The most expensive weapon ever built

[Fearless Tower]

So the fuel burn rates are the same? NOPE. The JSF has a HUGE engine and it burns a lot of gas. They don't have any better endurance than our current front line fighters.

The JSF can't fulfill ANY roll well. It doesn't have any A/G pod capes for at least another 3 years, GPS guidance only. The loiter time on that thing sucks. It's slow, it only has 150 rounds of bullets, it has no helmet or HUD, the list goes on and on. We are being saddled with this FOD wagon - even the guys flying it say that it doesn't exceed any of our current fighter capes in ANY role (apart from decent stealth capes vs 4th gen). This will be superior at nothing other than bleeding money like no other program we've ever had. Cut it!

To give you an idea of how screwed up this country is right now, one of USFFC'S intended items to cut under the sequester was to push the scheduled JSF testing out of FY 13 and delay it to a later year so that we could use that money for more important fleet training.

As soon as Congress heard that was part of the plan, they threw a hissy fit and JSF testing is now Pri 1!

That should tell you something about Congress' priorities.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Henning]

Size of the engine is irrelevant if the SFCs are lower (which they are supposed to be on the F-135) and aircraft design doesn't negate engine efficiency gains. I'll hold off on making my mind up on an aircraft and its' specific limits while it is in testing, but everyone can agree that the program management has been terrible.

I wonder where we would be if we decided to go with clean sheet designs for each of the services, not a joint program.

Higher maintenance and parts / logistics costs. Economies of scale and simplification with commonality of parts, not to mention increasing battle readiness capability of a force.

Are the Harrier pilots saying the Harrier is superior to the F-35?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Are the Harrier pilots saying the Harrier is superior to the F-35?

Of course not, but the AV-8 is the ONLY thing that JSF will actually replace. For all other airframes, JSF will merely compliment them, not actually replace.

Problem is, that is monstrous price tag for simply replacing the Harrier which though it is important, it is still a fairly small niche roll in the bigger defense picture.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Henning]

Of course not, but the AV-8 is the ONLY thing that JSF will actually replace. For all other airframes, JSF will merely compliment them, not actually replace.

Problem is, that is monstrous price tag for simply replacing the Harrier which though it is important, it is still a fairly small niche roll in the bigger defense picture.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

In what ways does it fall short of the F-16 & F-18 platforms it will replace for the AF & Navy? How much cheaper do you think a replacement for the AV-8B could have been done speced alone by USMC?

 

[X3 Skier]

Of course not, but the AV-8 is the ONLY thing that JSF will actually replace. For all other airframes, JSF will merely compliment them, not actually replace.

Problem is, that is monstrous price tag for simply replacing the Harrier which though it is important, it is still a fairly small niche roll in the bigger defense

Plus the imagined logistic savings for commonality are always predicted and never happen in the real world. Been there, seen that, got the teeshirt.

Cheers

 

[Fearless Tower]

In what ways does it fall short of the F-16 & F-18 platforms it will replace for the AF & Navy?

It is NOT going to replace those platforms.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Henning]

It is NOT going to replace those platforms.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Eventually it will, or more to the point unmanned platforms will and the F-22 & F-35 will be the last manned tactical planes. May not be this decade, but before the next is out.

 

[X3 Skier]

How much cheaper do you think a replacement for the AV-8B could have been done speced alone by USMC?

Even if it cost $1.98, the USMC could not "afford" it which is why the USAF and USN were drug into joining a program neither wanted or needed.

Cheers

 

[EvilEagle]

In what ways does it fall short of the F-16 & F-18 platforms it will replace for the AF & Navy? How much cheaper do you think a replacement for the AV-8B could have been done speced alone by USMC?

In basically all ways imaginable.

It doesn't have enough endurance to loiter in any conceivable war zone without tanks - which negates the stealth. It's the first platform to actually be able to carry LESS than an F16 (which is amazing). It's slow and it can't turn very well - even with slick wings so any external carry is going to decrease that by a lot. They just recently relaxed it's performance requirements AGAIN. It's going to turn about as well as a Mig23. Speed and the ability to get to high altitude quickly are paramount for many weapons, especially air-to-air. It doesn't have the ability to cary LGB's (or laser JDAM) - at least not for many years. It has no working helmet-mounted-sight which doesn't sound like a big deal till you see the way we use them now. It's more expensive than 3 brand new 16's or 18's.

Oh yeah, it doesn't have any bring-back capability for boat ops. It has ONE engine - ask the Navy guys how happy they are about that one. There is no capability to maintain stealth on a carrier, so basically even without adding things to the wings it won't be stealthy when launching from the boat.

This is all just off the top of my hung-over cranium. It falls short in nearly every measurable category. It truly is worthless for everyone besides the Marines (and I'm pretty sure they'll see how worthless it is soon.)

 

[X3 Skier]

It truly is worthless for everyone besides the Marines (and I'm pretty sure they'll see how worthless it is soon.)

I agree with the rest of your post but rather than worthless, I say it is definitely not worth what is being paid in R&D, production and support compared to buying and flying more and upgraded F-15, F-16, F-18 and even the F-22.

OTOH, it is worth a helluva lot to Lockmart, PWA and the rest of the contractors.

Cheers

 

[Fearless Tower]

It truly is worthless for everyone besides the Marines (and I'm pretty sure they'll see how worthless it is soon.)

You're obviously not familiar with the current state of our AV-8 inventory...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[EvilEagle]

You're obviously not familiar with the current state of our AV-8 inventory...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I'm not saying you don't need a replacement, I'm saying that if you believe the brochure, you'll be disappointed when the real thing arrives.

 

[X3 Skier]

You're obviously not familiar with the current state of our AV-8 inventory...

Many years ago, a guy I knew who was a Former USMC Harrier pilot said there were two types of Harrier pilots, those who had ejected and those who will.

Cheers

 

[Fearless Tower]

Many years ago, a guy I knew who was a Former USMC Harrier pilot said there were two types of Harrier pilots, those who had ejected and those who will.

That must have been before my time.....nowadays, you need to be able to fire it up and launch it before you worry about ejecting.

 

[Herman vanOoijen]

One would think that the 3D capabilities of design software would take care of such things as blind-spots:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/

 

[X3 Skier]

One would think that the 3D capabilities of design software would take care of such things as blind-spots:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/

As the self proclaimed world's greatest fighter pilot (who will remain nameless to protect the guilty) once told me, if you let somebody get in your six, you deserve to die.

Cheers

 

[darrell]

Why no mention of the F-35's Distributed Aperture System? Besides the fact that it sort of renders the blind spot issue moot?

 

[EvilEagle]

Why no mention of the F-35's Distributed Aperture System? Besides the fact that it sort of renders the blind spot issue moot?

Because it doesn't at all render the blind spot moot.

 

[kyleb]

Because it doesn't at all render the blind spot moot.

Question - is the blind spot really that relevant in today's environment, especially with this platform? Isn't the likely mission to haul a few bombs? And with the stealth capabilities, what are the odds that someone is gonna find the f-35 to subsequently end up on its tail?

I recognize that in a perfect world, you'd have a spherical view, but isn't the "check 6" issue a relatively minor issue overall?

 

[PilotAlan]

Why no mention of the F-35's Distributed Aperture System? Besides the fact that it sort of renders the blind spot issue moot?

Could be because it it isn't finished and doesn't work. And may not ever.

 

[zaitcev]

It's the first platform to actually be able to carry LESS than an F16 (which is amazing).

What are your numbers and where did you get them? Last I checked either carried about 8 tonnes of stuff, F-16 a bit less, F-35 a bit more.

 

[darrell]

Could be because it it isn't finished and doesn't work. And may not ever.

Well I've seen it work on a Black Hawk in testing, so clearly the technology works. Whether or not it works in the F-35 may be a different story.

 

[kyleb]

What are your numbers and where did you get them? Last I checked either carried about 8 tonnes of stuff, F-16 a bit less, F-35 a bit more.

Is that 8 tons internal for the F-35? AKA the "Day 2" loadout?

 

[Bob Noel]

Question - is the blind spot really that relevant in today's environment, especially with this platform? Isn't the likely mission to haul a few bombs? And with the stealth capabilities, what are the odds that someone is gonna find the f-35 to subsequently end up on its tail?

I recognize that in a perfect world, you'd have a spherical view, but isn't the "check 6" issue a relatively minor issue overall?

Let's not forget that tactics might help address whatever design limitations exist.

 

[EvilEagle]

What are your numbers and where did you get them? Last I checked either carried about 8 tonnes of stuff, F-16 a bit less, F-35 a bit more.

From the guys who fly them at Eglin. It has much less to do with payload in lbs than it does weapons stations and the ability to mix load outs.

 

[EvilEagle]

Let's not forget that tactics might help address whatever design limitations exist.

The only tactic that works when someone is at your six is to outmaneuver them while keeping your eye on them. The 35 can do neither.

 

[EvilEagle]

Question - is the blind spot really that relevant in today's environment, especially with this platform? Isn't the likely mission to haul a few bombs? And with the stealth capabilities, what are the odds that someone is gonna find the f-35 to subsequently end up on its tail?

I recognize that in a perfect world, you'd have a spherical view, but isn't the "check 6" issue a relatively minor issue overall?

It is extremely relevant with the capabilities, low cost and wide distribution of x-band jammers developed by our friends in France, Israel, Russia and China. Radar is great, stealth is great but if you aren't/can't use the X band they are both equally worthless. Now more than ever you need to be able to maximize visibility and train to a visual fight.

The ideal mission for this POS would be the 117 mission, however they have it scheduled to replace 15's and 16's which means that it isn't supposed to suck at A/A.

 

[Bob Noel]

The only tactic that works when someone is at your six is to outmaneuver them while keeping your eye on them. The 35 can do neither.

hint: don't let someone on your six.

But you knew that.

oh yeah, and maybe have a wingman.

etc etc etc

 

[PilotAlan]

Well I've seen it work on a Black Hawk in testing, so clearly the technology works. Whether or not it works in the F-35 may be a different story.

There are problems with latency in the image processing and merge, causing a disconnect between what the eyes are seeing and what the DAS is showing them, leading to spacial disorientation.
Also, there is bleedover from the merge of various sensors being combined and consolidated, creating problems with the combined image being presented to the pilot.

I'm not saying it can't work, I just wonder if we reached a bit too far with the project. There are so many groundbreaking technologies, and so many parameters that were required invention of new methods and processes, there may be too many dependencies to succeed for a reasonable amount of money.

 

[kyleb]

It is extremely relevant with the capabilities, low cost and wide distribution of x-band jammers developed by our friends in France, Israel, Russia and China. Radar is great, stealth is great but if you aren't/can't use the X band they are both equally worthless. Now more than ever you need to be able to maximize visibility and train to a visual fight.

The ideal mission for this POS would be the 117 mission, however they have it scheduled to replace 15's and 16's which means that it isn't supposed to suck at A/A.

Well, the -16's have been (essentially) A-16's for decades. This is a pretty expensive replacement, although stealth is a real help. As to replacing the F-15, stealth may be more important than dynamics or visibility, but I don't see the -35 as a drop in replacement...

I'm still disappointed that neither the AF or Navy replaced their "real" attack aircraft, although the 15E does a fine job. The Navy just doesn't have a platform that can deliver weapons at any distance these days. Even in the first days in Afghanistan, A-6's (or A-12's) would have come in real handy...

 

[Fearless Tower]

I heard a good description of the JSF program yesterday while sitting through a bunch of meetings as the Navy and Congress battle over priorities....

'Congress sees JSF like Bank of America....It is too big to fail'

And there's your problem right there....

 

[EvilEagle]

hint: don't let someone on your six.

But you knew that.

oh yeah, and maybe have a wingman.

etc etc etc

That's true, but Stealth platforms don't fly visual formation with their wingman, so no help there.

Yes, not letting someone behind you is always the plan. However not training to the worst case scenario is dumber than a sack of hammers.

 

[X3 Skier]

I'm not saying it can't work, I just wonder if we reached a bit too far with the project. There are so many groundbreaking technologies, and so many parameters that were required invention of new methods and processes, there may be too many dependencies to succeed for a reasonable amount of money.

Back in the day of the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition (F-22 and F-23), one of the contractors set up this magnificent display in the SIM that showed the pilot a total ground and air picture of the threats, friendlies and grey forces including routing and fire control solutions as they were approaching the FEBA. We in the Program Office did a few quick calculations about what was required in processing, threat data and apertures among other things and then threw the BS flag when talking to TAC to stop them asking for it. The gee wiz never showed up in the the TAC requirements nor the contractor proposal.

Apparently, no such thinking was used in the F-35 Program Office.

Cheers

 

[Henning]

Back in the day of the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition (F-22 and F-23), one of the contractors set up this magnificent display in the SIM that showed the pilot a total ground and air picture of the threats, friendlies and grey forces including routing and fire control solutions as they were approaching the FEBA. We in the Program Office did a few quick calculations about what was required in processing, threat data and apertures among other things and then threw the BS flag when talking to TAC to stop them asking for it. The gee wiz never showed up in the the TAC requirements nor the contractor proposal.

Apparently, no such thinking was used in the F-35 Program Office.

Cheers

I wouldn't think so either, this is a technology required to develop for autonomy.

 

[X3 Skier]

I wouldn't think so either, this is a technology required to develop for autonomy.

Autonomous or not was irrelevant. It was not just not technically feasible with the time and budget allowed regardless of the marketing brochure or fancy simulation.

Cheers

 

[masloki]

A clarification on the lack of performance capabilities, and essentially a miss on all of it defined missions. Unless the mission was to prove the value of unnmaned aircraft, for which I believe it shouldn't cost $1 trillion bucks, but okay. Can't take off vertically from lily-pads or carriers or asphalt because it melts them. Once stealth is lost, aka it fired weapons, it can not climb, fly or turn faster than what Russia or China is fielding. And China's theft of documents seems to be paying off, as they fired up the photocopier, but ditched the VTOL and subsequently can make it lighter, thinner, faster and safer.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5

 

[Pi1otguy]

Can we assume something like this happened?

 

[kyleb]

A clarification on the lack of performance capabilities, and essentially a miss on all of it defined missions. Unless the mission was to prove the value of unnmaned aircraft, for which I believe it shouldn't cost $1 trillion bucks, but okay. Can't take off vertically from lily-pads or carriers or asphalt because it melts them. Once stealth is lost, aka it fired weapons, it can not climb, fly or turn faster than what Russia or China is fielding. And China's theft of documents seems to be paying off, as they fired up the photocopier, but ditched the VTOL and subsequently can make it lighter, thinner, faster and safer.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5

I agree with the premise that adding STOVL to this platform was a bad mistake, but don't see it as the end of the world scenario painted by the author of that article. The reality is that the systems aboard the aircraft, the systems behind the aircraft (AWACs plus other force multipliers), and pilot training are more important than top speed, acceleration, or maneuverability.

I also agree that a diverse fleet (aircraft optimized for the A2A role, but with some attack capability, aircraft optimized for the attack role, but with the ability to carry an AIM-9, etc.) is a better mix, but if you have a bunch of multi-role aircraft, that gives you more *good* fighters than you'd have in a diverse fleet, or more *good* attack aircraft than you'd have in the diverse fleet, even though the multi-role airplane won't be as good in the specific role as a dedicated type.

This isn't a glass empty scenario.

 

[PilotAlan]

I also agree that a diverse fleet (aircraft optimized for the A2A role, but with some attack capability, aircraft optimized for the attack role, but with the ability to carry an AIM-9, etc.) is a better mix, but if you have a bunch of multi-role aircraft, that gives you more *good* fighters than you'd have in a diverse fleet, or more *good* attack aircraft than you'd have in the diverse fleet, even though the multi-role airplane won't be as good in the specific role as a dedicated type.

Having a whole bunch of one plane means you have a fleet with the same weakness.
Especially important if your enemy knows what that weakness is, and you don't.

I tend to take the genetics tack.
Just like a genetically identical population, where everyone has the same lack of resistance to particular hazards.

It just never seems like a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket. Did it really not occur to anyone that if the project failed, there would be no capability? Lockheed did really good maneuvering the government into a position where they must succeed, regardless of the cost (that's cost to us, not to them).

 

[denverpilot]

I don't have any hard numbers to back it up, but I suspect that we have eliminated more terrorists with AV-8s in the last 5 years than we have with any other manned fixed wing aircraft.

Color me skeptical. I suspect the AC-130 holds that title, judging by the sheer quantity of released video, but I could be wrong.

Might just be for shock and awe and easier to shoot good "watch us splatter this guy planting an IED for 200 yards in every direction" videos from the Herk.