AF chief: F-35 testing, acquisition will slow

[unhappycamper]

An F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft banks over the flightline at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.


AF chief: F-35 testing, acquisition will slow
By John Reed - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Jan 20, 2010 16:34:42 EST

The Pentagon is slowing down testing and acquisition of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz acknowledged Wednesday.

“The path we were on was too aggressive, so there’s an effort underway to reduce concurrency, to lengthen the period associated with testing, to increase the number of test assets and make the production rate somewhat less ambitious,” Schwartz said during a briefing with reporters in Washington.

The F-35 will be ready for initial operational capability with the Air Force in 2013, Schwartz said.

“While it would have been ideal to go without adjustment, there are very few programs of this sophistication that I’m aware of that have not required some adjustment,” said Schwartz. “This is in the larger interest of the larger attack community that will rely on” the jet.

He said the adjustment is meant to ensure that large numbers of F-35s can be built problem-free when it comes time to replace U.S. and allied fighter fleets toward the end of the decade.


Rest of article about this $239 million dollar wonder at: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/01/military_f35_testing_slowdown_012010w/

[unhappycamper]

1. There's an interesting discussion about this on DoD Buzz:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/01/20/ote-says-jsf-faces-substantial-risk/?wh=wh


My vote for most interesting post in the discussion:



Byron Skinner January 20th, 2010 at 3:13 pm

Good Morning Folks,

This is called lower the life boats, women and children first. General Schwartz is putting on his best face here, but he still evaded Colin’s question.

It is very doubtful that Lockheed Martin will “share” in the over run costs on the F-​​35, they are even now way to big and on;y the DoD could cover them and with the Navy teetering on full cancelation it defies all logic.

As indicated on other sites the reasons for the cost over runs, missed bench marks and delays this time were not constant changes by the DoD, just pure mismanagement on the part of Lockheed Martin. The tax payers shouldn’t have to cover for a poorly run program for an item that isn’t even needed,There is no reason to believe any of Lockheed Martins estimates for future bench marks in view of their past record of not meeting any.

The technology excuse by General Schwartz has been used to many time on to many projects. The F-​​35 by all indicators, from Lockheed Martin won’t even be ready for operational use till after 2020 and beyond. Since the F-​​35 was first conceived in the mid 1980’s that would make it upon delivery 40 year old design and technology.

Lets stop the F-​​35 from twisting in the wind and scrap the whole thing program.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Hopefully the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be settled by then.

[damyank913]

3. ...beware of the military industrial complex...

[damyank913]

2. They still have to work out the bugs on the F-22.

In my humble opinion, since there isn't a fighter on the planet that can do what the F-22 does; they could probably delay this plane for a decade.

[DemoTex]

5. Possible F-22 contrail that I saw in mid-September 2009

Photo taken from fire lookout in Oregon looking southeast toward the Nellis MOAs

[damyank913]

7. Have you noticed...

...that they won't send these planes to Iraq or Afganistan?

[unhappycamper]

8. The F-35 won't be going anywhere any time soon.

It's still woefully underpowered & hasn't flown above 40,000 ft.

[Statistical]

9. Why would you send an F-22 to Iraq or Afghanistan?

The F-22 is a single role killer.

It does one thing and one thing only.

It kills other high performance fighters.

Period. It isn't a ground pounder, it isn't a tank buster, it doesn't move cargo, it isn't used for recon.

It eats up the best fighters the world has ever seen and goes back for seconds.

So please help me understand why the hell you would send the most expensive air superiority aircraft to a location in which the enemy doesn't have a SINGLE aircraft?

Haven't you noticed we haven't sent any Minuteman III ICBMs to Iraq either.

[ddeclue]

17. They really aren't needed there since we have total air superiority.

We could be flying F-4's or even older stuff over there and it would't really make a difference except for the avionics that is available on the new aircraft.

F-22 is an air superiority fighter like the F-15 was when it was first released. It's mission isn't air to ground attacks, that would be ridiculuous overkill when the existing A-10 fleet is far superior for that role anyways.

The F22's role is to defeat other enemy fighters in a traditional "Battle of Britain" type scenario. We need to build and operate them but there's no point in deploying them to Iraq or Afghanistan since we face no fighter threat there.

The better deployment for F22 would be CONUS, South Korea, Japan and Europe. The F35's best deployment would be the same + carrier borne for the Navy variant. South Korea and Japan face the greatest threat (North Korea and China).

[Statistical]

10. That is like saying since nothing goes faster than a ferrari nobody will sell semi trucks.

F-35 is a multi-role fighter.
F-22 is an air superiority fighter.

One is the airforce equivalent of a station wagon and the other is a sports car.

However try carrying a lot of groceries in the back of a Ferrari and then tell me there is no need for station wagons.

[damyank913]

11. Air superiority against who...

...Is China a problem-no, Russia maybe-don't think so, North Korea-unlikely. I guess we'll be ready for Al Qaeda when they get their Air Force going.

[Statistical]

14. Well that is a good question but a little late.

We already built 145 (187 total including planes currently in production) and have cutoff funding for building any new ones. Part of the reason for *only* building 187 (of the original 780) F-22 is because there is less air superiority threats out there.

Remember fighters tend to last 30 years so it is entirely likely Air Superiority will be needed at some point in next 30 or so years.

The point I was making is the F-35 fills a different role.

F-22 air superiority
F-35 multi-role (ground support, anti-radar, strike fighter, naval defense, recon, multi-weather fighter, and air superiority if needed)

The main goal is that the 2 aircraft combined will replace 8 different platforms and 37 different variants.
F-18 Hornet, F-18E Super Hornet, AV-8B Harrier II, EA-6B Prowler, F-16 Falcon, A-10 Thuerbolt, F-14 Tomcat (retired), F-15 Eagle

[damyank913]

16. To my knowledge...

there are no air superiority threats that a Super Hornet can't deal with. At least currently. I honestly don't know what the capabilities of the latest MIG are. And I think the French might have one out there. Does the F-35 have vertical capabilities? It won't replace a Harrier w/o VTOL. Will it fly as slow as a Thunderbolt needs to and take the beating that an A-10 can. Because I have a few Jarhead friends that won't like it if it didn't.

I guess what I'm saying is that; although I understand the potential savings that a joint strike fighter can potentially be; I also think our armed services have been pretty clever about squeezing more juice out of these weapons platforms and others. How long was the F-14 and Prowler around? And they had to slam down on carrier decks for years! Remember that there are other countries still using these planes.

Back to your auto analogy: why buy a Ferrari when you can blow in everyones doors with a Vette and every one in town's driving a Buick?

[ddeclue]

20. F35 has a jump jet variant.

so yes it is intended to replace AV8B. F35 would be a crappy substitute for A10 however in terms of ordinance carried, loiter time, and ability to take ground fire.

The F18 (and F14, 15, and 16 as well) is 1970's technology and no everyone isn't driving "a Buick".. latest Russian Migs are on par with our 70's tech and pose a real threat in the hands of competent pilots.

[Statistical]

22. I agree the F-35 is poor substitute for A-10 however..

the Airforce has always hated the A-10, It is slow, ugly, looks like a tank.
They have been trying to kill it for years.

I have seen the A-10 in action (force on force excercise) and it is awe inspiring. I will miss it when it is gone.
That being said the AF will eventually kill it. It is the ugly duckling, red head stepchild of the fleet.

[ddeclue]

26. And killing it is damned dumb..if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Statistical]

21. The F35-B is VTOL capable.

There are 3 variants

F35-A - airforce
F35-B - VTOL
F35-C - carrier

all share mostly the same components & engines.

Agree the F-22 likely isn't needed today but like I said that horse is out of the barn. We have already built (partially built) 178 aircraft and Congress/President cut off funding for more. So F-22 is a done deal.

Now the bad news is the F-22 is not a good strike fighter. It is a one trick pony so F-35 is still needed.

Of course you can keep older planes in sky for very long time but eventually the flight hour costs start to get prohibitive.

[ddeclue]

19. I'm sorry but neither the F22 nor the F35 are adequate substitutes for the A10

They simply cannot carry the ordinance, they do NOT have the loiter time, and they can NOT take the ground fire that the A10 can. They are "Ferraris", the A10 is a "farm tractor". The Air Force always wants hi-tech sexy toys and they do need to build F22's and F35's but NOT as a replacement for A10's or B52's which can bomb the crap out of our enemies and scare the crap out of them first.

The A10 is basically a flying tank, heavily armored, with simple but highly redundant controls and engine systems to make it survivable in a close air support role. It is NOT designed to hide from the enemy, it is designed to scare the beJesus out of him before it blows him to bits.

Doug D.
Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Tech,
PPSEL, FAA

[Statistical]

23. Agreed 100% however the AF hates the A-10 and eventually they will kill it.

As a former ground pounder I love the A-10. If you are in a world of hurt on the battlefield the best sight in the world is that monster coming over the horizon.

A-10 pilots are cool too. They even call themselves "drivers" instead of "pilots" and they really get/understand ground troops.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. Absolutely correct.

[ddeclue]

18. China, Russa and North Korea ARE the real threats.

Don't underestimate them. F35 in a naval variant would be useful for force projection in general from carriers but F22 is really only of value against these three countries.

[damyank913]

25. I disagree.

China is too focused on entering the new millennium. Russia too-although not sure about Putin. They both need the US for their markets. North Korea is a legit worry but I think the South Koreans and Japan (maybe even China)have them covered. But they all know that the biggest threats they face are from within.

Not sure how this could be done but it would be better if somehow they could get a clearer pic of what the future of warfare will be. I think we're getting an idea what with Iraq and Iran and all. But what about the advent of remotely piloted aircraft and other vehicles. I know that they will NEVER replace boots on the ground but there is great potential there.

[ddeclue]

27. China is the biggest threat, then Korea then Russia.

you can't base your assessment simply on your perception of someone else's intentions, you also have to factor in capability. China's ambition is world power and asian domination. They are the 21st century equivalent to pre WWII Japan.

[damyank913]

29. I think that was true once...

but no longer. I agree with you about capability. But I think they now understand that there's some good stuff to be had with capitalism. Even if they do have some new warped version of it. Coca-Cola & MacDonald's will win the day in the end.
There's a huge difference between China today & pre-WWII Japan. The most important difference is that China actually has its own natural resources. And can deal for the rest.

[ddeclue]

30. The label they stick on their economic system is irrelevant.. it's a nationalist thing just like

Imperial Japan.

[damyank913]

33. Japan's history is considerably different from China's

Japan had always been a warrior culture. Not so China. In fact, I can't recall that, except for Korea in 1950, China has not invaded anyone or started war. Tibet maybe but I don't think that is the same.

[gratuitous]

4. Hmmmm, maybe if we spent more money, faster?

So important to control the skies against enemies who don't have an air force. $239 million a throw for military gewgaws, yet we can't even take care of our own citizens? Sorry in advance to all the Americans who are going to die in the next decade from treatable illness, lack of housing, inadequate nutrition, and the other benefits of grinding poverty. But did you see how sleek and fast and sexy the F-35 is? Whooo-eee!

[damyank913]

6. We've gotta be up to snuff for our invasion of the moon.

I remember in bootcamp we had gone through training with a company of Iranian troops-a few short years later they were turning their (our) weapons on us-including the F-14's that we sold them to fight Iraq with. There's gotta be a better way to run a circle jerk.

[AngryAmish]

12. We have already started to bomb the arrogant moonmen...

[Mari333]

13. our tax dollars being spent on toys for impotent prick wavers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaS2bRGS86c

[damyank913]

15. The world is not a better place w/o George Carlin.

[dysfunctional press]

28. when's the last time that we engaged in air-to-air combat...?

was there any in the first gulf war...? or was it back in vietnam?

[damyank913]

31. Libya, maybe 1st gulf war

[Statistical]

32. Yes 38 Iraqi fighters were confirmed destroyed in air to air combat in Gulf war.

That was IIRC the last significant air to air engagement.

Many people don't realize this but Iraq had couple hundred aircraft and not all of them were junk.

[dysfunctional press]

34. although there wasn't really a lot of actual 'combat'...

most of planes could destroy most of their planes before their planes could even detect ours.

the biggest danger we faced was from ground based anti-aircraft fire.