Sure, if you have unlimited funds, you can invent, field and sustain a specialty aircraft for every role. But that idea has been dead since the '70s (at least!) so it simply ain’t gonna happen. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you do realize that F-18s spend a hell of a lot of time as tankers, right? That’s because it’s a waste to develop a shipboard tanker that can’t do anything else.
What on earth makes you say that the F-16 and F-15 are better? Seriously, are you contending that a LANTIRN pod is better than the F-35’s integrated EO/IR system?
The cost growth in weapons systems is virtually always attributable to one of three reasons: (1) higher development cost, (2) decrease in production quantity, (3) stripping out capability during the development stage and trying to insert it later (which is really #1 stretched out over years).
So far as can be told, the cost growth in F-35 development seems to be at an end. There is some chance that F-35 orders may be cut in future years, but it does not seem imminent. (The international partners who have toyed with the idea of ending or further deferring their buys frankly are small customers anyway.) And #3 is a risk, but it does not appear that large amounts of capability are being dropped at this point to field a neutered jet, as was done with the F-22.
Given that, the cost of production always comes down. Always. There is simply no doubt that production costs for the F-35 will come down; it is just a question of how much.
Where do you get this nonsense? Lockheed made the F-22 and now makes the F-35. It would have been far, FAR more profitable for Lockheed to continue making the F-22 in Georgia while the F-35 line started up in Texas. Lockheed lobbied hard for F-22 production to continue, and in fact was moderately successful in getting Congress to add funds for F-22 production and sustainment after the DOD called for the program to end. You are just totally, completely wrong here.
Perhaps you want to write a letter to Special Operations Command and tell them that. Because they invested heavily in CV-22s, and have made only incremental investments in additional CH-47s. Gee, who knew SOCOM had no idea that Chinooks were better! (And I hope you don’t play the “some big defense contractor sold them a bill of goods” ploy, because Boeing makes both aircraft and gets the profit either way.)
In short: I’m entirely unimpressed with any point you have tried to make.
I need a stock market investment that will cost me little and make huge returns that are totally assured. Not realistic you say? Neither is a cheap stealth fighter. It is a fantasy.
The F-22, as I referenced above, has given up lots of capabilities because it was so costly to develop. There are investment plans that require tens of billions of dollars to do things like integrate weapons that are already in use on other aircraft. For the F-22 fans out there, did you know that the AIM-120D and the AIM-9X - our best air to air missiles - aren’t yet integrated on the F-22? And that it will probably take another three years or so before they are?
Anyways, the F-22 can’t be modified to fly off a carrier. And the Navy stealth drone program barely exists at all, since the first design contracts were just awarded like a week ago. You’re probably thinking of the X-47B, which recently had success in landing on a carrier 50% of the time. Well, the X-47B is never going to fly again. It has been retired.
Stealth plus VTOL is for big deck amphibs. This was mentioned earlier, in that if the Marines don’t have a new VTOL aircraft, the Navy has pretty much wasted billions of dollars on those ships, since the main point of having them is to provide both rotary and fixed wing air support. If the Marines only had rotary air, they would probably prefer a totally different ship.
Why don’t you give me the whole list right up front of why the F-16 and F-15 are better than the F-35, rather than you throwing out a few tidbits of an argument here and there. Then I can respond more comprehensively.
Not as imprudent as being able to hit the target in the first place and not being shot down. No aircraft can outrun surface to air missiles. Two aircraft are largely invulnerable to them and neither are the F-15 or F-16.
You accept the aircraft that best fits your requirement.
Suppose I like 100 miles from my office, and want to commute there in my own airplane. That’s all the flying I do, and no one ever goes with me. I could accomplish my mission with a Cessna 150.
Now suppose I have a family, and we like to take trips. A 150 isn’t going to cut it. A 172 would be better. Or, I have a couple of boys who are football payers. I might need a 182 to carry all of us.
OK, I like to take long trips. A 172 is fine for a few hundred miles, but I want to fly from Northern Washington to Los Angeles. So I really want to spend 10 hours behind the stick? A Mooney would cut the time almost in half.
You can see where I’m going here: As payload or speed becomes more important, the airplanes get more expensive. A Cessna 150 is cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, and cheap to fly. But its speed and payload are limited. A 182 goes half-again as fast, and can carry four adults and full fuel. But it costs a few times as much as a 150, burns twice the fuel, and is a lot more expensive to maintain. A 172 is not ideal, but is a good compromise. A Bonanza or a Mooney would be great. Heck, so would a personal T-38 Talon or a Cessna Citation. But they are poor choices for most missions, assuming most of my flying is commuting or short cross-country trips.
It would be nice to have a stable of airplanes, and be able to choose the one that fits your particular mission on a given day. If you can only choose one airplane that you need to use all the time, then you have to carefully define the mission requirements. Any one you choose will do one thing better than the others, but most things just adequately. (It’s been said that the reason the Cessna 172 has been so successful is that while it doesn’t do anything particularly well, it does everything well enough.) In General Aviation aircraft, cost is a major factor. Higher payloads, higher cruise speeds, more seats, more comfort… All add to the price. You might be able to choose any two capabilities, but the others will suffer. You compromise and buy the airplane that does what you need it to within your parameters, and accept the shortcomings where they occur.
With a military airplane you want something faster than everything else. You also want something that out-turns the competition. It needs to have the endurance to get to the operation area, and to remain on station for a long time. It needs enough bombs to be effective in ground attacks, and it needs enough missiles and cannon ammunition to be effective in a fight. It needs to be stealthy, so that the enemy can’t see you coming. It needs to be inexpensive enough that you can build enough of them to accomplish your objectives, and also to be able to lose some in combat.
The problem is that many of these things are in opposition to each other. Each airplane is already a compromise. To make an airplane fulfill three very different mission requirements is a double compromise. (Or a triple compromise, if one of the roles is significantly different from the other two.) As a joint fighter, the F-111 was a failure. The F-4 Phantom II was very successful with all three branches of the military. The F/A-18 has been successful with the Navy and the other Department of the Navy branch, but the Air Force doesn’t fly it. Considering the mission requirements of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, the ‘one size fits all’ approach has not been successful overall.
I think at best, the F-35 might be useful for the Navy and Air Force, but the requirements of the Marine Corps are too different for a successful compromise. Without the V/STOL capability, the airframe wouldn’t be as fat. That would make it lighter and faster, and give the aircraft greater range, maneuverability, and stealth. Then the F-35 might be worth the cost. The Marines typically travel with the Navy. The Navy could use the properly-designed seagoing version of the F-35 for air superiority and for taking out air defenses. The Marines could use their F/A-18s and AV-8Bs for ground support. The Air Force could use their F-35s in their intended roles. Thus some costs could (ostensibly) be saved by having commonality between two armed forces, and the aircraft would be more capable than if it had to fulfill requirements of the third.
And let’s face it; the Marines do pretty well with ‘hand-me-downs’. They have their own Harriers, but they’re still using earlier versions of the F/A-18 and they’re still using Cobra helicopters. They can depend on the Navy for air superiority. They have the aircraft that meet their mission requirements, and I see no reason to compromise the capabilities of the F-35 for the other branches just so they can have a Super Super Harrier.
As to whether the F-35 should be pursued at all, I don’t really have an opinion. If it can do everything better than the aircraft it is intended to replace (obviously, losing the V/STOL capability) and can be built inexpensively enough, then go for it. If it can’t, then it should be cancelled and what we’ve learned from its development should be applied to a new design that does do everything better than the aircraft it is to replace.
And why would investing in fourth generation aircraft make that war game better?
Considering that the F-35 will be finishing testing then, I heartily concede the point.
Great, I missed that. But considering the Navy just awarded design contracts for a four-way production competition that will occur in 2015. Mark my words: I will literally eat my hat if the Navy awards a production contract in 2015.
That VTOL is going away and there is nothing else that can replace it. How long do you think Harriers are going to stick around when new ones cannot be built?
And if you want to eliminate amphibs because they are vulnerable, good luck with that. Eliminating amphibs means the end of the Marine Corps.
Sorta related…but years ago, I read that British RAF pilots at the “Top Gun” school in Nevada bested US pilots-and the Brits were flying long obsolete “Buccaneer” fighters. So having a new, state of the art plane is not necessarily going to guarantee superiority.
And in exercises Indian pilots (from the country India) have also beat US pilots with inferior jets. That still isn’t an excuse to buy something less than the best when the best are affordable in a time of peace. It means the pilots need more training.
That exercise wasn’t Americans vs Indians. They were mixed up into two groups and it was stacked in India’s favor:
Same with the Taiwan war game. F-35s were forced to defend their tankers and engage in dog fights head on within visual range. That’s not how an engagement is going to work. If you send a squadron of non-stealth fighters against stealth fighters, the first sign of you being in a dog fight is going to be your wingman being hit by a missile.
Losing 6 AV-8Bs destroyed and 2 more damaged to the point that they were likely used for spares rather than kept in flight service in a single attack in Afghanistandidn’t help, those 8 planes were 7% of the entire Marine Corps Harrier fleet.
are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? The F-35 is out turned by the F-22, out accelerated by the F-16 and doesn’t provide sustained super-cruise. It doesn’t appear to do anything well.
Well if they don’t require a Marine VTOL version of it maybe we’ll see them in a timely manner.
yes, there is something that can replace the Harrier. New Harriers.
If the production line had to be started again from absolute scratch, would it be more or less expensive than the F-35’s spiraling construction cost? I’m asking, I honestly don’t know. But if the answer is less expensive then why not?
the line ended 10 years ago and the plane is slated to be in service until 2030. that means that have a shit ton of parts available or the tooling to make new parts as needed.
Now I’m going out on a ledge here but I bet they could retool the line and build them faster and cheaper than the F-35 which at this stage of the game is a pig looking for lipstick.