Trump to slash F-35 program
President-elect Trump sent this Tweet the other day;
The F-35 program and cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2016
Everyone knows that the F-35 program has been a moneypit. From Popular Mechanics;
Full-scale production of the F-35 was originally scheduled to begin eight years ago, but this proved to be an overly-optimistic estimate by 11 years-and that’s assuming full-scale production does, in fact, begin in 2019 as projected now. The F-35 will be the most expensive weapons system in history by a significant margin, exceeding $1 trillion in projected lifetime costs. Trump has targeted the program as an area to save money, along with the new Boeing 747s intended to serve as the new Air Force One jets.
At last count, the Pentagon plans to purchase 2,457 F-35 Lightning IIs to fill the needs of the Air Force, Marine Corps, and the Navy. The cost per plane is roughly $100 million, depending on the variant, though full-scale production should drive down that cost some in the future. Even so, the concerns about the aircraft have led Canada to cancel their order of F-35s in favor of Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, and Boeing has submitted a formal proposal to Denmark to consider doing the same.
Congress and the Pentagon have been overly-optimistic about the F-35 both it’s capabilities and the day it will go into production, and it is time to bring that optimism to an end.
Category: Air Force
That’s not optimism. That’s intentional self-delusion.
Good on Trump & staff.
Sounds like another obozo scheme to help bankrupt America!!
Wait! Trump is all about corporate profits and big business. He never met an element of the military-industrial complex he didn’t like, did he? This can’t be right. He wants to shit can wasted billions? Can’t be.
A-10.
Give Trump a ride in an A-10. I know they only have single seaters but stick his ass in a simulator.
http://www.1041kqth.com/news/an-inside-look-at-a-10-pilot-training
There was one two seater built and tested:
http://aviationintel.com/it-could-have-been-the-a-10b-naw/
It’s now at the Edwards AFB Museum. It would have been cool to see them flying around southern AZ.
Do that and the A-10 will never go away.
I like that idea.
Then put him in the two seat P-51 Mustang “Betty Jane” owned by the Collings Foundation for a little history lesson.
Fuckin’ A well-told! The A-10 is the Rolex Explorer II of the aviation world – tough as nails, extremely reliable, and lasts forever to boot.
I’ll be interested to see how this plays out – Lockheed cleverly builds parts for the F-35 in something like 45 of the 50 states, so most politicians won’t want to cut the program.
I’m also amused that the tweet seems to have cost LM something like $1B in their stock price, and a few other defense contractors lost a few percentage points too.
Well, maybe they should have built something that works, then. Kelly Johnson wouldn’t have stood for this shit back in the good ol’ days!
I’ve seen and heard things here and there that say some test pilots who’ve taken an F-35 up have been blown away by certain capabilities of the plane. That’s cool, but it means jack shit if the total package doesn’t work. And as far as anyone can tell, it doesn’t.
Their attempt to make a jack-of-all-trades jet has produced a lemon that hasn’t performed a single job yet and is nearly a decade behind schedule. I would guess that the one-size-fits-all mentality is to blame. You don’t pound nails with a screwdriver any more than you turn screws with a hammer, and the stealth VTOL air-superiority fighter-bomber doesn’t seem to be working out, either. Compare it with the F-22, which, though also expensive as an Asian stripper with gold-finished fake tits, was designed to OWN the sky, with other capabilities being fringe benefits. And it seems to work well enough.
The SBD *could* dogfight, but not nearly well enough to make tangling with jap fighters a smart proposition. It was a bomber, and a really good one at that. The Hellcat and Corsair could drop bombs, but were far better utilized knocking down jap planes if any were present. The F-4 could lay down some pain on terrestrial bad guys, but the A-6 and AD could do it much better. And then there’s the F-111B, which couldn’t do *anything*.
Multi-role platforms have their place, and I definitely see the value of the revived “jeep carrier” concept with LHAs/LHDs flying what the F-35 is supposed to be. But the F-35 itself doesn’t look like it’s going to be that plane. It may well be time for it to go away and its lessons be applied to something that will actually work.
But that’s just my $.02, and I’m no expert by any means.
I’m certainly no expert either and don’t take a strong side in the argument for or against the F-35. I’ve read some articles that detail its phenomenal (in theory) capabilities, and others that point out that ‘in theory’ is the operative word, as engineering setbacks have rendered them inoperative for the time being. I think once the tactics are developed to using the aircraft properly, we’ll have a more accurate sense of things – sensational things like putting an experienced F-16 pilot against a novice F-35 one in a controlled series of tests are sensationalist, but aren’t necessarily an indictment of the platform itself. There’s also, from what I’ve read, the problem that the ‘jack of all trades’ approach, which admittedly is a strategy I’m not exactly enamored with, is a necessity at this point – the airframes the F-35 is replacing are old and reaching the end of their usable life-cycle. Given that designing and building a plane takes a long time, we don’t have a lot of choice, really. I liked the F-22, and for air-superiority it seemed fantastic, but I guess costs and politics ended that in favor of the ‘less-expensive’ F-35? I honestly don’t know the details. Long story short, I think the ‘flying pile of sensors and networking’ that is the F-35 can have a transformative effect on combat (when you have other assets nearby to supplement its armaments), but those tactics are different from those that drive current fighters. And it’ll take a while to develop them. Until then, its utility in combat will be substantially less than its full potential. And until the bugs holding back some of its capabilities are resolved, we can’t develop the tactics. I don’t think it’s a bad plane at all -on the contrary, it’s a pretty good one- but it’s not yet ready for direct comparisons against frames we’ve spent decades refining tactics and strategies on. That’s my two cents. I know next to nothing, I just want the decision-making to consider not simply the cost of the program and current capabilities, but the cost of replacing… Read more »
The F-35 wasnt meant to replace the F-22. It was meant to compliment it, one for Air to Air combat(F-22) and one for Air to Ground/Close combat support (F-35) Thats the reason they gave it the ability to “hover” and have more capacity for bombs, and additionally, tried to rid the AF of its precious A-10 Warthog. Additionally, The F-35 is a multiforce fighter, meaning all branches would recieve them.
I’m no aircraft expert. My experience is limited to building the models of WWII warbirds as a child.
But the analogy that comes to mind for me is this:
I have a Gerber multi-tool I carry everywhere. It functions well – but is limited to a narrow set of operative parameters.
When I need a good screwdriver, wrench, or pair of pliers I go to my toolbox. Same for sockets, torque wrenches, knives.
The blades on my multi-tool are fair – but I have rigid-blade knives I carry for trips where I may end up in a survival situation. I have some good folders that I carry all the time. The multi-tool fills in, but if I had to choose – the multi-tool would be the one I discarded.
An all-in-one platform cannot be made to handle all situations equally well. Trade-offs occur – they have to. And when lives are on the line, a trade-off means someone dies unnecessarily.
I suspect Trump’s team may push to make the F-35 more specialized not a multi-tool. I certainly hope so.
Defense contracts are like a giant pie.
Big slices get divided up further and further right down to the guy making the jig to place the whatsit on the wiznut.
This translates into good paying jobs from top to bottom.
So the F-35 is a dog. Scrap it and build something else that is needed and works.
But built “something” dammit and put people to work.
Problem with a program like this being so long overdue are advances in technology. Even if a platform comes into production on time, it is essentially out of date since technology has moved forward. That is a reasonable acceptance when an aircraft is on time and if the designers planned for future innovations. But for the F-35, it is so long overdue that by 2019 there will be technologically far superior platforms available for build at better prices. Time to cut the loses and retool. Lockheed Martin will always have another contract, unless, they pull this shit on Trump as they did on Obama and the Pentagon.
” it is essentially out of date since technology has moved forward.”
The good news is that everybody has the same problem. It’s our obsolescent aircraft against someone else’s obsolescent aircraft.
The best solution is to use existing technology well, and maybe push the envelope a little bit. The P-51, for example, was designed in 1940 using existing technology. The F-4 was designed in the early ’50s using existing technology.
True
And Yet, the OV-10 (Viet Nam Era) is being used in Syria and Iraq against ISIS.
The best and newest technology isn’t always necessary, nor is it always the best option.
In this case, the Air Force wants to have the “new and improved!” Widget at all times and don’t care about the cost or resources wasted to get it.
It’s about time to see this happen.
When they say they want to increase defense spending they usually start buying crap like this instead of giving it to the troops or maintaining existing weapon platforms.
The A-10 has been proven to be a formidable platform for troop support as a close in air combat support platform and of course the USAF wanted to scrap it so they could buy their newest toys…
It’s time for sanity in this arena.
THE FLYING FUBAR(*OOPS!*, the F-35) has cost us barge loads of money and it still doesn’t perform like advertised? The parts being produced in multiple States is another way that Contractors like Lockheed use to own and manipulate politicians. I can see it now “OH, so you wanna vote to cut THAT program? WELL, our facility in YOUR District will be the first one to close. JUST wait until you see the press release we have about it!”
I can see Trump handling that in a manner that leaves Lockheed with their tail tucked and whimpering.
Yep, but just watch the smear job the liberal proglodyte mess media will do on Trump once they close even the very first facility!
And just where has their smear jobs over the past several months gone?
I know past performance is no guarantee of future behavior as they like to say, but Trump has been able to out-troll the mediots pretty well to date.
Why does it have to close? Any manufactory can be redone to accommodate new designs and platforms. Detroit/Ford did it with airplanes during World War II.
Saying that something automatically goes away if the program is canceled is ridiculous.
I doubt that it will close, but the mediots will claim that Trump is closing them, because rabble-rousing is all they know how to do.
My preferred nickname for it was “The Trillionaire”, but to each his own.
The problem with this plane is that the Air Farce wants X-Wing fighters like those space planes in Star Wars, which do VTOL&L pinpoint, thanks to the special effects and Props & Sets crews behind the camera. They want those Vipers from Battlestar Galactica than can do a right angle inversion in flight (in space) and still shoot the shit out of the enemy’s position.
They want what imagination brings, not reality. That’s where it started, not on someone’s drawing board.
That F-35 pictured doesn’t really look a whole lot different from an F14 or an F4, except for the tail. In fact, the ONLY innovative planes I’ve seen in a while are the stealth planes and the Blackbird. I don’t care how ‘intuitive’ anyone says it is. A plane is only as effective as its pilot and if the pilot is a putz – and there are plenty who are – then the plane won’t perform to its fullest capability.
It’s a lemon, plain and simple. I had a car that was a lemon. I took it back to the dealer and asked him to replace it, which he did. The real problem is that the plane manufacturers pad the expense of building – AS WE ALL KNOW – with their R&D on other platforms and thus they have the DoD by the short hairs. I think Israel has ordered a bunch of the F-35s. I don’t think they’re worth two cents, myself. They may be sleek and pretty, but they can’t/don’t perform, so they are a shell of what they should be.
Develop the A-10 platform further. That is a versatile, clever design, closer to what the DoD needs. Put it back into the Army, reopen the Army Air Corps, and move on. The day we really need a hotshot fighter jet, the F-35 will still be ‘under development’.
Basically, as someone else has observed, it’s a lemon.
What Ex-PH2 says!!!! Paint those A-10’s Olive Drab, stencil United States ARMY on the side of them and let the bad guys cower in fear! Except assign them to air cavalry troops…oh wait, my bias is showing again.
-The f35 is a Joint program, and it was the Navy and Marine Corps that wanted the vertical take off an landing, which caused a great deal of problems.
-The F35 is a stealth plane, and the Blackbird is obsolete.
-I’ve never been a pilot, so I won’t weigh in on how many are putzes.
-The A10 was versatile and clever, and while it was great against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, it won’t last long against a peer or near peer enemy like Russia or China.
-The A10 was never in the Army, and the Army simply couldn’t take on all of the Air Forces missions. This was on the table for a while in the mid ’90s, and the Army turned it down. We simply don’t have the people, facilities, or infrastructure to keep jets flying. The Marines are having a hard time with theirs…
From my understanding, the AF variant works as it is supposed to. The Navy variant, which costs more, works as it is supposed to. Its the Marine VTOL variant they are having all of the problems with and the USMC doesn’t even want the damn thing.
I doubt Congress lets him cut the whole thing, but maybe we can save the versions that DO work and save costs by cutting the one that doesn’t.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong here.
I don’t know squat about the particular airframe under discussion but I do have an opinion on the greater problem.
That problem being the entire weapons/systems development process.
It’s cost bloated to ridiculous proportions. Too much of it is dominated by corrupt politicals who use the system as nothing more than pork barrel for their districts.
We’ve got a double buttload of Lance Colonels farmed out to the various contractors, supposedly to overwatch the programs, but far too many of them use that assignment to farm themselves into cushy jobs post military.
I wasn’t smart enough to be an acquisitions guy, but the process is crazy. Google the acquisitions horse blanket and you’ll see what I mean.
I’m not an airpower expert, so I have no idea if the F35 is a good or bad idea. I suppose the Air Force, Navy, and Marines know what they need.
THat’s the problem, here, though. America has three air forces, and any one of them is more than a match for any of our adversaries (well, maybe not the Marines by themselves).
Meanwhile, after 15 years of two ground wars our Infantrymen are using ’90s era technology fighting toe to to with a determined enemy who can basically buy the same kit we have off the shelf. Just think if even a fraction of the cost of the F35 had gone to developing lighter body armor, better comms, weapons, and ISR, or a replacement for the Bradley or Strykers, or even just better boots.
should be ‘toe to toe’.
[…] “Fake News” The Political Hat: Happy Bill Of Rights Day! This Ain’t Hell: Trump To Slash F-35 Program, also, “Midshipman” Won’t Change Weasel Zippers: After $85 Million In Family […]
My personal opinion is that they should take the F35 and make it 15% larger. They could keep many of the same systems but get better performance and capability.
This doesn’t solve their integrated logistics system which is the real stumbling block they have to overcome.