Trump trekt stekker uit JSF (F35)

[quote]
Super Hornet pilot here... long fucking post ahead and I can't fucking believe the day has come when the future POTUS thinks it is fit to micromanage fighter jet procurement via popular appeal, especially when it's most likely shitty Internet posts and blog articles that give him the extent of knowledge on the F-35 or other acquisitions programs - and not, you know, secret classified briefs by the experts in this area.

And before people say that this will rein in the military-industrial complex, or that this will save us money.... read on why he's so horribly wrong.

First of all, if you are one of those guys who thinks we should support the troops, or that Obama gutted the military, or whatever - you need to tell Trump to stop with this shit. Politicians getting involved in procurement and trying to micromanage ever aspect is exactly how we end up with unnecessary procurement, aging equipment, and a persistent 'kick-the-can' down the road mentality.

Don't believe me? Here's two recent examples of brilliant political meddling:

The USS Zumwalt and her class of destroyers were envisioned due to a Congressional requirement for shore bombardment ships after the US retired the Iowa-class battleships in the early 90s. Aside from the fact that shore bombardment for mass amphibious assaults is of questionable necessity in modern warfare with the advent of precision weapons and helicopters, this class was cut to just 3 ships (with each now costing multiple billions) with unnecessary compromises (although railguns are fucking cool, tbh) and an unknown future and role
The F-22 was originally supposed to have over 700 of them built. Citing the end of the Cold War, the US cut that order to around 380. Then in the 2000s, it was finally cut down to 187 total built because the Bush administration felt it was unnecessary and a relic of the Cold War. Fast forward to today, and we don't have enough F-22's so we've had to extend the life of our F-15s - which are aging - and now suddenly everyone now wants F-22's instead of F-35s. Oops.

Now, as for the F-35 and the F/A-18 Super Hornet... look, as a Rhino pilot (the nickname for the Super Hornet), I'd love all the fancy toys, funding, and the entire concept behind the Advanced Super Hornet/Block 3 Rhino...

But this ship has sailed. And honestly, this whole tweet just screams of populist politics from someone who doesn't know the intricacies or complexity of a modern fighter jet project or modern aerial warfare.

Cost First of all, the F-35's cost has gone way down since the project underwent reform a few years ago, with low rate production F-35A's (the Air Force model) reaching the cost of the Super Hornet already. The Aussies bought 24 Super Hornets at a price of $90 million each, and they recently bought the EA-18G Growler (the electronic attack version of the Rhino) about $110 million a piece.

Yes, the F-35B and -C versions (the Marine and Navy versions, respectively) cost more, but replacing the F-35A with the Super Hornet or a derivative of it makes no sense, unless you're reading Wikipedia and think the $60 million price tag on a Super Hornet still exists (it doesn't). Not to mention, the Advanced Super Hornet concept isn't going to cost anywhere near $60 million, not after you've added the conformal fuel tanks, stealthy weapon pods, and other equipment.

And before people say 'but the F-35 has had cost overruns!' - yes, it has, and they're inexcusable. That said, the time to cancel the program was 10 years ago, not today after the first F-35B squadron went operational a year ago, and not after the first F-35A squadron went operational this year, and not after multiple nations have their Air Force personnel in the US training on and preparing for their own inductions of these planes.

To Best Understand the F-35... Read Further I was going to try and do a point by point comparison of the F-35 and the Super Hornet, but I realized it was easier to just explain why the F-35 exists in the first place.

Back in the 1970s, the US Air Force adopted a "high-low" doctrine to replace the 8+ variants of interceptors and fighters they had in operation. That doctrine produced the "high" F-15 Eagle - a no-holds-barred air superiority fighter that was big, fast, and cost a ton of money. The "low" plane, the F-16 Fighting Falcon (Viper), was supposed to be small, cheap, and a complement to the F-15.

You see, fighter jets have gone through different 'generations' of development. The first generation of fighter jets - those designed during and right after WW2, like the German Me262, the Soviet MiG-15, and the US F-86 Sabre, had little in difference to the propeller fighters of WW2 besides having much higher speeds and engine performance.

The second generation of fighter jets, of the 1950s like the F-100 Super Sabre and the F-106 Delta Dart, pushed the aerodynamic envelope. They had big afterburning turbojet engines, were capable of supersonic flight, and were primarily focused on speed to intercept Soviet bombers as it was widely believed that any war would be determined by massive bomber formations carrying nuclear weapons to annihilate the other side.

By the end of the 2nd generation (the end of the 1950s), avionics had improved rapidly: on-board radars, data-links to ground intercept controllers, and air-to-air missiles came into existence, which created the third generation of fighter jets. The F-4 Phantom was the US's third generation fighter jet - it could fly fast, it had powerful engines, and it had a powerful radar and the latest in air-to-air missile technology. Problem was, the technology wasn't quite there yet, and the tactics (which I will cover later) weren't up to date.

In the late 60s, the US started developing the next generation of fighter jets: they had to maneuver and perform well, but would continue leveraging avionics. Thus was born the first fourth generation fighters, the F-14 Tomcat and the aforementioned F-15.

Well, avionics design and warfighting changed considerably. The F-16 - packed with modern avionics and radar - quickly took on the strike fighter role, capable of air to air combat as well as air-to-ground combat, becoming the workhorse of airstrikes in the Gulf War through today.

By the end of the Cold War, the US realized it needed to work on the next generation air superiority fighter - thus was born the F-22. In the late 90s, the US realized it needed to work on the next generation complement to the F-22 - and thus the Joint Strike Fighter project started.

The JSF had lofty goals - too lofty as some would say - as it wanted to combine a strike fighter replacement for the F-16, F/A-18 (which itself was derived from the rival prototype of the F-16, the YF-17), AV-8 and A-10.

It was always destined to be a HUGE project. All this talk of its 'record expense' was by design: the US alone was going to purchase 2,443 of them to replace all those airplanes, many of whom were last produced for the US decades ago (no exaggeration - the last A-10 rolled off the line in 1984).

The F-35 was also going to be sold to our closest allies, just as the F-16 (of which over 4,500 have been produced) and F/A-18 were. Nations ordering them right now include the UK, Italy, Australia, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Korea, Japan, etc.

This isn't a minor detail either. More types of airframes adds complexity and bureaucracy throughout the military: it means more pilots required, more training programs for each individual airframe, more program management (for future upgrades to each type), and more maintenance training and parts supply lines for the different jets.

So before anyone says "well the F-35 was going to cost a trillion over its 50 year lifespan" consider the costs of having 4 separate fighter jet pipelines, much less the rising costs of trying to keep jets designed in the Cold War airworthy and relevant.

The Navy actually already 'necked down': it retired the A-7, A-6, F-14, S-3, and EA-6B.

What aircraft did it buy to replace ALL those roles? The Super Hornet (and its derivative the Growler) for fleet defense, interdiction, attack, and tanking.

The Super Hornet is - contrary to popular belief - not just an 'upgraded' Hornet. It was sold with the F/A-18 moniker to convince Congress that it wasn't a new jet, just an upgrade, but by and large it mostly does not have parts commonality and it is a much larger jet. Underlying systems architecture is similar, as are many maintenance procedures, but it has different engines and a different radar and its avionics have diverged considerably from the original Hornets.

The Rhino is what we would call a Gen 4.5 fighter - an aircraft not quite a 5th generation fighter like the F-22 or F-35, but one that incorporates all the technological advances and concepts of the 90s and puts them into a modern jet. With multiple upgradeable flight computers, advanced mission computers designed specifically to receive constant upgrades (think of yearly updates from smartphones - now, we've even benefitted from F-35 derived tech, on both fronts), and newer sensors and countermeasures as well as a concerted effort to reduce our radar cross section (and make us stealthier), we're much costlier than the older Hornet - but more survivable and more mission capable.

Our capabilities to integrate into the battlefield, the carrier battle group, and even connect with the guy on the ground or surveillance in the air makes us tactically flexible (we can choose the right tactics for the right situation), more precise, and deadlier.

Which brings me to my next point: going to the Super Hornet or a Super Hornet derived plane now for the Air Force, at least, is fucking stupid.

PART II below[/quote]

[quote]PART II

No Rhino pilot is going to say we're the fastest thing out there, or the most maneuverable. But we are all going to say that we are confident in our tactics and our capabilities and getting the most out of the sum of the jet, and it's one hell of a jet.

The problem with going to a Super Hornet derivative now is that the Super Hornet was designed from the start for carrier takeoffs and landings. That means a big beefy landing gear and strong arresting hook, capable of taking the shock of landing a 44,000 pound jet on a moving carrier deck flying at 140 knots through the air and bringing it to a halt in 3 seconds. That means big foldable wings to lower your approach speed and for storage on the ship. Those are all compromises the Air Force and their 1 million foot long runways (I kid, I kid) don't need.

In addition, you're talking about buying a plane that was ultimately designed over 20 years ago. Aerospace design and concepts have changed considerably today. There were design 'features' on the Rhino that, today, don't make sense or we've figured out newer and better ways to do it - and have built it into the F-35.

Stealth is built into the underlying structure of the F-35 - that can't be retrofitted.

Sensor integration is another big one. The Rhino has a ton of antennas and sensors, sure - meanwhile, the F-35 is designed to have them built in all over the airframe to give the pilot the ability to look in any direction and visually "see through" the aircraft - not to mention, to be able to detect threats from any direction as well and have a computer that can process all of this and feed it to the pilot in a digestable manner. The guys that have all flown it have raved about its situational awareness, and more situational awareness for us pilots = more mission effectiveness = we get the mission done correctly and get home safe.

The best way I can explain it is imagine having a printer built in the 1980s, and trying to get it to print wirelessly on your home network. I'm sure you can rig a solution to make it work, but at one point or another, you should just buy a new fucking printer.

So has the F-35 had shortcomings in its development? Abso-fucking-lutely. Some legitimate, but most of the concerns you hear about on the Internet are wrong and show a huge misunderstanding of how fighter jets are developed, how aerial combat works, etc.

For instance, the argument about how the F-35 couldn't fire its gun. Unless you think fighter jets simply fire their guns blindly now, you'd realize that our guns are linked to our systems to give us a firing solution. It's not that the F-35 couldn't fire its gun - it's that it would be useless and a waste of bullets if our mission computers weren't fully programmed yet to give us accurate firing solutions to account for every variable.

Same thing with all the angst about what weapons it can drop. The reality is, EVERY single weapon is tested and delivered/dropped by test pilots in every flight regime imaginable from flying straight and level to steep 45 degree-plus dive bombing profiles. Sure it can drop them - but we won't certify them for use in training or combat until we are certain they won't miss or even hit our own aircraft because of aerodynamic issues with weapons release. And with modern smart weapons, they have to interface with our own avionics to make sure we're getting the right releases at the right parameters and that said weapons will hit the right targets at the right times.

Again, the F-35 is unprecedented in that regard. When the F-16 and F/A-18 were introduced in the late 70s/early 80s, they had to be certified for their 20mm gun, the AIM-9 Sidewinder, the AIM-7 Sparrow, dumb bombs, and some basic smart weapons and air to ground missiles. The arsenal the F-35 has to be certified for today incorporates everything from GPS-guided JDAMs, to laser-guided bombs of all sizes, to different variants of the AMRAAM and Sidewinder, as well as a new gun (which Congress dictated... again, more political meddling).

Tactics... I mentioned I'd talk about that. First of all, all those articles you read about the F-16 beating the F-35? Throw them the fuck out. We train our aircrew to fly each airframe to its advantages and limits, and to take advantage of opponent weaknesses.

The F-35 is a new airframe, and tactics for it are being developed as we speak. Even how to fight it is up for development. You fight an F-16 very differently than you do an F/A-18, and no doubt, the F-35 will fly differently from those as well.

I bring this up, because during the Vietnam War, the Air Force and Navy diverged on how to make up for the lackluster F-4 performance. The Air Force chose to add guns to their F-4 - which improved their kill ratio.

The Navy opened up TOPGUN to develop tactics for the F-4. The Navy never added guns, but increased its kill ratio even more than the Air Force did. How so? Because the Navy started teaching its pilots to fight the F-4 vertically, to utilize its power advantage over the nimbler but less powerful MiGs. When MiGs got pushed into a vertical fight, the F-4 outperformed them and shot them the fuck down.

Absolutely NONE of this shit is done willy nilly - a ton of time, effort, and money is put into all of this. And unfortunately, too many people are commenting on and getting involved in areas they have next to zero expertise in.

Ultimately, Trump's comments here are pointless and disruptive. If an Advanced Super Hornet design was being made to compete against the F-35, the Air Force, Marines, and Navy would choose the F-35 still meaning we're waisting money and time. It's not like the F-35 didn't compete - it beat the X-32 in 2000, when the Super Hornet had already been introduced, so any 'price competition' on F-35's today is going to end up with the F-35 as the only option.

Hell, the Navy has already put out RFP's for a 'sixth generation' fighter to replace the Super Hornet in the 2030's - we're already thinking ahead.

In sum:

Cost - the F-35 isn't necessarily more expensive than the Super Hornet, and it is a cheaper beast going forward than standing pat with what we have
The time to cancel the F-35 was a decade ago, not today, after the F-35 has already reached operational status
The F-35 has had cost overruns and delays, yes, but those are in the past. It's pointless to start a competition now for a fighter jet we decided on 16 years ago
The Super Hornet isn't the right plane for the Air Force, and is reaching its upgrade limits a lot quicker than the F-35 will
The F-35 is the cornerstone of American airpower for the next few decades, and will be the cornerstone of Western airpower as well. This affects a whole lot more than a tiny fraction of the US budget
Most people don't know shit about aerial combat, military procurement and testing and development, but all feel fit to comment anwyays[/quote]

Nintex	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 01:35
	Trump hoeft de JSF niet meer en heeft Boeing gevraagd een aanbod te doen voor F18 Super Hornets. twitter: realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 22-12-2016 om 23:26:05 Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet! reageer retweet Jarenlang gedoe over geweest in de tweede kamer, met 140 tekens weg. Als de VS eruit stapt is het project zo goed als dood.
loni55	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 01:45
	Hahaha.
Nintex	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 01:51
	Kosten van de JSF inmiddels: quote: The F-35 is the DoD's most expensive weapon system ever and schedule delays and cost overruns have dogged the aircraft's development. The total program cost has soared from $233 billion to an estimated $379 billion. Recent estimates suggest the F-35 program could exceed $1 trillion over 50 years. Nederland heeft er 1 miljard in geinvesteerd. Die zijn we dus mooi kwijt.
Janneke141	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 01:53
	Mooi, weg met dat ding.
DrDentz	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 01:53
	Mat Herben z'n speeltjes
Nintex	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 01:58
	Boeing geeft het op en bends the knee. twitter: Boeing twitterde op vrijdag 23-12-2016 om 00:32:02 Ready to work with @realDonaldTrump's administration to affordably meet U.S. military requirements. reageer retweet Nog geen nieuws van Lockheed Martin die een mega contract kwijt zijn nu.
HexHunter	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 02:15
	Dus al die R&D kosten die al gemaakt zijn....Gewoon weggegooid? Dus dat geld dat hij bespaart met het stoppen van de uitontwikkeling van de F35 zal dan vast wel naar z'n plan voor meer nukes gaan. In welk universum leeft die vent nou eigenlijk en wat zullen zijn generaals van zijn plannen vinden. Nukes zijn niet de oplossing voor ISIS, betere precisiestrikes wel.
defokkingfoker	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 02:56
	Lol. Gwn lachwekkend dit. Wist niet dat die huilsmilie in het echte leven uitgedrukt kon worden met je face.. tot vandaag.. de tering zeg
Grems	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 02:59
	Trump Train is niet te stoppen.
HexHunter	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 03:00
	quote: Op vrijdag 23 december 2016 02:59 schreef Grems het volgende: Trump Train is niet te stoppen. Idd, die train gooit gewoon de hele technologische voorsprong die de VS had op landen als Rusland, China en India weg in maar 4 jaar tijd. Duurde alleen wel een halve eeuw om die voorsprong op te bouwen.
Grems	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 03:06
	quote: Op vrijdag 23 december 2016 03:00 schreef HexHunter het volgende: [..] Idd, die train gooit gewoon de hele technologische voorsprong die de VS had op landen als Rusland, China en India weg in maar 4 jaar tijd. Duurde alleen wel een halve eeuw om die voorsprong op te bouwen. Die valt en staat inderdaad bij een exorbitant duur faalproject van LM. Gewoon geld erin blijven pompen.
Physsic	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 03:34
	quote: Op vrijdag 23 december 2016 01:51 schreef Nintex het volgende: Kosten van de JSF inmiddels: [..] Nederland heeft er 1 miljard in geinvesteerd. Die zijn we dus mooi kwijt. Hoe kom je aan die 1miljard? Volgens mij is die benodigde bijdrage namelijk al toegenomen tot 1.7miljard, waarvan al meer dan 1miljard ook daadwerkelijk is betaald. Edit: Ik bedoelde dit http://vervanging-f16.rekenkamer.nl/nl/financieel/uitgaven-jsf Een deel van dat bedrag heeft te maken met de testtoestellen. [ Bericht 17% gewijzigd door Physsic op 23-12-2016 03:50:09 ]
Watashiwa	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 05:40
	Zal vast te maken hebben met Amerikaanse aankoop, niet met onze aankoop. maar...auw
crystal_meth	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 05:54
	Nogal voorbarige TT.
dimmak	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 07:07

qajariaq	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 08:11
	Emontioneel incontinente potus elected die elke gedachte gelijk maar de wereld in gooit voor dat ie nadenkt en de haalbaarheid laat onderzoeken.
Ludachrist	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 08:50
	quote: Op vrijdag 23 december 2016 01:58 schreef Nintex het volgende: Nog geen nieuws van Lockheed Martin die een mega contract kwijt zijn nu. Je begrijpt dat hij dat niet beslist, toch?
TheJanitor	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 08:51
	Trump
SicSicSics	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 08:57
	Ik zou nog niet staan te juichen, ook niet als ik Boeing was. Maar Trump speelt het spelletje best aardig, jammer alleen dat hij alleen niet kan beslissen en dat hij dit doet om de boel op scherp te zetten, niet om de JSF zomaar op te geven.
VEM2012	vrijdag 23 december 2016 @ 08:59
	quote: Op vrijdag 23 december 2016 01:35 schreef Nintex het volgende: Trump hoeft de JSF niet meer en heeft Boeing gevraagd een aanbod te doen voor F18 Super Hornets. twitter: realDonaldTrump twitterde op donderdag 22-12-2016 om 23:26:05 Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet! reageer retweet Jarenlang gedoe over geweest in de tweede kamer, met 140 tekens weg. Als de VS eruit stapt is het project zo goed als dood. Ik zou even onderzoeken of er de laatste tijd opvallend veel is gespeculeerd op een stijging van aandelen Boeing.