FBWForget the joke about air to air missile “brochure” PK and kill rates. I want to be a rep for a surface to air missile company. Outrageous claims of effectiveness, with a history of:
Yom kippur war- lots of kills, didn’t stop Israel from achieving air dominance
Vietnam-lots of kills, didn’t prevent U.S. from air dominance
Bekka valley- not so much.
Libya (1986)- 1 F-111
GW1- probably the most robust air defense system outside of Soviet Union (fact), dismantled in days
Serbia- a few high profile kills (F-117) Serbian forces unable to redeploy. Forced to peace table
Iraq “no fly zone”- cost minimal
GW2- remaining Iraqi air defenses unable to mount serious opposition
Georgia-few kills, unable to prevent Russian air dominance
Libya (2011)- Air dominance established day 1
History is clear, once the kill chain is broken, air defense units become just another target.
FBWI did my homework. Seems like u didn’t like the look of the numbers you found. Weasel all you want, comparing one production block does not give program acquisition costs and you know this (or your an idiot and don’t) I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Bottom line, even if roughly 1/3 of all F-35 planned numbers are cut. The program acquisition unit costs for the F-35 will STILL be lower than the Rafale. Good job on that brag. Hey, your program was cheaper per aircraft than the F-22, that’s something I guess.
FBWOh yeah I know this report, costs are crystal clear….
Just take the recent LRIP 9 costs, even without dev costs it is already more expensive that the PAUC for Rafale
Numbers…. not Ezco B.S. I posted them, refuted them or shut it. Rafale 212+ million in 2011 dollars program costs + acquisition (based on planned numbers)
F-35 129 million (2012 dollars) PAUC.
Refute it or stop bragging how “cheap” the Rafale program is compared to others- because as a program undertaken by one nation, the Rafale wasn’t cheap at all.
FBWI agree with you production cost of Rafale is below the F22 despict being an omnirole fighter, it is also below the typhoon despite being a national independent program.
But it also below the F 35. Try to find them, the Rafale costs are crystal clear and publicly available. In a strange way the F35 costs are…. Stealth. But few addition and you understand why it is so difficult to find complete cost structure of the F35.
F-35 PAUC isn’t “stealth” at all. Google “F-35 selected acquisition report for FY 2017”- actually released last year. I didn’t pull the numbers out of my rear.
Rafale costs are crystal clear, they are from Senat report on Rafale, 43.5 Billion Euro (2011) for the assumed total fleet of 286 Rafale.
In other words, in program costs per aircraft (based on planned totals), the F-35 is cheaper.
FBWConsidering the French Tax Payer, if I look at the tax payers from countries that are developing fighters… I don’t think the French one have anything to complain compare to some others… 😮
Then you haven’t spent much time looking at the program acquisition costs of the Rafale.
The number in the end will depend on the total produced, but its high…higher than the projected PAUC for the F-35 (129 million in BY 2012 U.S.),lower than F-22 ( 369 million in 2013 US vs. 212 million in 2011 U.S dollars-based on 286 Rafale planned), probably lower than Typhoon but total program costs for the Typhoon are hard to come by (UK program figures are available).
FBWF35 Program is already in a , if not a death, a very dangerous spiral, .
It’s in the exact opposite. LIRP 9 is signed, the largest production batch to date. Production is ramping up (orders are firming up), and costs are coming down.
The is no death spiral (except in the minds of Don Bacon, Solomon-SNAFU, and some other zealots).
FBWThe “C” has the least commonality. Cutting the F-35C will not bring about a “death spiral”. The planned production of 260 “C” variant represents 8% of the F-35 planned production numbers.
FBWthe C version wouldn’t have much of an impact on USN warfighting capabilities in years to come (pretty much same for the A version, only the B would be a real leap forward from the Harrier, but then again, even with Harriers, how many times did the Marines deploy to spots where they absolutely needed its STOVL capabilities? )
There is no alternative for the USAF, or the Marines. They aren’t going cut the F-35A for new build F-16/15, and they aren’t going to procure the SH, tweets aside. Fighter recap is the number one priority, the “A” is in service, costs have come down (and will continue to come down).
FBWCongress controls the purse. The executive branch controls what gets spent out of the purse. So, yes, Trump does control more than you suggest.
Defense authorization bills and appropriation spending are legislative powers. The executive branch generates the budget request, appropriation requests. So, yes Trump can submit a budget request that cuts the F-35 and/or adds F-18’s. But, as the past has shown, Congress can add them back into the authorization bill for the president to sign or veto.
Really don’t believe this will come to pass. The F-35C is vulnerable, to a certain extent. The Navy has so many unfunded priorities, and the F-35C is the most expensive variant. Add to that Navy indifference, delays, structural issues, problems with flow separation and TRO, and a ready substitute.
The USN is in a position where they are facing in the next decade:
Strike fighter shortfall
SSN shortfall
Maintenance shortfall
SSBN (Columbia Class) budgeting
Burke flight III production
And the new moronic 355 ship navy that there is no budget for
I could see the Navy budget squeezed to where they continue production of the F-18 E/F.
FBWLoad of crap. If I buy a car, a boat or an aircraft, then I, as a customer, decide whether it fits my requirements. Not the chief developer, not the head of the program office.. I say it..
More crap. JPO can claim there is no problem anymore, but it’s the customer who has to confirm that he’s satisfied with the outcome.. JPO claims without confirmation are just hot air..
Exactly, the customer decides. This is exactly why the USAF/DoD went ahead with IOC, and why Congress didn’t follow through with Gilmore’s recommendation to split block 4 development from JPO.
In other words, the customer found that JPO had sufficiently proven block 3i for IOC over the objections of Gilmore (GAO). Now what exactly is crap? The whole premise of your arguement about the customer and requirements, since the customer did decide.
Edit-read halfway down this page about the exchange between Gilmore and the Sec. of the Air Force over training readiness a few years back:
http://breakingdefense.com/documents/top-tester-says-f-35a-immature-for…
FBWAt the same time, Gilmore is not paid to add any value, as a representative and chef tester of the main customer (Pentagon) he is paid to ensure Bogdan and “his” program delivers what was promised..
To sum it up:
If Gilmore says there is a problem, then there is a problem, regardless of what Bogdan says..
If Gilmore says the issue has been resolved, then it has been resolved..
If Bogdan says the issue has been resolved, then it means nothing until Gilmore has confirmed it.Kapish?
Reverse everything you just said at the bottom and your post will be correct. Gilmore isn’t the chief tester. GAO tests nothing. Bogdan as the head of JPO is the chief tester.
When JPO says the problem is no longer a problem, the issue is resolved (though it won’t stop GAO from listing it anyway).
Kapish?
FBWI have to read each link you added two times, searching for where the hell is the information that you wanted to provide me… without success.
You realize that by admitting that to me, it tells us all that:
1. You have not read previous reports, or you would have made the connection that those links point out where previous GAO reports were wrong.
2. You didn’t connect the dots that Gilmore is critizing 3i sensor fusion and functionality when 3i isn’t even supposed to provide full warfighting capability. That is 3F. What the articles are stating, to spoonfeed you, is that even as 3i stability concerns were addressed and 3FR5.3 and 3FR6 (while behind scedule for testing) weren’t part of operational fleet, he is railing about deficiencies that:
A. Were always going to be part of 3i, and the DoD, JPO, were aware of limitations of the interim 3i standard, and Gilmore should have known. The software stability problem was most serious to IOC, and was fixed in May 2016.
B. While full 3F is behind in testing, and that is a concern, but the track record for JPO in recent years gives confidence the timeline will be met. JPO stating it will be done by the end of 2017, GAO stating mid-2018.
Gilmore is essentially stating that the 3F, which isn’t finished and isn’t due to complete testing for several months, has problems. That is some tremendous insight.
Gilmore released this memo in the fall:
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/11/16/F35memo.pdf
BTW, this memo also leaked. GAO is a sieve.
(Edit- fixed grammatical errors from typing on phone)
FBWdon’t how you think you will convince by citing F35.com, http://www.lockheedmartin.com, or even any blogs… I used to take official information from official report and nothing digested by LM communication department. I think at the end of the day, that is the real difference between you and me.
No, the difference is that you choose to take the DOT&E reports as gospel despite the track record, those of us who choose to look at things objectively do not. As in weighing what JPO is saying (which btw, has nothing to do with L-M, and is the generator of the official information, not GAO), vs. what is being reported in the DOT&E reports. Part of that is assessing the accuracy of what each has been reporting. As I stated before, GAO has consistently been wrong on thier predicitions and JPO has consistently followed through with the timelines and operational fixes.
That is not to say that there aren’t issues. There are, there will continue to be. Yet when the service are basically rebutting what GAO is stating, there is a problem. We have a GAO report stating that the F-35 is incapable of combat operations, and two services deploying the F-35 to Europe and Japan respectively, in 2017. We can postulate how this is a PR exercise all day. That just isn’t going to float unless you want engage in willful suspension of reality and accept that the services and DoD would endanger the lives of pilots.
If you want to accept the GAO reports as gospel, that is your perogative. But don’t attempt to sell to those who know better that quoting the GAO reports legitimizes your opinion. Anyone who has been reading them for the last 4-5 years (since 2012) knows that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
By the way, I posted 10 links, you chose to point out two that were either L-m or a blog, cherrypick much?
FBWEzco, brilliant. Two pages of posts about the disconnect between JPO and GAO, and your rebuttal is to post the DOT&E report from….. GAO (in large blocks of text no less).
Here is a primer on the relationship between the two for starters:
http://breakingdefense.com/documents/top-tester-says-f-35a-immature-for-training-jpo-says-ready-f/
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/2015-dote-report-public-response-statement
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/24/f35-bogdan-gao-upgrade/82203926/
http://www.janes.com/article/57454/dod-chief-tester-warns-on-f-35-cyber-software-issues
As you highlighted, the DOT&E report included test reports from June, 2016. That was six months ago, since then the program:
Completed 25 weapons tests in one month: http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/f-35-racks-up-weapons-tests/
Declared IOC with the F-35A (despite Gilmore stating it would not happen until 2017), and the USAF signed off on it.
JPO acknowledged 3i issues, but already had fixes in place before the DOT&E report you referenced. The new version was to be loaded in the entire fleet by the end of 2016, which means the DOT&E report was obsolete even as it was being released:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/09/f-35-program-office-signs-off-air-force-3i-software/84138390/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-locked-and-loaded-with-improved-block-3i-softwa-425098/
I repeat, you are not well informed about the program if you are simply reading the DOT&E and making conclusions. The reports are dated even as released. Gilmore refuses to acknowledge when a fix is implemented, consistently overestimates the extent of the problem and the time needed to fix it, confidence in GAO is flagging due to constant leaks of reports which undermines their objectivity, all while engaged in a turf war on DoD acquisition oversight.
Elements of Power blog has a good post about Gilmore and why the recommendations are flawed:
https://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2016/11/pentagon-top-tester-tests-nothing-but.html
Edit- Have to love how the latest DOT&E report includes as part of the CAS deficiencies in 3i is no working gun, though it was not part of 3i (the gun is integrated in 3F). How is that a problem when it wasn’t supposed to be operational in 3i?
FBWF-16 was built for air superiority at first, hillaker even confessed if he had known it was later on going to gravitate towards A2G he would have designed it differently
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=37
You are truly clueless…. LWF program was a DAY FIGHTER with limited avionics, opposite the F-X program which was an air superiority fighter.
The LWF program as envisioned by Boyd was to be a pure fighter, F-16 that emerged was still primarily a day fighter (USAF questioned it’s ability to find and engage enemy fighters in the adverse weather conditions in Europe in spite of being fitted with APG-66) with multirole capabilities. Hence the design changes from YF-16 to first F-16.
Sign In
