Take this latest from some that should know better:
Why the US Air Force needs the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
So according to ASPI, the USAF is in bad shape.
Yeah we know that.
Why someone would suggest a failed program to solve USAF problems makes me wonder.
Only just a little bit.
Am I being too harsh? Not when we are talking about spending tens-of-billions on a faulty product...and tens-of-billions more to fix the mistakes.
But, OK, if I am too harsh, consider another reason for ASPI failings re: air power topics.
They aren't stupid. They just have bad luck when thinking.
12 comments:
What failed program are you referring too? The F-35 program is still in full swing.
Eric:
I think it is more the latter than the former.
Not all ASPI members agree with the way the organisations corporate support is allowed to influence what they say and do, including that of Defence.
As for more the latter than the former, there is ample evidence to support this assessment.
For example, take a look at what Dr Davies has to say about tera watt super lasers as being effective weapons of the future.
On several fronts this notion is clearly the DKE at work and, on balance of probability, proves your latter point to be true.
H/T DSTO
By virtue of its' original goal (to be affordable) and also "a model acquisition program", it has failed. You can't recap a fighter force if the solution is not affordable.
...or supportable...or lethal...
Define "full swing". When a faulty DOD program delivers a faulty jet to Operational Testers (they are there to work on tactics and need a functioning go-to-war jet with go-to-war systems) ... not under-tested crap, I would say--given a long program history of under-achievement--what you have is just another swing and a miss.
The most frustrating thing about the f-35 delays and overruns is that there is ample time and money to allow for an inexpensive parrallel program, or even just to ask private industry to provide options. Decide it in an ungamed fly off in a year or two, just see if you have better options and reorient the incentives we give Lockheed. Specifically I would like to see an updates to our current fighters (evolutionary dev path closer to the Flanker, a plane which a clusterfrack like the crumbling USSR shouldnt have been able to make if the USAFs highest of high tech thinking held water), but in general I would be curious to see if off the shelf state of the art components could be designed to perform better than the bleeding edge (10 years ago) over engineered F-35. If the F-35 isn't ready for a full on fly off in two years is sure as Shatner isn't "operational."
To Will Leach,
You have to understand there is no self-interest by partner nations and especially by the US/USAF to execute any sort of parallel 'alternative options' plan as that would run counter to the fundamental strategy of the 'all or nothing' F-35 Program (ie, to deny alternatives and maximize F-35 Production).
If we are talking about the obstacles to a solution like the one I suggested then yes, alternatives are not allowed under the current system. The current status quo is not at all in the interest of the US or its partner nations. It is the politicians, in and out of uniform, who have gotten us where we are today who's interest are served by continuing to make bad decisions. Consistency is to often confused with success in America, just aa ambition and "success" are too often confused with virtue.
Im just splitting hairs of course. We are still left with the problem that we have no solutions, not because our problems are unsolvable but because we believe they are so.
Will Leach:
Pretty much on the same page with what you have said, so far.
TINA (there is no alternative) and TBTF (too big to fail) are cornerstones of the current phase of the LM marketing strategy for the JSF.
Pity they are building the wrong aircraft!
As the experts at Air Power Australia (APA) have now been saying for years, all folks need to do is take all that great wherewithall that has been pulled together to build the JSF (the wrong aircraft) and use it (along with all the workers in the US and around the world) to build (and further evolve) the right aircraft.
Now, the right aircraft would be the one that all the non-Western nations have designed their 4++ Gen and 5th Gen aircraft as well as IADS systems against as their principal reference threat.
Now, if the economies of scale claimed for the JSF Program will work, they would also work for building the right aircraft, including a Lite (and cheaper) version for those partner nations that don't need the full capabilities of the right aircraft.
This ain't rocket science.
You seem to have a hard time differentiating between procurement problems and problems with the actual aircraft.
For example the F-22 is far from cheap, had large redesigns, and took 15 years to reach service, and yet it is highly advocated for its performance by Air Power Australia.
Can you explain this?
Anon Nov 27 1:47
There is a difference,the F22 works and can dominate the battlefield.
The F35. will do neither.
IOC,2022,a bit more that 15 years.
To Anon at 6:05 PM
"You have to understand there is no self-interest by partner nations and especially by the US/USAF to execute any sort of parallel 'alternative options' plan as that would run counter to the fundamental strategy of the 'all or nothing' F-35 Program (ie, to deny alternatives and maximize F-35 Production)".
With no alternatives to the failed F-35, you're just stuck with this aircraft that is definately going to fail the air defence program with trillions of dollars will be flushed down the toilet. When Pentagon say the F-35 is "Too Big To Fail" the way I see it is already a failure.
If it was really up to me, I certainly will kill the entire program and send all the F-35's to the Davis Monthan AB to get them chopped and trashed.
Hi DanH
I think what Eric is referring to is that the F-35 is a failed program that won't be competitive against the changed threat environment. The F-35 was defined during the mid-1990s to have “affordable” aerodynamic performance, stealth performance, sensor capabilities and weapons loads to be “affordably” effective against the most common threat systems of that era past – legacy Soviet Cold War era weapons, not for the 21st Century emerging threats.
The aircraft is specifically designed primarily to support ground forces on the battlefield with some self defence capabilities and is not suitable for the developing regional environment and, not suitable for close air support missions. The aircraft is unsuited for bomber and cruise missile defence again due to limited range/endurance, limited weapons load and limited supersonic speed. As its limitations are inherent to the design, they cannot be altered by incremental upgrades The F-35 will be ineffective against the current generation of extremely powerful advanced Russian and Chinese systems, as detailed above; In any combat engagements between the F-35and such threat systems, most or all F-35 aircraft will be rapidly lost to enemy fire.
Unfortunately, if you have the F-35s that isn't capable of dealing with the high threat zones, it won't do you any good of accelerating this turkey and sink the money.
Cheers
Hi Eric
"Am I being too harsh"?
No, I don't find your explanation harsh. I'm thinking the same way what you said before about "Why someone would suggest a failed program to solve USAF as well as the USN and USMC problems".
Post a Comment