So if a continuing resolution breaks wrong upon renewal what then more links? The AF does not want the plane any longer. It rolls out only when there is a crisis somewhere for the awe and intimidation. The AF rather save the money and invest in a more capable multi-mission stealth aircraft. Mechanically the F-35 is cheaper to maintain in comparison to other AF aircraft. Maintenance technology changes.
The financial killer and money costing delays is the software upgrades. Millions and Millions of lines which must written, tested, purchased and installed. As I understand that was a sticker shocker and a money maker for LM. Supposedly presently being re-negotiated. You can link that.
The F-22 is formidable aircraft whose day has come and gone and not because it did not deliver on mission. But for the sake of your argument of the numbers game when all is said and done what aircraft did the AF, Israel, NATO and Japan decide to buy? And where is the F-22 going….boneyard storage?
Like I said Ralph your support of successful weapon systems is well……
And if you tell me something like this, I have to go check it because it is probably not accurate.
Here's last year. A proposal to cut 32 aircraft (of over 180 in service) with talk of the rest not going until 2030:
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/oldest-f-22s-boneyard-process/
And here's this year. The Air Force seems to be having second thoughts:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2024/03/08/the-f-22-has-gone-from-rolling-retirement-to-the-usafs-top-priority/
Their dilemma is exactly the same as the Navy's. They are caught between needing to have numbers available right now versus modernizing for the future.
The Air Force is looking at NGAD, which I mentioned. It is also coming out with the F-15EX which I mentioned:
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3626415/new-f-15ex-eagles-arrive-at-eglin-afb/
Ultimately, Congress is not funding anything to the levels desired:
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/f35-f15ex-fighters-procurement-fy25-budget-fighter-jets-how-many-f35s-is-us-buying/
It's a fluid situation, and the numbers are indeed unknown.
The AF has already proposed scrapping the F-22. Too expensive to maintain and its mission is obsolete. The AF is looking at the next generation of manned fighter in combination of F-35s, F-15s . F-16s. Numbers are unknown. Unmanned drones are also be contemplated.
If your not a fan a of the F-35 then it must be a good weapon system.
I understand it was not meant as a dogfighter. It was also not meant as an air superiority platform. The F-22 was created for air superiority, and also never intended for export. It then has certain features (supersonic cruise chief among them) which were deliberately not included in the F-35 program because we don't want to share them, and F-35 was to be an export machine from early on. In peacetime, the USAF keeps the 186 F-22s (one crashed) very busy, and F-35s can go do what they do best...when they work... In a war, 186 F-22 is not enough, and F-35 will have to assume part of the air superiority mission, which it is not optimized for. Can be made to do it, but in the same way you can use a multi-tool screwdriver in place of an actual one.
Ultimately, the F-15EX is coming along soon, which is intended to bolster F-22 numbers by being plugged in to low intensity situations, freeing F-22s for high end fights. There is also a "teaming arrangement" whereby it can be paired with F-35s to do air superiority in higher end situations. That will help, but is still not the best answer. (This may be the plane John Ketcham refers to above?) Otherwise, we will have to wait for the NGAD program to bear fruit. (Or this might be the plane he refers to?)
The article says the F-35 is approved for full production while the costs are being classified. I agree with the article that there should be better disclosure of the costs. That does not mean I don't want the plane in production (the USAF has no real choice...we have nothing else to produce at this time.) Doesn't mean I think it should be a dogfighter. Doesn't mean I don't think we should have built it. Etc. Simply means I think the public should be shown the costs.
You mentioned Israel uses it in combat. I merely point out they don't use it the same way we do. Thereby making that fact not a particularly good or full justification for us to put it into full production. However, I actually do not object that we are doing that. But, "we the people" are entitled to cost disclosure.
(I am reminded of a scene from "Airplane!" Elaine asks Ted about his mission. He comes out with, "We're taking off at 0800 from Drambui and flying over to Daqueri. We're coming in low, from the North. We're going to bomb their fuel dumps." Elaine asks, "But, what time will you be back, Ted?" His reply: " I can't tell you that. It's classified." We know the F-35 is vulnerable to specific radar frequencies, its top speed, range, weapons loads, etc. But, how much does it cost, Ted? I can't tell you that. It's classified.")
I understand your position. That being said, the F-35 was never meant to be a "dog fighter" as some insist that it isn't. I remember reading a quote from a pilot in the F-35 program "if you're down to using your gun, you're already lost". The F-35 is unparalleled sensor node. It can relay targeting data to a weapon that's already been launched from another plane or ship. That's game changing. On it being a CAS replacement for the A-10, perhaps weapons like the SDB or others of the like will be able to do that job.
It boils down to degrees of scale.
The Israelis bought something like 40 planes, and plan to "use them on their neighbors." In other words, not their whole airforce, and not expected to operate at extended distances, nor in all climates and terrains. Has a specific expected job niche.
The USAF envisioned the plane as an F-16 replacement, and originally planned to buy over 1,000 of them (along with over 700 air superiority F-22s replacing the F-15s.)
The F-22 program was terminated at 187 examples. Now requiring more emphasis on the F-35 in air-to-air functions it was never optimized for. And the cost of the F-35 got the program terminated at somewhere under 800 examples last I read, short of the over 1,000 originally planned. And the USAF figured to rely on the plane for "most everything," doing away with numerous other platforms. There was originally talk of having it replace the A-10 in close air support, for example. It is expected to operate in any part of the globe, and at long ranges. While designed as a "penetration" aircraft due to its stealth--a rather specific niche--in actual practice, the USAF is trying to make it do everything, everywhere.
And it is failing. A 48% readiness rate might actually be okay if all you want the plane for is certain clandestined stealth penetration operations. But, when you want it to do anything and everything at all times, it is the wrong machine.
I agree overall with what I read in the article you linked.
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4559750-show-us-the-receipts-for-the-f-35-production-decision/?mc_cid=4b4787b43a&mc_eid=c1a4d89c9a
Do these people expect the Pentagon to broadcast every scrap of information about this program? Ask the Israeli Air Force if the F-35 is worth it as they've been using it in combat.
Responses