The senator has a vivid imagination about the F-35s alleged ability maybe he is wrong about this too:

U.S. Senator–Export F-35, ‘not going to be the most advanced version’

See left sidebar at this link:

http://goo.gl/3yNbT

Once source is a cut of 179 F-35s over FY2013-2017.

Not a bad idea because many of the more severe mistakes will not see a solid fix until 2016 at the earliest.

Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) — The Pentagon will propose spending about $9.2 billion to buy 29 Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 jets in its fiscal 2013 budget, 13 fewer than previously planned, U.S. officials said.

The reduction is part of a decision to delay purchasing 179 of the fighters beyond 2017 to continue development, testing and correction of deficiencies, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advancement of a Defense Department announcement.

The plan to purchase 62 F-35s in fiscal 2014 is being reduced to 29, according to budget data. The request for 2015 is dropping to 44 from 81, and the planned purchase for 2016 will decline to 61 from 108.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-25/lockheed-f-35-said-to-be-cut-by-13-planes-in-pentagon-s-plan.html

And the budget for that would come from where ? Would it really be a worthwhile investment with how many airframes ?

Depends on the upgrades. Good question about the budget. Every dollar wasted on the Just So Failed takes cash away from other needed communities that actually provided value in the DOD.

Apparently you completely missed the reality that the F-22 production line is closed, and will never re-open.

Duh… I am talking about doing mods to current aircraft.

Second tier strike fighters. Curious as to what you actually mean by that. Could you point to some sort of document that displays what “second tier” means, or is it just something you feel is appropriate?

The design requirement of the F-35. The requirement assumes that the F-22 will be needed for high end (aka anti-access) threats. This would be one example of why that is:

However if available, a JSF based force would be more capable than a Super Hornet fleet and more capability is always desirable, so long as we can afford it.

Unfortunately it isn’t “tracking” that way. From the recent report DOT&E (of which there were warnings for some years.)

Operational Assessment

The JSF Operational Test Team completed an operational assessment of the F-35 program and determined that it is not on track to meet operational effectiveness or operational suitability requirements. The JSF Operational Test Team assessed the program based on measured and predicted performance against requirements from the JSF Operational Requirements Document, which was re-validated in 2009.

Hi John,

Tough times. Especially for the entrenched Australian Defence bureaucracy who has lots of work to do on the project of concern list.

Here is some more background on the Super-Slow Hornet.

-Bill Sweetman, Just How Super is the F/A-18E/F?, Interavia Business & Technology, April 1, 2000-

-The Navy and Boeing have intensified a propaganda campaign. Unfortunately, the campaign is likely to damage their credibility in the long term, because it focuses on a few basic statements which don’t mean anything like as much as the casual reader is meant to think.

For example: “The airplane meets all its key performance parameters.” This is true. In 1998 — as it became clear that the Super Hornet was slower, and less agile at transonic speeds than the C/D — the Navy issued an “administrative clarification” which declared that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters (KPP) for the Super Hornet. Apparently, some misguided people thought that those were important attributes for a fighter.-

-Bill Sweetman, Watch Your Six Maverick, Interavia Business & Technology, February 1, 2000-

-The Navy’s operational evaluation (Opeval) of the Super Hornet ended in November, and the report is expected late in February. It will probably find the Super Hornet to be operationally effective and suitable, because the impact of any other recommendation would be devastating, but the Navy will have to do some deft manoeuvring to avoid charges that the report is a whitewash.-

-Bill Sweetman, Super Hornet gathers speed, but critics keep pressure on, Interavia Business & Technology, March 1, 1999-

-The Pentagon has conceded that the MiG-29 and Su-27 can out-accelerate and out-turn all variants of the F/A-18 in most operating regimes, and that the E/F in turn cannot stay up with the older C/D through much of the envelope.

Navy data from early 1996 (published in a General Accounting Office report) showed that the new aircraft was expected to have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the late-production (Lot XIX) F/A-18C/D with the General Electric F404-GE-402 engine. Its maximum speed in a typical air-to-air configuration would be Mach 1.6, versus Mach 1.8 for the smaller aircraft. In the heart of the air-combat envelope, between 15,000 and 20,000 feet and at transonic speed, the Lot XIX aircraft would hold a specific excess power (Ps) of 300 ft/sec out to Mach 1.2, while its larger descendant could not hold the same Ps above Mach 1.0.-

The real shocker being that in its Block II form, it beats the F-35 for value all the way around. Especially since both are second tier strike fighters.