The think tank was named further down the article (as was the analyst), but my main point still holds.

 

"Thomas Ehrhard, an analyst with the Center of Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan research institute"

 

 

Funny how our current administration is willing to throw money around like a drunken sailor on dubious social programs, but suddenly are worried about spending money on defense programs that the country will need.

 

As has been mentioned before, the American people were warned about what happens when far-left Democrats are running the show.

 

"The military doesn't need all those fancy toys."  --Barney Frank

considering that the stumpys are 6 months ahead of schedule, then the memo seenms to have been lost on some of these "analysts"

The only thing that's six months ahead of schedule is the Navy announced it was bringing IOC for the F-35C forward by six months to Q4 2014.  That would be significant if what the Navy announces had any bearing at all on the program.  

 

They flew 33 out of a planned 317 test flights in FY09, they delivered one out of six planned flight-test airframes in FY09, and the entire schedule has slipped out six months -- after already slipping out a whole year in 2008 to make it "more realistic".

 

Yes, yes, I know, parallel testing, bench testing, simulations.  The A380 and the 787 used those methods too.  The more I look at the F-35 the more I'm reminded of another "universal" fighter-bomber with an internal weapons bay and super advanced technology.

More likely FB-111 though the F-105 had an internal bay as well...

 

Close...

 

we'll have every APA fruitcake on the planet chiming in....  

at least we got it to work properly when we did the digital upgrades under the AUP program.  it was the last 4 years of its life before it turned out ok...

The F-35 is the central player for US tactical aviation for the next few decades.  The issue however is whether the US really needs 2,000+?  It's one thing to talk about 350 for the USMC and 330 or so for the USN and 1,500 or so for the USAF but at some point it starts making sense to look at the total.  It's rather difficult to imagine the USAF really needs 1,500 F-35 when the other services are already going to operate almost 700 and the UCAV's are getting more capable at a rapid rate.

 

In any case the US can not afford 2,000+, it does not make sense from a force structure perspective, and there is no question less than planned will be purchased.  If there was a single unified military service in the US there is no question the nation would have less aircraft.  Thus some of the USAF force structure serves a political mission.  The F-16 is a wonderful aircraft but no mission it performs in the USAF is not performed better by another aircraft.  The F-35 is almost twice the size of an F-16 and bring a lot more to the table but how many the nation needs should not be dictated by the need to replace redundant F-16 force structure to keep the Fighter Mafia happy.  The nation could use more combat coded A-10's, F-15E's, Heavy bombers than F-16's and the F-35 is not exactly a real replacement for any of these.   What the nation really needed was a replacement for the F-111 and A-6.  The F-35 is not an A-12.   

How much would a smaller US order affect the purchase price of the F-35?

There's an interesting news article here courtesy of Defense-Aerospace.Com,

JSF Market Analysis: How Many JSF?s Will Be Produced?

 

Reported to have come from someone speaking on behalf of the Dutch Parliament Defense Commission,

it raises a logical concern over not necessarily the US ordering a smaller batch in the end

(which compared to original planned numbers during the program's inception, is certainly likely to shrink),

but rather how will that outcome (reduction in JSF airframes produced)

affect the partner nations who've invested heavily in the program.

 

It's suggested that a majority of partner nations may have already committed their investments heavily on the notion that upwards of 4500 F-35s will be built in total.

But what happens if/when that production goal is never achieved?

 

The 136-page report in pdf format can be found here.

(   link )

 

If this program begins too troublesome in the long run, is the possibility there then that this could be all it takes for foreign nations to lose more faith in both the US government (as a defense partner) and Lockheed Martin (as a defense supplier) ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

We did get a replacement for the F-111 and the A-6: the F-15E and the F-18E/F.  They've been working out pretty good so far.

 

The problem is that the F-16 is not getting any younger.  It's a 35 year old design.  Still good, granted.  But someday they're going to have to be replaced, which is where the F-35 comes in.  It's not the Fighter Mafia, it's the simple fact that aircraft get old and worn out.  I'd be okay with the F-22 cut if it wasn't for the fact that our F-15s are getting progressively ancient, and it would be nice to have a replacement before they start falling out the sky.  Oh wait.  They have.

The A-6 was not replaced by the F-18E/F.  The A-6 has much longer range and payload.  The actual medium attack sdqn in USN service with the A-6 was retired without replacement which also lost the USN the KA-6 as well.  Look at Afghanistan in 2001 and the problems with F/A-18s flying at significant range from carriers.

 

The F-15E does not have the range and payload of the F-111 and does not have the low level performance.  In the 1986 strike on Libya the F-111's flew over 6,000 miles.  The F-15E is a strike fighter that can carry up to 23,000lbs.  The F-111F was a medium attack/bomber aircraft that could carry up to 31,500 lbs at longer range as well.  Other versions of the F-111 were strategic bombers.

 

The problem is the rationale that the US needs an F-16 class aircraft.  It's a great aircraft that does many missions well but the USAF has aircraft that do almost every mission better.  The US would be better served today with less F-16s and more combat coded A-10's, F-15's, and heavy bombers.  The F-35 is not exactly an F-16 class of aircraft. The F-35 is a much larger aircraft- it weighs more than an F-15C.   How many F-35's the nation needs should not be derived by wishes to replace F-16 force structure.