Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Old news from last year. AFAIK these issues were fixed
buffnut453
Captain
DOH! I'm usually better than that. Should've checked the date.
buffnut453
Captain
The problem was related to flight controls so, yes, it would require a software update to fix it.
Glider
Captain
Nice photo of the F35 on HMS Queen Elizabeth
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Not meaning to bring politics into this, but I have to wonder how much this sale has to do with the recent Israel-UAE Abraham Accords Peace Agreement. For anyone not already aware, the US is prohibited (by US law) from selling superior weapons technology to any nation seen as a potential threat to Israel.
Has much more to do with bribery of the POTUS and setting up a place for him to run to when the New York indictments are issued. The UAE is also very friendly with both the PRC and the Russian Federation so sales there are an easy way for him to ensure what secrets are left get in their hands.
Keep the politics for facebook please. We have a no politics policy on this forum to prevent the tit for tat argueing that always ensues. There is a time and a place, and this forum is not that place.
It's obvious he is talking about a current POTUS originally from New York. The no politics rule applies to all of us. Not here on this forum.
buffnut453
Captain
Not entirely sure what to make of this...it could just be another hatchet-job on the F-35.
The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed
David Axe Forbes Staff
The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed
The U.S. Air Force's top officer wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated—but costly and unreliable—stealth fighters.
The result would be a high-low mix of expensive "fifth-generation" F-22s and F-35s and inexpensive "fifth-generation-minus" jets, explained Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown Jr.
If that plan sounds familiar, it's because the Air Force a generation ago launched development of an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s and complement a small future fleet of sophisticated—but costly and unreliable—stealth fighters.
But over 20 years of R&D, that lightweight replacement fighter got heavier and more expensive as the Air Force and lead contractor Lockheed Martin LMT +0.1% packed it with more and more new technology.
Yes, we're talking about the F-35. The 25-ton stealth warplane has become the very problem it was supposed to solve. And now America needs a new fighter to solve that F-35 problem, officials said.
With a sticker price of around $100 million per plane, including the engine, the F-35 is expensive. While stealthy and brimming with high-tech sensors, it's also maintenance-intensive, buggy and unreliable. "The F-35 is not a low-cost, lightweight fighter," said Dan Ward, a former Air Force program manager and the author of popular business books including The Simplicity Cycle.
The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday. "You don't drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our 'high end' [fighter], we want to make sure we don't use it all for the low-end fight."
"I want to moderate how much we're using those aircraft," Brown said.
Hence the need for a new low-end fighter to pick up the slack in day-to-day operations. Today, the Air Force's roughly 1,000 F-16s meet that need. But the flying branch hasn't bought a new F-16 from Lockheed since 2001. The F-16s are old.
In his last interview before leaving his post in January, Will Roper, the Air Force's top acquisition official, floated the idea of new F-16 orders. But Brown shot down the idea, saying he doesn't want more of the classic planes.
The 17-ton, non-stealthy F-16 is too difficult to upgrade with the latest software, Brown explained. Instead of ordering fresh F-16s, he said, the Air Force should initiate a "clean-sheet design" for a new low-end fighter.
Brown's comments are a tacit admission that the F-35 has failed. As conceived in the 1990s, the program was supposed to produce thousands of fighters to displace almost all of the existing tactical warplanes in the inventories of the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
The Air Force alone wanted nearly 1,800 F-35s to replace aging F-16s and A-10s and constitute the low end of a low-high fighter mix, with 180 twin-engine F-22s making up the high end.
But the Air Force and Lockheed baked failure into the F-35's very concept. "They tried to make the F-35 do too much," said Dan Grazier, an analyst with the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.
There's a small-wing version for land-based operations, a big-wing version for the Navy's catapult-equipped aircraft carriers and, for the small-deck assault ships the Marines ride in, a vertical-landing model with a downward-blasting lift engine.
The complexity added cost. Rising costs imposed delays. Delays gave developers more time to add yet more complexity to the design. Those additions added more cost. Those costs resulted in more delays. So on and so forth.
Fifteen years after the F-35's first flight, the Air Force has just 250 of the jets. Now the service is signaling possible cuts to the program. It's not for no reason that Brown has begun characterizing the F-35 as a boutique, high-end fighter in the class of the F-22. The Air Force ended F-22 production after completing just 195 copies.
"The F-35 is approaching a crossroads," Grazier said.
Pentagon leaders have hinted that, as part of the U.S. military's shift in focus toward peer threats—that is, Russia and China—the Navy and Air Force might get bigger shares of the U.S. military's roughly $700-billion annual budget. All at the Army's expense.
"If we're going to pull the trigger on a new fighter, now's probably the time," Grazier said. The Air Force could end F-35 production after just a few hundred examples and redirect tens of billions of dollars to a new fighter program.
But it's an open question whether the Air Force will ever succeed in developing a light, cheap fighter. The new low-end jet could suffer the same fate as the last low-end jet—the F-35—and steadily gain weight, complexity and cost until it becomes, well, a high-end jet.
If that happens, as it's happened before, then some future Air Force chief of staff might tell reporters—in, say, the year 2041—that the new F-36 is a Ferrari and you don't drive your Ferrari to work every day.
To finally replace its 60-year-old F-16s, this future general might say, the Air Force should develop an affordable, lightweight fighter.
The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed
David Axe Forbes Staff
The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed
The U.S. Air Force's top officer wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated—but costly and unreliable—stealth fighters.
The result would be a high-low mix of expensive "fifth-generation" F-22s and F-35s and inexpensive "fifth-generation-minus" jets, explained Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown Jr.
If that plan sounds familiar, it's because the Air Force a generation ago launched development of an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s and complement a small future fleet of sophisticated—but costly and unreliable—stealth fighters.
But over 20 years of R&D, that lightweight replacement fighter got heavier and more expensive as the Air Force and lead contractor Lockheed Martin LMT +0.1% packed it with more and more new technology.
Yes, we're talking about the F-35. The 25-ton stealth warplane has become the very problem it was supposed to solve. And now America needs a new fighter to solve that F-35 problem, officials said.
With a sticker price of around $100 million per plane, including the engine, the F-35 is expensive. While stealthy and brimming with high-tech sensors, it's also maintenance-intensive, buggy and unreliable. "The F-35 is not a low-cost, lightweight fighter," said Dan Ward, a former Air Force program manager and the author of popular business books including The Simplicity Cycle.
The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday. "You don't drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our 'high end' [fighter], we want to make sure we don't use it all for the low-end fight."
"I want to moderate how much we're using those aircraft," Brown said.
Hence the need for a new low-end fighter to pick up the slack in day-to-day operations. Today, the Air Force's roughly 1,000 F-16s meet that need. But the flying branch hasn't bought a new F-16 from Lockheed since 2001. The F-16s are old.
In his last interview before leaving his post in January, Will Roper, the Air Force's top acquisition official, floated the idea of new F-16 orders. But Brown shot down the idea, saying he doesn't want more of the classic planes.
The 17-ton, non-stealthy F-16 is too difficult to upgrade with the latest software, Brown explained. Instead of ordering fresh F-16s, he said, the Air Force should initiate a "clean-sheet design" for a new low-end fighter.
Brown's comments are a tacit admission that the F-35 has failed. As conceived in the 1990s, the program was supposed to produce thousands of fighters to displace almost all of the existing tactical warplanes in the inventories of the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
The Air Force alone wanted nearly 1,800 F-35s to replace aging F-16s and A-10s and constitute the low end of a low-high fighter mix, with 180 twin-engine F-22s making up the high end.
But the Air Force and Lockheed baked failure into the F-35's very concept. "They tried to make the F-35 do too much," said Dan Grazier, an analyst with the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.
There's a small-wing version for land-based operations, a big-wing version for the Navy's catapult-equipped aircraft carriers and, for the small-deck assault ships the Marines ride in, a vertical-landing model with a downward-blasting lift engine.
The complexity added cost. Rising costs imposed delays. Delays gave developers more time to add yet more complexity to the design. Those additions added more cost. Those costs resulted in more delays. So on and so forth.
Fifteen years after the F-35's first flight, the Air Force has just 250 of the jets. Now the service is signaling possible cuts to the program. It's not for no reason that Brown has begun characterizing the F-35 as a boutique, high-end fighter in the class of the F-22. The Air Force ended F-22 production after completing just 195 copies.
"The F-35 is approaching a crossroads," Grazier said.
Pentagon leaders have hinted that, as part of the U.S. military's shift in focus toward peer threats—that is, Russia and China—the Navy and Air Force might get bigger shares of the U.S. military's roughly $700-billion annual budget. All at the Army's expense.
"If we're going to pull the trigger on a new fighter, now's probably the time," Grazier said. The Air Force could end F-35 production after just a few hundred examples and redirect tens of billions of dollars to a new fighter program.
But it's an open question whether the Air Force will ever succeed in developing a light, cheap fighter. The new low-end jet could suffer the same fate as the last low-end jet—the F-35—and steadily gain weight, complexity and cost until it becomes, well, a high-end jet.
If that happens, as it's happened before, then some future Air Force chief of staff might tell reporters—in, say, the year 2041—that the new F-36 is a Ferrari and you don't drive your Ferrari to work every day.
To finally replace its 60-year-old F-16s, this future general might say, the Air Force should develop an affordable, lightweight fighter.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Hopefully Boeing jumps all over this.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think it's a matter of money and where the current leadership wants to place dollars to accomplish "the mission." Also this is a part hatchet job.
"But over 20 years of R&D, that lightweight replacement fighter got heavier and more expensive as the Air Force and lead contractor Lockheed Martin LMT +0.1% packed it with more and more new technology."
LMCO did pack it with ore technology, the air force did!
One thing I have to agree with - The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday. "You don't drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our 'high end' [fighter], we want to make sure we don't use it all for the low-end fight."
"I want to moderate how much we're using those aircraft," Brown said.
In the mean time over 650 have been built and I believe the USAF has about 260 aircraft.
"But over 20 years of R&D, that lightweight replacement fighter got heavier and more expensive as the Air Force and lead contractor Lockheed Martin LMT +0.1% packed it with more and more new technology."
LMCO did pack it with ore technology, the air force did!
One thing I have to agree with - The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday. "You don't drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our 'high end' [fighter], we want to make sure we don't use it all for the low-end fight."
"I want to moderate how much we're using those aircraft," Brown said.
In the mean time over 650 have been built and I believe the USAF has about 260 aircraft.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Still not sure in what context that the F-35 has "failed".
The author states that the F-35 was supposed to be a "one-size-fits-all" as requested by the military, yet turns around and states that the F-35 has taken on too many rolls.
You can't make a single type that addresses each branch's needs all wrapped up in a single airframe - it just can't be done, especially in this modern age of warfare.
And from what I've read regarding the F-35's performance from the pilots themselves, it delivers at or beyond expectations - so then the "failure" must lay more in a political sense than a performance aspect.
The author states that the F-35 was supposed to be a "one-size-fits-all" as requested by the military, yet turns around and states that the F-35 has taken on too many rolls.
You can't make a single type that addresses each branch's needs all wrapped up in a single airframe - it just can't be done, especially in this modern age of warfare.
And from what I've read regarding the F-35's performance from the pilots themselves, it delivers at or beyond expectations - so then the "failure" must lay more in a political sense than a performance aspect.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I read up on Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown Jr. He's been in this position since last summer and right now this may be his vision/ opinions. An eventual change of leadership down the road may mean a change of policy. I think the author of the article is trying to negatively read between the lines and because the F-35 has been the whipping boy of the media, a chance to sell copy has arisen, regardless if it's completely true or accurate.
Glider
Captain
When I stand back and look at it, three things spring to mind
1) Did the F35 fail?
No, it didn't. A lot of countries use it as their primary front line fighter / bomber and it meets every criteria
2) Can it replace all the F15 and F16 aircraft currently in the USAF Inventory?
No, it is too expensive. Not even the USA can afford the sort of money that would be involved.
3) Does the USA need something new to fill the gap
Yes it does
The F15 and F16 and now pretty much fifty year old designs, they may be very effective fifty year old designs, but they are fifty years old. There are a number of other aircraft in service such as the Typhoon and Gripen that have advantages over the F15 and F16 which could in theory be used to fill the gap. However the USA is more than capable of quickly and relatively cheaply building equivalent or even better aircraft using modern materials. If the politicians stay out of the way and senior officers remember that there not going to get an F35 Mk 2 anything is possible.
1) Did the F35 fail?
No, it didn't. A lot of countries use it as their primary front line fighter / bomber and it meets every criteria
2) Can it replace all the F15 and F16 aircraft currently in the USAF Inventory?
No, it is too expensive. Not even the USA can afford the sort of money that would be involved.
3) Does the USA need something new to fill the gap
Yes it does
The F15 and F16 and now pretty much fifty year old designs, they may be very effective fifty year old designs, but they are fifty years old. There are a number of other aircraft in service such as the Typhoon and Gripen that have advantages over the F15 and F16 which could in theory be used to fill the gap. However the USA is more than capable of quickly and relatively cheaply building equivalent or even better aircraft using modern materials. If the politicians stay out of the way and senior officers remember that there not going to get an F35 Mk 2 anything is possible.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Great points, but remember, the F-35A was never intended to be a dedicated air-to-air platform although some at LMCO tried to push that role a little too much IMO.
buffnut453
Captain
The problem is it won't just be one aircraft type. I don't see the USN, USMC and USAF all operating the same aircraft unless the new "cheap" combat aircraft follows a similar path to the F-35 (which, in all likelihood, will add complexity and increase costs and risk).
Can the US really afford to start 2 new combat aircraft designs? What will get cut from the defence budget to make room for this unplanned expenditure?
Can the US really afford to start 2 new combat aircraft designs? What will get cut from the defence budget to make room for this unplanned expenditure?
