testing" JSFs already purchased and after ocmpletion mothballed, I guess that I will be saved from having to fill my Netherlands Airforce diecast collection with too many of these ugly F-35s... Bloody hell 37 jets for US$6 billion. What a waste.
Since our airforce will only purchase another 35 F-35s after the two "training/testing" JSFs already purchased and after ocmpletion mothballed, I guess that I will be saved from having to fill my Netherlands Airforce diecast collection with too many of these ugly F-35s... Bloody hell 37 jets for US$6 billion. What a waste.
I suppose the Dutch Air Force could buy many more Sopwith Camels for the same price. However, just like any Fourth Generation Fighter alternative - they would be obsolete cannon fodder. Stealth changes everything. The Price of Freedom does not come cheap.
I suppose the Dutch Air Force could buy many more Sopwith Camels for the same price. However, just like any Fourth Generation Fighter alternative - they would be obsolete cannon fodder. Stealth changes everything. The Price of Freedom does not come cheap.
Dan
Personally, I think that's buying into the propaganda a bit much. If you don't have an F-35, your country is not safe! Well, the United States can barely afford to keep their current airforce flying as it is. They may be well defended, but too broke to enjoy their freedom. Unless you work for Lockheed Martin.
And yes, I know I switched from the Netherlands to the US. But both are buying the same jet and I don't know anything about the current Dutch economic climate.
Personally, I think that's buying into the propaganda a bit much. If you don't have an F-35, your country is not safe! Well, the United States can barely afford to keep their current airforce flying as it is. They may be well defended, but too broke to enjoy their freedom. Unless you work for Lockheed Martin.
The economic news you're now seeing is mostly hype and political grandstanding. The US economy is fine and the average citizen is doing well from what I've seen. The sequester is an extremely small percentage of the defense budget. It just makes juicy headlines.
The US was surprised by the Zero in WWII and the MiG-15 in Korea. Thankfully the US Air Force recognizes the importance of air superiority in any conflict and has been determined to keep future surprises to a minimum by keeping up with the latest advancements in aerial warfare. Gen 5 aircraft are a game-changer. It's just a shame they're so fugly.
Personally, I think that's buying into the propaganda a bit much. If you don't have an F-35, your country is not safe! Well, the United States can barely afford to keep their current airforce flying as it is. They may be well defended, but too broke to enjoy their freedom. Unless you work for Lockheed Martin.
Nope, Just my personal opinion as a Military pilot for nine years.
No offence Zendocon, but I would say much more propaganda is out there from biased parties against the F-35.
Meanwhile the F-35 continues to meet goals and continues to enter service.
The argument against the F-35 is very similar to the argument against the Aircraft Carrier in the 1930s. There were those who would never have considered their Battleships obsolete against the lightly armed and vulnerable Aircraft Carrier. Yet the major Naval battles of the Second World were fought by Carrier borne Naval Air forces with the major combatants many hundreds of miles away and out of sight of one another. The Battleship became obsolete and vulnerable to Airpower and the Aircraft Carrier became the new Capital Ship. So it is with Stealth. The F-35 (and F-22) are able to destroy the enemy before they can even be detected. I love the Fourth Generation fighter aircraft as well - It is just too bad that they will all be obsolete in a world where you either have Stealth capability or no capability at all.
It's not so much enemy fighters (though opponent radars and missiles have gotten significantly more deadly in the past two decades) as it is surface to air defense systems. Technology for air defense equipment has gotten absolutely lethal in a similar timeframe and the US and its allies, who frequently intervene together in crises all over the world, need a way of access.
Realistically speaking speaking Canada has no need for a stealth strike aircraft to defend itself from the US or Greenland...except for the fact that they'd likely be used on the other side of the earth. Air defense equipment is far cheaper than buying, flying, training and maintaining a credible fighter fleet. It's too easy for a bad actor such as, say, Sudan or Myanmar, to purchase the latest and nastiest Russian air defense equipment and feel that they can do as they please.
I think if there had been an allied intervention into Syria you'd have seen this put to the test, F-22s would likely have had to have lead the way. Somehow the Israelis were able to electronically bypass somewhat modern air defense equipment to access Syrian airspace to bomb their reactor with F-15s years back, but no offense - Israel is much more heavily equipped and subsidized (by the US) for this than the Netherlands is. Furthermore avionics and electronic warfare are something Israel takes very seriously, their defensive industrial base is centered around this. And Israel is jumping on the F-35 bandwagon for a reason.
SEAD in Iraq in 1991 and 2003 was initially accomplished by Apaches, Ravens, Tomahawks, and Hogs, while the F-117s followed the corridor created by the suppressed air defenses and took out the C&C infrastructure.
SAMs and AAA are relatively ineffective without command and control. They are still deadly, but once air superiority was established F-16s and A-10s had little trouble keeping the anti-air sites suppressed. The investment in air defense networks is only effective against minor air forces. Syria's network wouldn't be difficult to dismantle, even with the SA-10 Grumbles.
SEAD in Iraq in 1991 and 2003 was initially accomplished by Apaches, Ravens, Tomahawks, and Hogs, while the F-117s followed the corridor created by the suppressed air defenses and took out the C&C infrastructure.
SAMs and AAA are relatively ineffective without command and control. They are still deadly, but once air superiority was established F-16s and A-10s had little trouble keeping the anti-air sites suppressed. The investment in air defense networks is only effective against minor air forces. Syria's network wouldn't be difficult to dismantle, even with the SA-10 Grumbles.
Exactly Mate.
Aircraft, no matter how lethal, they are never operate in isolation, not to mention that there is about a 1000 enablers that make a Battle Operating System effects to their full potential. Take one of those enablers away (critical requirements or capabilities) then the system is vulnerable.
Any system is vulnerable and in the case of the Middle East most nations that have developed elaborate air defence systems for decades really have never proved the enormous cost was worth it. Up against Western opponents (including Israel) they have been dismantled with deadly efficiency and minimal cost. I see nothing to change that view.
The Canada, we dont need a (5th Gen Fighter) argument is an interesting one. Whilst its not really for me to argue each way, I just wish someone would say that in the context of the massive military build up in the Pacific, Middle East, Asia and Russia.
I'd like to know why, if the stealth function of an aircraft is so valuable, did the Typhoons and Rafales fare so well against the F-22s in combat simulation flying? Training and knowing your aircraft is really the key to winning an air war. 160 F-22s against 400 or 500 lesser aircraft will not win the day, either...and both China and Russia can field hoards of obsolete aircraft.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Steve
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or imbeciles who really mean it. Mark Twain
I'd like to know why, if the stealth function of an aircraft is so valuable, did the Typhoons and Rafales fare so well against the F-22s in combat simulation flying? Training and knowing your aircraft is really the key to winning an air war. 160 F-22s against 400 or 500 lesser aircraft will not win the day, either...and both China and Russia can field hoards of obsolete aircraft.
I could be totally wrong, Steve, but I read that the F-22s were put in disadvantageous positions during several of the exercises. They were tested in this manner to determine their ability to maneuver with the gen4 aircraft. It was no surprise to me that the Typhoons and Rafales would preform admirably if not better, as the Raptor, while maneuverable, was primarily built for stealth and has inherent aerodynamic disadvantages despite the thrust vectoring.
I also agree with your numbers scenario. That was the basic catalyst for the F-16 concept. While the F-15 was superior, it couldn't be fielded in sufficient numbers to counter the Soviet threat. I'm afraid the Pentagon has forgotten this lesson.
I'm also concerned with how dependent we all are on electronics... but that's another issue.
The first generation of stealth fighters and bombers surely had a huge impact on how to define air superiority and gave the owner of such a technology a big advantage.
It's all propaganda - for and against. "Those in the know see the need?" C'mon now. You're not REALLY in the know unless you're directly involved in the project. Otherwise you're just a guy reading a spec sheet. I don't see the need for a stealth strike aircraft in Canada's arsenal - or in many of the countries involved, for that matter. I think we got talked into it as if it were our only option. The only thing that makes it a "joint" strike fighter is that we heavily invested money into something the Americans and Brits needed and we're getting a handful of jets in return. Even if we do plan on using them on the other side of the planet, we would be taking on a support role to the US and UK. As far as defending our own shores, stealth capability is hardly important. The elaborate computerized systems will need constant updating and maintenance to stay current. I think that the F-35 is overkill for a lot of the countries involved and more of a financial burden than it's worth to them. Maybe I'll be proven wrong (I hope not, because that would mean we needed to use a war machine), but until then, it's all just talk. With all due respect, nobody in here really knows what they are talking about. It's all just opinions and speculation. I'm a pilot too, but I've never flown anything anywhere near that advanced and I doubt I ever will. I suspect most of you are in the same boat (or plane as the case may be).
It's all propaganda - for and against. "Those in the know see the need?" C'mon now. You're not REALLY in the know unless you're directly involved in the project. Otherwise you're just a guy reading a spec sheet. I don't see the need for a stealth strike aircraft in Canada's arsenal - or in many of the countries involved, for that matter. I think we got talked into it as if it were our only option. The only thing that makes it a "joint" strike fighter is that we heavily invested money into something the Americans and Brits needed and we're getting a handful of jets in return. Even if we do plan on using them on the other side of the planet, we would be taking on a support role to the US and UK. As far as defending our own shores, stealth capability is hardly important. The elaborate computerized systems will need constant updating and maintenance to stay current. I think that the F-35 is overkill for a lot of the countries involved and more of a financial burden than it's worth to them. Maybe I'll be proven wrong (I hope not, because that would mean we needed to use a war machine), but until then, it's all just talk. With all due respect, nobody in here really knows what they are talking about. It's all just opinions and speculation. I'm a pilot too, but I've never flown anything anywhere near that advanced and I doubt I ever will. I suspect most of you are in the same boat (or plane as the case may be).
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
However, who would have guessed that when Canada purchased the CF-18 in 1980 (which had many critics at the time) that they would be used in anger in the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, the Kosovo Crisis in 1998, or the Libyan "No Fly Zone" Enforcement in 2011?
The F-35 (if purchased) would likely remain in service for the next 30 years. No one can predict what the Geo Political situation will be during that time or what Crisis Canada will be called upon to participate in.
... With all due respect, nobody in here really knows what they are talking about. It's all just opinions and speculation. I'm a pilot too, but I've never flown anything anywhere near that advanced and I doubt I ever will. I suspect most of you are in the same boat (or plane as the case may be).
I'll have you know that by finely tuning my tipfoil cap, I have been in regular contact with Lrrr from Omicron Persei 8. He keeps me up to date on these things.
However, who would have guessed that when Canada purchased the CF-18 in 1980 (which had many critics at the time) that they would be used in anger in the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, the Kosovo Crisis in 1998, or the Libyan "No Fly Zone" Enforcement in 2011?
The F-35 (if purchased) would likely remain in service for the next 30 years. No one can predict what the Geo Political situation will be during that time or what Crisis Canada will be called upon to participate in.
Dan
Very true about the CF-18. But also very true about the fact that nobody can predict the future. It's a "best guess" purchase for anybody, really. I just think that Canada jumped into this one rather blindly and didn't really consider the options (Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen) until after slapping a Canadian flag on the side of the prototype of the F-35. I have no doubt that it's a brilliant jet, ugly as it may be, but I'm not convinced it's the right jet for us. That's all.
I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions, Dan. I would like to express my gratitude for anybody who has served in the military - Canada or elsewhere. But in this case, I can't help but feel skeptical. It's easy to get excited about new toys. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm just not sure this toy best suits our needs. So, respectfully, I'm sticking to my opinion... for now.
Very true about the CF-18. But also very true about the fact that nobody can predict the future. It's a "best guess" purchase for anybody, really. I just think that Canada jumped into this one rather blindly and didn't really consider the options (Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen) until after slapping a Canadian flag on the side of the prototype of the F-35. I have no doubt that it's a brilliant jet, ugly as it may be, but I'm not convinced it's the right jet for us. That's all.
I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions, Dan. I would like to express my gratitude for anybody who has served in the military - Canada or elsewhere. But in this case, I can't help but feel skeptical. It's easy to get excited about new toys. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm just not sure this toy best suits our needs. So, respectfully, I'm sticking to my opinion... for now.
You are certainly entitled to do that.
I will do the same.
Now, let's get back to this addictive hobby of collecting Diecast aircraft!
I'd like to know why, if the stealth function of an aircraft is so valuable, did the Typhoons and Rafales fare so well against the F-22s in combat simulation flying? Training and knowing your aircraft is really the key to winning an air war. 160 F-22s against 400 or 500 lesser aircraft will not win the day, either...and both China and Russia can field hoards of obsolete aircraft.
I am not quite sure that argument has any validity. The F15 shot down how many jets, including gen 4 jets to zero?? 150 is it??
The Hellcat - 20-1 kill ratio, the Corsair, something like 16/17-1.
There is no example where copious amount of obsolescence defeats a well trained integrated force with above average ISR capabilities that is logistically supplied, administered well and maintained in accordance with established and proven procedures.
As I have said, there is a hell of a lot more than just the battle operating system "training and knowing your aircraft" for a weapon system to be a battlefield success.
Capability-wise, once (or if) the F-35 is fully developed, I will not doubt the effectiveness and usefulness of having a JSF. Especially with what other nations are developing (although their scale and progress is very debatable).
My biggest issue with the JSF is how this whole sham has been organized. We all know the stories about the disfunctioning development and production set up. Concurrency, too many smaller subcontractors strategically sought by Lockheed Martin in over 40 US states and abroad (which every congressman or senator will want to protect from being axed), and so on and so on, have made the JSF project too big to fail and took the cost out of control.
The virtually blank cheque for LM and the gross lack of governmental oversight have caused the price to skyrocket. LM is still making billions on the project, the poor taxpayers get a jet that's 7 years behind schedule at a cost triple of what was promised at the start.
So yes, every professional in the air force would want an F-35, but what is the point when a bankrupt country like the USA can't afford to fly them...
Capability-wise, once (or if) the F-35 is fully developed, I will not doubt the effectiveness and usefulness of having a JSF. Especially with what other nations are developing (although their scale and progress is very debatable).
My biggest issue with the JSF is how this whole sham has been organized. We all know the stories about the disfunctioning development and production set up. Concurrency, too many smaller subcontractors strategically sought by Lockheed Martin in over 40 US states and abroad (which every congressman or senator will want to protect from being axed), and so on and so on, have made the JSF project too big to fail and took the cost out of control.
The virtually blank cheque for LM and the gross lack of governmental oversight have caused the price to skyrocket. LM is still making billions on the project, the poor taxpayers get a jet that's 7 years behind schedule at a cost triple of what was promised at the start.
So yes, every professional in the air force would want an F-35, but what is the point when a bankrupt country like the USA can't afford to fly them...
You know thats a reasonable point I guess.
Sometimes one needs to understand, or at the very least appreciate what the airframe is meant to do. Its biggest selling point is also its biggest vulnerability.
The vast mission parameters designed into the aircraft is extraordinary. It is in fact replacing or supplementing a plethora of aircraft types, in three different services with multiple nations. The scope of the aircraft's capabilities and the effects it is supposed to deliver is unprecedented.
Now.......is the aircraft stupidly expensive??...yes it is and the development is agonisingly slow, complex and stupidly over budget. But if the program was not so ambitious and the US went down the traditional route and replaced inventory with like for like individual Battle Operating Systems........then how much would that cost??
It has already been calculated that designing and producing three different fighters, in stead of using the basic X-35 for three different types, would be much cheaper but especially much more effective for the three different air services.
Many design compromises had to be made to accommodate the three subtypes, without offering the best fighter for each individual service.
I can't find a link so quickly, but I believe that only about 20/30 percent of the designed parts are common for the different variants.
My personal view is that if LM was forced to complete the design and development of the F-35 without concurrent production of vast lots of aircraft, the cost would be significantly lower and the government/Pentagon oversight could have kept LM to its promises, keep progress in line with planning and most importantly take punitive measures towards LM for not meeting deadlines, costings etc.
The current Pentagon program director, general Chris Bogdan has already hinted that the way the JSF project was set up is a once but not again failure.
It has already been calculated that designing and producing three different fighters, in stead of using the basic X-35 for three different types, would be much cheaper but especially much more effective for the three different air services.
Many design compromises had to be made to accommodate the three subtypes, without offering the best fighter for each individual service.
I can't find a link so quickly, but I believe that only about 20/30 percent of the designed parts are common for the different variants.
My personal view is that if LM was forced to complete the design and development of the F-35 without concurrent production of vast lots of aircraft, the cost would be significantly lower and the government/Pentagon oversight could have kept LM to its promises, keep progress in line with planning and most importantly take punitive measures towards LM for not meeting deadlines, costings etc.
The current Pentagon program director, general Chris Bogdan has already hinted that the way the JSF project was set up is a once but not again failure.
Based on what??
My advice is look at the Typhoon project. Look at the cost overruns and price per unit and the length of time from prototype to IOC. And until recently it could only perform very limited range of missions, with air to ground only recently added to the UK fleet.
And thats not a gen 5 aircraft.
Sorry, but your first paragraph is subjective and based on other programs it really needs to be examined in context.
No one is saying that the program has been a smashing success. The cost is stupid and Lockheed clearly have underestimated the complexity of the project, which they have acknowledged.
But in a geopolitical environment where gen 5 aircarft are now being developed in 3 nations (only one from the West) I have yet to hear a rational argument to abandon the program....not without acknowledging the risks involved.
And at the end of the day, that is what its about....risk, geopolitical risk. And as most if not all in-service and prospective military Chiefs who's nations are involved in the program are still advocating the aircraft, then it says something about risk and those who practice the art of risk management from a national security perspective.
Its not about new shiny toys (a perspective, that to be frank makes me cringe) its a about a military capability that will provide political leaders a wide range of flexible military options when they need it the most. And from a historical perspective, the chances are no will even know when or why a political leader will need those options.
You can read a lot on the arguments through various sources. For instance the design had to change many times because of weight issues concerning the STOVL fan, concessions had to be made for internal fuel loads, the internal weapons bay on the B version was too small for NATO standard conventional bombs, the B61 nuclear bomb has to be converted to fit inside, etc, etc etc. Basis design decisions made to fit the STOVL engine had negative impact on the A and C as well.
Many performance criteria the F-35 was supposed to meet have been lowered, because the jet would not be able to meet the higher levels.
There are a lot of GAO reports that confirm this.
Of course the Typhoon project is also very flawed. For a large part due to too many countries with their own interests and wishes involved in the project. And the scale was too small.
But my counterproject is the F-16. Although it wasn't flawless, it managed to keep the cost well under control and actually delivered a jet that performed well above the outset criteria.
Once again I fully see the reasoning behind the need for a good 5th generation fighter. It's just the way this project is being run that bothers me. We'll get a jet capable of operating in a very hostile environment, but not at the level or distance that was required.
You are right of course with regards to the F16. General Dynamics did an extraordinary job and it ground attack capability which was a secondary role quickly establish a reputation for being better in the role than purpose designed aircraft such as the Jaguar.
You are right about the other bits too, but performance will improved as development continues in subsequent blocks.
Hell, the way the program has been run beggars belief. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment.
Its the prospective alternatives that I have a problem with.
Re: Hobby Master F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Coming Soon
It's a shame CW, FOV, HM or Witty didn't concentrate more on producing these MiGs with detachable ordnance loads in 1/72, especially the ones mentioned above and the MiG-25 Foxbat! 
lol
Your Privacy Choices
