View Single Post
Old 01-05-2015, 09:58 AM
  #23  
rickair7777
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,309
Default

Originally Posted by 5spot View Post
Everyone needs to take a step back and let the F-35 program develop. A majority of the info "leaked" about the program is just 1- Pure BS or 2-taken out of context. Yes the program is expensive and has suffered set backs along the way but that is pretty standard for new technology and especially something produced on such a massive scale.
Most of the information on the F-35 we would want to know as experienced aviators is talked about in rooms with music playing in the wall's. Not in magazine articles.
The problem with the F-35 is it should have been created in parallel with the F-22 (for timing). The strike fighter shortfall that the services are experiencing is a product of poor planning. No one imagined the utilization rates we experienced in the last 15 years.
For todays war I want A-10's and F-18's/16's supporting me for CAS. For tomorrow's war, no matter where it is or what level of sophistication my enemy has, I want a section of F-35's overhead with 12(or more) SDB-II's a piece and the ability to communicate with me without a word spoken on the net.
Before the crap starts slinging my way for defending the program let me say I do not work for LM, I am an F-18 pilot and have spent a year on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan as a FAC and have worked in aviation requirements as my staff tour. I was initially a hater but my eyes have been opened. If money is being diverted from everyone's "favorite" platform, we all have one, to support the F-35 than take a look at your services leadership. Not the aircraft. All the services have spent silly amounts of cash on complete BS programs through the years. Most of them not even part of a kill chain. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
I understand the new capabilities.

My reservation has more to do with the cost, and the need. I'm concerned that we (the taxpayers) are being "up-sold" to counter caps which our near-peers would be very hard-pressed to actually develop in the near/mid-term, or afford in any quantity if they can develop.

I'm Ok with the quality over quantity approach but too much quality gets darn expensive, and too little quantity on our end exposes us to a lot of risk if a weakness develops...or is found and exploited
rickair7777 is offline