Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 08:49 AM Dec 2014

Newest U.S. Stealth Fighter ‘10 Years Behind’ Older Jets

America’s $400 billion, top-of-the-line aircraft can’t see the battlefield all that well. Which means it’s actually worse than its predecessors at fighting today’s wars.
When the Pentagon’s nearly $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter finally enters service next year after nearly two decades in development, it won’t be able to support troops on the ground the way older planes can today. Its sensors won’t be able to see the battlefield as well; and what video the F-35 does capture, it won’t be able to transmit to infantrymen in real time.

Versions of the new single-engine stealth fighter are set to replace almost every type of fighter in the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps inventory—including aircraft specifically designed to support ground troops like the A-10 Warthog. That will leave troops in a lurch when the F-35 eventually becomes the only game in town.

“The F-35 will, in my opinion, be 10 years behind legacy fighters when it achieves [initial operational capability],” said one Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program. “When the F-35 achieves [initial operational capability], it will not have the weapons or sensor capability, with respect to the CAS [close air support] mission set, that legacy multi-role fighters had by the mid-2000s.”

more

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/newest-u-s-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets.html

I'm sure a $$$$$olution will be found

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Newest U.S. Stealth Fighter ‘10 Years Behind’ Older Jets (Original Post) n2doc Dec 2014 OP
The law of diminishing returns. bemildred Dec 2014 #1
Wrong mission father founding Dec 2014 #2
It was never meant to do CAS, the Air Force doesn't like or really want that role Lurks Often Dec 2014 #3
The A10 "has no replacement". The choice to replace it was a poor one. CentralMass Dec 2014 #4
I want one,they won't sell them to the public... easychoice Dec 2014 #8
What's the over/under that the A10 will see another 15 to 20 years Glassunion Dec 2014 #18
The Army should go back into the fixed wing business and glom onto all the retired Air Force A10's Brother Buzz Dec 2014 #19
1 trillion dollars transferred to the 1% with barely a whimper of complaint? Mission accomplished. Fred Sanders Dec 2014 #5
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Scuba Dec 2014 #12
So the entirety of Lockheed Martin is now the 1%. Calista241 Dec 2014 #17
Corporate welfare. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #6
Nations always fight the next war with the tools from the last one. imthevicar Dec 2014 #7
The F-35 Has Succeeded Fabulously For MIC Corporations - Nickel And Dimed Us Taxpayers - 400B Worth cantbeserious Dec 2014 #9
But we have the perfectly safe fighter airplane.... Mustellus Dec 2014 #10
Well stated, but... JohnnyRingo Dec 2014 #13
"It's interesting to note that not one B-2 was risked in either Iraq war" EX500rider Dec 2014 #16
I was relying on memory from the time. JohnnyRingo Dec 2014 #22
While I agree with the sentiment, kchamberlin25 Dec 2014 #11
aero"space" has always been at the forefront of "cost-plus accounting" and saying that if the RoI MisterP Dec 2014 #14
Well, we should just invest more money in a new one that's only 9 years behind. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2014 #15
"(The real purpose of the F-35) is to send money to Lockheed." A HERETIC I AM Dec 2014 #20
Obviously, the answer is to throw another half-trillion hifiguy Dec 2014 #21

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
1. The law of diminishing returns.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 09:02 AM
Dec 2014

One throws more and more money at the problem, and gets less and less for it.

Until eventually every dollar you spend makes it worse.

 

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)
3. It was never meant to do CAS, the Air Force doesn't like or really want that role
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 10:18 AM
Dec 2014

There are two major problems with the Air Farce*:

1. The leadership is run by fighter pilots and the only things that they want to buy are aircraft that can be called fighters. Everything else is secondary to that and I think allowing the Air Farce to be an independent service after WWII was a major mistake.

2. The legacy aircraft the article refers to are the F-15, F-16, A-10, F/A-18C, any variants and to a lesser degree the F-18E, which is an enlarged, improved F/A-18C with more range. All of the basic designs date back to the mid 1970's with them entering regular service in the late 1970's and 1983 for the F/A-18. While they have upgraded the electronics and improved the engines some, the basic design of the airframe is about 40 years old. While brilliant designs, they are showing their age and need to be replaced.

The problem with replacing the legacy aircraft is that advances in airframe designs, electronics, engines and the requirement to handle far more advanced weapons then were ever considered possible in 1970, along with the increase in salaries to the workers who make all of the above and the need for the aircraft to remain in service for the next 30-40 years means we can not longer use several designs to replace the existing legacy aircraft. The means a multi-role aircraft for the Air Farce, the Navy and the Marine Corps and any multi role design is a compromise, in this case resulting in the F-35 which is inferior to the existing legacy aircraft in the specific roles those aircraft were designed for, but superior to the legacy aircraft as a whole. As an example, while the A-10 is a far superior CAS aircraft, it is a lousy fighter. The F-35 is a better fighter, but mediocre in the CAS role.

The other problem is that we have invested so much time and money, both American and allied money, that canceling the F-35 is no longer a military decision, but a financial and political decision in the hands of Congress, the State Department and the President.

*In general I respect the individuals that serve in the Air Farce, it's the institutional mindset that I have serious problems with.

Glassunion

(10,201 posts)
18. What's the over/under that the A10 will see another 15 to 20 years
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 04:10 PM
Dec 2014

of service?

One of the best planes ever built. Period.

Brother Buzz

(36,212 posts)
19. The Army should go back into the fixed wing business and glom onto all the retired Air Force A10's
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 04:26 PM
Dec 2014

Hell, the KISS Warthog is so simple and bulletproof, even an Army mechanic can keep their bestest 'friend in the sky' flying

Calista241

(5,584 posts)
17. So the entirety of Lockheed Martin is now the 1%.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 04:00 PM
Dec 2014

I suppose we could lump General Dynamics in there. And Boeing. And Colt. And Bath Iron Works. Maybe a myriad of government contractors. And a whole bunch of other companies that work in our Defense Industry. That's not even considering the rest of our corporate structure that pays its executives way too much fucking money for cutting people's jobs. Somehow we've managed to lump the more than 30% of the population into this 1% bracket we keep talking about.

The 1% problem our country faces isn't the root cause of all problems everywhere. I feel like people just throw out a 1% accusation, and any real discussion of the issue ceases. That's not the case here.

The Air Force wanted to modernize it's fighter force, which was mostly designed in the 1970's, and it is something that needed to be done. Some idiot came up with a "versatile platform" that can fulfill many the requirements. What's happened here is that they've built a decent airframe that can do everything decently, but excels at nothing in particular.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
6. Corporate welfare.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 10:50 AM
Dec 2014

I am actually deeply concerned that one day we will end up fighting a legitimate, valid, just war with another great power and we will get our rears kicked because our planes, ships, and vehicles are shit designed to enrich the defense contractors, and not actually fight wars.

The only silver lining to such a debacle would be that it so de-legitimizes the establishment that we have an honest to God revolution in this country.

cantbeserious

(13,039 posts)
9. The F-35 Has Succeeded Fabulously For MIC Corporations - Nickel And Dimed Us Taxpayers - 400B Worth
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 11:32 AM
Dec 2014

Success is always based on perspective.

Mustellus

(328 posts)
10. But we have the perfectly safe fighter airplane....
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 11:34 AM
Dec 2014

... its called a drone.

Stealth is not an enabling technology for time in combat:

You can't fly during the day
You can't fly above or below a moonlit cloud deck
You can't fly in rain
You can't fly under any condition where you leave a contrail (here I am. here I am.. here I am.. )

Stealth is about pilot survival.

For the same money we could probably buy 50,000 Mig-21's... but we'd have to accept some combat losses.

And we have the perfectly safe fighter airplane. Its called the drone.

JohnnyRingo

(18,581 posts)
13. Well stated, but...
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 12:16 PM
Dec 2014

Drones are only cost effective after air superiority has been achieved.

In that regard, we already have updated systems available like the F-15 and F-16. I get the impression that the F-35 was intended as a do everything replacement similar to the role of the Navy's F/A-18 Hornet with the addition of stealth technology, but logic follows that that would require much compromise.

I don't believe aircraft guidance will be completely replaced by on-board electronics for some time, but drones have a great lower cost role after enemy air forces are defeated and the skies over the battlefield are already owned. Their only threat are ground based AAA systems.

While the cost of stealth seems excessive, that's because it's based on a unit cost that includes development. Each B-2 stealth bomber costs as much as a nuclear aircraft carrier, not only because they're so exotic, but because the Pentagon didn't need many and the high cost of design is divided among those ordered. I'm guessing the F-35 is expensive for the same reason and was green lighted because of lobby efforts in the states deigned to produce them. Voters love when their congressmen bring home the jobs.

It's interesting to note that not one B-2 was risked in either Iraq war (as far as we know). Soon after the first war began, it was sadly discovered that F-117 stealth fighters caused an anomaly as they passed cell phone towers. This allowed the enemy to at least track their course and guess their target and time of arrival. While stealth technology is extremely expensive to develop, defeating it is often not. That's why I believe old fashioned mach+ manned fighters and bombers will be needed for the foreseeable future. I'm just not sold on the idea that the F-35 is the solution to expensively trained pilot loss.

EX500rider

(10,518 posts)
16. "It's interesting to note that not one B-2 was risked in either Iraq war"
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 03:53 PM
Dec 2014
During the Iraq War (Operation Iraqi Freedom), B-2s operated from Diego Garcia and an undisclosed "forward operating location". Other sorties in Iraq have launched from Whiteman AFB.As of September 2013 the longest combat mission has been 44.3 hours. "Forward operating locations" have been previously designated as Andersen Air Force Base in Guam and RAF Fairford in the United Kingdom, where new climate controlled hangars have been constructed. B-2s have conducted 27 sorties from Whiteman AFB and 22 sorties from a forward operating location, releasing more than 1,500,000 pounds (680,000 kg) of munitions, including 583 JDAM "smart bombs" in 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#Operational_history

JohnnyRingo

(18,581 posts)
22. I was relying on memory from the time.
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 03:03 AM
Dec 2014

Perhaps they deployed them until they were found to be at risk, or decided to send them after I heard that they would not be used. Maybe it was classified at the time. Thanx for the correction.

As expensive as the were ($4b per), it's understandable that commanders have to be reasonably assured of survival. That sure can buy a shitload of drones and Buffs.

kchamberlin25

(84 posts)
11. While I agree with the sentiment,
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 11:50 AM
Dec 2014

When you call the Air Force the Air "Farce", it makes you sound just like Limbaugh when he uses "Dingy Harry", for one example.

We are better than that.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
14. aero"space" has always been at the forefront of "cost-plus accounting" and saying that if the RoI
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 03:33 PM
Dec 2014

was too low then the fault was obviously insufficient "I"

GE, Raytheon, Douglas, Northrop, Rockwell, Martin Marietta, Boeing, Lockheed, IBM--whenever you lowered their budget they'd yell you were endangering the future of country and species, that you hate freedom and science, und so weiter

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
15. Well, we should just invest more money in a new one that's only 9 years behind.
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 03:42 PM
Dec 2014

First, of course, we have to find a scary, hairy, bogeyman to justify it.

A HERETIC I AM

(24,317 posts)
20. "(The real purpose of the F-35) is to send money to Lockheed."
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 04:44 PM
Dec 2014

Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16 talks about why the F-35 is such a bad idea;

The quote starts at about the 7:20 mark
https://m.



For the sake of fairness, here's a piece from a guy who disagrees somewhat with Pierre.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Newest U.S. Stealth Fight...