AV Week has a good article on challenges facing air forces that select the F-35. It also mentions F-22 challenges.
I would also like to add:
1. The fact that the F-35 will not fit into existing operations budgets of air forces: this means more parking than flying; and simulators as the tire patch.
2. The fact that with all of its faults, the F-35 mission availability is a flying question mark.
3. The fact that the design is obsolete and will not be able to take on emerging threats. And, that some existing legacy threats can detect it, and kill it.
This leads to the fact that air forces that want the F-35, risk dooming their nation to a loss of air supremacy.
Historically, that has never worked out so well.
10 comments:
Sir, I don't think you understand the point about the F-35 Program!
Who cares if more F-35s are being parked, then actually flying in the future?
The F-35 is about ensuring relevant industrial synergies are maximized around the world so that the F-35 Program can ensure industrial-boosting fighters will be produced!
Heck, put fighters in storage without avionics or engines, just build them and buy them. If war breaks out for whatever crazy reason, then simply ramp up avionics and engine production and put your game-changing fighters in the air within a couple years notice!
Try thinking the bigger strategic acquisition and planning picture and then post a blog about fighter recapitalization issues!
Everything will be fine.
What a load of garbage!
"....and put your game-changing fighters in the air within a couple years notice!"
Yet another village is missing its idiot.
Assuming the first Anonymous is a DoD bod; if you guys now advocate putting platforms into storage for contingency purposes, then why does Australia repeatedly shed and virtually give away well-proven relatively low time airframes (Iroquois, Caribou, C-130E&H with Blackhawk and Seahawk intended) for the rest of the world to enhance and put into operational service?
The notion that Australia will be well equipped to fight a war by 2030 is just unrealistic Canberra dreamtime stuff. Military conflicts are more likely to occur at pretty short notice and most nations involved have to make best use of in-service assets.
Whilst I don't believe it would ever be a simple matter of just "ramp[ing] up avionics and engine production", I certainly have no problem with the concept of producing so as to boosting industrial activity.
After all, how do you keep highly skilled people such as engineers and technicians gainfully employed? What is good for the industry is good for the economy and thus for society.
Moreover, how do you want to keep your aerospace industry 'sharp' and ready to create the next round of systems?
One final comment: if I were to start producing en-masse, I would focus on UAS rather then manned platforms.
"The FACT that the design is obsolete and will not be able to take on emerging threats. And, that some existing legacy threats can detect it, and kill it."
"Facts" are easily proven, and I'm sure you have some to back the above claim up?
To anon above, 7:56,
The F-35 does not have some monopoly on being an economic or aerospace industrial driver.
That's the misnomer, distraction to the issue and logical fallacy if being argued as a reason.
That's not the driving priority though. Firstly, fulfill national requirements in reliable and cost-effectively manner and simultaneously support your industrial base. Of course.
"3. The fact that the design is obsolete and will not be able to take on emerging threats. And, that some existing legacy threats can detect it, and kill it."
Wow...really? Please list your references...I don't think you have any though.
Conversly Dan, where are your references indicating it will work?
If you really look you will find references regarding the problems.
DanH:
For just some of the problems with the JSF designs, you can start with the QLR Report from last year.
Then there are the litany of design problems highlighted by the folks at Air Power Australia.
Speaking of which, the papers produced by the APA folks show quite clearly how today's threats overmatch the JSF by quite a lot.
Then there are the very capable airborne and A2/AD systems now emerging both in China, Russia and India as well as those countries who buy their defence materiel from them.
But the piece de resistance would have to be the JSF JORD, itself - a specification, as the APA folks say, written by people driving along, looking in the rear vision mirror who truly believed that CAIV was the way to go.
I think that pretty much takes care of the references you asked for.
Post a Comment