Tuesday, October 18, 2011

F-35, the low price that never was

Is there any justification left to have the F-35? It will not be able to take on emerging threats. Whatever expectations of its alleged combat capability are already being diminished.

All this eliminates the purpose for the F-35.

To add to that misery, it will not be affordable. Even the U.S. DOD thinks so. There will not be enough aircraft made to meet the dreams of the business plan. Current predictions see over 1000 F-35 potential orders missing.

Small businesses are in grave danger.

With that, we have a simple graph composed by Air Power Australia. It shows a history of the low price that never was.


Apollo said...

Lotts is speculated about the F-35 capabilities but there's are no hard facts when it comes to its stealth, radar, missile ranges etc.

It's the air forces of the world betting their future relevance on the facts they know and I don't.

Apollo said...

What's the alternative to F-35? F-22' (not allowed, inadequate air-ground capability) Eurofighter (food interceptor but with all other capabilities between a classic and super hornet), Sukhoi (step backwards in radar and weapons, sovereignty issues, no training system, no operator experience, no industry experience)?

ELP said...

Bet is a great choice of words.

---1. An agreement usually between two parties that the one who has made an incorrect prediction about an uncertain outcome will forfeit something stipulated to the other; a wager.
2. An amount or object risked in a wager; a stake.
3. One on which a stake is or can be placed: Our team is a sure bet to win.
a. A plan or an option considered with regard to its probable consequence: Your best bet is to make reservations ahead of time.
b. Informal A view or opinion, especially about something that cannot be known at the present time: My bet is that the rain will hold off. My bet is he didn't do it.

geogen said...

LoL Eric,

Either way, it's true this topic matter should be urgently contemplated and debated within official circles today.

There is simply no more time left though, to continue with the best argument of the last 5 yrs, i.e., that we should just continue to 'wait and see'.


F-35 has just changed it's ejection seat. What's needed now is to test the ejection of the still official 'stay the course' Program expectation and assumed equation that everything is being quoted off today.

Then the policymakers can discuss which precise, more sustainable TACAIR force structure and capabilites should be evolved and phased in and constructed over the next 30 yrs.

ELP said...

Having seen USAF programs (including Depot ops) I can tell you that the last 10 years if not longer, USAF most likely has weak theory to back up their claim that they want to change the seat. AND>>>>> where were they years ago when oh little things... I will call them... Critical Design Review... were agreed upon by all customers.
There was a time when we had strong science and R&D in the USAF. No longer. PowerPoint warriors and those that think the contractor must always be right. Funny too, the helmet change will require many more ejection tests just to qualify it. And now... USAF wants a different seat on the weak theory that unifying seats is good. This sounds more like a contractor inspired money grab. And it won't be very joint in alleged F-35 "JOINT" ops of the future at a forward repair base. First step to save money in the USAF? Fire excess generals and SES. Then stand up a real engineering and R&D office to evaluate contractor claims.

Anonymous said...

"There was a time when we had strong science and R&D in the USAF. No longer. PowerPoint warriors and those that think the contractor must always be right."

A fair Definition of Moral Hazard?