OT: F35 can't replace F16/F15 despite its raison d'existence

[Rusty1961]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2 ... d53c7a1b16

"Meat on the table"...told you so.

[geofflambert]

Are we even sure it can actually replace the F-18?

[geofflambert]

In any case, what does that have to do with the price of raisins and etcetera?

[RangerJoe]

The concept changed, that is all.

Hagel an Lauri Torni, a man who was awarded the Iron Cross 2nd Class for his work with the SS in World War II who is buried in Arlington National cemetery.

[Lokasenna]

I continue not to understand Rusty's rabid obsession with the F-35 being bad (allegedly).

My understanding of it was... it was never going to replace the F-16? Like, they fill entirely different roles.

The F-15 (or F-18) would be another matter, as air superiority craft. But I still think it's fairly obvious that this obsession is off point.

[DesertWolf101]

Not quite Lokasenna, the F-35 is a long story so obviously a lot of shifts have occurred through its development career, but even going back to the initial JAST program it was supposed to replace large numbers of U.S. and allied multirole and strike fighter types including the F-16, F/A-18, A-10, Harrier/AV-8, and the F-117. Now the last two of those types have already been retired so you can see how things have evolved over time, but the F-35 since its inception designed to replace the bulk of fighter type roles except for the air superiority role which remained with the F-15/F-22.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

Not quite Lokasenna, the F-35 is a long story so obviously a lot of shifts have occurred through its development career, but even going back to the initial JAST program it was supposed to replace large numbers of U.S. and allied multirole and strike fighter types including the F-16, F/A-18, A-10, Harrier/AV-8, and the F-117. Now the last two of those types have already been retired so you can see how things have evolved over time, but the F-35 since its inception designed to replace the bulk of fighter type roles except for the air superiority role which remained with the F-15/F-22.

So I had it flipped. The point stands that saying "The F-35 can't replace the F-15 and F-16 means it's bad!!1!!eleven!!" The F-15 and F-16 don't fulfill the same function at all.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I continue not to understand Rusty's rabid obsession with the F-35 being bad (allegedly).

My understanding of it was... it was never going to replace the F-16? Like, they fill entirely different roles.

The F-15 (or F-18) would be another matter, as air superiority craft. But I still think it's fairly obvious that this obsession is off point.

It was sold to Congress as THE replacement for the F16 and F15. That obviously was false.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I continue not to understand Rusty's rabid obsession with the F-35 being bad (allegedly).

My understanding of it was... it was never going to replace the F-16? Like, they fill entirely different roles.

The F-15 (or F-18) would be another matter, as air superiority craft. But I still think it's fairly obvious that this obsession is off point.

I think that I understand. Anything that the US does is bad, anything that the opponents of the US does is good.

[Macclan5]

A fairly written article by a credible News Organization.

In essence the F35 suffered "scope / mission creep" and promised too much to too many interested buyers.

Certainly not the first time in western defense contracting.

Much the very same debate ( I am old ) as I recall between the MD F4 Phantom and the Vought F8 Crusader during Vietnam. The F4 was deemed to be the 'universal' air superiority jet but the Navy made a strong case with the F8 for Carriers and A7 Corsair for fighter bomber attacks.

The F4 was promoted - latter demonized - reputation rehabilitated.... etc

I am far from certain whether the F35 will eventually be judged a 'dud' or a 'success'. History will tell us in 10 + years. Canada for example has walked away - but that is far from any sort of concrete indication as our Military spending is highly politicized.


What is clearly missing from the 'scope of this discussion' is F35 verses "what" ??

Russian tech has proved incredibly suspect for the last 20 plus years; since the so called end of the cold war with somewhat better access to the truth - we find that despite American shortcomings - Russian shortcomings were larger.

I would argue in the closed system that is China the very same is more than likely true.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

A fairly written article by a credible News Organization.

In essence the F35 suffered "scope / mission creep" and promised too much to too many interested buyers.

Certainly not the first time in western defense contracting.

Much the very same debate ( I am old ) as I recall between the MD F4 Phantom and the Vought F8 Crusader during Vietnam. The F4 was deemed to be the 'universal' air superiority jet but the Navy made a strong case with the F8 for Carriers and A7 Corsair for fighter bomber attacks.

The F4 was promoted - latter demonized - reputation rehabilitated.... etc

I am far from certain whether the F35 will eventually be judged a 'dud' or a 'success'. History will tell us in 10 + years. Canada for example has walked away - but that is far from any sort of concrete indication as our Military spending is highly politicized.


What is clearly missing from the 'scope of this discussion' is F35 verses "what" ??

Russian tech has proved incredibly suspect for the last 20 plus years; since the so called end of the cold war with somewhat better access to the truth - we find that despite American shortcomings - Russian shortcomings were larger.

I would argue in the closed system that is China the very same is more than likely true.

Considering Russia's difficulties with SU-57 and minimal military orders...I think their problems are bigger.

22 SU-57s by 2024...that is miniscule compared to F-35s produced so far in even limited initial production program.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

A fairly written article by a credible News Organization.

In essence the F35 suffered "scope / mission creep" and promised too much to too many interested buyers.

Certainly not the first time in western defense contracting.

Much the very same debate ( I am old ) as I recall between the MD F4 Phantom and the Vought F8 Crusader during Vietnam. The F4 was deemed to be the 'universal' air superiority jet but the Navy made a strong case with the F8 for Carriers and A7 Corsair for fighter bomber attacks.

The F4 was promoted - latter demonized - reputation rehabilitated.... etc

I am far from certain whether the F35 will eventually be judged a 'dud' or a 'success'. History will tell us in 10 + years. Canada for example has walked away - but that is far from any sort of concrete indication as our Military spending is highly politicized.


What is clearly missing from the 'scope of this discussion' is F35 verses "what" ??

Russian tech has proved incredibly suspect for the last 20 plus years; since the so called end of the cold war with somewhat better access to the truth - we find that despite American shortcomings - Russian shortcomings were larger.

I would argue in the closed system that is China the very same is more than likely true.

I'm not so sure about China following the Russian model of unreliable equipment. China bought into the Japanese/Korean model of producing excellent electronics and, according to Fareed Zacharia of CNN, they are ahead in Artificial Intelligence development. The US big advantage has been better avionics and EW systems on their aircraft. That is now in doubt, or soon will be.

The F-35 was supposed to leap ahead of that challenge but became too many things to do well in one aircraft. The price of competition in the arms race is just brutal.

[DesertWolf101]

Rusty, The F-35 was never sold to Congress as a replacement for the F-15. It was sold to Congress (and the world) as a replacement for all the other aircraft I have mentioned though.

Look, this is hardly a new subject and I suspect this same debate will be had for many years to come. Unfortunately there is very little nuance to be found when it comes to the issue. David Axe for instance is a great writer with whom I have exchanged emails before on a DPRK issue (long story) but it's worth remembering that he has been on a crusade against the F-35 for more than a decade and I think that colors his outlook quite a bit. At the same time however, it is clear the the F-35's will never meet the extremely high standards and expectations set up for it since the start. This does NOT mean the F-35 is a 'bad' aircraft. It has very strong strengths but those are constrained by some key weaknesses. My view on this is that the F-35 is a relatively successful aircraft but a failed program. There are plenty of aircraft that were completely panned in the initial throes of their development only to become highly loved later on. I don't think the F-35 will ever be universally loved as a program but I can attest that it is loved by many who actually pilot it, and not just the ones set up for the marketing aspect of things.

I almost got to visit the F-35 production line in Texas when I was working on a contract with LM but that never worked out. I did get to see F-22s on the tarmac in Hawaii though and that's even better in my book!

[Rusty1961]

Engineers can’t complete the Joint Simulation Environment facility. Taxpayers are paying a premium for the F-35 to be capable of defeating any adversary’s defense and anti-aircraft systems. The only way, short of war, to see if the F-35 can perform as promised is to simulate a modern threat environment. The contractor never delivered a functional simulation facility despite having had 14 years to do so, and the facility is still incomplete six years after the Navy was given the project.

10 will get you 20 if it could win in a simulation we'd have heard about it by now.

[Rusty1961]

"Program officials continue to struggle against a tide of F-35 design flaws. Nearly every time the engineers solve one problem, a new one is discovered. The F-35 still has 871 unresolved deficiencies, only two fewer than last year. Ten of these are the more serious Category I deficiencies that “may cause death, severe injury, or severe occupational illness; may cause loss or major damage to a weapon system; critically restricts the combat readiness capabilities of the using organization."

Unresolved = Lemon. Like I said years ago..Mig 21 would destroy it in a VR fight.

[Rusty1961]

"For years, one of the biggest weaknesses of the F-35 program has been the deeply flawed maintenance and spare parts computer network called the Autonomic Logistics Information System, known as ALIS. Pentagon leaders finally admitted defeat in 2020 and pulled the plug on ALIS. It will be replaced with the cloud-based Operational Data Integrated Network, but the report warns that program officials are repeating many of the same mistakes made with ALIS, which would saddle the troops on the maintenance line with another flawed product."

Where does one start?

Meat. On. The. Table.

[fcooke]

The F-35 program I think we would all agree has been badly managed but that does not the F-35 is meat on the table. It does mean as mentioned in an earlier post that it was to do too many things. Sometimes it is cheaper to to have multiple specialized platforms than 1 trying to do everything. Procurement and program management in the military has been crud for decades, with huge cost over-runs and huge scope creep. And crazy long development cycles. As a result ambitious programs like the B-1, B-2, F-22 all got cut way back, and we will see that with the F-35 as well. I have always thought trying to replace the A-10 with the F-35 was a fools errand. But the generals like their shiny new toys, not the 'old' ones. When I was working I saw the same thing with some of our tech guys - they lost sight of the business requirement because they wanted to play with the coolest new software, hardware, and platforms (don't get me started on 'cloud computing'). Define a spec and stick to it. And then get it done in less than 15 years.

[fcooke]

And then when you keep it simple and reliable it will last a long time. We still have the C-47/DC-3 from the 30's - almost 100 years old. B-52s and C-130s designed in the 50s, with the current B-52s built in the 60s and expected to serve until 2050, While the C-130s have been been continually improved I believe they are STILL being built.

[Denniss]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_a ... er_of_none

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

And then when you keep it simple and reliable it will last a long time. We still have the C-47/DC-3 from the 30's - almost 100 years old. B-52s and C-130s designed in the 50s, with the current B-52s built in the 60s and expected to serve until 2050, While the C-130s have been been continually improved I believe they are STILL being built.

B52s are not viable in today's environment. During the fascists' war against Yugoslavia a tad over 20 years ago they couldn't enter Yugo airspace. Hell, even the Stealth was vulnerable to the 2nd rate Yugo AD.