The Military Thread

[The Human Q-Tip]

Army’s New Lightweight 50 Caliber Machine Gun Will Make It Much Easier To Vanquish America’s Enemies

The Army is in the midst of developing a new, lighter version of its iconic .50 caliber machine gun, which promises to be even deadlier than the original.

The M2 machine gun, commonly known among U.S. troops as the “Ma deuce,” is world-renowned for its remarkable firepower. And an updated version of the M2, fitted with lighter titanium parts, promises to improve upon the already impressive piece of weaponry. Once completed, the new M2 will be between 20 and 30 percent lighter than its original, making it much easier to transport and operate.

“We always want to lighten the soldier load. A major requirement is to engineer a 60-pound weapon compared to an 86-pound weapon,” Laura Battista, the Product Management Engineer for Picatinny Arsenal, told Scout Warrior, a military news website. “We will procure 30 and then go into full blown testing – air drop, full reliability, durability, maintainability and government standard testing. We’ll see how it did compared to the M2 and we will try to go to turn it into a program of record.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/04/armys-new-lightweight-50-caliber-machine-gun-will-make-it-much-easier-to-vanquish-americas-enemies/#ixzz4UudR2NbA

@King Stannis -- whaddya think? If they can maintain the reliability and other assets of the world's most successful gun, while reducing weight, that's fantastic.

And just for fun, the Ma Deuce itself in action:

 

[Sebastian]

Army’s New Lightweight 50 Caliber Machine Gun Will Make It Much Easier To Vanquish America’s Enemies

The Army is in the midst of developing a new, lighter version of its iconic .50 caliber machine gun, which promises to be even deadlier than the original.

The M2 machine gun, commonly known among U.S. troops as the “Ma deuce,” is world-renowned for its remarkable firepower. And an updated version of the M2, fitted with lighter titanium parts, promises to improve upon the already impressive piece of weaponry. Once completed, the new M2 will be between 20 and 30 percent lighter than its original, making it much easier to transport and operate.

“We always want to lighten the soldier load. A major requirement is to engineer a 60-pound weapon compared to an 86-pound weapon,” Laura Battista, the Product Management Engineer for Picatinny Arsenal, told Scout Warrior, a military news website. “We will procure 30 and then go into full blown testing – air drop, full reliability, durability, maintainability and government standard testing. We’ll see how it did compared to the M2 and we will try to go to turn it into a program of record.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/04/armys-new-lightweight-50-caliber-machine-gun-will-make-it-much-easier-to-vanquish-americas-enemies/#ixzz4UudR2NbA

@King Stannis -- whaddya think? If they can maintain the reliability and other assets of the world's most successful gun, while reducing weight, that's fantastic.

And just for fun, the Ma Deuce itself in action:

Making it lighter would be nice.

So many bruises during OBC manhandling those. One of the little tests was stripping down, re-assembling and adjusting the head-space and timing of the .50 cal in less than five minutes. The worst was doing the same for the Brad's M242 25 mm gun. That fucker weighs like 150 pounds without the barrel and we had to yank it out of the turret by hand.

Also, I hate the Bradley. It was the F-35 before the F-35. Jack of all trades that did nothing particularly well.

 

[Huber.]

Trump apparently wants a much bigger navy. Thoughts?

 

[Sebastian]

Trump apparently wants a much bigger navy. Thoughts?

Complex question. When it comes to prioritizing one service over the other, one has to first determine our most likely enemy. At present, the size of our Navy is adequate to protect our interests, project power and is more than enough to crush the ancient and rusting navy of the only near-peer adversary we have in Russia 10x over. China still lacks even a single viable Blue Water task force (it has a shitty incomplete Russian carrier and no clue how to conduct carrier operations) and won't for at least a decade. Moreover, the Japanese Navy by itself is more than enough to contain them. In terms of surface warfare we could defeat both Russia and Chy-nuh simultaneously with ease (and that isn't taking into account the formidable fleets of our close allies in the UK, France, Japan and Australia).

However, many important ship classes are nearing the end of their service-life and the F-35 clusterfuck has Naval Aviation all FUBAR at the moment. So larger may not be as immediately necessary as newer.

But it might be useful to debate why Trump wants a larger fleet. There is a defensible argument that the number of jobs created by a greatly increased shipbuilding program would be very beneficial to the economy in itself. Then again, the cost of his proposals are so prohibitive (unless the F-35 is cancelled) that it would bankrupt us or mean gutting the capabilities of the Army or Air Force.

Neither would be wise, given that our most likely adversary is Russia as a consequence of our NATO obligations and recent Russian belligerence in the Baltic basin. Right now we are weakest, the Army, where the Russians are the strongest. Currently the Army is not built to fight a ground war against a foe like Russia. After 16 years of nonstop war it needs to be rebuilt and modernized. The Air Force is also very short on pilots and long in the tooth with its planes. Again, the F-35 is to blame for this.

@The Human Q-Tip may have a differing opinion.

 

[bcort]

Navy would be the first to respond to any world crisis and nearly all wars. Air force jets are going to be in much better condition for their age than navy jets since they don't have to deal with the same environmental.

 

[Coyote850]

Navy would be the first to respond to any world crisis and nearly all wars. Air force jets are going to be in much better condition for their age than navy jets since they don't have to deal with the same environmental.

Salt water does nasty things to airframes, as does the stress of carrier landings.

 

[Sebastian]

Trump apparently wants a much bigger navy. Thoughts?

Because I am bored this weekend, I will put together a three part series on why military procurement is fucked up and what we should do about it.

@Huber. I wanted to answer your question in further detail as it is a very complicated situation, especially for the Navy, in which a call for a bigger, or smaller fleet is wrapped up in a larger narrative of how we are suffering from a trend of weapons that are ever more expensive, of questionable utility and so overdue that they are no longer used for the purpose intended. As a consequence, updating all the services within the next ten years would bust the bank. Indeed, some new weapons are so overdue, not only must we eat the vast cost overruns but buy new last generation weapon systems to cover the service gap!

It is something that could have been avoided. However, thanks to our political system, and political climate, we have thoroughly fucked ourselves in the ass for decades to come because our procurement system is not so much designed to optimize military readiness, but to make money for the contractors and to provide jobs for Congressional districts (keeping incumbents in office). In order to expand the fleet to 335 ships it would like double their budget. Because you asked, and also because they have the biggest problems, because ships are already expensive but so are their planes now, we'll cover the Navy first in two parts because they are that fucked up. Editing for spelling and grammar through the day.


Navy Part I. The F-35 Cash Jet: I cost so much that I eat the Navy's budget by myself (or it is so bad even Trump knows it's terrible. Sad!)

Preface: The Navy and Air Force all know the life-span of their aircraft and know most are nearing the end of their useful service life by since most date from the late 1970s. Now the Navy must buy new F/A-18s because the ones they have are falling apart. 34% of the USMC's Hornets are no longer operable. So why the crunch when everyone had decades to plan?

Because of this fucking guy:

Obsolescence presumes that the weapon system in question worked in the first place. So far it has not.

Q: Ok, WTF? Why and how does this thing cost so fucking much and why doesn't it work? For that money it had better send a missile up Putin's ass while giving the pilot a blow job. Is it any good?
A: It is a financial black hole that flies like a cow and was doomed before it made its way overdue first flight. Here's why:

Congress mandated a common airframe for the Air Force, Navy and Marines in the F-35. To save money (LOL). This is profoundly stupid. Why?

A. The Navy needs a plane to replace the F/A-18 which is a conventionally launched high-performance (flies faster than mach 2.0, highly maneuverable, carries a lot of ordinance) fighter for carrier operations to include air superiority, ground support and fleet protection.

B. The Marines need a plane to replace the Harrier which is a vertical take-off, low performance ground support attack aircraft. It is meant to provide a Marine expeditionary force with close air support from either an amphibious carrier or an expeditionary airfield. Aircraft of this sort should be able to take a beating, have long loiter times and carry a fucking arsenal of Johnny Jihad killing bombs, missiles and 30mm cannon.

Oh, and it also has to be STEALTH.

These two mission profiles are completely incompatible in the same airframe to say nothing of making it stealthy. The vertical take-off and landing requirement the Marines had basically made the airframe design impossible with regard to high performance. The result is an aircraft that performs none of its mandated jobs well. In fact despite being a decade overdue, during which time you would think they would have worked out the myriad malfunctions, the Pentagon has been lying about the progress they've been making and vastly overestimating the modest advances they have made in making the jet operational. The lies have become so burdensome that an Air Force general actually passed out during a press briefing about the F-35's budget. The F-35 inflicts its first casualty:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Irv0hET_-o


But wait, before we get into why it doesn't adequately replace the F/A-18, and especially the Harrier, remember the part about the common airframe being cheaper than two different planes? Lol. It is way more expensive. The cost breakdown:

1) Per unit, using Pentagon accounting, it runs from between $100-$200 million per unit. In reality, it runs between $180 million for the F-35A for the Air Force and $350 million for the Naval F-35C. Or more. To put that in perspective, the excellent F/A-18 Super Hornet runs at just under $100 million per plane.

Laughably, the Air Force cancelled the F-22 program after only 187 aircraft because it cost too much at $150 million per unit. They did it to purchase F-35s that are supposed to be cheaper than the F-22 at both the flyaway cost and costs per flight hour. Whoops. To add insult to injury, the F-22 is a proven ball-buster and the best fighter in the world. The F-35 breaks the necks of its pilots.

2) So not only does the F-35 cost a fucking fortune off the lot, but it is also the most expensive military aircraft in the world to operate per flight hour. Take a look:

Over its service-life, the F-35 will cost you and me, our crotch-fruit, as well as theirs, north of $750 million per fucking plane. Or $1.5 trillion over the absurdly long service-life (55 years Lol) the Pentagon thinks this plane is capable of.

With $1.5 trillion we could:

• Send every kid in the country to college for free for a decade.

• Buy 12 billion kegs of beer.

• Have x1 new Iraq War.

• 30 billion premium dildos complete with balls (for @The Oi).

• 1700 NBA Franchises (being generous with the Kings).

• 375,000 M1A2 SEP Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

• Purchase 25,000 JAS-39 Gripen/Es. At that number each Gripen would only have to fire one of its super-advanced Meteor missiles and it would be enough to shoot down every single Russian, Chinese, North Korean and Arab fighter aircraft in existence.

The SAAB JAS-39 Gripen/E is an interesting counter-point to the F-35. At only $60 million per unit, it can do everything the F-35 is supposed to do, including the vaunted sensor fusion capability, and is actually a far superior plane with regard to performance and ground attack capability, with the exception of stealth.

However, stealth isn't as useful as it used to be which brings us to whether or not the performance of the weapon system justifies the cost. IT DOES NOT.

Ok, let's get to brass tacks. Is the plane good? It has stealth. And sensor fusion. Stealth is nice but actually increasingly problematic and this plane squanders it.

Q: You said stealth isn't what it used to be. Why?
A: Radar systems are far cheaper and faster to develop and improve than building stealth aircraft. We aren't even sure stealth works against the Russians or Chinese anymore.
A2: Moreover, the new radar and sensor systems mountable in our planes can see enemy aircraft, and fire missiles at them at distances they can't, well before they can see us. Stealth isn't as necessary in air-to-air combat as a result.

If stealth is meh, and the same sensor fusion is achievable on current airframes, is the F-35 at least better than the planes it is replacing. Fuck no.

Q: Is it better than the F/A-18 it is replacing for the role of air-superiority, fleet protection and ground attack?
A: It is worse at all of the above in raw terms. If the stealth works it may have an edge, but that edge is squandered by the shortcomings of the airframe. Here is a comparison:

The F/A-18E Super Hornet:

• Significantly faster
• Constructively carries more ordinance
• Far better dog fighter
• Far greater stand-off range
• More robust and can handle more damage (two engines)
• Can carry a greatly more varied payload
• Has a cannon

The F-35C:

• Greater range
• Stealth

The irony, and tragedy, of the F-35 program is that it is designed to see and shoot down aircraft at great ranges. However, the design so far has made it unable to carry the long-range missiles to accomplish that task. Even worse, the F-35 can only carry four missiles internally. Anything carried on the wings renders its stealth capabilities moot. So, in reality it can only carry 40% of the ordinance of the F/A-18.

Ok, if it can't fight at the range of the F/A-18E, or carry enough ordinance to replace the Super Hornet's fleet protection capabilities without giving away its location, can it dogfight if caught? Fuck. No. It is dead meat. It handles like a bathtub and had its ass kicked by F-16s.

Here is a link: http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-can-not-dogfight-effectively-2015-7

I don't want to ask, but can the F-35B at least do what the Harrier II does and blow up ISIS assholes on the ground? Not as well.

Q: Why the fuck not? It can take off vertically and carries all them bombs in that graphic. And it COSTS $1.5 TRILLION!!!
A: The F-35 can't carry any weapons on the outside and be stealth which means it carries less than half the armament of the Harrier II to have an advantage over the older plane. It doesn't even have a fucking internal cannon. Can't carry rocket pods without everyone knowing it's there. So you'll never see it do this:

Q: WTF? If it can't carry weapons the Harrier does, what is the point? Why the fuck do the Marines even need stealth? It isn't supposed to protect the fleet like an F-18!
A: They don't. In fact, it is awful at CAS and is a fragile snowflake compared to the Harrier II. We won't even talk about how inferior it is at its role compared to the A-10.

You said earlier that the Navy has to buy new F/A-18s because the old aircraft are past their shelf-life. When was the F-35 supposed to be in service? Why didn't they just buy the F-22 like the Air Force? About ten years ago. The services don't like sharing anything.

This shit show has seriously set the entire military back by decades. Unlike most other Congressional leaders, John McCain has been taking the services and contractors alike to task for the billions in cost overruns and the nightmarish delays. McCain calls the program a "Scandal and a tragedy." "The F-35 program had originally promised 1,013 fighters by fiscal year 2016 but had only delivered 179... McCain added that the plane's delays meant that "the last F-35 will be delivered in 2040," and given that potential adversaries like China and Russia were investing in modern aircraft technology, he said he "cannot fathom how this strategy makes any sense." By the time we receive the last F-35, the aircraft, which already sucks, will possibly be two generations behind. It is akin to taking delivery of the last F-4 Phantoms in 2018.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/26/politics/f-35-delay-air-force/

Q: Why didn't the Navy purchase a carrier version of the F-22? Especially after the aircraft proved itself to be a game-changer and cheaper that the F-35C?
A: The Navy wanted its own design even though there was a carrier variant available. The services won't even share camouflage patterns anymore and for some reason they are allowed to get away with it. The Navy also thought it would be too expensive. Lol.

If it can't fight as well as the F/A-18E, or bomb terrorists like the Harrier II, and costs Italy and is so overdue it will be obsolete in 10 years and is forcing them to buy new last generation planes on top of the cost overruns, why the fuck is the Navy buying them?

People are getting rich and elected off it. And it isn't the only Naval program so expensive it has crippled their budget.

Next: Navy Part II. The Zumwalt-Class Boondoggle: So expensive they can't afford the ammunition for it.

Other helpful link: https://warisboring.com/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398#.6uyug6xhp

 

[bcort]

Because I am bored this weekend, I will put together a three part series on why military procurement is fucked up and what we should do about it.

@Huber. I wanted to answer your question in further detail as it is a very complicated situation, especially for the Navy, in which a call for a bigger, or smaller fleet is wrapped up in a larger narrative of how we are suffering from a trend of weapons that are ever more expensive, of questionable utility and so overdue that they are no longer used for the purpose intended. As a consequence, updating all the services within the next ten years would bust the bank. Indeed, some new weapons are so overdue, not only must we eat the vast cost overruns but buy new last generation weapon systems to cover the service gap!

It is something that could have been avoided. However, thanks to our political system, and political climate, we have thoroughly fucked ourselves in the ass for decades to come because our procurement system is not so much designed to optimize military readiness, but to make money for the contractors and to provide jobs for Congressional districts (keeping incumbents in office). In order to expand the fleet to 335 ships it would like double their budget. Because you asked, and also because they have the biggest problems, because ships are already expensive but so are their planes now, we'll cover the Navy first in two parts because they are that fucked up. Editing for spelling and grammar through the day.


Navy Part I. The F-35 Cash Jet: I cost so much that I eat the Navy's budget by myself (or it is so bad even Trump knows it's terrible. Sad!)

Preface: The Navy and Air Force all know the life-span of their aircraft and know most are nearing the end of their useful service life by since most date from the late 1970s. Now the Navy must buy new F/A-18s because the ones they have are falling apart. 34% of the USMC's Hornets are no longer operable. So why the crunch when everyone had decades to plan?

Because of this fucking guy:

Obsolescence presumes that the weapon system in question worked in the first place. So far it has not.

Q: Ok, WTF? Why and how does this thing cost so fucking much and why doesn't it work? For that money it had better send a missile up Putin's ass while giving the pilot a blow job. Is it any good?
A: It is a financial black hole that flies like a cow and was doomed before it made its way overdue first flight. Here's why:

Congress mandated a common airframe for the Air Force, Navy and Marines in the F-35. To save money (LOL). This is profoundly stupid. Why?

A. The Navy needs a plane to replace the F/A-18 which is a conventionally launched high-performance (flies faster than mach 2.0, highly maneuverable, carries a lot of ordinance) fighter for carrier operations to include air superiority, ground support and fleet protection.

B. The Marines need a plane to replace the Harrier which is a vertical take-off, low performance ground support attack aircraft. It is meant to provide a Marine expeditionary force with close air support from either an amphibious carrier or an expeditionary airfield. Aircraft of this sort should be able to take a beating, have long loiter times and carry a fucking arsenal of Johnny Jihad killing bombs, missiles and 30mm cannon.

Oh, and it also has to be STEALTH.

These two mission profiles are completely incompatible in the same airframe to say nothing of making it stealthy. The vertical take-off and landing requirement the Marines had basically made the airframe design impossible with regard to high performance. The result is an aircraft that performs none of its mandated jobs well. In fact despite being a decade overdue, during which time you would think they would have worked out the myriad malfunctions, the Pentagon has been lying about the progress they've been making and vastly overestimating the modest advances they have made in making the jet operational. The lies have become so burdensome that an Air Force general actually passed out during a press briefing about the F-35's budget. The F-35 inflicts its first casualty:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Irv0hET_-o


But wait, before we get into why it doesn't adequately replace the F/A-18, and especially the Harrier, remember the part about the common airframe being cheaper than two different planes? Lol. It is way more expensive. The cost breakdown:

1) Per unit, using Pentagon accounting, it runs from between $100-$200 million per unit. In reality, it runs between $180 million for the F-35A for the Air Force and $350 million for the Naval F-35C. Or more. To put that in perspective, the excellent F/A-18 Super Hornet runs at just under $100 million per plane.

Laughably, the Air Force cancelled the F-22 program after only 187 aircraft because it cost too much at $150 million per unit. They did it to purchase F-35s that are supposed to be cheaper than the F-22 at both the flyaway cost and costs per flight hour. Whoops. To add insult to injury, the F-22 is a proven ball-buster and the best fighter in the world. The F-35 breaks the necks of its pilots.

2) So not only does the F-35 cost a fucking fortune off the lot, but it is also the most expensive military aircraft in the world to operate per flight hour. Take a look:

Over its service-life, the F-35 will cost you and me, our crotch-fruit, as well as theirs, north of $750 million per fucking plane. Or $1.5 trillion over the absurdly long service-life (55 years Lol) the Pentagon thinks this plane is capable of.

With $1.5 trillion we could:

• Send every kid in the country to college for free for a decade.

• Buy 12 billion kegs of beer.

• Have x1 new Iraq War.

• 30 billion premium dildos complete with balls (for @The Oi).

• 1700 NBA Franchises (being generous with the Kings).

• 375,000 M1A2 SEP Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

• Purchase 25,000 JAS-39 Gripen/Es. At that number each Gripen would only have to fire one of its super-advanced Meteor missiles and it would be enough to shoot down every single Russian, Chinese, North Korean and Arab fighter aircraft in existence.

The SAAB JAS-39 Gripen/E is an interesting counter-point to the F-35. At only $60 million per unit, it can do everything the F-35 is supposed to do, including the vaunted sensor fusion capability, and is actually a far superior plane with regard to performance and ground attack capability, with the exception of stealth.

However, stealth isn't as useful as it used to be which brings us to whether or not the performance of the weapon system justifies the cost. IT DOES NOT.

Ok, let's get to brass tacks. Is the plane good? It has stealth. And sensor fusion. Stealth is nice but actually increasingly problematic and this plane squanders it.

Q: You said stealth isn't what it used to be. Why?
A: Radar systems are far cheaper and faster to develop and improve than building stealth aircraft. We aren't even sure stealth works against the Russians or Chinese anymore.
A2: Moreover, the new radar and sensor systems mountable in our planes can see enemy aircraft, and fire missiles at them at distances they can't, well before they can see us. Stealth isn't as necessary in air-to-air combat as a result.

If stealth is meh, and the same sensor fusion is achievable on current airframes, is the F-35 at least better than the planes it is replacing. Fuck no.

Q: Is it better than the F/A-18 it is replacing for the role of air-superiority, fleet protection and ground attack?
A: It is worse at all of the above in raw terms. If the stealth works it may have an edge, but that edge is squandered by the shortcomings of the airframe. Here is a comparison:

The F/A-18E Super Hornet:

• Significantly faster
• Constructively carries more ordinance
• Far better dog fighter
• Far greater stand-off range
• More robust and can handle more damage (two engines)
• Can carry a greatly more varied payload
• Has a cannon

The F-35C:

• Greater range
• Stealth

The irony, and tragedy, of the F-35 program is that it is designed to see and shoot down aircraft at great ranges. However, the design so far has made it unable to carry the long-range missiles to accomplish that task. Even worse, the F-35 can only carry four missiles internally. Anything carried on the wings renders its stealth capabilities moot. So, in reality it can only carry 40% of the ordinance of the F/A-18.

Ok, if it can't fight at the range of the F/A-18E, or carry enough ordinance to replace the Super Hornet's fleet protection capabilities without giving away its location, can it dogfight if caught? Fuck. No. It is dead meat. It handles like a bathtub and had its ass kicked by F-16s.

Here is a link: http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-can-not-dogfight-effectively-2015-7

I don't want to ask, but can the F-35B at least do what the Harrier II does and blow up ISIS assholes on the ground? Not as well.

Q: Why the fuck not? It can take off vertically and carries all them bombs in that graphic. And it COSTS $1.5 TRILLION!!!
A: The F-35 can't carry any weapons on the outside and be stealth which means it carries less than half the armament of the Harrier II to have an advantage over the older plane. It doesn't even have a fucking internal cannon. Can't carry rocket pods without everyone knowing it's there. So you'll never see it do this:

Q: WTF? If it can't carry weapons the Harrier does, what is the point? Why the fuck do the Marines even need stealth? It isn't supposed to protect the fleet like an F-18!
A: They don't. In fact, it is awful at CAS and is a fragile snowflake compared to the Harrier II. We won't even talk about how inferior it is at its role compared to the A-10.

You said earlier that the Navy has to buy new F/A-18s because the old aircraft are past their shelf-life. When was the F-35 supposed to be in service? Why didn't they just buy the F-22 like the Air Force? About ten years ago. The services don't like sharing anything.

This shit show has seriously set the entire military back by decades. Unlike most other Congressional leaders, John McCain has been taking the services and contractors alike to task for the billions in cost overruns and the nightmarish delays. McCain calls the program a "Scandal and a tragedy." "The F-35 program had originally promised 1,013 fighters by fiscal year 2016 but had only delivered 179... McCain added that the plane's delays meant that "the last F-35 will be delivered in 2040," and given that potential adversaries like China and Russia were investing in modern aircraft technology, he said he "cannot fathom how this strategy makes any sense." By the time we receive the last F-35, the aircraft, which already sucks, will possibly be two generations behind. It is akin to taking delivery of the last F-4 Phantoms in 2018.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/26/politics/f-35-delay-air-force/

Q: Why didn't the Navy purchase a carrier version of the F-22? Especially after the aircraft proved itself to be a game-changer and cheaper that the F-35C?
A: The Navy wanted its own design even though there was a carrier variant available. The services won't even share camouflage patterns anymore and for some reason they are allowed to get away with it. The Navy also thought it would be too expensive. Lol.

If it can't fight as well as the F/A-18E, or bomb terrorists like the Harrier II, and costs Italy and is so overdue it will be obsolete in 10 years and is forcing them to buy new last generation planes on top of the cost overruns, why the fuck is the Navy buying them?

People are getting rich and elected off it. And it isn't the only Naval program so expensive it has crippled their budget.

Next: Navy Part II. The Zumwalt-Class Boondoggle: So expensive they can't afford the ammunition for it.

Other helpful link: https://warisboring.com/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398#.6uyug6xhp

Oh boy... ok, where to start on shit that can/should be said on here. First, I'm not sure if you're quoting a bunch of things or drawing your own conclusions.

Let me say this- I've never worked in the Pentagon, and my experience with the F-35 are minimal- an exercise to see how it integrates into current networks and talking to buddies that transitioned to it. I have heard at least similar things as far as when it was in development, if someone would to talk against it, it was a big no-no. Additionally, as reports made it up the CoC, "progress" vastly improved with it.

So, let's look at some of the things you said-
The meme about it being obsolete in 15 years- hardly. Besides the performance of the aircraft, the avionics and systems will keep it going well beyond that. I'm curious what makes you post/think it will be obsolete in 15 years?

F/A-18 vs F-35... I had a good laugh at your post with this one. I want to know the last guy that broke Mach 2 in a Rhino. In fact, I don't think that's even published as our top speed, but in either case, it's hilarious that you think we hit that. But here's what you said about the two:

The F/A-18E Super Hornet:

• Significantly faster
• Constructively carries more ordinance
• Far better dog fighter
• Far greater stand-off range
• More robust and can handle more damage (two engines)
• Can carry a greatly more varied payload
• Has a cannon

The F-35C:

• Greater range
• Stealth

Faster- nope
Ordnance- very true.. I'll get into this in a minute.
Dog Fighter- nope.
Far greater stand off range- Not exactly sure what you're trying to refer to here- whether it be in an A/A engagement, releasing ordnance, or something else- but nope.
Two engines- Yep. Like the fact that we have two engines and could have emergencies where if we lose one, we're still flyable.
Payload- this is funny since weapons need to be approved per airframe. Could the F-35 carry all of the same weapons? Probably. They just haven't tested them all with it yet. They have to do coding to get the avionics and software to interact with the weapons. They have to test to ensure all the weapons can be safely released. And so on... It's not that it couldn't carry it, but that they haven't been approved to carry them yet. It's not there yet. The Hornet and Rhino had the benefit of not having to approve all the ordnance at once.. as new bombs/missiles came up, they were tested.
Having a Gun- Yep. And the guys I've talked to say it sucks not to have it.. Not particularly in an A/A engagement, but for CAS.

So, what does the F-18 have over the F-35? It has two engines, is tried and true, and can carry more missiles/bombs at one time. To that last point, you're not going to see the rhino go away anytime soon. It's still going to be a viable platform for A/G missions. For A/A, I'm not going to go into anything specific, but the rhino has a role, and so does the JSF in future missions/integration.

Ok, onto some other shit about this post. The cost to operate and maintain. Yes, I expect it to be higher. Why? You have to treat the skin of the plane almost like a system. It needs it's own care and tending to. But, to try to estimate what it's going to be like right now- when we're working on a microcosm of a fleet of JSF is ridiculous. Once the entire flight line has them.. and the entire military for that matter.. it's going to be massively reduced. Here's a small anecdote- we go on det to an AF base (as a Navy squadron). One of our jets break and the equipment needed to test it isn't available at that (or any) AF base due to incompatibilities in our systems. The closest Navy base that has it is nearly half the country away. But we need it, so we get it shipped or have some people go TAD to deliver it to us. We test it, then have it shipped back. How much does that cost? Depending on the size of the equipment.. $10K. At least, that's what it cost our squadron when it happened to us. Now, nearly everything is the same. We're able to operate more efficiently. What I'm curious to see work is how the services "get along" with this. I agree, the services don't like to work together, but they're going to be forced to in instances like this. Their parts depots might need to communicate. It'll all be new.

Ok.. onto the 2040 thing. Another ridiculous statement. I'm expecting airwings, prioritized by those about to deploy, to start having a squadron of JSF around 2020. The first fleet squadron to transition starts next year. Is everything going to be in place in a year or two following that? Absolutely not. But, you're going to see airwings that are deploying have a squadron of F-35's.. and that's what matters. No one gives a shit for the guys in maintenance phase having them or not.

I'm sure I missed a few points that you made.. if you want me to respond to them, let me know.

Edit: Stannis, I don't know your background, but it's clearly not aviation. Maybe you know about/were part of the acquisition of the F-35. The argument (specifically for the Navy) between jets isn't one to be had.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

@King Stannis , @Huber.

I'm going to break down my commentary on the Navy into two posts -- the first dealing with the proper role of the Navy, and the second dealing with whether or not we are capable of performing that role. I'll address the facts presented by @King Stannis in that second post.

I think the key point is that strategically, we are an island nation. Virtually all of our major interests, including almost all of our significant allies, are located on different continents. So, our Navy has three strategic roles:

1) Power projection. That means the ability to quickly bring significant military power to critical areas as quickly as possible. That would include carrier air groups, ships capable of launching cruise missiles, and the ability to deploy and support Marines. What is critical to this point is that with respect to this role, the strength of opposing navies is not the only measure of what naval forces our required, because in many instances, our naval aviation assets will be engaging enemy land-based air and ground assets. In other words, we still need carriers to put aircraft in range even if our enemy lacks a single carrier of their own.

There is no substitute for naval power in terms of power projection. Just as one example, the first 53 days of air strikes against ISIS were done entirely by naval aviation.

2) Ability to transport and support longer-term ground forces. In addition to projecting force rapidly for emergency/urgent situations, we also have to be able to support the long-term deployment of more significant ground and Air Force assets. And what is important to understand in this respect is that there is no margin for error. Once our forces are deployed, the loss of naval superiority would make those forces incredibly vulnerable. That means our naval forces must be sufficiently powerful to resist both sea and ground based attacks.

This includes the capability to seize, defend, and support suitable land bases/facilities to stage supplies for those more significant ground assets, and land-based air assets.

3) The ability to deny our enemies the power to do 1) or 2) if necessary. Self-explanatory.

My final point on this post is this: Increasing naval strength takes significantly longer than increasing air or especially ground strength. Shipbuilding, outfitting, training, sea trials, etc., take a very long time, and there really isn't any way to come up with a substitute for a lack of naval strength. We have to project out at least 5-7 years, looking not only at the capabilities of our own navy, but what potential foes may do in the meantime.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Because I am bored this weekend, I will put together a three part series on why military procurement is fucked up and what we should do about it.

@Huber. I wanted to answer your question in further detail as it is a very complicated situation, especially for the Navy, in which a call for a bigger, or smaller fleet is wrapped up in a larger narrative of how we are suffering from a trend of weapons that are ever more expensive, of questionable utility and so overdue that they are no longer used for the purpose intended. As a consequence, updating all the services within the next ten years would bust the bank. Indeed, some new weapons are so overdue, not only must we eat the vast cost overruns but buy new last generation weapon systems to cover the service gap!

It is something that could have been avoided. However, thanks to our political system, and political climate, we have thoroughly fucked ourselves in the ass for decades to come because our procurement system is not so much designed to optimize military readiness, but to make money for the contractors and to provide jobs for Congressional districts (keeping incumbents in office). In order to expand the fleet to 335 ships it would like double their budget. Because you asked, and also because they have the biggest problems, because ships are already expensive but so are their planes now, we'll cover the Navy first in two parts because they are that fucked up. Editing for spelling and grammar through the day.


Navy Part I. The F-35 Cash Jet: I cost so much that I eat the Navy's budget by myself (or it is so bad even Trump knows it's terrible. Sad!)

Preface: The Navy and Air Force all know the life-span of their aircraft and know most are nearing the end of their useful service life by since most date from the late 1970s. Now the Navy must buy new F/A-18s because the ones they have are falling apart. 34% of the USMC's Hornets are no longer operable. So why the crunch when everyone had decades to plan?

Because of this fucking guy:

Obsolescence presumes that the weapon system in question worked in the first place. So far it has not.

Q: Ok, WTF? Why and how does this thing cost so fucking much and why doesn't it work? For that money it had better send a missile up Putin's ass while giving the pilot a blow job. Is it any good?
A: It is a financial black hole that flies like a cow and was doomed before it made its way overdue first flight. Here's why:

Congress mandated a common airframe for the Air Force, Navy and Marines in the F-35. To save money (LOL). This is profoundly stupid. Why?

A. The Navy needs a plane to replace the F/A-18 which is a conventionally launched high-performance (flies faster than mach 2.0, highly maneuverable, carries a lot of ordinance) fighter for carrier operations to include air superiority, ground support and fleet protection.

B. The Marines need a plane to replace the Harrier which is a vertical take-off, low performance ground support attack aircraft. It is meant to provide a Marine expeditionary force with close air support from either an amphibious carrier or an expeditionary airfield. Aircraft of this sort should be able to take a beating, have long loiter times and carry a fucking arsenal of Johnny Jihad killing bombs, missiles and 30mm cannon.

Oh, and it also has to be STEALTH.

These two mission profiles are completely incompatible in the same airframe to say nothing of making it stealthy. The vertical take-off and landing requirement the Marines had basically made the airframe design impossible with regard to high performance. The result is an aircraft that performs none of its mandated jobs well. In fact despite being a decade overdue, during which time you would think they would have worked out the myriad malfunctions, the Pentagon has been lying about the progress they've been making and vastly overestimating the modest advances they have made in making the jet operational. The lies have become so burdensome that an Air Force general actually passed out during a press briefing about the F-35's budget. The F-35 inflicts its first casualty:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Irv0hET_-o


But wait, before we get into why it doesn't adequately replace the F/A-18, and especially the Harrier, remember the part about the common airframe being cheaper than two different planes? Lol. It is way more expensive. The cost breakdown:

1) Per unit, using Pentagon accounting, it runs from between $100-$200 million per unit. In reality, it runs between $180 million for the F-35A for the Air Force and $350 million for the Naval F-35C. Or more. To put that in perspective, the excellent F/A-18 Super Hornet runs at just under $100 million per plane.

Laughably, the Air Force cancelled the F-22 program after only 187 aircraft because it cost too much at $150 million per unit. They did it to purchase F-35s that are supposed to be cheaper than the F-22 at both the flyaway cost and costs per flight hour. Whoops. To add insult to injury, the F-22 is a proven ball-buster and the best fighter in the world. The F-35 breaks the necks of its pilots.

2) So not only does the F-35 cost a fucking fortune off the lot, but it is also the most expensive military aircraft in the world to operate per flight hour. Take a look:

Over its service-life, the F-35 will cost you and me, our crotch-fruit, as well as theirs, north of $750 million per fucking plane. Or $1.5 trillion over the absurdly long service-life (55 years Lol) the Pentagon thinks this plane is capable of.

With $1.5 trillion we could:

• Send every kid in the country to college for free for a decade.

• Buy 12 billion kegs of beer.

• Have x1 new Iraq War.

• 30 billion premium dildos complete with balls (for @The Oi).

• 1700 NBA Franchises (being generous with the Kings).

• 375,000 M1A2 SEP Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

• Purchase 25,000 JAS-39 Gripen/Es. At that number each Gripen would only have to fire one of its super-advanced Meteor missiles and it would be enough to shoot down every single Russian, Chinese, North Korean and Arab fighter aircraft in existence.

The SAAB JAS-39 Gripen/E is an interesting counter-point to the F-35. At only $60 million per unit, it can do everything the F-35 is supposed to do, including the vaunted sensor fusion capability, and is actually a far superior plane with regard to performance and ground attack capability, with the exception of stealth.

However, stealth isn't as useful as it used to be which brings us to whether or not the performance of the weapon system justifies the cost. IT DOES NOT.

Ok, let's get to brass tacks. Is the plane good? It has stealth. And sensor fusion. Stealth is nice but actually increasingly problematic and this plane squanders it.

Q: You said stealth isn't what it used to be. Why?
A: Radar systems are far cheaper and faster to develop and improve than building stealth aircraft. We aren't even sure stealth works against the Russians or Chinese anymore.
A2: Moreover, the new radar and sensor systems mountable in our planes can see enemy aircraft, and fire missiles at them at distances they can't, well before they can see us. Stealth isn't as necessary in air-to-air combat as a result.

If stealth is meh, and the same sensor fusion is achievable on current airframes, is the F-35 at least better than the planes it is replacing. Fuck no.

Q: Is it better than the F/A-18 it is replacing for the role of air-superiority, fleet protection and ground attack?
A: It is worse at all of the above in raw terms. If the stealth works it may have an edge, but that edge is squandered by the shortcomings of the airframe. Here is a comparison:

The F/A-18E Super Hornet:

• Significantly faster
• Constructively carries more ordinance
• Far better dog fighter
• Far greater stand-off range
• More robust and can handle more damage (two engines)
• Can carry a greatly more varied payload
• Has a cannon

The F-35C:

• Greater range
• Stealth

The irony, and tragedy, of the F-35 program is that it is designed to see and shoot down aircraft at great ranges. However, the design so far has made it unable to carry the long-range missiles to accomplish that task. Even worse, the F-35 can only carry four missiles internally. Anything carried on the wings renders its stealth capabilities moot. So, in reality it can only carry 40% of the ordinance of the F/A-18.

Ok, if it can't fight at the range of the F/A-18E, or carry enough ordinance to replace the Super Hornet's fleet protection capabilities without giving away its location, can it dogfight if caught? Fuck. No. It is dead meat. It handles like a bathtub and had its ass kicked by F-16s.

Here is a link: http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-can-not-dogfight-effectively-2015-7

I don't want to ask, but can the F-35B at least do what the Harrier II does and blow up ISIS assholes on the ground? Not as well.

Q: Why the fuck not? It can take off vertically and carries all them bombs in that graphic. And it COSTS $1.5 TRILLION!!!
A: The F-35 can't carry any weapons on the outside and be stealth which means it carries less than half the armament of the Harrier II to have an advantage over the older plane. It doesn't even have a fucking internal cannon. Can't carry rocket pods without everyone knowing it's there. So you'll never see it do this:

Q: WTF? If it can't carry weapons the Harrier does, what is the point? Why the fuck do the Marines even need stealth? It isn't supposed to protect the fleet like an F-18!
A: They don't. In fact, it is awful at CAS and is a fragile snowflake compared to the Harrier II. We won't even talk about how inferior it is at its role compared to the A-10.

You said earlier that the Navy has to buy new F/A-18s because the old aircraft are past their shelf-life. When was the F-35 supposed to be in service? Why didn't they just buy the F-22 like the Air Force? About ten years ago. The services don't like sharing anything.

This shit show has seriously set the entire military back by decades. Unlike most other Congressional leaders, John McCain has been taking the services and contractors alike to task for the billions in cost overruns and the nightmarish delays. McCain calls the program a "Scandal and a tragedy." "The F-35 program had originally promised 1,013 fighters by fiscal year 2016 but had only delivered 179... McCain added that the plane's delays meant that "the last F-35 will be delivered in 2040," and given that potential adversaries like China and Russia were investing in modern aircraft technology, he said he "cannot fathom how this strategy makes any sense." By the time we receive the last F-35, the aircraft, which already sucks, will possibly be two generations behind. It is akin to taking delivery of the last F-4 Phantoms in 2018.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/26/politics/f-35-delay-air-force/

Q: Why didn't the Navy purchase a carrier version of the F-22? Especially after the aircraft proved itself to be a game-changer and cheaper that the F-35C?
A: The Navy wanted its own design even though there was a carrier variant available. The services won't even share camouflage patterns anymore and for some reason they are allowed to get away with it. The Navy also thought it would be too expensive. Lol.

If it can't fight as well as the F/A-18E, or bomb terrorists like the Harrier II, and costs Italy and is so overdue it will be obsolete in 10 years and is forcing them to buy new last generation planes on top of the cost overruns, why the fuck is the Navy buying them?

People are getting rich and elected off it. And it isn't the only Naval program so expensive it has crippled their budget.

Next: Navy Part II. The Zumwalt-Class Boondoggle: So expensive they can't afford the ammunition for it.

Other helpful link: https://warisboring.com/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398#.6uyug6xhp

I don't feel sufficiently informed to comment on the substance of this, but I'll just make two points:

1) Whether or not it was a good idea to go with the F-35 in the first place may be a different question from whether cancellation now is a good idea;

2) The incoming SecDef apparently supports it.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/01/03/mattis-backs-f-35-stealth-fighter-criticized-trump/

 

[Coyote850]

Weapon system development and procurement is such a mess. Companies like Grumman, Lockheed, General Dynamics overprice these systems to the point of absurdity. Then the CEOs of these companies get the politicians in their back pocket. There is absolutely no reason for a fighter jet, even stealth technology, to cost $100 million per copy. Yes new systems take reseach and development and that should be taken into account. But in my opinion the American tax payers are getting ass raped by these companies. And our government is allowing it to happen.

 

[Sebastian]

Alright, we have a subject matter expert to use as a sounding board! I was hoping an aviator would show up on this thread. We could use a surface warfare officer too if anyone is out there. And don't be thrown off by the pictures. I use them to break the monotony of the wall of text.

Oh boy... ok, where to start on shit that can/should be said on here. First, I'm not sure if you're quoting a bunch of things or drawing your own conclusions.

Let me say this- I've never worked in the Pentagon, and my experience with the F-35 are minimal- an exercise to see how it integrates into current networks and talking to buddies that transitioned to it. I have heard at least similar things as far as when it was in development, if someone would to talk against it, it was a big no-no. Additionally, as reports made it up the CoC, "progress" vastly improved with it.

You are correct. I am not an aviator. However, I have a brother and a few friends that are -they fly or rear the F/A-18 and their opinions as well as my following the project for a decade is where I derive my views from. So not a total vacuum. I don't have the direct experience but I trust theirs. Interestingly enough one friend graduated from Top Gun a few weeks ago and had the chance to deal with a F-35 while there. His opinion has changed a bit... more on that later.

Also, stay away from the Pentagon. Or its creatures. And flag officers. They'll drive you mad.

So, let's look at some of the things you said-
The meme about it being obsolete in 15 years- hardly. Besides the performance of the aircraft, the avionics and systems will keep it going well beyond that. I'm curious what makes you post/think it will be obsolete in 15 years?

The airframe is limited no matter what you put into it. That is the biggest problem. The common airframe limits taking advantage of what the stealth and advanced sensor integration systems can do. Four internal weapons is going to be hard to remedy without re-designing the weapons or the plane. As of now the best air-to-air missile out there, the Meteor, will not fit in the internal weapons bay. And I believe the AIM-120D doesn't either.

Moreover, within that timeframe there is the very real possibility stealth may no longer hold any advantage thanks to the rapid development of Russian and Chinese sensor technology. The question is then: What is the F-35 without its stealth capability? A very good C3 node that hopes Gen 4.5 fighters do not get within 50 miles of it. If we drop the need for stealth at least then you can stick the missiles it needs (AIM-120D or Meteor) to take advantage of the radar and thermal sensors onto the external hard-points. But then you are reducing the capability of an already inferior air-to-air platform.

I'm not the only one it seems. The irony of this debate is some admirals seem less than enthusiastic about the program. The Air Force and Congress are the ones really pushing the thing, even mandating more planes than the Navy wanted:

https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/09/greenert-questions-stealth-future/22949703/

F/A-18 vs F-35... I had a good laugh at your post with this one. I want to know the last guy that broke Mach 2 in a Rhino. In fact, I don't think that's even published as our top speed, but in either case, it's hilarious that you think we hit that. But here's what you said about the two:

Faster- nope
Ordnance- very true.. I'll get into this in a minute.
Dog Fighter- nope.
Far greater stand off range- Not exactly sure what you're trying to refer to here- whether it be in an A/A engagement, releasing ordnance, or something else- but nope.
Two engines- Yep. Like the fact that we have two engines and could have emergencies where if we lose one, we're still flyable.
Payload- this is funny since weapons need to be approved per airframe. Could the F-35 carry all of the same weapons? Probably. They just haven't tested them all with it yet. They have to do coding to get the avionics and software to interact with the weapons. They have to test to ensure all the weapons can be safely released. And so on... It's not that it couldn't carry it, but that they haven't been approved to carry them yet. It's not there yet. The Hornet and Rhino had the benefit of not having to approve all the ordnance at once.. as new bombs/missiles came up, they were tested.
Having a Gun- Yep. And the guys I've talked to say it sucks not to have it.. Not particularly in an A/A engagement, but for CAS.

So, what does the F-18 have over the F-35? It has two engines, is tried and true, and can carry more missiles/bombs at one time. To that last point, you're not going to see the rhino go away anytime soon. It's still going to be a viable platform for A/G missions. For A/A, I'm not going to go into anything specific, but the rhino has a role, and so does the JSF in future missions/integration.

1) Stand-Off: Air-to-Air.
Presently, the F-35 cannot fire an air-to-air missile that takes advantage of the range (twice that of the Russians or Chinese) of its amazing array of sensors. I mean, technically it can, that is whenever the software catches up, but only on external hard-points. What won't change in the mid-term is that the F-35C cannot house AIM-120D or Meteor internally. Constructively it is trading stealth for stand-off. Again, the F-35 is not designed to engage Gen 4.5 fighters in situations where its stealth is compromised or in short-range or mid-range environments. At least the F/A-18E is.

Ground-based threats.
I will concede in terms of combat radius and stand-off from ground-based anti-ship missiles, the F-35 has an advantage by having 50% more range than the SHs. But then again, four missiles to eight/ten of the F/A-18 to shoot down whatever carrier-killer the Chinese are cooking up is a decided disadvantage. Again the trade-off between ordinance and stealth is a reoccurring theme thanks to the plane's design.

2) How ordinance is integrated into an aircraft's arsenal: Yes, it is a process. The software, which also begs the question of when exactly the F-35 will be FMC to carry everything the Super Hornets do, is limiting but will be solved eventually. The cannon is supposed to take a few years yet. The other matter is that the physical limitations of the airframe and its small internal ordinance load limits what it can carry without surrendering its stealth capability.

3) The F-35 is not replacing the Hornet: Essentially you are saying it is complementing the F/A-18. Is that what was originally intended or is that what happened as a result of the program not living up to expectations? Certainly the cost does not warrant an aircraft that was promised to accomplish X set of missions but can only do so in the company of aircraft it was meant to replace. Given the age of even the Super Hornets, are we now having to buy both a $350 million per unit F-35C and a new $98 million Super Hornet to accomplish the same mission?

Ok.. onto the 2040 thing. Another ridiculous statement. I'm expecting airwings, prioritized by those about to deploy, to start having a squadron of JSF around 2020. The first fleet squadron to transition starts next year. Is everything going to be in place in a year or two following that? Absolutely not. But, you're going to see airwings that are deploying have a squadron of F-35's.. and that's what matters. No one gives a shit for the guys in maintenance phase having them or not.

It's not my statement. That is when the last tranche of F-35s will be delivered. That is straight from the Armed Service Committee hearing cited in the link.

However, I wasn't saying the F-35 will only be FMC and in squadron service by 2040. That is simply when the last aircraft is delivered. Presumably (it better be) it will be about 20 years into its service in whatever form DoD eventually settles on. I feel by then the plane will be surpassed by newer models or the very concept of stealth may be obsolete. It should be noted that the lengthy delivery time is also a by-product of cost-overruns as well as issues with development.

I'm sure I missed a few points that you made.. if you want me to respond to them, let me know.

Edit: Stannis, I don't know your background, but it's clearly not aviation. Maybe you know about/were part of the acquisition of the F-35. The argument (specifically for the Navy) between jets isn't one to be had.

So, back to my buddy who got play with the F-35 a bit at Top Gun. He hated the F-35 for the longest time. But now he doesn't hate it as much. Without surrendering classified details, he says it appears to be what it promised with regard to sensor packages, C3 capability, network integration and battlespace management. When working well, under certain situations (by that I presume when it is carrying only internal weapons) it performs well in air-to-air engagements and especially in directing them. When it is able to fly anyway.

For those wondering what the hoopla on sensor fusion is.


So I guess the question to you is: Given that it is limited when it is stripped of stealth capability (ordinance on external hard-points), and that it appears to be only incrementally better than the primary aircraft it is meant to be replacing (but isn't anymore) in the F/A-18 (won't even get into the Harrier II), is this program worth the enormous cost? For what we are paying, shouldn't the F-35 be vastly superior in every way to the 30 year-old aircraft it is replacing?

For the same amount of money, would we not be better served by having an improved model of the carrier-variant F-22 (or something similar) to take over for the F/A-18s and some other, purpose designed STOVL flying tank for the Corps' CAS needs?

Weapon system development and procurement is such a mess. Companies like Grumman, Lockheed, General Dynamics overprice these systems to the point of absurdity. Then the CEOs of these companies get the politicians in their back pocket. There is absolutely no reason for a fighter jet, even stealth technology, to cost $100 million per copy. Yes new systems take reseach and development and that should be taken into account. But in my opinion the American tax payers are getting ass raped by these companies. And our government is allowing it to happen.

Congress routinely forces the services to buy more weapons than they want. It is all about enriching the handful of defense contractors we have and getting jackasses re-elected to Congress.

We were fucked once we allowed defense companies to merge at will into only a few huge corporations. They can now effectively monopolize weapons design and manufacture that result in enormous price overruns.

Moreover, since the unwritten rule politically is that the US will never purchase big-ticket major weapon systems from other nations, our defense sector knows they can gouge us at will. Most NATO nations, even those with large defense sectors like France and the UK, benefit from the implied threat of looking elsewhere if native contractors don't meet the standard. Plus it is cheaper to allow the idiot American taxpayers to absorb all the R&D costs and overruns and then negotiate a lower price for the same weapons.

 

[Sebastian]

I don't feel sufficiently informed to comment on the substance of this, but I'll just make two points:

1) Whether or not it was a good idea to go with the F-35 in the first place may be a different question from whether cancellation now is a good idea;

2) The incoming SecDef apparently supports it.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/01/03/mattis-backs-f-35-stealth-fighter-criticized-trump/

1) Cancellation is impossible. But a large reduction in the numbers ordered is probably what we should do. We mustn't get caught in the sunk-cost fallacy. We've done it before with a number of weapon systems that just didn't do what they were supposed to do or cost too much. We just have to admit a common platform is stupid and costs more than having two purpose built aircraft and isn't as effective in their role.

Particularly for the Air Force, we already have a cheaper, more capable fighter for them. For the cost of cranking out the 1000 F-35As we should:

1) Restart the F-22 production line. It is in storage ready to go.
2) It is a proven weapon and most of the teething issues have been solved. New F-22s are FMC off the line. There is no gap in service coverage.
3) It would not cost too much (relatively speaking) to incorporate the best bits of the F-35, the sensor package, networking and battlespace management, into the F-22. Modify and upgrade to the F-22B.
4) Replace the majority of the F-15s with them.
5) Strengthen and modify and develop a A-22 CAS version. Probably best for attack missions in heavily defended air space.
6) Use the savings to develop a true replacement for the A-10 and Gen 6 air-superiority fighter for 2040.
7) Replace 33% of the F-16 fleet with F-35s. Find a Gen 4.5++ to fill out the other 66% to complement them.

2) Mattis is correct insofar as Trump's plan is a worse alternative to the F-35. It is doubling-down on an old plane. The problem with Trump's statements is that he has not clearly articulated a real alternative to the F-35 program. I would be interested in knowing what Mattis' opinions would be if he were presented with a viable alternative plan to modernize our military aviation to a mostly Gen 5 force.

We should ask @bcort what he would do given the parameters that purchase of the F-35 is limited to about 35% of the original orders. How would you equip the Air Force and Navy to an 80% Gen 5 force without the costs of the F-35 program?

 

[bcort]

Alright, we have a subject matter expert to use as a sounding board! I was hoping an aviator would show up on this thread. We could use a surface warfare officer too if anyone is out there. And don't be thrown off by the pictures. I use them to break the monotony of the wall of text.

You are correct. I am not an aviator. However, I have a brother and a few friends that are -they fly or rear the F/A-18 and their opinions as well as my following the project for a decade is where I derive my views from. So not a total vacuum. I don't have the direct experience but I trust theirs. Interestingly enough one friend graduated from Top Gun a few weeks ago and had the chance to deal with a F-35 while there. His opinion has changed a bit... more on that later.

I know a few that just graduated, too. Wonder if they're the same people. I'll have to talk to them (they all take leave right after to settle down a little).

Also, stay away from the Pentagon. Or its creatures. And flag officers. They'll drive you mad.


The airframe is limited no matter what you put into it. That is the biggest problem. The common airframe limits taking advantage of what the stealth and advanced sensor integration systems can do. Four internal weapons is going to be hard to remedy without re-designing the weapons or the plane. As of now the best air-to-air missile out there, the Meteor, will not fit in the internal weapons bay. And I believe the AIM-120D doesn't either.

The F-18 doesn't carry the meteor. I'm sure it can carry the 120D in the bay. Yes, there are certainly limitations with having the internal bay. That's all I'll say about that. It's like the F-22 that can't uncage the seeker of the 9X since it's internal. In the end, their capabilities allow them to support missiles longer; so while rhinos may need 6 120's (we don't even have monster racks to load up with 8), they only need four.

Moreover, within that timeframe there is the very real possibility stealth may no longer hold any advantage thanks to the rapid development of Russian and Chinese sensor technology. The question is then: What is the F-35 without its stealth capability? A very good C3 node that hopes Gen 4.5 fighters do not get within 50 miles of it. If we drop the need for stealth at least then you can stick the missiles it needs (AIM-120D or Meteor) to take advantage of the radar and thermal sensors onto the external hard-points. But then you are reducing the capability of an already inferior air-to-air platform.

I'm not the only one it seems. The irony of this debate is some admirals seem less than enthusiastic about the program. The Air Force and Congress are the ones really pushing the thing, even mandating more planes than the Navy wanted:

https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/09/greenert-questions-stealth-future/22949703/

I don't care one way or another about its stealth. It gives it different abilities with an air to air engagement on ranges that it considers dangerous to them.

1) Stand-Off: Air-to-Air.
Presently, the F-35 cannot fire an air-to-air missile that takes advantage of the range (twice that of the Russians or Chinese) of its amazing array of sensors. I mean, technically it can, that is whenever the software catches up, but only on external hard-points. What won't change in the mid-term is that the F-35C cannot house AIM-120D or Meteor internally. Constructively it is trading stealth for stand-off. Again, the F-35 is not designed to engage Gen 4.5 fighters in situations where its stealth is compromised or in short-range or mid-range environments. At least the F/A-18E is.

If operating in an environment with hornets, it maintains standoff and becomes the air commander.
If not, from all I've heard, its radar beats even our best one. Having that ability- and even shooting on our ranges, combined with its airframe, beats our plane and any other in an air to air engagement.

Ground-based threats.
I will concede in terms of combat radius and stand-off from ground-based anti-ship missiles, the F-35 has an advantage by having 50% more range than the SHs.

This is a point that doesn't matter nearly as much as anyone thinks. All have the ability for AR, so there's not much to talk about.

But then again, four missiles to eight/ten of the F/A-18 to shoot down whatever carrier-killer the Chinese are cooking up is a decided disadvantage. Again the trade-off between ordinance and stealth is a reoccurring theme thanks to the plane's design.

Again, roles for both. But, if shit were to hit the fan, you would want the JSF and F-22 providing the DCA lanes. Yes, the hornets would be involved. Think of them as missile trucks. That's about all I'll say on that top here.

2) How ordinance is integrated into an aircraft's arsenal: Yes, it is a process. The software, which also begs the question of when exactly the F-35 will be FMC to carry everything the Super Hornets do, is limiting but will be solved eventually. The cannon is supposed to take a few years yet. The other matter is that the physical limitations of the airframe and its small internal ordinance load limits what it can carry without surrendering its stealth capability.

3) The F-35 is not replacing the Hornet: Essentially you are saying it is complementing the F/A-18. Is that what was originally intended or is that what happened as a result of the program not living up to expectations? Certainly the cost does not warrant an aircraft that was promised to accomplish X set of missions but can only do so in the company of aircraft it was meant to replace. Given the age of even the Super Hornets, are we now having to buy both a $350 million per unit F-35C and a new $98 million Super Hornet to accomplish the same mission?

I have no idea what was originally promised. But, look at it this way, for at least the foreseeable future, the F variant will be the Navy's only FAC(A) capable platform. What I would expect is to see two JSF squadrons in an airwing along with an F squadron. By the time they would want to phase out F's, you're looking at 15+ years from right now.

It's not my statement. That is when the last tranche of F-35s will be delivered. That is straight from the Armed Service Committee hearing cited in the link.

However, I wasn't saying the F-35 will only be FMC and in squadron service by 2040. That is simply when the last aircraft is delivered. Presumably (it better be) it will be about 20 years into its service in whatever form DoD eventually settles on. I feel by then the plane will be surpassed by newer models or the very concept of stealth may be obsolete. It should be noted that the lengthy delivery time is also a by-product of cost-overruns as well as issues with development.

I think you said that there are supposed to be ~2100 built. Wikipedia says there are ~500 rhinos. Let's double that and say 1k. The first one entered service in 1999. So, 20 years later is 2019. So.. double in the same time frame? Seems ok to me.

So, back to my buddy who got play with the F-35 a bit at Top Gun. He hated the F-35 for the longest time. But now he doesn't hate it as much. Without surrendering classified details, he says it appears to be what it promised with regard to sensor packages, C3 capability, network integration and battlespace management.

This is pretty much the end all be all. It's sensors/avionics/capabilities and battlespace management up the abilities of the entire airwing. There's a lot of hate for it in my community. Fuck, I still kind of hate it. Most of that has gone from money going to it to now that they're stripping us of ALL our best (and I've seen a few idiots) go to it. The top sailors and the best sticks are going to that community. They're making it similar to the F-22 pipeline, where you have to fly the hornet first. It's smart.

When working well, under certain situations (by that I presume when it is carrying only internal weapons) it performs well in air-to-air engagements and especially in directing them. When it is able to fly anyway.

For those wondering what the hoopla on sensor fusion is.

So I guess the question to you is: Given that it is limited when it is stripped of stealth capability (ordinance on external hard-points), and that it appears to be only incrementally better than the primary aircraft it is meant to be replacing (but isn't anymore) in the F/A-18 (won't even get into the Harrier II), is this program worth the enormous cost? For what we are paying, shouldn't the F-35 be vastly superior in every way to the 30 year-old aircraft it is replacing?

Here's the thing. I don't know how the mechanics of the JSF's stealth work. But, I'm sure if it's maintaining its stealth with the bay doors closed, it sure as shit isn't going to keep them open after it has fired its missile. It's going to be something like this:
-Be Stealth
-Shoot at a range longer than any threat will detect it (even with its doors open... and I'll play the game, by the time a threat can detect, lock, shoot it, the doors will be shut, and the threat will lose radar SA to it)
-Go back to being stealth
-Kill the bad guy

I think you're overly complicating this internal bay thing. Yes, it sucks for some missiles, such as the 9X, and limits the amount it can carry. But, don't confuse/combine that with the ability to be stealth.

For the same amount of money, would we not be better served by having an improved model of the carrier-variant F-22 (or something similar) to take over for the F/A-18s and some other, purpose designed STOVL flying tank for the Corps' CAS needs?

re F-22: Hindsight is 20/20. We all should have just had variants of the F-15, right? The services really hate dealing with each other, particularly the AF and Navy. The Marines should have just gotten rhinos 10 years ago.. they wouldn't be such a clusterfuck with their jets right now.

Congress routinely forces the services to buy more weapons than they want. It is all about enriching the handful of defense contractors we have and getting jackasses re-elected to Congress.

I'll stay away from the politics side of this as much as I can. Fun story though.. I once went to the JDAM facility, expecting it to be bigger that it was. I think it was something like 75 employees that work there, producing about 200 JDAM kits a day. An airwing that came back earlier this year ran out of the kits for 500 lbers. (They ended up using 1000 lbers.. worked just fine.)

We were fucked once we allowed defense companies to merge at will into only a few huge corporations. They can now effectively monopolize weapons design and manufacture that result in enormous price overruns.

Moreover, since the unwritten rule politically is that the US will never purchase big-ticket major weapon systems from other nations, our defense sector knows they can gouge us at will. Most NATO nations, even those with large defense sectors like France and the UK, benefit from the implied threat of looking elsewhere if native contractors don't meet the standard. Plus it is cheaper to allow the idiot American taxpayers to absorb all the R&D costs and overruns and then negotiate a lower price for the same weapons.

True. We get stuck with the R&D bill while the second batch of countries buying the product get a great deal.

 

[bcort]

1) Cancellation is impossible. But a large reduction in the numbers ordered is probably what we should do. We mustn't get caught in the sunk-cost fallacy. We've done it before with a number of weapon systems that just didn't do what they were supposed to do or cost too much. We just have to admit a common platform is stupid and costs more than having two purpose built aircraft and isn't as effective in their role.

Particularly for the Air Force, we already have a cheaper, more capable fighter for them. For the cost of cranking out the 1000 F-35As we should:

1) Restart the F-22 production line. It is in storage ready to go.
2) It is a proven weapon and most of the teething issues have been solved. New F-22s are FMC off the line. There is no gap in service coverage.
3) It would not cost too much (relatively speaking) to incorporate the best bits of the F-35, the sensor package, networking and battlespace management, into the F-22. Modify and upgrade to the F-22B.
4) Replace the majority of the F-15s with them.
5) Strengthen and modify and develop a A-22 CAS version. Probably best for attack missions in heavily defended air space.
6) Use the savings to develop a true replacement for the A-10 and Gen 6 air-superiority fighter for 2040.
7) Replace 33% of the F-16 fleet with F-35s. Find a Gen 4.5++ to fill out the other 66% to complement them.

2) Mattis is correct insofar as Trump's plan is a worse alternative to the F-35. It is doubling-down on an old plane. The problem with Trump's statements is that he has not clearly articulated a real alternative to the F-35 program. I would be interested in knowing what Mattis' opinions would be if he were presented with a viable alternative plan to modernize our military aviation to a mostly Gen 5 force.

We should ask @bcort what he would do given the parameters that purchase of the F-35 is limited to about 35% of the original orders. How would you equip the Air Force and Navy to an 80% Gen 5 force without the costs of the F-35 program?

I will have to think about this more.. but here's some questions for you.. or anyone that may know.

1. Did the F-22 do any CV testing? I can't imagine it did just being an AF jet.. so that rules that out for the Navy. (If they did.. then depending on how far it got, you're probably looking at 5-10 years to be able to go on a carrier.) (I know you didn't suggest this in your post.. just a question for the group.)

2. I know the Navy required the marines to buy a certain amount of F-35's to get onboard with the idea. I'm sure that the costs go up astronomically if the AF fell out.