F-35 is such a turd.

“Can’t out turn, can’t out climb, can’t outrun.”

The Pentagon confirmed a one-year delay of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, with Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn facing increased pressure to get spending under control on the project.

"The development was originally projected to last an additional 30 months; we think with the additional test aircraft it will be closer to a delay of about 12 or 13 months, but I can't give you the cost numbers," according to Lynn's statement to the media.

Pentagon officials didn't say if this one-year delay will push back final release dates, but it likely will, military experts have noted.

The Marine Corps is expected to receive the first batch of F-35s in two years, while the Air Force and Navy are expected to receive the next-generation fighter aircraft in 2013 and 2014. Prior to Lynn's recent announcement, Lockheed Martin officials noted they were about six months behind schedule, but still expect to be able to meet the USMC release date.

Last November, a report said the program is drastically overbudget and behind schedule, which led the government to rethink its strategy moving forward. Actual demand for the aircraft remains unknown, but there have been at least 2,500 orders placed for the U.S. military branches, with several other nations also expected to receive the aircraft in years to come.

Due to costly delays and budget miscues, the DOD will also withhold $614 million that will eventually be paid to Lockheed Martin.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=17710


It currently stands at a 23% cost savings over the superior in every way F-22... and falling.“Even without new problems, the F-35 is a ‘dog.’ If one accepts every performance promise the DoD currently makes for the aircraft, the F-35 will be: “Overweight and underpowered: at 49,500 lb (22,450kg) air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight ratio for a new fighter…. [F-35A and F-35B variants] will have a ‘wing-loading’ of 108 lb per square foot…. less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 ‘Lead Sled’ that got wiped out over North Vietnam…. payload of only two 2,000 lb bombs in its bomb bay…. With more bombs carried under its wings, the F-35 instantly becomes ‘non-stealthy’ and the DoD does not plan to seriously test it in this configuration for years. As a ‘close air support’... too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire; and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces for sustained periods…. What the USAF will not tell you is that ‘stealthy’ aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft…. As for the highly complex electronics to attack targets in the air, the F-35, like the F-22 before it, has mortgaged its success on a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based air-to-air combat that has fallen on its face many times in real air war. The F-35’s air-to-ground electronics promise little more than slicker command and control for the use of existing munitions.”

-Pierre M. Spey


I disagree that the F-22 has laid all it's eggs in the long range basket, as it's wing sweep/area/thrust/weight and thrust vectoring capability give it 27+ degree/sec turn rate. It is an outstanding dogfighter.

We are supposed to spend 200 billion dollars on this program. The sooner we kill it, purchase a reasonable number of F-22's and whatever else (A-10 and B-1B longevity programs, more F-15E's, Reapers) or any combination of the above would be preferable than to keep spending money developing a bad idea. The air force has put 40 F-22's on it's global strike detail with a dozen B-2's, and will be unavailable for CAP duty. That leaves roughly 120 frontline fighters for the foreseeable future.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/

I know, I know, predictable posters will say "WE HAVE THE BEST FIGHTERS IN THE WORLD WHO WILL WE FIGHT LOL"

And to that I say: if we don't need fighters, why are the ones we have worn out? When was the last time we weren't flying fighters over a foreign nation? We can agree that 200 billion dollars is unlikely to be spent to replace what we have, so it is necessary that we get the most capability for what we do spend.

 

OK, the program is a turd, the plane is an underachiever and overpriced.

The program has been subcontracted and dissected into a million pieces so virtually every congressman in the nation wants it alive. Ugh.

 

Fix nagging problems, sure. To make worth our money per capability the price needs to drop by half and it's going in the wrong direction.

 

Spey has undertaken a similar analysis of the F-22A Raptor for CDI, but aircraft pilots have said that his analysis in key areas like maneuverability is poorly done, and does not match provable reality. Spey’s wing-loading model claimed superiority for the F-15, when the F-22 has significantly better instantaeous and sustained turning capabilities (28 degrees sustained, vs. 21/15-16 degrees per second instantaneous/ sustained). This justifies strong caution in accepting Spey’s F-35 analysis, and Lockheed Martin’s reply offers additional reasons for doubt. In fairness to Spey, it should also be said that combat experience with his A-10 aircraft in Afghanistan etc. does back up his contentions concerning the limitations of fast jets, and the capabilities required for close air support.

The F-35’s problem is that concrete reasons could be advanced to explain why Spey’s F-22 aerodynamic analysis parameters were wrong, such as the Raptor’s thrust vectoring and controllable tail surfaces to offset Spey’s unidimensional wing loading analysis, the tactical implications of having the ability to cruise above Mach 1 without afterburners, and stealth that has defeated AWACS aircraft and worked against international fighter pilots even at relatively short ranges. F-22 pilots have also racked up incredibly lopsided kill ratios in American and international exercises, far in excess of “normal” performance for new aircraft, that back up their pilots’ performance claims.

This is all much harder to do for the F-35, which remains a developmental aircraft and lacks key aerodynamic features like combat thrust vectoring (Harrier, SU-30 family, MiG-29OVT, F-22A), canards for fast “point and shoot” manevers with high off-boresight short-range missiles (some SU-30 family, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen), or loaded supersonic cruise (F-22A). The F-35 has also been designed from the outset to feature less stealth than the F-22A, though it will be stealthier than contemporary 4.5 generation European and Russian aircraft. Aircraft intake size and hence volume are set unless the aircraft is redesigned, and wing size, angle and loading can all be observed.




- Otto

I agree that Sprey is as biased as they come, but he is spot on with the F-35. Wing loading is wing loading, thrust to weight is thrust to weight, payload is payload. If we buy 2000 F-35's, it's shortcomings won't be much of an issue... But that isn't going to happen.


183 F-22's won't cut it over the next 30 years when you consider attrition and that 40 of them will be taking over the F-117's deep strike role, so F-35's will be pressed air superiority. I know enough about energy maneuvering to know they are already equaled or surpassed in a dogfight by 4.5 gen fighters like Rafale, Eurofighter, Griffen. etc. They are not particularly stealthy from any angle besides head on, and their lower operating altitude and reduced radar output means closer detection ranges. It isn't fast enough to run away from bad situations and it will cost 100 million dollars.

The cost spiral of death for this program has been staring us in the face for years... we will spend an ungodly amount of money on an insufficient number of mediocre airplanes.

 

The F-22 is being turned into a bomber because it is much more survivable when penetrating an advanced air defense network. The JDAM's it drops go much further at 1200 mph @ 50,000 feet vs 600 @25,000. It is less likely to be detected, and can fight it's way out if need be, or run.
If the rare case occurs where you need such a thing, the F-22 is the better choice for the job. Draw a circle around enemy air defences for both planes and consider that the F-35 will need larger circles. Then consider the shorter range of it's munitions and the fact that it is more likely to be killed if it is detected.
If you're facing a primitive air defense network there is no need for stealth. Buying 1000 Super Hornets for 50 billion or keeping more heavy bombers in the sky with that money makes all the sense in the world. Reapers, Predators, AC-130's, A-10's, and especially heavy bombers are carrying the load.

The F-22's have operationally deployed, but they are the crown jewels of the fleet. Like the 20 B-2 bombers in the inventory, they are treated with kid gloves. USAF can't afford to loose any, and aren't needed in our current conflict. Although the B-2's are used, not because they are stealthy, but because they can stay in the air for 24+ hours ready to respond to a radio call and drop massive amounts of ordnance.




"http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/gstf.htm
The F-22 Raptor, now in development, combines stealth and advanced avionics for a “first-look, first-shot, first-kill” capability needed to beat the advanced fighters and surface-to-air missiles now being sold around the world. The Raptor will bring stealth capability “into the daylight” for the first time – not only will it fly missions 24 hours a day, but it will let the F-117 stealth fighter and the B-2 fight around the clock as well. New mission requirements in Fiscal Year 2003 include supporting the Air Force’s Global Strike Task Force by building B-2 aircraft hangars at Royal Air Force Fairford, United Kingdom, and B-2 aircraft parking pads at Diego Garcia.

The shock effect of this B-2/F-22 “one-two” punch will be unprecedented. In the first 24 hours of Desert Storm, after six months of buildup, the US launched 1,223 strike sorties, hitting 203 targets. Stealth assets accounted for 40 sorties and 61 targets. With GSTF, four B-2s and 48 F-22s carrying miniature munitions can strike 380 targets in only 52 sorties."

Neat, so we should park the USAF and start digging holes ourselves? Or perhaps the 200 billion earmarked for a stealthy strike plane could be the waste of money and not the one that guarantees air superiority. I'm not saying we should spend 200 billion on F-22's.

I'm saying we need enough of them to go around, and persistent bomb trucks sitting over bad guys 24 hours a day. Save a metric f#$kton of cash while doing the job.

Less powerful radar carried at a lower altitude, and hardly stealthy at any aspect other than head on?

Weapon systems? You mean the two JDAMS and Amraams? Don't miss.