Is the F-35 toast now, as far as a multi-branch airframe? PEOTUS thinks it should be. What say you?

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 12:38:12 -0500

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Dec 12 at 2016 1:14 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:14:28 -0500

I think he's gaining leverage, and leverage is what has been sorely needed by the DoD acquisition community with the defense industry for some time now. I cannot recollect the last time DoD acquisition lawyers and contracting officers grabbed a nut and Terminated For Cause. It is simply not done anymore. Every Congressman with jobs in his district will ALWAYS fight for a failed and over-cost program, rather than what is best for the DoD and the nation. LM stock lost $3.5B (and counting) in stock value today. Does he have their attention? Is he (and DoD acquisition) in a better negotiating position as a result of this simple demonstration of what a president-elect tweet can do? Yes, and in order to get major defense contractors cost under control, this is a sneaky and effective tactic.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 12 at 2016 3:16 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 15:16:05 -0500

I think we have a competition having the F-35 what is a drone and the 8:10 and have a 12.7 millimeter shoot at both of them and see how they survive and see if F-35 even makes it ten kilometers from the Triple A location. There is no doubt that the F-35 plant would be killed and cut in half 50 caliber bullet. I would also the plane to laser-guided Mommy and coming at night with the same task. I remember congresswoman McSally saying you have 35 is inferior in so many ways as far as close air support. Now we need to try it see how I would do the dog fight. I love reading that in a simulation 1996 the f - 35 lost against the Chinese in a war game. We'd have these plans go toe-to-toe Top Gun style and see how they actually do because from what I've seen the F-35 is overweight too slow and vulnerable to ground fire. Read a bit less of the F-35 and get our military back in shape I don't want to worry about running out of money in May or June because of budget cuts that the F-35 can get any supplemental billing it wants any time so far they've spent 165 billion dollars over budget

Response by MAJ Raymond Brooks made Dec 12 at 2016 4:54 PM

MAJ Raymond Brooks — Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:54:35 -0500

As an OLD Army health care provider, if it can't out fight what we currently have and/or provide ground support that is superior to the Warthog, I figure it is a waste of money. Sorry, California.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Dec 13 at 2016 9:35 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:35:44 -0500

As one who flew one of the original planned multi service aircraft (F-111) I always cringe when I see proposals for multi service weapon systems. Concept is fantastic, but reality is that something has to give. A top of the line bomb dropper most likely isn't going to be a fantastic air to air fighter. That close air support role aircraft is most likely giving up payload, etc., etc. Is the F-35 toast, probably not but I can foresee production cutting and the fleet being limited to well below what has been determined to be the most cost effective level. One only needs to look at aircraft such as the B-1 & B-2. These were both cut way back from planned production, both are vital to todays missions and both are extremely expensive to maintain due to their limited numbers.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2016 11:06 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:06:24 -0500

I think it will stay, not because the F-35 has been successful so far, but because the concept model behind the F-35 (the modular nature and reduction in logistical and repair support that comes with that) is the way things must go in the long run, and it's currently cheaper to fix the F-35 than scrap it and start a new multi-platform jet from scratch. Yes, there have been wild cost overruns, and they've had difficulty getting all the different modular options to live up to expectations, but one thing we have to remember is that it was bound to have those issues specifically because we've never really done this multi-platform approach in any truly in-depth way before with jets.

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Dec 14 at 2016 7:48 AM

Maj Walter Kilar — Wed, 14 Dec 2016 07:48:24 -0500

This belongs to a much larger discussion of an acquisition law overhaul. The F-35 was conceived as a result of limitations to acquisition law and defense planning, programming, budgeting, and execution. Yes, the F-35 acquisition should be terminated as a multi service platform. As long as their are three services' budgets (Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force), there should not be a requirement to combine, convolve, and confuse disparate requirements on multi billion dollar programs. Multi billion dollar acquisitions turn into political fights over cash cows in Congressional districts. Smaller programs such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition at $100M/FY97 are a good model of a good multi service weapons system.

Each of the services should continue to procure the F-35 on the existing contracts, but should be authorized to cut back on orders so the services can reprogram funding in the out years for new aircraft. Once Mr. Trump realizes the bureaucracy involved in all of this, he should be a driving force in the overall picture--true defense acquisition reform. The end result for the OP and some follow-on comments would be realized, e.g. termination of F-35 acquisition, restructuring procurement, service life extension of A-10/ F-16/ F/A-18/ etc, planning/ programming/budgeting of new aircraft. In the bigger picture, Mr Trump would bring new perspective as a driving force in overhauling defense acquisitions.

Response by A1C Charles Hagen made Dec 14 at 2016 8:26 AM

A1C Charles Hagen — Wed, 14 Dec 2016 08:26:46 -0500

Cancel the F-35 and move/use the technology on reliable platforms that have combat maneuverability like the F-16.

Response by Capt Jesse Hulgan made Dec 14 at 2016 10:06 AM

Capt Jesse Hulgan — Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:06:38 -0500

It is a replacement for aircraft that have already exceeded their original life times. You already have F-15s breaking apart in mid-air from failure of structural parts (e.g., longerons). The non-recurring develop costs are already "sunk" and would have to be regenerated for a new developmental aircraft. The fact is we have spent the lion's share of R&D so now when the costs are for production and Ops & Maintenance there shouldn't be any more major cost increases.

Response by Col Mike Lambert MD made Dec 14 at 2016 10:28 AM

Col Mike Lambert MD — Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:28:03 -0500

The F-4 was built as a multi-service airplane but really wasn't the best for anyone. We learned from that and built the A-10, the F-15 and the F-16, all great for their roles (speaking USAF right now). The F-22 is unsurpassed and can be restarted. It makes more sense to me to use the F-35 for the branches (Marines) that it would be beneficial for (if it is), start building F-22's (Lockheed still wins) revamp the Warthog to do the great job it does and the upgraded
F-15. And cheaper!

Response by SSgt Ray McCaslin made Dec 14 at 2016 10:58 AM

SSgt Ray McCaslin — Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:58:13 -0500

I don't think because he raised cost concerns for the F35 that Trump is going to scrap the program. We elected an alert businessman whose going to change the way the government makes purchases. There is going to be heavy scrutiny with all government expenditures. The old government attitude of spend it because we have it or we'll lose it next time is over.

Response by MSgt Jeff King made Dec 14 at 2016 6:39 PM

MSgt Jeff King — Wed, 14 Dec 2016 18:39:33 -0500

The F-35 isn't Toast, but the acquisition and deployment may be revised.

The A-10 needs to stay with updates in certain systems. The B-1B needs to be reproduced as the B-1R with GE-Aviation, F-120 Supercruise engines and new inlets for Mach 1.95 performance.

Response by SSgt Michael Cox made Dec 15 at 2016 10:48 AM

SSgt Michael Cox — Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:48:39 -0500

They need to cancel the F-35 just like they should have canceled the CV-22 and they need to cancel the M-1 tank production like the Army has been asking for, for years. The president may not have direct power over the contracts but with everything being controlled by one party I can see them doing what he says.

Response by TSgt James Carson made Dec 15 at 2016 1:06 PM

TSgt James Carson — Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:06:57 -0500

Toast the F-35. It cannot do what is available now, the A-10, and the A-10 would be much cheaper to duplicate. The future is unmanned aircraft. It takes out the frailty of the human being and could be much cheaper to build. It still has many bugs in the practice, but so do the Wright brother's plane.

Response by TSgt David Whitmore made Dec 16 at 2016 9:22 PM

TSgt David Whitmore — Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:22:33 -0500

This 'aircraft' has been in development since the mid-90s. Still there at this point, and even though they are claiming to start production they still haven't cleared up all the issues it has.
The goal of its supporters is to replace several different combat aircraft even though it doesn't come anywhere close to being as good at each of those 'jobs' as any of the aircraft it is to replace.

It is way, way over budget. And the only reason that this plane hasn't been pulled is pride and greed; greed from the businesses building it, and pride on the part of the Pentagon pushers (I wonder if they are getting any kinds of special benefits?).

Response by Sgt Heriberto Salinas made Dec 17 at 2016 10:00 PM

Sgt Heriberto Salinas — Sat, 17 Dec 2016 22:00:36 -0500

The costs always ends up "out of control ". It's about time we had a commander in chief who would question it. As long as you have advanced technology, nobody will really know how much it should cost.