One commenter in the linked-to article made an interesting point: “Who cares? That jet was never meant for combat, it was meant for pork.”
The jet that’s supposed to make up more than 90 percent of America’s combat aviation fleet may have become a lot easier to shoot down.
Lockheed Martin, makers of the Joint Strike Fighter, has been under huge pressure to stabilize the jet’s skyrocketing costs. […] So Lockheed decided “to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems,” according to InsideDefense.com. But those cuts made it much harder for the Joint Strike Fighter to withstand a hit from an anti-aircraft weapon.
[…]
Now, one of the JSF’s selling points was that it wouldn’t have to worry to much about taking on anti-aircraft fire; the jet would be so stealthy that the ground-to-air guns would never find it. But according to a report published by Air Power Australia, the plane is easier to spot than originally advertised. In fact, it is “demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft.”
[…]
Lockheed spokesman John Kent basically said the Pentagon tester was all wrong about the plane’s vulnerability. “The present design meets the JSFPO’s expectations for vulnerability.”Well, yeah. That’s true. “With the exception of a 30mm high-explosive incendiary round typically associated with light anti-aircraft artillery,” Trautman wrote. Like the kind Russia has, and sells all around the world.
Maybe it would be cheaper just to pay them not to build anything like we pay farmers not to plant? Does the US do anything right anymore?
Anymore it seems these planes are based more on being expensive and complicated for job security then being practical in a war. If we are so concerned about pilots why not just build bigger and better drones?
They should stop production until problem is solved.
what is use if protection is lost in war.
Just scrap the thing and buy a heap of Eurofighters instead. They can’t be any worse.
#1 As for building bigger better drones, the US education system is already stretched and is already producing as many drones as it can.
Use drones. Don’t do anything insane in the drones, instead buy replacements.
The problem with the F-35 is its a jet that’s trying to do everything for everyone so its had to make compromises along the way.
The US tried this one fighter plane for all approach before and its never panned out. Sure some planes have had success across branches (the f-4 being the most well known, but an Air Force f-4 and navy f-4 couldn’t even share most of their parts, they were almost completely different planes)
I hate to say it, but I think the F-35 will be a failure in the long run. Oh sure, it will find its niche, but its design takeoff’s will hurt it in the end.
#3, the Eurofighter is not the answer. It has its own “design by committe” problems as well, and its definately not a stealth system either (though its ECM is pretty good and makes it less detectable than say and F-15).
The future of air combat I am afraid is Unmanned combat vehicles. Get rid of the pilot and you get rid of all the weight and limits that you have to have to keep that pilot alive. Plus you no longer have to design a plane by what the pilot can take, but by what the structure of the plane can take (sustained 20g turns become possible, which would black out any pilot)
Although I hate pork and am the first to criticize the U.S. Military Industrial Complex, I can’t exactly agree here. The most disgusting part is how defense contractors and the like gamble with the lives of the servicemen and women with their games.
As a pilot, I cannot be excited over the advent of UAVs. Though they can save aircrew lives by keeping them out of the line of fire, the tech. to have them replace manned combat aircraft is just not there. The Predator and the Reaper drones can only operate as the do, because the U.S. has inherent air superiority. What happens if we have to operate in an area where that is not the case? Even the most ancient PLAAF fighters with rookie pilots can down a prop-driver glider. Skunk Works and developers may have something better up their sleeves, but won’t replace a USAF/USN pilot in an F-16 any time soon.
Same with space exploration/development.
The French make a great small air superiority fighter called the Rafale. Dassault would be happy to sell us a huge tranche of them since so far only the French government has purchased them in large quantities. Its cheaper than the F-35 and it kicks major butt, rivaling the Eurofighter in capabilities.
They are our allies ya know. We have a french statue (Lady Liberty), why not a French fighter.
We already use many foreign made weapons such as the M249 machine gun, the Carl Gustaf antitank weapon, Israeli ammunition, british antiaircraft guns, and so on. Its never been a problem.
How soon we forget the previous stealth, best-fighter-in-the- world, does it all project. The F-22. Same promises – same bull s##t pork.
At the moment, there are no better aircraft for these jobs than the F-15, F-16, and F/A18.
They didn’t even need to obsolete the F-14, but that would have meant no new pork.
They are also getting rid of the A-10 Thunderbolt aka Warthog. Never been a better plane for the functions it performs.
If you want to talk about cutting government spending CUT THIS BULLS##T. (don’t hold your breath)
And while I’m at it, the argument that the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 are “old” is baloney.
Throw the “old” (use up) ones out, add new electronics to the design and build new ones. They wont be old, they’ll be brand new.
What does a pilot weight; what does the replacement computers, powersupplies, cameras, antennae, additional radars weigh?
How much does it cost to train and pay a pilot? Are the per-unit costs of the replacement equipment less than the cost of the pilot? I doubt it, but could be.
It feels like the UCAV efforts are just playthings for engineers. However, I have no idea.
#5 I think a few moments at 9 is pushing it for most people. #12 is going to take out just about everybody.
I’m pretty sure 20 would flat out kill you even if it was transient.
It sounds to me that this is politics. The Aussies want to buy the F-22 but the Pentagon wants them to buy the F-35. In order for them to get the F-22, the Australians apparently have taken to trashing the F-35.
To all the non-aerospace readers out there, the F-35 is a full generation ahead of any other aircraft in its category. It is not, and was never intended to be, as stealthy as an F-22. The F-22 is a heavy air superiority fighter while the F-35 is a lightweight multi-role fighter.
The politics of this can be summed up like this. The Obama administration, under the lead of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, terminated the F-22 in October of 2009 in favor of the F-35. The U.S. Air Force still wants to buy more F-22’s (some Air Force Generals have said that, given the option, they would cancel the F-35 and increase F-22 production). However, the Navy and Marines NEED the F-35. The Air Force lost the battle to keep the F-22. This is generally seen as a cost savings effort but it will result in a lessened military capability.
Only now it appears that the Aussies don’t want the F-35 and want to buy the F-22 instead. They are justifiably concerned about the upcoming Sukhoi PAK-FA. The PAK-FA is the Russians answer to the F-22. The Aussies think that the F-35 isn’t a match for the PAK-FA (and they may well be right).
The F-35 is a very capable fifth generation stealth aircraft. With stealth features and vectored thrust, it will shoot down F-16’s and F/A-18’s with relative ease. However, it is not an F-22 substitute and the Aussies know it. If the Aussies are coerced into buy the F-35 then American jobs are saved and Lockheed still makes a profit (they make both the F-22 and F-35). If they decide to not buy the F-35 and buy something else instead then Lockheed and American aerospace workers lose out.
So, why not let the Aussies buy the F-22? It may have something to do with export control of some stealth secrets. It may have to do with hidden costs for the American taxpayer to keep the F-22 line open. But it mainly comes down to politics. This is between the Obama Administration/Marines/Navy and the needs & desires of the U.S. Air Force/Royal Australian Air Force.
I say that if the Aussies are willing to buy the F-22 then we should extend production to fill their order. That is, of course, that any expenses incurred by extending production are passed to Australia and not the U.S. taxpayer.
# 12 Father – How much does it cost to train and pay a pilot? Are the per-unit costs of the replacement equipment less than the cost of the pilot?
Dad. You still have to train and pay a pilot. I suppose they don’t make as much as a true pilot and they probably don’t get flight pay and combat pay, etc. But there’s still a “silly hooman” or five involved.
I also wonder about using UAVs in actual combat situations. They are being operated from far away – Stateside in many cases. The satellite comms link has to have some delay in it. Maybe it’s just a quarter second but that’s a lifetime in combat.
BTW – if anyone here actually knows, I’d be interested in hearing how the compensation for UAV pilots compares to an actual combat pilot.
#9 because of international pork.
The Brits have to buy the F35 in return for British Aerospace (BAe) getting the contract for the lift fan – although it will be built in the US so no Brit workers get paid.
This also means the Brits have to buy new carriers (also built by BAe) but since the F35 is so pricey they can only afford to put planes on one of them.
It also has an issue that it cannot land vertically with any weapon or fuel load so can’t actually be operated in peace time by the new Brit carriers – but of course that’s not important since BAe gets paid anyway.
Air mines. Autonomous SAMs. Set and forget. Underground. Unmanned. Passive radar, synthetic aperture, wait for a nice fat F-35 to pass nearby and BAM. Half the battle fields in the world will be off limits to everything except UAVs. Pork is a sweet meat. So are pilots.
The real way to save money on these puppies is to make them piloted FROM THE GROUND!
That would let them out-turn everything else, too. And you could build them at 80% scale, 70% weight and 40% price.
It will take advancements in “pilot camera” technologies, but Apple seems to have that one close to being solved…
#19 Buzz – Apple seems to have that one close to being solved…
Perhaps better for the environment, too. With Apple building weapons systems, they’ll be all bang and no flash!
5, Bob,
Case in point is the Navy has ZERO desire for a single jet fighter.
Agreed, but the question will be a matter of when. Due to internal politics, military brass are dragging their heels on this as well.
6, Eric,
YUP!!!
10, Pagon,
None of which would stand a very good chance up against a Raptor. With vectored thrust alone, the Raptor can do maneuvers that are aerodynamically impossible to do in the jets you listed.
A compromise would be the Silent Eagle, but it doesn’t fully reach the full potential of the F-22…. but it could be quite practical for the here and now.
By the late 90s, the deployed F-14 squadrons were getting parts from shore-based F-14s. Northrup wasn’t making a whole heck of a lot of parts, especially with the Super Hornet replacing the F-14.
11, Pagon,
Silent Eagle
12, Father,
You have a life support systems as well as ejection seats, etc. Not to mention the pilots ability to stay conscious puts a hard limit over what you can logistically do with jets.
14, Mark T.
The Navy has no desire for a single jet A/C.
15, Maricopa,
Pilots also get tired. The biggest argument / concern against UAVs is the worry of lack situational awareness that AI software and sensors fail to provide to a remote operator.
17, GetSmart,
And when we retaliate, we go to war with what we have and not what we’d like to have. In order to maintain any technological gap over China / Russia we would have to spend in a non-linear fashion. If China / Russia closes the technological gap, then war will essentially be reduced to WWII fighting tactics, and it will be a war of attrition…. we will be in a very bad position.
11, Pagon,
The latest Air & Space claims the F-15C requires 11 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air. I’d imagine the F-14 required even more, with that swing wing and all. This seems crazy. If I was the Sec. USAF, I’d demand better availability/lower manhour costs. If a plane can’t fly, it doesn’t matter how cool, sexy, or steathly, it is.
The Aussies should buy the Russian fighter. They have a large boarder, and need lots of capable machines to provide coverage, rather than a dozen POC F-22s.
I don’t understand why the F-35 exists. Even the F-16 seems more like a sports car with a 5 gallon tank than a workhorse. The P-51D was a great fighter because of its great range, it could reach the fight and then fight! The BF-109s apparently had no range, so they couldn’t stay aloft and fight.
If UCAVs take over, like everyone has been claiming for 10 years, then there is no reason to field Aircraft Carriers any longer. Really, the USN should be a subsurface force, dontcha think?
The US military and/or US Congress has been dreaming up “joint service” jet fighters since the 1960s. I worked on their failed attempt to have such a plane adopted by both Air Force and Navy. The F-111 Aardvark (probably named, after the Navy rejected it). Even years after being told it was too heavy to land on Naval Carriers, later F-111 models still incorporated the flight components needed for such a landing at sea. And later, other newly made computer gear, made for the Navy’s use, kept being showing up in the Air Force inventory. They just couldn’t give up on the idea that two services might approve of using the aircraft. But it never happened.
Rather than keep coming up with newer manned fighters, that two or more services will buy. They ought to just focus on unmanned remoted aircraft. Or do they only build these manned craft, in order to entice future pilots (and even ground personnel) to enlist? I guess it’s not as thrilling to pilot a plane from a safe ground computer terminal. And jet jockeys aren’t as likely to sign up to play a video game dog fight. And also the makers won’t make as much building unmanned aircraft, as the manned versions. So you know they’re against it.
Frankly, other than making more profits, and enticing a newer generation of enlistee, I can’t see any practical reasons for redesigning fighter aircraft. The laws of aerodynamics doesn’t change from year to year. The electronics gets smaller and more reliable. But that no reason to redesign the entire airframe. And they can’t make them fly any faster, as the pilots will pass out from the G forces. So all they really can do is increase their range, and update the planes’ computer gear.
The F35 was designed to hover land and takeoff. Somewhat useful for fighting in the jungle, where landing space is limited. But we’ve been having wars in deserts for the last two decades. Where dust and sand can be a problem for anything hovering low. And landing strio space is hardly a problem, for a conventional horizontal landing. So isn’t the F35 just an expensive glamor toy, for the 21th century of warfare? And won’t the US be more tempted to pick fights to justify their cost, rather than peacefully negotiating?
Glenn Said, “The F35 was designed to hover land and takeoff. Somewhat useful for fighting in the jungle, ”
Only one version is so designed. (do you know which one?) Doesn’t seem like you have looked into this plane at all…