I guess they all adopted the Hewlett Packard/any other printer business model – profit’s in the toner.
1 Like
Yes, but the F-35 in the long run, once set into motion, was too big to let fail. Had the incredibly ugly Boeing X-32 won the contract, it would have been an identical situation. Due to the JSF’s international and multi service aspects, it can’t be allowed to die, no matter what. Too many services and countries depend upon it. The other programs that I mentioned are service specific. And while some other countries may want the F-15EX, their Air Forces and Fleet Air Arms are not depending upon it. I suspect that the Super Hornet could get a similar life extension as well. The F-35 is too much to too many air arms for their futures. Aside from the Griffen and Rafale, there options for western air arms are limited. And how many can be made in what time span of those options?
JSF was a bad idea to begin with!
What is the point of having a multi purpose plane with all whistles and bells to perform any kind of mission if:
- the pilot inside is trained for one or two missions
- the plane becomes so expensive that the cost limits the size of the fleet
- it breaks down every other day
1 Like
if you have a look at what SAAB achieves too a large extend because their main client has, over decades, kept a close eye on what they are doing and insisted on cost effective solutions always then I guess the conclusion is that givign a company a trillion dollar contract with limited oversight in the hope that they will produce something decent and cost efficient is ludicrous.
The US should look at the German “baukastenprinzip”, (or even better IT industry) basically meaning that manufacturers can compete and produce anything as long as it fits in the whole assembly. This way, GE, P&W, RR could continuously work on newer and better engines as long as these fit is eg. the F-35. Innovation would be a continuous process, not a painfull high risk leap every 30 years. The same for systems…
Besides “Lockheed” in Europe is still synonym for bribery.
1 Like
hence the call, even at the highest levelof US military, for the next generation to be incremental, small numbers and more rapid replacement
For the UK the F35 was meant to fill the Harrier role, so much of the extra knobs and whistles aren’t so important. But we scrapped the Harrier fleet early for a temporary cash saving, and banked on the expensive F35 instead - a truly short-sighted move! And unlike the Harrier, the F35 does absolutely nothing for UK aerospace manufacturing or research…
Some politicians really do need taken out back for a bit of “re-education”.
5 Likes
the UK government has done this alot, Nimrod being another example and this is just in aviation nevermind naval ships/carriers etc
1 Like
The UK was at the pinnacle of technology in most fields just after world war II and has spared no effort to destroy it all. Car manufacturing, aviation, shipping, steel industry, …
and not forget: Brexit
and today, it is still claiming that it is “kicking above its weight”, military speaking. But the fleet is in the dockx, the air force is reducing, and Rheinmetal is producing the challenger III.
Its like a deliberate slow painfull suicide
3 Likes
If Boeing is the go to, they bought out McDonald Douglas and kept many of the executives. This was a bad move as MD’s corporate policies were questionable. Now those issues are part of issues that Boeing had been having trouble with. Lockheed is usually a well engineered product. However, the time between the Department of Defense announcement for a new project and the beginning of production is not a short span. In that time is a constant series of changes that is requested by the DOD. Different politicians dip their fingers into the design or procurements, military oversight changes as people get reassigned, also leads to changes. New technologies are requested to be included in the design causing more redesign. It all adds to the complexities, timeline and budget. Sometimes the wants of the military change before a project is completed and is dropped.
Actually, after all these decades, countries are not copying the F-35, they care copying the F-22 design. Turkey, South Korea, and Japan are copying a twin-engine stealth aircraft that look remarkably similar to the F-22.
The F-35 is a complex piece of machinery, made more so by its augmented virtual reality $400,000 USD helmet that is custom-made and fitted to the pilot’s head. Therefore, even if someone were to possibly hijack a F-35, there is no guarantee that the hijacker’s head can fit inside the helmet as each is custom-tailored and made via carbon fiber to each pilot’s head.
A few fighter jets often considered “copycats” or conceptual design successors to the F-22 include:
Chengdu J-20 “Mighty Dragon” (China): China’s premier air superiority fighter shares a striking visual resemblance to the F-22, featuring diamond-shaped intakes, jagged edges, and an internal weapons bay. However, it is a larger aircraft that adds canards for maneuverability and is designed more for ambushing airborne tankers than close-range dogfighting.
KAI KF-21 Boramae (South Korea): Developed in collaboration with Indonesia, this jet bears a strong cosmetic similarity to the F-22. Its resemblance stems not from copying, but from converging on similar stealth, low radar-cross-section (RCS), and twin-engine performance metrics.
Sukhoi Su-57 (Russia): Russia’s 5th-generation design adopts a similar blended-wing body to maximize internal volume and reduce radar signatures, though its radar-evading capabilities and avionics are often debated by aviation experts.
Kaan / TF-X (Turkey) & AMCA (India): Both of these emerging regional stealth programs feature twin-engine, low-observable profiles with similar airframe geometry and wing-tail layouts to the Raptor. --Google AI
not to mention that senator bob mccain was in a hearing to find out why the F35 was 10 years behind schedule.
I would rather get the Gripen, Eurofighter ,Hornet,Rafale or Su-35… not the F-35
1 Like
Training is dependent upon the air arm/service. Aside from F-22 and A-10 pilots, most US pilots are “Jack of all trades and master of none”. At least of the fast mover types. Units may specialize in SEAD, CAS, Offensive Counter Air, Anti Shipping, Fleet Air Defense, etc. Carrier Air Groups have to be well versed in all due to their unique role.
Expense is certainly something to keep in mind. But at the same time, Temu/bargain basement brand stuff does not tend to last too long in combat. And that is the whole purpose of warplanes.
Breakdowns tend to reflect upon the maintainers. Part of it is the design, part of it is the maintainers. Hangar queens sacrifice items to keep other birds in the air. There are usually workarounds to be found.
2 Likes
The entire F-35 program suffers from a term called “Concurrency,” which means…
con·cur·ren·cy
/kənˈkərən(t)sē/
The fact of two or more events or circumstances happening or existing at the same time.–Google AI
The U.S. Air Force (USAF) made the mistake of (and the USAF knew it at the time but risked it anyway) of building and buying the three variants of the F-35 at the same time without test-flying them first at all. The X-32 and X-35 Joint Strike Fighter competition was not a test flight of the F-35; it was to select the F-35 from the X-35. The USAF wanted a stealth fighter/bomber so bad that they performed “Concurrency” on the F-35.
What should have been done? The USAF usually does the motto of, “Fly before you buy,” but they didn’t do that with the F-35. They bought and built it and test-flown it when the program was actively building them. That’s like not test-driving a car before one writes the check to buy it. One wrote the check and bought the brand new car and then test drove it afterwards! That’s what is affecting the F-35 program, but the Pentagon is kind of smart and is requesting Lockheed Martin to fix the F-35s’ bugs at Lockheed’s own expense, but not all F-35s’ bugs and flaws can be fixed at the Defense manufacturer’s expense so the Department of War still has to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to remedy F-35s’ issues.
So now the USAF’s B-21 “Raider” stealth heavy bomber, the Air Force Special Operations Command’s OA-1K “Skyraider II” ISR and close attack support plane, the F-15EX “Eagle II” fighter, and the stealthy next-generation F-47 “Phoenix” fighter are being test flown before being acquired by the USAF–as they should be and as is usually standard program practice for generations and decades.
1 Like
The USAF is only in the F-35A version. The F-35B is the insisted upon STOVL USMC variant. And the F-35C is the CTOL carrier capable of variant with the beefed up structure and enlarged wings for naval flight ops. The DoD requirements for a joint service design was foisted in the mid/early 90’s. How some propellor head thought that a single design could replace the USAF A-10. & F-16, the USN/USMC AV-8B & F/A-18 is beyond me. Each design has its own areas of excellence that do not overlap into the others…
From my son when he served with the 23rd Wing…
7 Likes
This ties in nicely with my RTX post from earlier this evening. Now, when you stack that with Lockheed Martin, BAE, Boeing, and a few others, you really can’t lose. Even if the F-47 project goes to Boeing, RTX still makes the engines, Lockheed still makes the missiles (which need to be replaced every time they’re fired.) The so called F-35 failures are keeping money flowing. If it worked perfectly every time with no maintenance, how fun would that be?
3 Likes
he red line over the last 30 years:
- US Air force top brass: we hate the A-10, it is outdated, it can’t defend itself … we want it killed asap
- and for each conflict: send in the A-10, we got nothing that is as good as this thing for doing the actual work
3 Likes
which, according to the more cynical observers is the only purpose of the F-35: to fill the pockets of Lockheed Martin
1 Like
It’s been for longer than 30 years. I remember reading such things when I was a junior enlisted soldier on active duty in the 80’s. The USAF developed a 3 barreled 30mm gun pod to give the F-16 something approaching the A-10’s gun capability. They tried it for one day in combat during Desert Storm and never used it operationally again…
The Skyraider II that has been developed to fill some of the A-10 role is something of a joke by comparison. I can’t imagine that the thing can take a fraction of the battle damage and keep flying that the A-10 can take.
Oh yeah, there seems to be a new capability recently added to the A-10 in the war. Probe & Drogue refueling. I imagine that is to work with the HC-130J Combat Kings as they fly escort in the CSAR role.
1 Like
A few decades ago I was working on an excavation in the Yorkshire Wolds, essentially a big brown trench on the otherwise-green side of a hill. Squadrons of A-10s would swoop in each day, using us as target practice. That is, until one day when one of the warthog came in a bit low from the downhill side of the field, and pulled up hard with the engines screaming as he barely made it over the crest of the hill that formed the backstop to our dig. They all climbed up a few thousand feet and circled us for a while, no doubt to give that unfortunate pilot enough time to change his shorts!
But I’ve always liked the A-10, and haven’t yet seen anything better at the ground-attack role. Besides, who doesn’t like the GAU-8 gatling gun!