Posted on Oct 29, 2015
Do you agree with Trump that the F-35 project should be "Fired"?
10.2K
58
42
10
10
0
He's got a point, right? Our current fleet is awesome, including the A-10. Forget that F-35
Donald Trump wants to tell the F-35 that it’s fired.
The businessman and Republican presidential candidate questioned the wisdom of purchasing the joint strike fighter during an appearance on a conservative radio talk show Oct. 22.
“When they say that this cannot perform as well as the planes we already have, what are [we] doing, and spending so much more money?” Trump said during an appearance on the Hugh Hewitt radio show.
The host asked Trump his thoughts on the fifth generation fighter and the fact that it’s $160 billion over budget. Trump responded that he didn’t like what he had been hearing in security briefings.
“I do hear that it’s not very good,” he said. “I’m hearing that our existing planes are better. And one of the pilots came out of the plane, one of the test pilots, and said this isn’t as good as what we already have.”
Trump referenced a scathing, five-page report that was leaked in June by the website War is Boring. In the memo — meant to be seen only by defense officials and Lockheed Martin — the test pilot derides the F-35’s ability to engage in high aerial maneuvers and a close-in dogfight.
The Lightning II can’t, the test pilot wrote, defeat an older F-16 in visual combat.
Military leaders and policy makers should take the report seriously, Trump said.
“Test pilots are amazing people. They know better than anybody,” he said. “They’re saying it doesn’t perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive. So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they’re spending billions. This is a plane. There’s never been anything like it in terms of cost.”
Donald Trump wants to tell the F-35 that it’s fired.
The businessman and Republican presidential candidate questioned the wisdom of purchasing the joint strike fighter during an appearance on a conservative radio talk show Oct. 22.
“When they say that this cannot perform as well as the planes we already have, what are [we] doing, and spending so much more money?” Trump said during an appearance on the Hugh Hewitt radio show.
The host asked Trump his thoughts on the fifth generation fighter and the fact that it’s $160 billion over budget. Trump responded that he didn’t like what he had been hearing in security briefings.
“I do hear that it’s not very good,” he said. “I’m hearing that our existing planes are better. And one of the pilots came out of the plane, one of the test pilots, and said this isn’t as good as what we already have.”
Trump referenced a scathing, five-page report that was leaked in June by the website War is Boring. In the memo — meant to be seen only by defense officials and Lockheed Martin — the test pilot derides the F-35’s ability to engage in high aerial maneuvers and a close-in dogfight.
The Lightning II can’t, the test pilot wrote, defeat an older F-16 in visual combat.
Military leaders and policy makers should take the report seriously, Trump said.
“Test pilots are amazing people. They know better than anybody,” he said. “They’re saying it doesn’t perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive. So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they’re spending billions. This is a plane. There’s never been anything like it in terms of cost.”
Posted in these groups: 
Donald Trump
F-35
Donald Trump F-35
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 23
7
7
0
While our fleet is awesome, and the F-35 is a budget blown cluster that is feeding money to corporate that can't produce what they promised. The US Air Force aircraft are getting old.
We are going to loose our edge in air combat if we don't modernize. The F-22 was a start, but Corporate greed, Senior leadership failures and congressional tampering have left it under staffed. The F-22 was supposed to take over for the F-15. There won't be enough built. Same with the F-35. This was the answer to the aging F-16, F-18. Harrier, aircraft. It was supposed to be cost effective to replace all these aircraft in massive orders, bringing 5th generation fighters to the line. Again, we see Corporate Greed, Senior leadership failures and Congressional tampering.
Sad this is we need these aircraft, we need an aircraft to replace the A-10. Not because of effectiveness, because of Air Frame ware. I worked Aircraft Sheetmetal for 21 years. These aircraft need replaced. For the A-10 all we need to do is make a modern air frame, take modern avionics and apply a little reason and you could keep the same design just make a better ground support aircraft for 1/10 of the cost of the F-35, Heck you could probably cut the cost to about 10% of the F-35. (Just a guess) So while I agree some people need Fired, we still need new aircraft somehow.
We are going to loose our edge in air combat if we don't modernize. The F-22 was a start, but Corporate greed, Senior leadership failures and congressional tampering have left it under staffed. The F-22 was supposed to take over for the F-15. There won't be enough built. Same with the F-35. This was the answer to the aging F-16, F-18. Harrier, aircraft. It was supposed to be cost effective to replace all these aircraft in massive orders, bringing 5th generation fighters to the line. Again, we see Corporate Greed, Senior leadership failures and Congressional tampering.
Sad this is we need these aircraft, we need an aircraft to replace the A-10. Not because of effectiveness, because of Air Frame ware. I worked Aircraft Sheetmetal for 21 years. These aircraft need replaced. For the A-10 all we need to do is make a modern air frame, take modern avionics and apply a little reason and you could keep the same design just make a better ground support aircraft for 1/10 of the cost of the F-35, Heck you could probably cut the cost to about 10% of the F-35. (Just a guess) So while I agree some people need Fired, we still need new aircraft somehow.
(7)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
It would seem to me that they should scrap it, take the lessons of what works, what does not and start over at the drawing table. Just because something is new does not mean it is better, and just because something is old does not mean it still can not kick ass.
(1)
(0)
2d Lt (Join to see)
Speaking as a fellow aircraft mechanic (propulsion shop) who has worked on C-130H, C-130J, and A-10 aircraft, you bring up a good point. The biggest problem our aging air fleet is facing isn't their performance, it's wear from decades of use, and even depot level maintenance can only do so much to compensate.
Seeing the difference in how often maintenance had to be performed on C-130H aircraft from the 70s versus how often it had to be performed on the new C-130J aircraft was considerable. We need new aircraft, but the F-35 has yet to prove it's the answer and seems more like a problem.
It's hemorrhaging money, a nightmare to maintain (from hearsay in the MX community), and apparently performs close to the same level a it's predecessor, the F-16 (although I'm not sure how accurate that report is or if it's just political BS). Something intelligent has to be done to fix this situation as opposed to the apparent "throw more money at the problem" approach that has been used thus far.
Don't get me wrong, we certainly do need new aircraft with improved capabilities and performance to replace our aging fleet. We can't just focus on today's fight. The F-22 and F-35 were developed with this in mind. We have to be ready for the battles to come, but not at the expense of having to get rid of all our older planes before the new ones are even done being developed just to find the money to make the new ones. Today's battles still have to be fought while we prepare for those to come in the future.
We need a functioning standing air fleet during the development of new aircraft so we don't lose our capability while waiting for the new plane, and the F-35 is threatening that (such as with the case of the A-10).
Should the F-35 project be scrapped? Quite possibly, but I'm not on the project so I recognize I could be lacking critical information to make the right call. Still, it may be better to simply cut our losses rather than continue to invest in an aircraft that simply won't be worth the cost and instead transferring the funding into making cheaper, modern versions of current airframes like the A-10.
Seeing the difference in how often maintenance had to be performed on C-130H aircraft from the 70s versus how often it had to be performed on the new C-130J aircraft was considerable. We need new aircraft, but the F-35 has yet to prove it's the answer and seems more like a problem.
It's hemorrhaging money, a nightmare to maintain (from hearsay in the MX community), and apparently performs close to the same level a it's predecessor, the F-16 (although I'm not sure how accurate that report is or if it's just political BS). Something intelligent has to be done to fix this situation as opposed to the apparent "throw more money at the problem" approach that has been used thus far.
Don't get me wrong, we certainly do need new aircraft with improved capabilities and performance to replace our aging fleet. We can't just focus on today's fight. The F-22 and F-35 were developed with this in mind. We have to be ready for the battles to come, but not at the expense of having to get rid of all our older planes before the new ones are even done being developed just to find the money to make the new ones. Today's battles still have to be fought while we prepare for those to come in the future.
We need a functioning standing air fleet during the development of new aircraft so we don't lose our capability while waiting for the new plane, and the F-35 is threatening that (such as with the case of the A-10).
Should the F-35 project be scrapped? Quite possibly, but I'm not on the project so I recognize I could be lacking critical information to make the right call. Still, it may be better to simply cut our losses rather than continue to invest in an aircraft that simply won't be worth the cost and instead transferring the funding into making cheaper, modern versions of current airframes like the A-10.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Diane Nicoloff
I was stationed at Ramstein AB and was part of the F-16 conversion project from the inventory side of things. The same fleet is still flying thirty years later. I think we have to new aircraft systems to replace the aging fleet. I think the problems that the test pilots are finding will be worked out during the R & D process. All aircraft went through kinks in the R & D process. I think the real problem is the reason the project is so over budget and I think Lockheed Martin needs to be held accountable for the project being over budget. I have said for decades we need to get rid of lobbyists and all the major players (Lockheed Martin, Hawker Beechcraft, Boeing, Cessna, General Dynamics, L-3) need to be held accountable to stay with the budget for the government projects they bid on. From the smallest washer to the Avionics system, the cost of parts is just mind blowing. I have worked both sides of the aircraft inventory business (military and civilian) and the waste and greed never stops. Bolts and washers that cost pennies and are the same thing you can get at a hardware store cost can cost hundreds of dollars each, just because they have an 8130-3 saying they are aircraft worthy. The F-35 does not need to be fired but the people at the top need to be. What needs to be "fired" is the way that government contracts are bid. Congress does not want to change this because they are getting paid by the lobbyists. I hope that is something that will change with having non-politicians and billionaires that cannot be bribed, running for President.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Robert Pellam
Sgt Diane Nicoloff I agree with you 100%. One of the reasons I push to just modernize the A-10 is that very problem you mention of R & D. The A-10 now is getting so old that parts have to be hand made. That cost alone is eating into the budget. I know the F-35 will be decent air craft. And I think the original post was prescribing that Firing thing towards the very lobbyists, politicians and corporate greed mongers you talked about. Greed has become the new face of the military contract acquisition. I laugh when each of the candidates say "We need to spend more on the Military" When in reality, they say that so their corporate sponsors like Boeing, Lockheed and such can keep giving them campaign contributions.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Trump gets it, what's with the rest of these politicians? Not hard to see that this project costs too much and yields poor results
(5)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
PO1 Dean Chapman - Absolutely. We need a strong leader, maybe it just needs to be a business man who isn't much of a politician
(1)
(0)
MSgt Bruce Cooper
We need a strong business man who can use money as a tool, not spend it like a teenager with their first credit card. We need to get rid of slick talking politicians who are also lawyers. I am with 1st Sgt McReynolds, take what they have learned about it and scrap the rest.
Also, everyone needs to get out and vote in next years election. Make plans now as to how you are getting your ballots to the ballot box.
Also, everyone needs to get out and vote in next years election. Make plans now as to how you are getting your ballots to the ballot box.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Trump is a businessman first... and learning to be a politician. To this point, what if the military, and its budget, were ran LIKE a business? Shut down/eliminate costly programs before they create any more of a financial anchor? Crazy. I see the F-22 & -35 following the same spiral of the V-22: Too much $$$ has already been invested (wasted) in the development of these platforms. Congressmen and Senators have to pacify their constituents: If he's going put a silver bullet into the F-35, he'll have to get elected first... and learn to be a politician. Can't say I agree with Trump. But, I certainly don't disagree with him.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google