Discussion on canning the F-35 for the US Air Force

Right now it's sunk costs. Lockheed Martin wants to find foreign militaries willing to buy them to bring down the per unit development costs.

It certainly doesn't sound like it's as bad as the toughest critics makes it out to be. What does the US or foreign militaries need it for? They're talking about some future 4.5 gen fighter that's more advanced than an F-16 but cheaper and more available than the F-35. Maybe something with the electronics but not necessarily the stealth?

I had the feeling that the whole JSF idea was a bad one because they would spend so much money trying to fix the issues with a unified platform rather than just building 3 different aircraft. Also wondering if Boeing could have done a better job.
Block 72 is pretty attractive to foreign militaries. After Sweden screwed up deals with Czech and Hungary, it opened more market for new and used F16’s. Interestingly, France with Rafale is making inroads with some countries. From what I heard from some friends, the US is pushing F35 hard, but it has status of radioactive material. The approach is to try to push F35, if it doesn’t work, sell F16, 18.
 
Block 72 is pretty attractive to foreign militaries. After Sweden screwed up deals with Czech and Hungary, it opened more market for new and used F16’s. Interestingly, France with Rafale is making inroads with some countries. From what I heard from some friends, the US is pushing F35 hard, but it has status of radioactive material. The approach is to try to push F35, if it doesn’t work, sell F16, 18.

I'm not sure. The newer F-16s with the conformal tanks just look odd.
 
I'm not sure. The newer F-16s with the conformal tanks just look odd.
Yes they do look odd, but looks does not matter, though F16 was always to me best designed airplane.
Issue is logistics, price of hour, etc. Of everything US can offer, F16 and to certain extent F18 are most attractive airplanes for huge majority of foreign air forces.
If Sweden did not screw up JAS39 with their political conditions, contract limits, they would be at forefront when it comes to sale.
 
Yes they do look odd, but looks does not matter, though F16 was always to me best designed airplane.
Issue is logistics, price of hour, etc. Of everything US can offer, F16 and to certain extent F18 are most attractive airplanes for huge majority of foreign air forces.
If Sweden did not screw up JAS39 with their political conditions, contract limits, they would be at forefront when it comes to sale.

I get that it's a more or less proven aircraft, but many it's getting old. And the programs costs for new F-16 Block 70/72 buyers looks really high although I suppose that comes with support.
 
I get that it's a more or less proven aircraft, but many it's getting old. And the programs costs for new F-16 Block 70/72 buyers looks really high although I suppose that comes with support.
That looks on paper.
But, Poland got Black Hawk assembly line. Croatia got for free 15 new Kiowa helicopters, they just got 2 brand new Black Hawks, and two will pay. Croatia is currently in process of buying new planes. They need 12 planes. A country with huge external debt, that need fighter jet primarily for two reasons: 1. deterrent against Serbia, 2. air policing. Why would they buy F35? In case of war, countries like Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia etc. are going to use those planes just to slow enemy, not to defeat enemy with their air force. Air force is there to allow ground troops to consolidate in case of large war, pull into inhospitable terrain and start fighting guerilla warfare. Why would you need F35 for that HIGHLY unlikely scenario. Everything F35 can do, on daily basis F16/18 etc. can do, but cheaper. And still US will offset costs even for those planes, and government might survive next elections where opposition will slam them for buying something country "doesn't need."
 
That looks on paper.
But, Poland got Black Hawk assembly line. Croatia got for free 15 new Kiowa helicopters, they just got 2 brand new Black Hawks, and two will pay. Croatia is currently in process of buying new planes. They need 12 planes. A country with huge external debt, that need fighter jet primarily for two reasons: 1. deterrent against Serbia, 2. air policing. Why would they buy F35? In case of war, countries like Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia etc. are going to use those planes just to slow enemy, not to defeat enemy with their air force. Air force is there to allow ground troops to consolidate in case of large war, pull into inhospitable terrain and start fighting guerilla warfare. Why would you need F35 for that HIGHLY unlikely scenario. Everything F35 can do, on daily basis F16/18 etc. can do, but cheaper. And still US will offset costs even for those planes, and government might survive next elections where opposition will slam them for buying something country "doesn't need."

I totally get that an F-35 is going to be something that in the long run that some countries simply won't need. I was just look at the number though for how much the contracts were and they came out to more than $100 million per F-16.
 
They won't can the F-35. But, is it obsolete already?

Can you give generation 5/6 tech, engines, thrust vectoring,.... to new F-15/16/18's and do the same? Take all that R&D from the F-22 and F-35 and put it into something affordable and proven capability.

They've built over 600 F-35's already. The question is, will they continue building the ~2000 more? Or, is it time to put the money elsewhere?

Yes, they needed 500+ F-22's and didn't get them. And, the F-23 should've been built in the 500+ range. And, the X-32 should've been built too in that range too.

2000-3000 F-35's is a boondoggle. 600 is a decent fleet size to supplement the other F and B's other there. Its time to move on!

All the funding into 1 fighter, hopefully mass produced into the thousands, regardless of the numerous variants and capabilities, turned into a funds failure.

We need to start a rapid upgrade program for the fleet. Look at the Block 60 F-16 for UAE, the F-16V, and the Indian F-21. But, we are broke.
Well, at least they bought some new F-15EX's and everybody forgot about the F-15SE.

Look what the Navy is doing with some of the newer ships. Do we get to sink 'em in target practice? sell them to other countries? or just recycle them?


Maybe the US Airforce should be some Eurofighter Typhoons, JAS39 Gripens, or Dassault Raffales to supplement the aging fleet. They wouldn't cost too much!
 
They won't can the F-35. But, is it obsolete already?

Can you give generation 5/6 tech, engines, thrust vectoring,.... to new F-15/16/18's and do the same? Take all that R&D from the F-22 and F-35 and put it into something affordable and proven capability.

They've built over 600 F-35's already. The question is, will they continue building the ~2000 more? Or, is it time to put the money elsewhere?

Yes, they needed 500+ F-22's and didn't get them. And, the F-23 should've been built in the 500+ range. And, the X-32 should've been built too in that range too.

2000-3000 F-35's is a boondoggle. 600 is a decent fleet size to supplement the other F and B's other there. Its time to move on!

All the funding into 1 fighter, hopefully mass produced into the thousands, regardless of the numerous variants and capabilities, turned into a funds failure.

We need to start a rapid upgrade program for the fleet. Look at the Block 60 F-16 for UAE, the F-16V, and the Indian F-21. But, we are broke.
Well, at least they bought some new F-15EX's and everybody forgot about the F-15SE.

Look what the Navy is doing with some of the newer ships. Do we get to sink 'em in target practice? sell them to other countries? or just recycle them?


Maybe the US Airforce should be some Eurofighter Typhoons, JAS39 Gripens, or Dassault Raffales to supplement the aging fleet. They wouldn't cost too much!

The Sea Shadow barge was parked in the Bay Area for years. Then it was at Treasure Island for a bit of time. However, it's really just another skunk works type project.

The US isn't likely to buy one of those aircraft.

The thing that was supposed to make the F-35 formidable wasn't the stealth, the speed, or the weapons. It was supposed to be the electronics that operate as a system. What did they call it - sensor fusion? Not sure how well those technologies could be integrated into existing designs.
 
I totally get that an F-35 is going to be something that in the long run that some countries simply won't need. I was just look at the number though for how much the contracts were and they came out to more than $100 million per F-16.
Yes, it comes out to more than $100 million including weapons systems, training etc. Now think about how much would be F35?
Each country gets its own deal. Price of one piece of any airplane is something that includes far more complex negotiations between two countries. $100 million and what was offset? Again, Poland bought I think 50 Block52 and they got Black Hawk assembly line.
Problem with F35 is that maintenance and logistics is so complex that offset has to be much higher. Question is whether US can actually provide such deal? That is before we get into characteristics of an airplane. The biggest problem is domestic politics. If country decides to buy F35, trust me next day government opposition will take that Forbes article and wave at every corner. Except few countries, there is no appetite for such airplane. Switzerland had to put on referendum replacement of their old F18's, and they could not get approval. And they went cheapest way, JAS39.
 
Helicopters can’t do what A10 can. After experience during invasion of Iraq, there was a lot of rethinking what helicopters can and cannot do.
You won’t use A10 against military with capable air defense. During NATO operation in Serbia, it was not used. After F117 was shot down, other aircrafts were also kept at 10,000ft minimum. But, since 1999 US, NATO didn’t encounter any enemy with such capabilities. A10 was indispensable in Afghanistan and Iraq. AF tried to use Strike Eagle for 2 months in Afghanistan to “prove” that such airplane can execute close support, just to bring back A10. Think about it, what is likelihood of conflict with sophisticated military compared of likelihood of conflict with non-state actor?

Really not surprised the F-15E could not do the job of an ‘obsolete’ A-10.
Again, sometimes the folks on the ground want (need) a slow and low obsolete aircraft when ***** hits the fan.
.

If you get a chance read: Cleared Hot
440 combat missions and somehow he made it home. You will really enjoy the book if you like military aviation. Buy the used hardcover book with the A-4 dropping napalm. This should be a must read book for everyone in the Air Force and Naval academies.

.
 
Last edited:
Really not surprised the F-15E could not do the job of an ‘obsolete’ A-10.
Again, sometimes the folks on the ground want (need) a slow and low obsolete aircraft when ***** hits the fan.
.

If you get a chance read: Cleared Hot
440 combat missions and somehow he made it home. You will really enjoy the book if you like military aviation. Buy the used hardcover book with the A-4 dropping napalm. This should be a must read book for everyone in the Air Force and Naval academies.

.

Might not need to be a jet though. This is what the A-10 replaced:

A-1J_Skyraider_VA-176_Vietnam_1966%20copy.jpg


I've mentioned the OA-X program. Not sure why that's been put on hold.

 
It is amazing to see what we pass up in order to acquire the latest and greatest shiny object. Astro14 has the link to The War Zone article about the Super Tomcat 21 in the F-14 thread. Add the A-7F Corsair II to that list.
Maybe the DOD has come to the conclusion some of the spruced up old gray-beards still work quite well. Boeing has the first F-15EX ready for delivery to the USAF. Could a variant of the F-16, the proposed F-21 for India, be far behind? Not a "clean sheet" design, but call it something other than what it is and most of the public would never be the wiser.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ebranded-f-21-could-be-a-path-to-indian-f-35s
 
Chair of the House Armed Services Committee using words like "rathole" one day after USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown called the F-35 the "cornerstone."
 
Chair of the House Armed Services Committee using words like "rathole" one day after USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown called the F-35 the "cornerstone."
As long as F35 project contributes to economic activity in many congressional districts, it is safe.
 
That's nothing. I'd think sucking in a bird or maybe a rabbit (that's actually happened before) is more of an issue.
It is something that Burt Rutan fixed in his Ares a turbofan "Mudfighter" for U.S. Army Close Air
Support which proved to be a far better and lower cost design...

In 1981, the U.S. Army requested a design study for a Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft (LCBAA). Scaled Composites created the ARES testbed aircraft which used a single Pratt and Whitney Canada JT15D-5 turbofan engine (same as in the Beechjet / T-1A Jayhawk trainer), and a GAU-12/U 25mm Gatling gun.

The ARES Mudfighter is cleverly designed so its 25mm GAU-12U 25mm autocannon is on one side of the aircraft fuselage while the turbofan engine intake is on the other--this also puts the nose of the plane forward to prevent birds from going into the engine! Burt Rutan is a genius!

A-10Killer1.jpg


 
Last edited:
Back
Top