FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Charles, you got it right, some of the early criticisms of this aircraft were made by the uninformed to sell press to the ignorant. The only way this aircraft will shake off all the bad press is to prove itself in combat.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
buffnut453
Captain
Interesting comment from Lt Gen Bogdan in the AF Magazine Daily Report about the gap between perception and reality on the F-35 programme, and his plea for the press to accurately report this story:
F-35: Adding Years to Your Life
—John A. Tirpak
The F-35 performed well in 2015, but total program operating costs rose because the services extended the jet's expected service life, according to annual Pentagon numbers released Thursday. In base year 2012 dollars, procurement costs on the F-35 program in 2015 were down $7.5 billion. Research, development, test, and evaluation expenses were unchanged since the previous year, and operating and support costs were down between two and four percent across all F-35 variants, the system program office announced. However, the services have reduced annual operating hours of the F-35 from 300 to 250, according to system program office chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan. The change extended the F-35 fleet's operations by six years, to 2070, inflicting a net increase of $35 billion to the program's then-year dollar cost. He told reporters he couldn't say why the change, "which the program office has no control over," was made. Nevertheless, it indicates the services have "good confidence" in the longevity of the jet. However, it also "masked" the actual decrease in O&S costs this year, making it seem like the F-35 got more expensive, he said. Bogdan urged reporters to "tell the real story" on the program. After a grilling on Capitol Hill this week, he said, "I have never seen a larger gap between reality and what people believe" about the F-35. Bogdan also said the figures for 2070 are "completely meaningless to me," since any predictions of fuel and inflation costs even a year from now are pure fiction. "You will all be dead when that assumption plays out," he told reporters.
F-35: Adding Years to Your Life
—John A. Tirpak
The F-35 performed well in 2015, but total program operating costs rose because the services extended the jet's expected service life, according to annual Pentagon numbers released Thursday. In base year 2012 dollars, procurement costs on the F-35 program in 2015 were down $7.5 billion. Research, development, test, and evaluation expenses were unchanged since the previous year, and operating and support costs were down between two and four percent across all F-35 variants, the system program office announced. However, the services have reduced annual operating hours of the F-35 from 300 to 250, according to system program office chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan. The change extended the F-35 fleet's operations by six years, to 2070, inflicting a net increase of $35 billion to the program's then-year dollar cost. He told reporters he couldn't say why the change, "which the program office has no control over," was made. Nevertheless, it indicates the services have "good confidence" in the longevity of the jet. However, it also "masked" the actual decrease in O&S costs this year, making it seem like the F-35 got more expensive, he said. Bogdan urged reporters to "tell the real story" on the program. After a grilling on Capitol Hill this week, he said, "I have never seen a larger gap between reality and what people believe" about the F-35. Bogdan also said the figures for 2070 are "completely meaningless to me," since any predictions of fuel and inflation costs even a year from now are pure fiction. "You will all be dead when that assumption plays out," he told reporters.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Exactly!!
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Why would you lower the operating hours?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
A number of reasons - flight hour funding, attrition calculation (to include calculated MC rates), pilot availability, airframe availability to name a few. This is a planner's projection game and could increase or decrease in time.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Cheers buddy! 
buffnut453
Captain
As Joe said, the reasons are many and varied. Lower annual hours rates may increase the longevity of the platform. Equally, if you don't have enough maintainers (a current issue for the USAF) then you simply can't get enough aircraft airborne to meet higher flight hours goals.
Joe's also correct that this is a forecasting numbers game to help USAF senior leadership and Congress budget for future operational needs. Equally, these plans are seldom implemented because something always comes up to throw them into disarray (eg another war, early retirement of another platform that saves costs and frees manpower etc etc etc).
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Cheers pal!
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Ah finally. I'm still annoyed that we can only afford 37 of the aircraft. Seems like 1939 all over when we only had 36 of our only modern aircraft.
I still believe no matter how good the jsf is, we had better bought more of a less capable aircraft. I believe the lessons of 1940 are still valid.
I still believe no matter how good the jsf is, we had better bought more of a less capable aircraft. I believe the lessons of 1940 are still valid.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I think one difference is with NATO you would not fight alone.
With 37 aircraft we would be hardly fighting.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
wouldn't fight alone with the EU either....I'd like to think! 
So....with the EU, is the NATO really necessary now?
So....with the EU, is the NATO really necessary now?
Eh, don't know if they still will have us after the referendum last week...
- Thread starter
- #1,115
Progress..First Light F-35 Helmet Test A Success
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... So....with the EU, is the NATO really necessary now?"
They don't see the EU defending anything ... except their bureacracy.
They don't see the EU defending anything ... except their bureacracy.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,117
Maybe we will finally find out.....F-35 to Go Up Against A-10 in 'Common Sense' War Scenario Showdown | Military.com
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I am really looking forward to this.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
buffnut453
Captain
Changing tack slightly, this came out in this morning's AF daily news bulletin:
Expecting less of ALIS
—John A. Tirpak
The Air Force is looking to see if it really needs the F-35's Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) to do everything it was originally planned to do right away, Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski said Thursday. The system is "almost as challenging" as developing a fifth-generation fighter, and while the concepts involved in ALIS are all great, "we have to see … how much is enough, now that we see how challenging it is," she told reporters in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. Pawlikowski stopped short of saying USAF would relax its ALIS requirements—which might not even be possible, since it is a multi-service, multi-nation program. However, for purposes of initial service, USAF might think about "how much of the original vision is realistic" and "what's the real savings if I get it to do a little less?" she said. Closing in on initial operational capability, USAF may "adjust its expectations" for the system, she said. Asked to comment on whether the F-35 could fly missions without plugging into the internet—a question posed recently because of concerns about ALIS' cyber vulnerabilities—Pawlikowski made an analogy to a laptop computer. It can work without connecting to the internet, she said, but "sooner or later … there are things you want to buy" or upload, or to get updates, so a connection is ultimately inevitable.
In the same bulletin, and sticking with the non-airframe side of things:
The Private F-35 Fix Is In Beyond 2020
—John A. Tirpak
It'll cost the Air Force "tens of millions" per year out of hide to hire contractors to do F-35 maintenance through at least 2020, because the service doesn't have enough people to do the work, Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski said Thursday. While Congress "restored" some money to keep A-10s in service—after rejecting USAF's plan to retire the jet and transition A-10 maintainers to the F-35—"that took care of the flying hours [but] … would not have included money to do contract maintenance … So we've had to carve that out of all the other O&M [operations and maintenance]" accounts. The situation won't be fixed quickly, either, because even though USAF is looking to grow by several thousand airmen, it can't simply put new people to work on the F-35. The jet is too complex for newbies, and it takes "seven to nine years" to "grow" a maintainer to a high experience level, she said. Using contractors will "give ourselves time to build the organic workforce" needed, she said. Blue-suiters don't seem to be quitting to take higher-paying contractor jobs—yet—she said, but it's a concern. (Read the full report.)
There's a lot more to combat capability than just an airframe.
Expecting less of ALIS
—John A. Tirpak
The Air Force is looking to see if it really needs the F-35's Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) to do everything it was originally planned to do right away, Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski said Thursday. The system is "almost as challenging" as developing a fifth-generation fighter, and while the concepts involved in ALIS are all great, "we have to see … how much is enough, now that we see how challenging it is," she told reporters in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. Pawlikowski stopped short of saying USAF would relax its ALIS requirements—which might not even be possible, since it is a multi-service, multi-nation program. However, for purposes of initial service, USAF might think about "how much of the original vision is realistic" and "what's the real savings if I get it to do a little less?" she said. Closing in on initial operational capability, USAF may "adjust its expectations" for the system, she said. Asked to comment on whether the F-35 could fly missions without plugging into the internet—a question posed recently because of concerns about ALIS' cyber vulnerabilities—Pawlikowski made an analogy to a laptop computer. It can work without connecting to the internet, she said, but "sooner or later … there are things you want to buy" or upload, or to get updates, so a connection is ultimately inevitable.
In the same bulletin, and sticking with the non-airframe side of things:
The Private F-35 Fix Is In Beyond 2020
—John A. Tirpak
It'll cost the Air Force "tens of millions" per year out of hide to hire contractors to do F-35 maintenance through at least 2020, because the service doesn't have enough people to do the work, Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski said Thursday. While Congress "restored" some money to keep A-10s in service—after rejecting USAF's plan to retire the jet and transition A-10 maintainers to the F-35—"that took care of the flying hours [but] … would not have included money to do contract maintenance … So we've had to carve that out of all the other O&M [operations and maintenance]" accounts. The situation won't be fixed quickly, either, because even though USAF is looking to grow by several thousand airmen, it can't simply put new people to work on the F-35. The jet is too complex for newbies, and it takes "seven to nine years" to "grow" a maintainer to a high experience level, she said. Using contractors will "give ourselves time to build the organic workforce" needed, she said. Blue-suiters don't seem to be quitting to take higher-paying contractor jobs—yet—she said, but it's a concern. (Read the full report.)
There's a lot more to combat capability than just an airframe.
