Is there any justification for the F-35 fighter jet?

[HardDrive]

No need to bump this to PARF, because I'm really asking out of ignorance.

Its an expensive program.

Given the rise of drones and missile technology, I don't quite see what the purpose of the F-35 is, given the cost.

[RANDY P]

export to allies.

rjp

[mikester]

We have an aging fleet of F-15s, F-16s and F-18s.

The F-22 is not built as a strike fighter, it's a long range air superiority platform.

The F-35 is a flexible strike platform. The F-15s were originally build as air superiority but the flexibility of the platform lent it to upgrades that made it a very good strike fighter/bomber as well. Still though the F-16 and F-18 were both built in the same 'age' and in fact competed against each other for the USAF bid. The F-16 won but the Navy thought the F-18 (which was actually the YF-17 during the USAF bid) was an excellent platform. They were right and both have been extremely successful platforms.

The F-16 and F-15 which the Airforce use share parts, mainly they share the same engine. This is good for the airforces readiness and its budget. Common parts = good right?

The Navy and Marines fly one fighter aircraft today really and that's the F-18. So since it's the single platform there is no need to share parts.

Lets take it another step to the F-35 joint strike fighter which was specifically designed as a multipurpose platform much like the F-16, F-18 and F-15 have become. In it we have flexibility in design to do different things for different applications while maintaining common parts which saves money. We also get advanced technologies and update our aircraft fleet. F-1[568]s are all wonderful airframes. I have been in love with the F-16 since I first laid eyes on it.

We need the F-35 and we need the F-22. There is no doubt in my mind about that. We may not need as many of them as we have of the other aircraft but I'm not sure I'd want to live with less. Beyond the self defense issues here (which I don't mean to discount) we need to be building stuff like this because if we stop building it we'll stop knowing HOW to build it and when the time comes when we need the technology we will be way behind the ball. We need these things and we need to keep people building them, designing them and flying them.

But, I also believe we need a shuttle program for a lot of the same reasons...

If we stop putting people in space on a regular basis and go automated we will get too far removed from the lessons learned of the past and make those mistakes again.

Oh, and 'export to allies' - we make money on that ****.

[VFR750]

There are a lot of good reasons: Age. F15 was designed in the 1960s. F16/YF17/F18a-d designed in 1970-early 1980s. They have evolved wonderfully, but they are still dated

Harrier: the f35b replaces it. HUGE improvement in performance and safety. Harrier/AV8 is the most difficult plane to fly. It loss rate is high. F35B uses 21st century controls to tame the beast.

Stealth: ....

F22 vs F15 and everything else. No contest.

Cost: i don't like how politians roll up a 3000 engine program, $350b over 20-30 years and claim this is outragous. How much was the deficit this year? But seriously, the capability gained is immense. And it eventually. Will be the same standard as is the F16-F18. It's time to invest in our future 20 years from now. By then the F16 will be 60+ years old.

Historical: all future programs have been "the most expensive ever" inflation, capability, computers and software all increased so this is enevitable. The commonality between the F35a b and c models cost more now, but you got three different aircraft with huge commonality. Cheaper than developing three different aircraft

Competition: the goal is to never lose. Bring the best aircraft/pilots and you have the advantage. Unfortunately, everyone knows this; and are working on it. Time to upgrade is when you don't "have to"

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by RANDY P

export to allies.

rjp

Which have been doing a lot of double thinking lately.

John Ivison: Official report puts price of F-35s at $45,802,000,000 | Full Comment | National Post

According to KPMG, it will cost Canadian taxpayers nearly $46-billion to replace the fleet of 77 aging CF18s with the F-35s — nearly twice the numbers circulated by the Department of National Defence and roughly what the province of Ontario spends on health care every year.

[fintstone]

Sounds like a very good deal to me... How much would it cost Canada to make their own? How much would a war cost a country that had little enough defense that it was considered weak (Pearl Harbor)? What price limit would one put on defense of their homeland? 5% of GDP? 10%?

How much do they spend on cell phones and video games?

[JJ 911SC]

The problem with these large acquisition program take so long, that the government get replaced and the new one cancel program because they can do it... Not the case this time but the opposition is playing the "twice" the estimate cost big time.

I remember back in the 80's when our Seaking Helicopter needed replacement, the newly elected Liberal (anti defence) cancel the EH-101 Cormorant replacement project which was signed and underway. We paid all kind of penalty including full profit only to buy the same helicopter 10 years later. We still have not got the full delivery yet

[fintstone]

The other problem with these long major acquisitions is "requirements creep." As it gets closer to reality and production, user keep asking for better this and more that. The end item is much more expensive than originally planned, but also more capable.

[BReif61]

Originally Posted by VFR750

Harrier: the f35b replaces it. HUGE improvement in performance and safety. Harrier/AV8 is the most difficult plane to fly. It loss rate is high. F35B uses 21st century controls to tame the beast.

Not only that, AV-8's are irreplaceable in the truest sense of the word.

Are F-15's still being built? F-16s? Or are they just being refurbished?

[JJ 911SC]

Originally Posted by fintstone

... "requirements creep."...

+1000

By the time they finished, the original engined were not good enough with the added weight...

[fred cook]

Everything the Mikester said plus the F35 may well be the jumping off point for a pilotless fighter plane! That would not be so far fetched considering the recent advances in R/C and AI (artificial intelligence) designs. Now, if they could just make them into transformers..................

[Shaun @ Tru6]

For what prospective enemy and when, are they designed?

Money probably better spent on drone and cyber warfare. Better, cheaper to make the logical jump early.

[onewhippedpuppy]

The F15E Strike Eagle is one our most capable multi role fighters, with a cockpit straight out of 1985. I had the opportunity to poke around one last year and was staggered by how antiquated it was. With the exception of F18 Super Hornet, our fighter fleet is aging and in many ways inferior to other modern fighter aircraft. Aging aircraft increasingly require more time and money to maintain, increasing budgets and decreasing readiness. In my opinion we have done a fantastic job of upgrading aircraft in capability over their lives, in many cases utilizing them for decades past their intended design life. But at some point you have to shed the limitations of an old platform and start over.

As for drones and other technology, they all have their limitations. Right now you simply can't replace a well trained pilot in a capable aircraft.

[BReif61]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

For what prospective enemy and when, are they designed?

Money probably better spent on drone and cyber warfare. Better, cheaper to make the logical jump early.

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

As for drones and other technology, they all have their limitations. Right now you simply can't replace a well trained pilot in a capable aircraft.

Q and A. It's hard enough to tell who the good guys are when you have eyes on them from overhead, harder still when they're just IR images in your trailer 10,000miles away.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by BReif61

Q and A. It's hard enough to tell who the good guys are when you have eyes on them from overhead, harder still when they're just IR images in your trailer 10,000miles away.

Not really, and this is the problem with this country. Let's try to think further than 5 minutes into the future.

Sure, March 1, 2013 manned aircraft are superior.

We aren't at war right now.

The F15 is doing a fine job right now.

The nature of war itself is changing.

Technology is changing the way in which the U.S. wages war.

Logically and cost effectively, the combination of F15s and putting money into further developing drones is the right way to go.

Or you can blow our tax dollars on a plane that will be obsolete. Sure, they're really cool, imagining all the dogfights they'll be in, shooting down our enemies. That's awesome! So much better than a guy sitting in a room in Virginia with a control board and some joysticks. Certainly worth the expense for a plane we don't need. You will be entertained!



Who is the enemy they are designed for, and when?

Wasting tax dollars is fun, isn't it.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Who is the enemy they are designed for, and when?

The impending alien invasion Ronald Reagan hypothesized about more than once in his speeches.

It's just more 1950's thinking, and it comes at a very high price.

[recycled sixtie]

Originally Posted by RANDY P

export to allies.

rjp

Canada will likely buy them. Canada buys the UK's old submarines. The Govt. spends money foolishly because it is the tax payers' $$$. We pay too much for everything here and that includes Porsches. Grrrrr....

[Mo_Gearhead]

QUOTE: "Who is the enemy they are designed for, and when?"
____________________

China.

For when they start wading ashore in massive hoards, waving hand-fulls of IOU's.

[911_Dude]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

....

We aren't at war right now.

.....

Let us please not forget WE ARE AT WAR RIGHT NOW! Our sons and daughters are over in Afghanistan right now killing and getting killed. It really rubs me the wrong way how the group think is "we arent at war".

Retired vet. Rant over.

[BReif61]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Not really, and this is the problem with this country. Let's try to think further than 5 minutes into the future.

Sure, March 1, 2013 manned aircraft are superior.

We aren't at war right now.

The F15 is doing a fine job right now.

The nature of war itself is changing.

Technology is changing the way in which the U.S. wages war.

Logically and cost effectively, the combination of F15s and putting money into further developing drones is the right way to go.

Or you can blow our tax dollars on a plane that will be obsolete. Sure, they're really cool, imagining all the dogfights they'll be in, shooting down our enemies. That's awesome! So much better than a guy sitting in a room in Virginia with a control board and some joysticks. Certainly worth the expense for a plane we don't need. You will be entertained!



Who is the enemy they are designed for, and when?

Wasting tax dollars is fun, isn't it.

Do you believe that a fully unmanned air power is the proper way to go? I am unaware of any unmanned vehicles currently providing close air support. Fighting wars from a video console sounds like the perfect method, but there is no substitute for boots on the ground. And when there are people on the ground, sooner or later they will need air support.

With that being said, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, A-10s and the rest cannot fly forever. As far as F-15s doing a "fine job," it wasn't THAT long ago that their wings were cracking/failing in flight. They will need to be replaced at some point in the future, and combat airframes can't be slapped together in nine months like the olden days.

If we are going to talk obsolescence, you could argue that everything in the military inventory is obsolete from the second it is fielded due to the gestation period of that product and the rapid advance in technology. What are you comparing the F-35 against when you call it obsolete?

Now with that being said, I do find the cost of the program appalling. I believe the fact that they made this one airframe be the ultimate "jack of all trades" has led to this grotesque cost, but unfortunately it is too late now. The best we can do is minimize the damage and learn from the mistakes.