Senators Ask Panetta For Estimate To Terminate JSF Program

[Breckey]

Is there really a need for a LO CAS aircraft? I can see interdiction and other deep strike (sts) aircraft but not one who's primary mission is to provide CAS to Marines. I don't know what other platform that they could have gone to otherwise but the STOVL -35 has been the long pole in the program for a while

[SocialD]

Harriers.

It can be done...I've seen it happen!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xvVUgZEXWM

[ThreeHoler]

Harriers...

...Ospreys, Chinooks, and Sea Hawks, oh my!

[Guest fin]

The Brits can't afford either carrier and as they start a second round of major cuts it the carrier gets the axe there is no reason to buy JSF, especially when you already have Typhoon on the ramp.

All true. Right now they still want to generate a political return on capital, i.e. if they invest billions and don't buy the thing the politicians look bad, but there's only so long political need can outpace financial reality. There's some talk about making the F-35 replace the Tornado GR4 fleet, but the RAF is facing a hard choice between doing that, buying something like an X-47 and losing another fleet. Unless the whole political class disappears there's no way they'll replace the GR4 with more Typhoons; it's become their F-22 in the 'Why have we spent so much on this thing ?' sense, and as they're now talking about an army down to 80000 men billions more on an 80s design isn't going to fly. Best case for the Brits is a -35 buy big enough to save political face, and hey let's find the money by hollowing out all these other programs. Again. Worst case is the last Typhoon they have on order now is the last manned fighter they ever buy, financial reality kills the UAV at birth and that's it, Belgium with teeth. I'd hate to see that, and nobody I know over here is that pessimistic, but I'd have to add the word 'yet'.

I disagree. USAF and USMC have bet the house on the program, but the supporting timbers are starting to give way. The Navy has been quietly buying F-18's to "fill the gap", Australia is buying F-18's as well. This week several European countries announced a three year procurement slip. The Italians want it but can in no way shape or form afford it, the Israelis say they are in but they are buying it with our money and most importantly, the new SECDEF is a known budget cutter who is looking at a huge bogey with regard to reducing the Pentagon budget. Nothing is off the table.

Exactly. The only European countries that may be able to afford the -35 are all looking to replace F-16s. Given that their politicians will likely be forced to base their decision on cost and what they've sent their guys out to do in the F-16s, the minute the cost of a -35 outweighs the perceived industrial/kudos benefits most will give up all pretensions to taking part in night one and look seriously at something like the Block 60 or the Saab Gripen NG, or try to extend their existing Vipers again until the next leap forward. Right now only the Turks and the Singaporeans look to be in shape to buy the -35, if it survives.

[ThreeHoler]

The Typhoon isn't working too well for the Brits. They have to fly it paired with a GR4 to lase so they can drop.

[chim richalds]

I think we'll see small cuts over the next few years, followed by a drawdown like we've never seen before when Afghanistan is over.

[ClearedHot]

I think we'll see small cuts over the next few years, followed by a drawdown like we've never seen before when Afghanistan is over.

Hyperbole...

In 1945 we had 12.1 Million Americans in the active military, by 1950 we had 1.4 million. By 1970 the number had increased to 3 Million only to slowly reduce over time to 1.4 million in 2007. Will we get smaller, most certainly, but nothing like we did after WWII and Vietnam.

[Masshole]

Hyperbole...

In 1945 we had 12.1 Million Americans in the active military, by 1950 we had 1.4 million. By 1970 the number had increased to 3 Million only to slowly reduce over time to 1.4 million in 2007. Will we get smaller, most certainly, but nothing like we did after WWII and Vietnam.

How much smaller can we expect and will the cuts be across the board? How much harder is it going to be for someone who wants to make a career out of the Air Force now?

[Bullet]

Who rescued O'Grady?

Who rescued the F-15E dude in Libya?

Certainly fast movers played their part in these efforts. But they didn't take-off and land from a austere location only a few miles away (which is a USMC requirement for the -35).

The question remains, does the Corps need an LO fast jet that can do CAS AND vertical land? The only reasons they need to have the vertical land capability is either for austere forward locations, or to operate off of their mini-carriers. So, you got to ask will we EVER put a FOB in the range of an advanced IADs (which is the reason for LO)? Highly unlikely. So, it came down to: we have these mini-carriers, so we HAVE to make our fast movers be able to use them.

A poor reason to add so much risk and cost to the program, and it has come to bite the program in the ass. At least twice, with the potential for even more issues.

[LoneStar]

All I can say is that I don't want it to go the way of the B-2 so that we have a few billion dollar fighters..

[ThreeHoler]

@bullet,

The Marine Harriers that provided CAS in the rescue of the F-15E in Libya took off from the USS Kearsarge. It was definitely an austere location just miles away...

[Bullet]

@bullet,

The Marine Harriers that provided CAS in the rescue of the F-15E in Libya took off from the USS Kearsarge. It was definitely an austere location just miles away...

And they just as easily could have taken off of a Nimitz Class carrier. Neither of which (the Nimitz class, or the Kearsarge) would be parked in an area where their T/O and landing pattern would be in the range of an advanced IADS.

The program should simply cancel the STOVL variant, and have the Marines buy carrier variants. THAT is the best way to fix the program, remove the most risky variant from the equation.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Bullet

[SurelySerious]

And they just as easily could have taken off of a Nimitz Class carrier. Neither of which (the Nimitz class, or the Kearsarge) would be parked in an area where their T/O and landing pattern would be in the range of an advanced IADS.

Except what we had there was a Kearsarge sitting off the coast of Libya, which had several long-range SAMs, but I digress. Kelly Johnson's rule: Never work with the Navy on an acquisition program.

[Bullet]

Except what we had there was a Kearsarge sitting off the coast of Libya, which had several long-range SAMs, but I digress. Kelly Johnson's rule: Never work with the Navy on an acquisition program.

Wrong forum with the wrong security level to address your first point.

Your second point? Spot on! Sort of like starting a land war in Asia...

[ClearedHot]

And they just as easily could have taken off of a Nimitz Class carrier.

The harriers that covered the O'Grady rescue did the same.

Ultimately, you are missing the point...we only have so many carriers and there is talk of cutting more.

Neither of which (the Nimitz class, or the Kearsarge) would be parked in an area where their T/O and landing pattern would be in the range of an advanced IADS.

No, but they will be just outside the MEZ, with the legs to get to the fight.

Take a few minutes and look at how Harriers operated in OIF...way up on the front lines.

[Clayton Bigsby]

First F-35A to Eglin Edited July 19, 2011 by Clayton Bigsby

[Bullet]

Ultimately, you are missing the point...we only have so many carriers and there is talk of cutting more.

Ultimately, I think you missed my point: the decision to add a STOVL variant of the F-35 caused a 5 year delay in the program and over $!0B in extra cost. The bad publicity this caused has nearly put the F-35 on the chopping block; all because the Navy's Army's Air Force wants the ability to have it's own Navy. Do we really want to add the expense of STOVL when they just as easily could be using carriers? And which do you think the Navy would rather reduce capacity in: carriers or LHDs? We could just as easily make LHDs a helicopter-only platform, with all fastmover capability shifting to the carriers, thus removing the need for VL on the JSF.

No, but they will be just outside the MEZ, with the legs to get to the fight.

Take a few minutes and look at how Harriers operated in OIF...way up on the front lines.

Designing and producing a fighter with stealth capability is a VERY expensive proposition. Maintaining that LO capability is even more so (just ask a -22 maintenance officer). You pay for this expense because you need to operate in an environment where you wouldn't survive without it. The MEZs mentioned of OIF and Libya were NOT these types of environments. We won't make a FOB next to the MEZs where you need stealth, and the Navy doesn't park it's multi-billion dollar carriers anywhere NEAR these environments.

So, why did the Marines decide to purchase an LO aircraft? Simple answer, it was their only option. What they really wanted was a replacement for their Harriers, which were quickly dieing out and getting too expensive to keep flying. A fast mover CAS aircraft that can deploy either near the front, or from the LDHD. But the Navy wasn't about to buy both the JSF for themselves AND a new Marine fast mover (even Super Hornets). The design expense of two aircraft was unaffordable. The only option left was for the Marines to buy JSFs (which were advertised as being as cheap as a new VL aircraft, some prediction THAT turned out to be!), and to get the Marines to join (and reduce cost through larger aircraft buys), they were promised a STOVL variant.

BL: The Marines DON'T need LO; they won't do their primary mission of CAS in an environment that requires it. They DO need STOVL. By forcing the program to design a STOVL variant of a new LO aircraft, it added significant risk to the program. Something that has come back to haunt both the AF and Marine variants.

Will the Marines operate near the front lines, and do they need STOVL to do this effectively? The answers to both of these questions is a definitive YES. Are these front lines anywhere near an environment that requires LO capability? A definitive NO.

First F-35A to Eglin

And the second one should be there this week as well.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Bullet

[ClearedHot]

Ultimately, I think you missed my point: the decision to add a STOVL variant of the F-35 caused a 5 year delay in the program and over $!0B in extra cost. The bad publicity this caused has nearly put the F-35 on the chopping block; all because the Navy's Army's Air Force wants the ability to have it's own Navy. Do we really want to add the expense of STOVL when they just as easily could be using carriers? And which do you think the Navy would rather reduce capacity in: carriers or LHDs? We could just as easily make LHDs a helicopter-only platform, with all fastmover capability shifting to the carriers, thus removing the need for VL on the JSF.

I did not miss your point, your point is wrong. If you think the STOVL is the only thing that delayed F-35, then you have your nugget in the sand. It wasn’t bad publicity that put F-35 on the chopping block, it was cost overruns related to lack of performance in avionics, STOVL, and other areas I won’t get into here. Also, it does not matter what the Navy wants with regard to Carriers or LHDs, it is a matter of what we can afford and what DoD and SECDEF will allow them to have. The rest of your statement is rambling drivel about duplicative services….the question has been asked and answered by Cognress, but good luck taking away the marines “Air Force”, beers on me if you can.

Designing and producing a fighter with stealth capability is a VERY expensive proposition. Maintaining that LO capability is even more so (just ask a -22 maintenance officer).

Duh

You pay for this expense because you need to operate in an environment where you wouldn't survive without it. The MEZs mentioned of OIF and Libya were NOT these types of environments.

Not even close to reality….So ODS & OIF did not use LO assets?...try again. We are not purchasing the F-35 to be the one-off use only in China jet. Tac Sams are getting better and have become the weapon of choice for folks who want to keep us out but can’t afford a modern Air Force that will only get smoked in a fight against the U.S. LO certainly will be required in the Super MEZ over Taiwan, but it also enables freedom of action in the increasingly difficult anti-access area denial arenas we are likely to fight in.

We won't make a FOB next to the MEZs where you need stealth, and the Navy doesn't park it's multi-billion dollar carriers anywhere NEAR these environments.

Completely disagree. You are locked into a China scenario. You must think the world is full of DF-21’s and that they are a magic wonder weapon.

So, why did the Marines decide to purchase an LO aircraft? Simple answer, it was their only option. What they really wanted was a replacement for their Harriers, which were quickly dieing out and getting too expensive to keep flying. A fast mover CAS aircraft that can deploy either near the front, or from the LDHD. But the Navy wasn't about to buy both the JSF for themselves AND a new Marine fast mover (even Super Hornets). The design expense of two aircraft was unaffordable. The only option left was for the Marines to buy JSFs (which were advertised as being as cheap as a new VL aircraft, some prediction THAT turned out to be!), and to get the Marines to join (and reduce cost through larger aircraft buys), they were promised a STOVL variant.

You’ve obviously never been to fight club…that is not how it went down and not why it happened.

BL: The Marines DON'T need LO; they won't do their primary mission of CAS in an environment that requires it.

Wow, just wow….you know NOTHING about the Marines.

Will the Marines operate near the front lines, and do they need STOVL to do this effectively? The answers to both of these questions is a definitive YES. Are these front lines anywhere near an environment that requires LO capability? A definitive NO.

Lunacy at best…speechless as to your ignorance.

[di1630]

Wow, just wow….you know NOTHING about the Marines.

I spoke to a Marine Hornet pilot the other day and he pretty much said that the Marines do NOT want the JSF. It was forced on them for the reasons of "joint" but they all want the super hornet. As for LO, he said that the marines will treat the JSF just like a Hornet and it will be beat to shit in no time with lots of stuff hanging external. his flat out quote was, "You expect a bunch of Marines to walk around with booties on and be concerned with the RAM coating"?

[Bullet]

I did not miss your point, your point is wrong. If you think the STOVL is the only thing that delayed F-35, then you have your nugget in the sand.

I recommend you Google "SWAT" and "JSF" and get back to me on this one.

It wasn’t bad publicity that put F-35 on the chopping block, it was cost overruns related to lack of performance in avionics, STOVL, and other areas I won’t get into here.

Cost overruns that came about because the program stopped for two years to redesign the aircraft due to weight, and spent two more years getting sub=contractors to re-supply newly designed parts. This also led to very late delivery of the flight test articles making the development schedule unachievable.

Also, it does not matter what the Navy wants with regard to Carriers or LHDs, it is a matter of what we can afford and what DoD and SECDEF will allow them to have.

My point exactly. Can we afford adding risk to the program just so the Marines can land on a LHD?

The rest of your statement is rambling drivel about duplicative services….the question has been asked and answered by Cognress, but good luck taking away the marines “Air Force”, beers on me if you can.

Seriously? You are backing your argument with "Congress got it right"? Really?

And I never said we should look into taking away the Marine fast air. But we should seriously ask if the Marines need a STOVL JSF.

So ODS & OIF did not use LO assets?...try again.

Sure they did. Did the Marines or Army move into a FOB before Air Supremacy was established over the battlespace they occupied? THAT is the real question.

We are not purchasing the F-35 to be the one-off use only in China jet. Tac Sams are getting better and have become the weapon of choice for folks who want to keep us out but can’t afford a modern Air Force that will only get smoked in a fight against the U.S. LO certainly will be required in the Super MEZ over Taiwan, but it also enables freedom of action in the increasingly difficult anti-access area denial arenas we are likely to fight in.

Certainly. But will we establish a forward location where TAC Sams are still a threat in the pattern?

Completely disagree. You are locked into a China scenario. You must think the world is full of DF-21’s and that they are a magic wonder weapon.

And you must obviously think we can afford to let the STOVL variant continue to drive additional risk for the other two variants, putting the whole program at risk.

You’ve obviously never been to fight club…that is not how it went down and not why it happened.

Lunacy at best…speechless as to your ignorance.

ClearedHot, feel free to PM me and we can discuss my exact level of ignorance with the history and current status of the program.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Bullet

[ClearedHot]

I recommend you Google "SWAT" and "JSF" and get back to me on this one.

Google knows all...dear god, choke yourself.

My point exactly. Can we afford adding risk to the program just so the Marines can land on a LHD?

Seriously? You are backing your argument with "Congress got it right"? Really?

Can you read, I never said Congress got it right. I said the argument has been floated and defeated multiple times by Congress. The Marines have many benefactors in DC and their congressional Kung Foo is strong.

Did the Marines or Army move into a FOB before Air Supremacy was established over the battlespace they occupied? THAT is the real question.

No...if you mean the standard definition of Air Supremacy that says a degree of control where the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference...however...Absolutely...if you accept the broader definition that includes the effects of enemy surface to air systems.

Certainly. But will we establish a forward location where TAC Sams are still a threat in the pattern?

Of course not, but they will put a FOB 50NM further back.

And you must obviously think we can afford to let the STOVL variant continue to drive additional risk for the other two variants, putting the whole program at risk.

We already have.

ClearedHot, feel free to PM me and we can discuss my exact level of ignorance with the history and current status of the program.

Thanks, but I'll pass.

[SurelySerious]

"You expect a bunch of Marines to walk around with booties on and be concerned with the RAM coating"?

Yes.

[brabus]

As for LO, he said that the marines will treat the JSF just like a Hornet and it will be beat to shit in no time with lots of stuff hanging external.

There's A LOT more to to the JSF than just LO. That seems to be the only point people are focusing on. The abilities it brings in other areas is also extremely important and relevant to all parties involved.

[ClearedHot]

There's A LOT more to to the JSF than just LO. That seems to be the only point people are focusing on. The abilities it brings in other areas is also extremely important and relevant to all parties involved.

Correct and a useless discussion to have on this site at this level. Look at the surface and I can see why some would question the need, look behind the curtains and it is blatantly obvious. Out.

[brabus]

Correct and a useless discussion to have on this site at this level. Look at the surface and I can see why some would question the need, look behind the curtains and it is blatantly obvious. Out.

Exactly...and I had no intention of going any further than my post.