AOL Defense has a Burbage audio clip which accompanies this piece "Why Lockheed thinks F-35 beats Boeing's F-18". This is not an interview. It is a infomercial; or if you like a damage control piece for Justin Bieber. Except I think Bieber doesn't owe his fans over $60 billion dollars and counting.
Burbage starts by mentioning the service life of the U.S. fighter fleet.
The fact that the fleet of aircraft is old doesn't mean the F-35 is a solution. It just means that the DOD are poor managers and leaders and are willing to do anything (including weakening the deterrent power of the U.S. military) to get the F-35 in service. The F-15, F-16 and F-18 are still in production; are cheaper to procure; cheaper to operate and bring more to a joint force commander. In the case of the Strike Eagle, it carries a bigger warload a longer distance.
Burbage mentions anti-access threats but the F-35 and legacy aircraft are not up for that job. So unless that fact is taken on-board, a Super Hornet vs. F-35 comparison falls short with weak arguments such as "fifth-generation fighters".
If anything, the F-35 is a "fifth-generation" failure. It has not met two of its prime goals that inspired Congress to hand over the money. That is that it would be a "model acquisiton program" and it would be "affordable".
There is no joint coalition fighter aircraft unless it is affordable.
Burbage brings up a fixed-target precison strike scenario (powerplant). But in an anti-access scenario (something that the F-35 is not capable of taking on), such a target could be taken out by the F-22, JASSM and Tomahawk; throw in some MALD to help if you want.
No matter what, for anti-access threats, the F-22 will have to be there for the coalition effort or there is no case for going to war.
It seems that the AOL Defense author understands "anti-access threat" as that when you don't throw softballs in an interview.
Burbage makes the argument for a joint airframe which sounds nice (and I like) but the program is not delivering. A joint coalition strike-fighter could be a Super Hornet as well because it is common with the Navy who is likely to be there in a big war. Like it or hate it, this was one of the considerations for Australia getting the Super Hornet.
Burbage brings up Libya, and stresses STOVL. Great. But STOVL is the only alleged worth to the program. The U.S. would have won any past war without STOVL. And, we don't need that capability at any price.
Burbage claims that the USMC will deploy to Japan in 2015 but unless there is a dramatic change in F-35 block definitions there won't be any Blue Force Tracker or Link 16. Those features are in "notional" (read fantasy) blocks 4 thru 6. Burbage mentions "battlefield Internet" but the Super Hornet comes with all this stock. Super Block II does display fused threats and can pass that information on to other platforms.
Unless something changes in the F-35 program, the USMC (if it ever sees Japan by 2015) will deploy without network features that a joint force commander demands. In other words; symbolism over substance. The "Corps" of USMC marketing.
Burbage has the brass to state grand dreams of high production rates of 170 per year but there is no proof of this in sight. High production can only come with high production learning curve. High production learning curve can only happen with a mature and tested design.
Burbage claims software stability but there is no proven go-to-war aircraft with all the working systems tested over time.
Burbage talks about situational awareness advantage of DAS but the helmet that supports it does not work. Whatever SA the aircraft gives will be enough to see what kills it.
Burbage mentions some good maintenance process (he didn't mention some of this which I like). He mentions the maintenance administration but this can be done with other aircraft (PBL). He does not mention the risk of loss of national sovereignty with a huge vendor lock-in. This includes the vendor having access (including proprietary access) to the maintenance metrics for your whole flying club. This is a feast for the sales force and any F-35 replacement discussions.
What we have with the Burbage audio is an alternate reality. The U.S. DOD has no funds to entertain fantasy. I suspect that it will be another 10 years before DOD and the Hill tire of all of this; take the F-35 to the pound and have it put to sleep.
The DOD could be involved with the F-35 program out to 2050 or 2065 but maybe not for the reasons the faithful believe.
I figure it will take about that long for the last law settlement as a result of program termination.
