F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[CBH99]

I think this is a terrible idea.


1.  They aren't operationally required in Japan in any way, shape, or form.  US air assets in Japan are already formidable, not to mention the Japanese Self Defense Force is a pretty potent military organization as it is.

2.  The F-35B still has quite a few significant software issues before coming 100% online.  Declaring it operational was more for PR purposes than anything substantial.


3.  And this is the big one....WHY do we continue to give our potential future enemies as much intelligence as we do, about some of our most significant capabilities!?


China will be probing Japanese airspace every chance they get.  Logging, recording, studying every single radar contact they have with any F-35B they encounter.  Learning from it, developing doctrine, modifying weapons, modifying radars, etc etc.

Would it not be in the West's best interest to keep our cards close to our chest, until the day comes when we need to say "Oh hey, look at all the things this plane can really do!"   

Seems arrogantly counterproductive to give the Chinese a chance to gather as much intel as they can, during a period of uneasy tension in that region of the world.

 

[Loachman]

I give rather more credit to the USMC operators and leadership and their decision-making abilities. They know their aircraft and the Chinese much better than any of us here.

There'll be F35s all over the airshow circuit soon anyway. That's always been a key to generating customers.

 

[dapaterson]

The biggest problems with the program have been driven by trying to make a VTOL variant.  The USMC is engaging in PR to protect their platform.

 

[a_majoor]

The biggest problems with the program have been driven by trying to make a VTOL variant.  The USMC is engaging in PR to protect their platform.

Yet the Marines seem to have more, and more operational aircraft than either the AirForce or the USN. They are also developing more sophisticated uses of the platform (i.e. using a Marine F-35 to identify a target then launch and guide a missile from a nearby warship to intercept).

If anything, the Marines seem to be forging ahead far more aggressively with their F-35's than anyone else.

 

[MarkOttawa]

SecDef nominee Gen. (ret'd) Mattis at Senate confirmation hearing Jan. 12 on F-35 (including nuclear-capable):

...
If confirmed, Mattis could form a counterweight to Trump in the Pentagon. While Trump has targeted the F-35 programme numerous times on the campaign and on Twitter since his election, Mattis praised the fighter and called it critical to allies’ capability. Not only will the F-35 magnify the capability of other US aircraft, the fighter will create the total strength of several foreign air forces, he says.

When asked about Trump’s tendency to tweet about defense aviation programmes, Mattis demurred.

“It’s not my role to comment on his statements other than to say he is serious about getting the best bang for the dollar and that’s where I find common ground with him,” Mattis says. “I see his statements on certain defense programmes showing his serious side of keeping these programmes under control.”

In written statements, Mattis told senators he would support the nuclear-capable F-35 and bomber programme. Further, the retired general backed dual-capable F-35s for NATO and supported the deployment of the B-61 weapon system...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mattis-strikes-sharp-contrast-to-trump-on-f-35-nuc-433139/

More:

...
Although Trump's tweets on the F-35 and Air Force One rattled the defense industrial base, it was barely a topic of conversation during the confirmation hearing. Only Hirono criticized Trump’s Twitter tactics, and no senator ventured to ask about the president’s comments alluding to a potential competition involving the F-35 and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

“We’re going to do some big things on the F-35 program and perhaps the F-18 program,” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “And we’re going to get those costs way down, and we’re going to get the plane even better, and we’re going to have competition. And it's going to be a beautiful thing.”

During the hearing, Mattis ventured his own support of the F-35 program, calling it "critical" and noting that “many of our allies have bet their air superiority on the F-35 program.” However, the famed former Marine Corps general did not offer any specifics about whether Trump is considering a smaller F-35 buy or the acquisition of an upgraded version of the Super Hornet.

SASC Chairman John McCain of Arizona remained mum on the F-35 program during the hearing, but has been putting his own pressure on the joint strike fighter. This week he sent a letter to Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson blasting the program for a projected seven month delay and $500 million cost overrun.

“If the Lockheed Martin Corporation has new initiatives that are ‘ready to deliver’ to reduce F-35 program costs, I expect you to detail your plans for accomplishing this objective to the committee as soon as possible,” he wrote...
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/mattis-defends-trumps-f-35-criticism

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

And at AvWeek:

Trump Probably Won’t Cancel F-35. Just Ask Jim Mattis.

The incoming president’s recent comments about Lockheed Martin’s F-35 have sent the defense community into a frenzy, with observers racing to figure out exactly what Donald Trump has in store for the stealth fighter.

Trump has slammed the F-35 for “out of control” costs, asked Boeing to price out the cost to build a “comparable” F/A-18 Super Hornet and called for “competition” in the defense market. Investors are watching the dialogue closely, and some clearly fear the worst – each time Trump slams the F-35, Lockheed’s stock temporarily slumps. Some observers have interpreted the comments as Trump hinting that he wants to compete the F-35 against the Super Hornet, or cancel the program altogether.

But Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, provided a simpler, more likely, explanation.

“The president-elect has talked about the cost of [the F-35] but in no way shown a lack of support for the program,” Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing. “He just wants the best bang for the buck.”

In other words, Trump is just trying to pressure Lockheed to get costs down.

Mattis, who presumably will have some input on any decision regarding the military’s next-generation fighter, offered a resounding defense of the F-35. 

“The F-35 is critical for our own air superiority, because of its electronics capability inherent to the airplane, which magnifies each individual aircraft's capability,” Mattis said during the hearing. “It is equally important and more so to our allies, because this will be the total strength of their Air Force.”

“Many of our allies have bet their security on the F-35,” he said.
http://aviationweek.com/blog/trump-probably-won-t-cancel-f-35-just-ask-jim-mattis

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

And as "uncertainty" is reduced watch the price of the F35 and Lockheed Martin shares stabilize at a higher level.

It is really hard to make a deal if the other guy knows you won't walk away.  Trump revels in uncertainty.  Bureaucrats detest it.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The Donald gets results!?!

Lockheed CEO: We are 'close to a deal' to bring F-35 cost down 'significantly'

Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson said Friday [Jan. 13] that the company is "close to a deal" that will bring the cost of the F-35 down "significantly" following a meeting with President-elect Trump in New York.

Hewson told reporters after the 45-minute meeting that she shares the incoming president's view that troops need to get the best technology as possible for the lowest price. She said she also gave him some ideas for other ways to bring down the price of the joint strike fighter.

"I'm glad I had the opportunity to tell him that we are close to a deal that will bring the cost down significantly," Hewson said. "It's going to bring a lot of jobs to the United States. In fact, we're going to increase our jobs in Fort Worth by 1,800 jobs."

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said this week that the promise to drive down costs is "the easiest promise anyone has ever made," since the price per plane is already going down and will continue to go down more as the program moves into production because of lessons learned during building and a more efficient production line.

Friday marked the second meeting between Hewson and Trump. Following the first meeting in December, Hewson gave Trump her "personal commitment" to "aggressively" drive down costs.

Despite that promise, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., released a letter from the Pentagon this week announcing an additional seven-month delay that will cost taxpayers at least $500 million more...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lockheed-ceo-we-are-close-to-a-deal-to-bring-f-35-cost-down-significantly/article/2611776

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

Things get cheaper when you can spread design and production costs over more units. 

Is PM JT about to get a "Here's your bill for 65 F-35s, Canada.  Thanks for contributing to global defense and helping to reduce costs for all F-35 operators!" from the Donald?  :nod:


G2G

 

[MilEME09]

Things get cheaper when you can spread design and production costs over more units. 

Is PM JT about to get a "Here's your bill for 65 F-35s, Canada.  Thanks for contributing to global defense and helping to reduce costs for all F-35 operators!" from the Donald?  :nod:


G2G

But with the government changing the requirement to meet NATO and NORAD at the same time I don't think 65 is enough any more. I hear there is a price break at 100.

 

[Good2Golf]

But with the government changing the requirement to meet NATO and NORAD at the same time I don't think 65 is enough any more. I hear there is a price break at 100.

Well played, MilEME09!  Maybe even 120...or 138 (some will get it), if The Donald offers not to re-write NAFTA? 

 

[MilEME09]

Well played, MilEME09!  Maybe even 120...or 138 (some will get it), if The Donald offers not to re-write NAFTA?

How about 273? if you add the original CF-18 numbers to the CF-5 numbers which were in service till 1995. But that would require a massive investment in the airforce.

 

[dapaterson]

How about 273? if you add the original CF-18 numbers to the CF-5 numbers which were in service till 1995. But that would require a massive investment in the airforce.

And massive investments in intelligence.  And massive investments in IM/IT. And massive investments in security.

To properly exploit the capabilities modern sensors provide, there's a huge bill in analysis and data storage.  And the US is quite particular about protecting the secrets of the aircraft, so airfield security costs will increase as well.

 

[MilEME09]

And massive investments in intelligence.  And massive investments in IM/IT. And massive investments in security.

To properly exploit the capabilities modern sensors provide, there's a huge bill in analysis and data storage.  And the US is quite particular about protecting the secrets of the aircraft, so airfield security costs will increase as well.

increase the budget 6% to 19.7 billion, massive capital investment at cold late, bagotvillie, winnipeg and Trenton, and maybe Greenwood or Shearwater based on existing infrastructure.

 

[dapaterson]

increase the budget 6% to 19.7 billion, massive capital investment at cold late, bagotvillie, winnipeg and Trenton, and maybe Greenwood or Shearwater based on existing infrastructure.

Why do we need fighters in Trenton or Winnipeg?  How would you get the airfields in Shearwater operational for fighter aircraft?  I'm not certain, but don't think 10/34 is usable, and open source information says that the aircraft need 8000 feet of runway (10,000 for pilots under training); 10/28 is far too short.

"Because there's some infrastructure already there" rarely results in optimal locations for military bases.

Mind you, Gander and Goose Bay both have runways that are more than long enough...  just in case some folks thought Cold Lake and Bagotville weren't remote enough >

 

[MilEME09]

Why do we need fighters in Trenton or Winnipeg?  How would you get the airfields in Shearwater operational for fighter aircraft?  I'm not certain, but don't think 10/34 is usable, and open source information says that the aircraft need 8000 feet of runway (10,000 for pilots under training); 10/28 is far too short.

"Because there's some infrastructure already there" rarely results in optimal locations for military bases.

Mind you, Gander and Goose Bay both have runways that are more than long enough...  just in case some folks thought Cold Lake and Bagotville weren't remote enough >

looking at the maps i picked spots that geographically were spread out, and that could be expanded, besides putting a big fighter base on the east coast could win some votes next election.

 

[dapaterson]

Ah yes, Canadian defence policy: where votes matter more than operational effect.

May I introduce you to the MLVW, LSVW, ILTIS, CF-18 maintenance contract...

 

[George Wallace]

Reopen Summerside......Anne of Green Gables and beaches......What more would an Airman want?


[

 

[MarkOttawa]

There won't be money for the fantasy fighter force. Under any party.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MilEME09]

There won't be money for the fantasy fighter force. Under any party.

Mark
Ottawa

Any existing party, I propose we form a political party from the members of Army.ca, with dapaterson, MCG, and FJAG up for party leader. I'm sure we would get lot's of votes