It's a high volume channel for vassals to pay tribute to their imperial overlord. It's also a form of large scale political signalling. To show who is on whose side.The big takeaway from the GAO report is that the US government and the primary contractor (Lockheed Martin) are at a constant crossroads of who is responsible for what part of the F-35 enterprise. LM points the finger at the government, and the government points the finger at LM. Since GAO is a government organization it is siding with government, which is trying to wrench more control from LM. This report will be used for more of that. a lot of these agreements stem from decades back when the government and contractor drew up the plans of who would take care of what parts and programs of the worlds largest defense program. Remember that at the time the notion that free enterprise just did everything better than government was alive and well. it still is today too, but the government wants more control over the F-35 for the moment.
that is the least of the problems, but its constantly assumed that is what the problem is. The pentagon managed to botch KC-X which should be pretty straightforward. If all pentagon programs went like clockwork then it would be easy to complain about the F-35, but since we have things like the zumwalt, LCS, KC-X, CSAR-X, F-22, V-22 and a whole host of problems with every program under the sun, its not a matter of the F-35 having problems alone. This is a systematic problem, the program is immaterial.
F-35 would have been better off with a more realistic timetable to start with, and as I pointed out before the government constantly changed the standards and expectations of the F-35 throughout the process. When anyone changes what they want in a previously agreed on deal, its going to lead to delays and cost overages. This has little to do with the aircraft itself. The commonality is not necessarily supposed to be among the parts of the aircraft, the most important and expensive parts are the avionics and the engine. No one cares if the F-35B uses a different canopy than the F-35A/C that is small and irrelevant compared to the big ticket items. They all share a center fuselage, common engine, common electronics, common training, etc.
most people don't even really bother to look into any of the details of what the F-35 is, or why things are. they just regurgitate what they read online and then repeat "good ol' boy" slogans. always remember that "corporate greed" was one of the things that lead to the JSF in the first place. Never again would the taxpayer be nefariously "tricked" into buying a separate aircraft for each mission or service! the F-16 and F-18 would be combined this time! services no longer got to have their own "toys" now. That was going to be stopped and the US congress was here to stop it. And anyone in industry or uniform who protested was nothing more than a greedy shill, tools of the dying MIC!
Initially the F-35 was going to use heavier, less refined parts, this would save money while adding weight. Then the goals shifted and new standards created the need for a redesign. This meant lighter, more refined, but more expensive parts- and less commonality. It was a tradeoff and it is up to the reader to decide if such a thing should have been shifted at all, or if it was an intelligent change that meant a better aircraft at more cost. it is a simple fact that programs "evolve" as the demands shift. Such growth is pretty common, but its going to be felt more on a program where every change must be incorporated across the fleet. Government greed exists too, its just not about money but about performance. Instead of creating a realistic timeline they got greedy. instead of creating a realistic set of standards and sticking with it, they got greedy, instead of freezing the design, they got greedy and changed it. and then in the end went "wow! this sure does cost a lot of money! and its completely blown that silly schedule we gave it!" How did that happen?!
I wish I could say the lessons had been learned, but we are instead launching straight into NGAD. "using untested sytems and materials while promising all bells and whistles." it is also worth noting that every Us aircraft fielded after Vietnam has had its share of complaints and detractors. the F-16 was once considered a boongdoogle, and the F-15 a prideful gold plated waste.
actually, they will have to expand production to keep up with demand. Supply currently can't match it.
its the worlds most awful, most in demand fighter.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
It's a high volume channel for vassals to pay tribute to their imperial overlord. It's also a form of large scale political signalling. To show who is on whose side.
The problem was never making the naval and air force fighter programs common. There are examples of successful aircraft like the F-4 Phantom which came to be like that. The problem was making the F-35B airframe design common with the other two aircraft. That was just a step too far.
The original joint nature of the what became the JSF was the joining of the USAF and USMC first. the US Navy was added later. This is what would become (and please bear with me because we are skipping many steps) the F-35A and F-35B as they are known now. The most unique F-35 is the F-35C. There is more demand for F-35As and F-35Bs than there is for the F-35C. Its actually easier to take a STOVL aircraft, remove the liftfan, and then add a fuel tank and a cannon and create a CTOL F-35A aircraft, than it is to create an aircraft like the F-35C that crash lands on ships, needs more robust structures, larger wings, needs a heavier hook and a whole different set of landing gear and a lot of other requirements.
There is more demand and international craving for STOVL aircraft than for F-35Cs. The USMC, USAF, UK, were more aligned in terms of common goals and jointness than the US Navy was with the F-35C. This was made more complicated because the USN was also pursuing the Super Hornet. the JSF should have just stayed a USMC and USAF affair. it was the navy that demanded changes like a 2000 lb bomb capability when the USAF and USMC were happy already with 1000 pounds which would have made life much easier and of course taking 1/3 of the problem away for the JSF as a program overall.
The F-35C is the odd man in the bunch as strange as it seems. There is no other country outside the US buying F-35Cs. its very specialized, and there is no export demand. meanwhile the F-35B actually has countries pursuing STOVL aircraft that previously never considered it, like Japan.
the US Navy really should have been left out of the whole thing, but having said that they are getting F-35Cs now and that means they won't be upstaged by the little Marines or the Air Force while they forever fly hornets.
STOVL is strange and not well understood but its more common outside the US for the main naval aviation arm. for as wacky as the F-35B is, it has more in common with the F-35A than the F-35C has in common with the F-35A. even today if we canceled the F-35C we would have the fewest aircraft scrapped, and the fewest customers upset. F-4s are popular the world over and still used today, F-35C is very much its own thing even in the world of the F-35. the F-35C is no F-4.
the original idea that started it all was the USMC liked the harrier, and liked the F-18 and wanted the best of both worlds. to make that possible the skunk works created the STOVL lift fan. the Marines liked the idea, but were neck deep in V-22 osprey problems and put the whole thing on ice for "someday" and left.
years later, the new boss of the Air force was visiting the skunk works and they showed him the STOVL lift fan design that the Marines had previously pursued and told the boss "you can take that lift fan out of there and put in a fuel tank..." the USMC and USAF reached a agreement. the USAF was keen to save money, and the Marines were happy to have the USAF which they see as very "rich" and willing to put in all the nice things they could never afford themselves. The USMC and UK from what I can tell were pretty much happy so long as it STOVLed they were not very picky. The US Navy was the most "unstable element" and wanted a lot of changes including some in the middle of the JSF competition.
Just like I said the USMC VTOL requirement is what doomed the program. Just look at what you are saying. It could only carry 1000lbs of bombs. Probably because VTOL aircraft cannot carry that much payload to begin with. The lift fan takes away space from the internal bomb bays as well. Which further limits the size of weapons carried internally.
The STOVL and CV variants seem to have comparible amounts of "cousin+unique" components. I suppose its hard to quantify these sort of things.
Hardly unexpected. There is no European 5th gen these countries can buy. And the conflict with Ukraine showed that most 4th gens in current use in Europe are no match for Russian aircraft in service like the Su-35.
Something like Tranche 3A Eurofighter would be an exception. If anyone in Europe actually had that aircraft. The Rafale is another aircraft which can match well against the Su-35. But then again Russia is expected to get 5th gens themselves in numbers later this decade, which even upgraded 4th gen Eurocanards would have a hard time going against.
All those F-35 purchases you linked to also claim deliveries in 2029. There is no way Europe will have its own 5th or 6th gen in that timeframe. Probably will only happen in the 2030s.
I expect further purchases of the F-35 to happen. I would not be surprised if the UK, Germany, or both cracked and bought the F-35 in large numbers. Germany already is buying some as it is.
Something like Tranche 3A Eurofighter would be an exception. If anyone in Europe actually had that aircraft. The Rafale is another aircraft which can match well against the Su-35. But then again Russia is expected to get 5th gens themselves in numbers later this decade, which even upgraded 4th gen Eurocanards would have a hard time going against.
All those F-35 purchases you linked to also claim deliveries in 2029. There is no way Europe will have its own 5th or 6th gen in that timeframe. Probably will only happen in the 2030s.
I expect further purchases of the F-35 to happen. I would not be surprised if the UK, Germany, or both cracked and bought the F-35 in large numbers. Germany already is buying some as it is.
Last edited:
That did not "doom" the program at all. that was the program to start with. The USAF which wanted the JSF as an F-16 replacement was fine with the smaller bombs already. it would have been a pair of 1,000 lb bombs. which everyone except the navy, STOVL or not was fine with. And of course more F-35Bs have found buyers than F-35Cs. The demand is there far more than for the F-35C which even with its bigger weapons bay has not found outside buyers. Meaning STOVL is more in demand than payload for ship based F-35s.
Holes have weight. Meaning that once an enlarged weapons load became standard, the bay had to be expanded which leads to more structural weight and reinforcement to make sure the cavernous bomb bays don't cause structural issues. only 1 partner was insisting on the heavier bombload. the US Navy. the US Navy was also the group buying the most specialized JSF variant, in the smalest amounts. and really the only buyer of the F-35C.
the partner with the smallest share in the program, and with the least desired variant with the least demand for exports was making outsized demands that then affected the rest of the program. the navy probably should not have been involved is what I am trying to say and the JSF was already in a good place in terms of agreements on what should and should not be included. The USMC needed JSF to be light to it could hover, and the USAF needed JSF to be light because there is a direct correlation between the weight of an airplane and its price. the USAF and USMC were both working together with real reasons to keep the weight down. the USN had no such desire. This was likely not helped with the fact that the USN was already working on the Super Hornet, which already filled the desire for a basic strike fighter. The USN wanted a higher end capability if it was going to have to spend all this money.
STOVL has its uses. its very much misunderstood. of course the STOVL variant carries less. That is also not relevant to most buyers. F-35Bs are far more popular than F-35Cs. everything is a tradeoff. an F-35C will carry a larger payload than an F-35B. F-35Bs are however much less expensive to operate, and F-35A operators think the F-35C and F-35B are both overly complex anyway. A Strike eagle will carry more bombs than anything in the navy currently, but that is not the point. if it was a matter of whom carry the biggest bombload we wouldn't even bother with aircraft carriers. Other factors matter too.
2 people agreed that hamburger meat was fine, then the 3rd person demanded steak. So everyone had to have steak. my theory is that the steak person was the problem rather than the hamburger people who were already in agreement.