In historic announcement, Marine Corps declares controversial F-35 ready for combat
Source: Washington Post
The Marine Corps, the ascetic tribe of “Devil Dogs” that prides itself on being “the first to fight,” is getting a new weapon, announcing Friday that its version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is, at long last, ready to be unleashed in combat.
The announcement comes after years of testing and development, marking a significant milestone for the sometimes-beleaguered, often-criticized and always controversial $400 billion program, which is years behind its original schedule and billions of dollars over its original budget.
The declaration means that the squadron of 10 F-35Bs stationed with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 in Yuma, Ariz., are “ready for worldwide deployment,” the Marine Corps said in a statement. And in announcing the decision, Marine Corps Commandant Joseph Dunford said the stealthy fifth-generation fighter “will transform the way we fight and win.”
Officials at the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin, the Bethesda-based manufacturer of the plane, cheered the announcement, saying it was evidence that the program had turned the corner from its previous troubles, and that it was primped and primed for its operational debut.
<more>
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/07/31/in-historic-announcement-marine-corps-declares-controversial-f-35-ready-for-combat/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)A licensing agreement with Dassault would have given a superior aircraft (Rafalle) for a third of the cost.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Fear fear fear.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and electrical/telecommunications grid problem solved were we to drop this asinine and failed project.
They are at the throwing good money after bad part of the failure. Keep throwing money at a failed project because you've already thrown way too much money at it.
That's a piss poor way to do business.
erronis
(15,404 posts)It was a defunct POS from its inception. It only serves as a pipeline from taxpayers to the major armament manufacturers and then on to the congress/vested interests.
It is totally incapable of defending itself in any air combat and is no longer stealthy enough to fly over any potential zone of conflict.
Alfalfa
(161 posts)Design a plane for once purpose and one purpose only.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)the incompetents that were and are working at the facilities that engineer and prototype the specific components.
ON ALL LEVELS.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Not what I hear:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a16248/test-pilot-f35-cant-dogfight/
The F-35 is an impressive disaster. On the one hand, its high-tech helmet is a technological marvel. The F-35B's hovering tricks are awe-inspiring. On the other hand, the Joint Strike Fighter is just out-and-out bad at some really basic fighter jet stuff. A new report from a test pilot really lays it bare: The F-35 can't dogfight.
The issues are laid out in a previously private but now non-classified report obtained by War Is Boring. In it, a F-35 test pilot enumerates his issues with the aircraft after a series of mock close-range engagements with the older, trusty F-16 back in January.
The pilot was flying a single-seat F-35A with no weapons in its bomb bay or under the wings. Meanwhile, his wargame adversary in an F-16 was dragging around two extra fuel tanks. Even so, the pilot reported that the F-35 was far too sluggish to hold its own.
War Is Boring quotes the pilot's report as saying, "Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement." The pilot lists various gripes such as insufficient pitch rate, a persistent energy deficit compared to his opponent, and a bulky helmet that made it hard to look backwards. He summed it all up saying, "there were not compelling reasons to fight in this region." In other words, the F-35 couldn't hack it.
For the price of one of these monstrosities, you could buy 5-7 F-16s that actually work.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)EX500rider
(10,884 posts)Moreover this is not the first time the media has made this mistake. Back in 2008 media reports that the F-35 was regularly defeated in computer simulated combats with the latest Russian fighters, prompted the U.S. Air Force to release a lot of its own data on F-35 effectiveness. Overall, the air force simulations and studies have shown the F-35 to be four times as effective against any current fighter (the best of them known as "fourth generation" aircraft.) The major advantages of the F-35 are engine power (the one engine generates more power than the two engines used in the Eurofighter or F-18), stealth and the fact that it can fight "clean" (without any pods or missiles hung from its wings, and interfering with maximum maneuverability). While it's true that the F-35 would have problems in a dogfight with some aircraft (notably the Su-27/30 series), the F-35 was designed to spot the enemy first, get the first shot in, and stay out of range of an old-fashioned dog fight.
These BVR (Beyond Visual Range) tactics are untried in large scale combat, while dog fighting has been around since 1914. But everyone agrees that BVR (using superior sensors and long range missiles) tactics are the future. Not everyone agrees that the future is here yet. The 27 ton F-35 is armed with an internal 25mm cannon and four internal air-to-air missiles (or two missiles and two smart bombs). Plus four external smart bombs and two missiles. All sensors are carried internally, and max weapon load is 6.8 tons. There F-35 does have lots of problems, mainly overly ambitious technical goals, too much political involvement and poor management. These are all characteristic of American weapons development during the Cold War. By the 1980s one defense industry executive (Norman Augustine) looked at the trends and calculated that by 2015 electronics would occupy 100 percent of the internal space of new warplanes and that by 2054 the entire defense budget would pay for one new warplane. It didn’t turn out that bad but it isn’t good either. The B-2, F-22 and F-35 are proof of that. Nevertheless aircraft that get through this overpriced and overly long process are superb. But as Augustine foresaw, you can’t afford many of them and they always arrive late and with lots of expensive problems that have to be fixed.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Why-The-F-35-Does-And-Does-Not-Suck-7-30-2015.asp
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Is the question of the day.
I mean it's not like the Pentagon has ever lied about a weapon system's failures.
Repeatedly.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)An overly complicated, expensive, and ieffective aircraft when it was first developed.... And it did have problems. But it has turned into a very effective and reliable aircraft.
And if you get in a close range ACM fight in these 5th gen aircraft, you are doing it wrong.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)even adjusted for inflation the F-35 is way more exepnsive.
All I see is a quarter of a billion dollars that could be fixing roads and funding education.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)built with a different philosophy. The F-18 met the needs of the service it was put to use for.
The F-35 is supposed to serve the needs of all branches of the military, in 90% of their capacity for air support.
You can't be all things at once, otherwise you wind up being bad at everything.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)all planes to all people.
That is what has ultimately caused the problems with the F-35.
Well, that, and other incompetence.
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)They try to make them do everything, but in the end up being less effective and hundred times more complicated/expensive.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)as you can see in this discussion: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/168313/
Aerows
(39,961 posts)has been going on long before Obama took office, will continue to go on after he leaves office, because it is a boondoggle.
I guess you could point a finger at President Obama over this F35 mess under the auspices of "he's the President", but this is something that is not his fault.
Oneironaut
(5,538 posts)What a piece of shit.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)If the cannon software delivered even works by that deadline.
There will be no gun until [the Joint Strike Fighter's Block] 3F [software], there is no software to support it now or for the next four-ish years,' one Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program told the site.
'Block 3F is slated for release in 2019, but who knows how much that will slip?'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3163016/Watch-3-5bn-F-35-fire-hidden-wing-cannons-won-t-software-fire-air-2019.html
Rolf21
(22 posts)The most recently contracted unit costs for Low Rate Initial Production lot 7 (not including the engine) are:
•F-35A: $98 million
•F-35B: $104 million
•F-35C: $116 million
An F-35A purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will be $85 million, which is the equivalent of $75 million in today’s dollars.
https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Here's what we're paying *today* per the GAO
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-364
Rolf21
(22 posts)No, just relevant facts.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)just an assertion backed up with ... that's right, no evidence. As opposed to the person above you in the subthread that actually provided evidence by way of charts and numbers.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Lot 8 was agreed on last November
The cost of the F-35 B-model, which can take off from shorter runways and lands like a helicopter, would be $102 million, without an engine, while the Navy's C-model or carrier variant would be $115.7 million, it said.
The Pentagon does not provide detailed cost breakdowns for Pratt's F135 engine, given the company's concerns about proprietary data, but U.S. officials have said they expect the cost of the aircraft, with an engine, to drop to about $80 million to $85 million by 2019.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0J52DJ20141121?irpc=932
It's basic economies of scale, the more widgets produced per batch the less individual units cost.
I remember reading a few months ago that once they hit full rate production they're planning on a block buy purchase for 450 jets (right now they purchase one lot at a time, this would be multiple lots at once).
Response to tammywammy (Reply #23)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)and believes that if it ever really comes to replace the F-18 Hornet the US Navy will be rolling the clock back to the 1950's and before the F-4 Phantom in terms of it's carrier based capabilities.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Cause I know some F-35 test pilots, and they do not share your bubby's opinion.
I've worked in tactical naval aviation R&D as an engineer for 30 years.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)He was a Hornet guy, although he thought the Growler was stupid too.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Still am on my current project. What did he think was "stupid" about the Growler... Did he want to stick with decrepit Prowlers?
I'd point out to him that a whole lot people criticized that new-fangled Hornet when it came out, and argued it couldn't win against the Soviet jets of the day, was too expensive, didn't have enough range (Bingo off the bow!), etc.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)of the helmets at this point?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)We us helmet mounted displays and weapon cueing in the SuperHornets, so we have a lot of experience now with helmet mounted systems, but the Lightning helmet is on another level. The main problem at the moment, I Think, is that it is not quite "bullet proof" enough, but we've made (amd are making) tremendous strides in that area. Also, there remain some technical issues that usually aren't a problem, but do limit it's full capability. Obviously, i've never used it in flight personally, but the test pilots say it offers unparalleled SA (situational awareneness).
The cockpit in the lightning is another thing of beauty..... Clean, flexible, fantastic usuability.
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)cheered the announcement. Ka-Ching!!
CanonRay
(14,125 posts)Oh, wait...
TexasBushwhacker
(20,229 posts)they'll start another war so they can use it.
Andrej28
(65 posts)
turbinetree
(24,738 posts)has issues with its EM (Energy Maneuverability) system when placed in a dog fight with a F16D Block 40 fighter-------------and this is a big deal.
"A Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) was outperformed in the type’s first basic fighter maneuvering exercise by a 20-plus-year-old F-16 fighter, according to a leaked Lockheed Martin report prepared by the pilot who flew the mission. Inferior energy maneuverability (EM), a limited pitch rate and flying qualities that were “not intuitive or favorable” in a major part of the air-combat regime gave the F-16 the tactical advantage and allowed its pilot to get ..."
And has a side note the July 20th Issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology has the full report ...............
http://aviationweek.com/defense/controversy-flares-over-f-35-air-combat-report
fbc
(1,668 posts)They demanded a jump jet that could take off and land vertically. Now everyone else is stuck with a shitty fighter that will get shot out of the sky by planes 20-30 years older.
Kaleva
(36,372 posts)
rwsanders
(2,612 posts)He was a dead-ringer for Danny DeVito in looks, mannerisms, voice, etc. He did a 60 minute talk over lunch asking similar questions including 'why does the Army have more boats than the Navy? They want to be INDEPENDENT!'
The theme was to get agencies to work together.
Uncle Joe
(58,483 posts)they're not just land based but are also in continuous deployment on the high seas around the world.
Being of an amphibious nature, they bring their own close air support with them for maximum killing efficiency and force protection.
The Navy fighter jets' primary mission is protection of the ships at sea, particularly the air craft carrier.
P.S. That's also why the Marines need jets with vertical take off capabilities because in many cases, there won't be an airstrip for them to use in a conflict.
Andrej28
(65 posts)But I'm not sure they need this new aircraft.
The Navy has a habit of sailing into the sunset and leaving the Marines to fend for themselves.
Kaleva
(36,372 posts)Decades ago, the U.S. was far more willing to risk large scale causalities by leaving a land force to fend for itself on an island with no guarantee of continuous outside support.
Uncle Joe
(58,483 posts)U.S. Navy ships, but the lesson was well learned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalcanal_Campaign
Battle of Savo Island[edit]
Main article: Battle of Savo Island
During the landing operations on 7 and 8 August, Japanese naval aircraft based at Rabaul, under the command of Sadayoshi Yamada, attacked the Allied amphibious forces several times, setting afire the transport USS George F. Elliot (which sank two days later) and heavily damaging the destroyer USS Jarvis.[32] In the air attacks over the two days, the Japanese lost 36 aircraft, while the U.S. lost 19, both in combat and to accident, including 14 carrier fighters.[33]
After these clashes, Fletcher was concerned about the losses to his carrier fighter aircraft strength, anxious about the threat to his carriers from further Japanese air attacks, and worried about his ships' fuel levels. Fletcher withdrew from the Solomon Islands area with his carrier task forces the evening of 8 August.[34] As a result of the loss of carrier-based air cover, Turner decided to withdraw his ships from Guadalcanal, even though less than half of the supplies and heavy equipment needed by the troops ashore had been unloaded.[35] Turner planned, however, to unload as many supplies as possible on Guadalcanal and Tulagi throughout the night of 8 August and then depart with his ships early on 9 August.[36]
That night, as the transports unloaded, two groups of screening Allied cruisers and destroyers, under the command of British Rear Admiral Victor Crutchley VC, were surprised and defeated by a Japanese force of seven cruisers and one destroyer from the 8th Fleet based at Rabaul and Kavieng and commanded by Japanese Vice Admiral Gunichi Mikawa. In the Battle of Savo Island one Australian and three American cruisers were sunk and one American cruiser and two destroyers were damaged. The Japanese suffered moderate damage to one cruiser.[37] Mikawa, who was unaware Fletcher was preparing to withdraw with the U.S. carriers, immediately retired to Rabaul without attempting to attack the transports. Mikawa was concerned about daylight U.S. carrier air attacks if he remained in the area. Bereft of his carrier air cover, Turner decided to withdraw his remaining naval forces by the evening of 9 August and in so doing left the Marines ashore without much of the heavy equipment, provisions and troops still aboard the transports. Mikawa's decision not to attempt to destroy the Allied transport ships when he had the opportunity proved to be a crucial strategic mistake.[38]
The 11,000 Marines on Guadalcanal initially concentrated on forming a loose defensive perimeter around Lunga Point and the airfield, moving the landed supplies within the perimeter and finishing the airfield. In four days of intense effort, the supplies were moved from the landing beach into dispersed dumps within the perimeter. Work began on the airfield immediately, mainly using captured Japanese equipment. On 12 August the airfield was named Henderson Field after Lofton R. Henderson, a Marine aviator who was killed during the Battle of Midway. By 18 August the airfield was ready for operation.[39] Five days worth of food had been landed from the transports, which, along with captured Japanese provisions, gave the Marines a total of 14 days worth of food.[40] To conserve supplies, the troops were limited to two meals per day.[41]
Allied troops encountered a severe strain of dysentery soon after the landings, with one in five Marines afflicted by mid-August. Tropical diseases would affect the fighting strengths of both sides throughout the campaign. Although some of the Korean construction workers surrendered to the Marines, most of the remaining Japanese and Korean personnel gathered just west of the Lunga perimeter on the west bank of the Matanikau River and subsisted mainly on coconuts. A Japanese naval outpost was also located at Taivu Point, about 35 kilometres (22 mi) east of the Lunga perimeter. On 8 August, a Japanese destroyer from Rabaul delivered 113 naval reinforcement troops to the Matanikau position.
(snip)
On 20 August, the escort carrier USS Long Island delivered two squadrons of Marine aircraft to Henderson Field, one a squadron of 19 F4F Wildcats and the other a squadron of 12 SBD Dauntlesses. The aircraft at Henderson became known as the "Cactus Air Force" (CAF) after the Allied codename for Guadalcanal. The Marine fighters went into action the next day on the first of the almost-daily Japanese bomber air raids. On 22 August five U.S. Army P-400 Airacobras and their pilots arrived at Henderson Field.[45]
Kaleva
(36,372 posts)To equip one's forces to better fight in a campaign that last took place some 70 years ago is poor use of limited funds.
Uncle Joe
(58,483 posts)it still applies.
They also still have a special need for vertical takeoff aircraft as in many cases they end up in places that don't have convenient airstrips.
In the worst case scenario of combat, the Navy's ships could still be at risk and they may have to pull away from the immediate combat zone, in a hot zone time is of essence, furthermore Navy jets' primary mission would be in protecting the ships especially the air craft carriers.
Ford_Prefect
(7,927 posts)It would have been better without the burden of VTOL capability. However much of what it is intended to do otherwise would still be inoperable due to advanced systems issues that have not yet been resolved. It still has limited bad weather capability and relatively weak attack performance compared with the planes it is intended to supersede. Its primary value at this point is the Stealth construction. The resultant 400 Million in costs and 14 year incomplete development is typical of past Pentagon attempts to make one aircraft design do all things for all services. It would likely cost less to scrap it and start with a clean drawing board than to try to endlessly "patch" this design.
FYI: The Chinese counterpart is reported as having better speed and maneuvering ability in both the fighter and tactical support roles.
Andrej28
(65 posts)They usually get the worst equipment, stuff the army isn't using anymore, hand-me-downs. Any good things they get usually get to them very late in the game. This despite the fact that the Marines are usually at the forefront of any assault, and take the greatest risks. It's a real problem. Ask any Marine. Maybe things are changing. The defense industry has to find something to spend their government money on. I guess they finally got around to the Marine Corps.
kwolf68
(7,365 posts)In our air war against the German Luftwaffe.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Thanks a lot, Lockheed Martin!
Alfalfa
(161 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)The Red Baron?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)*might* be able to take on Snoppy's doghouse with the F-35. I wouldn't put any wagers on it, though.
Boondoggle.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It's been a remarkably safe development.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Isn't this a not so fine kettle of dubious fish.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Around $104M each is a good guesstimate.