Gregor the Grunt,

All the ground forces in the world will not take and hold ground without air support (unless of course the opposition has none either). Without air superiority you have limited or no air support.

The bizarre part about the anti-fighter mentality is that when you DROP the bombs on the outside of the aircraft the subsonic gas hog with a larger radar signiture suddenly becomes a supersonic smaller radar signiture plane (& with avionics technology of the 1980's switching between air-to-ground & air-to-air is simply a "flip of a switch").

Dating as far back as WWII we realized that a good fighter COULD be a reasonably good attack plane but the opposite is not often the case & that attack aircraft are pretty useless without air superiority. Note the proportion of fighters to attack aircraft on WWII carriers at the end of the war compared to the beginning of the war...

Posted by: pfcem at May 22, 2008 09:35 PM

The P-51A/A-36 was a pretty good airplane with its Allison engine. With a Merlin engine, it became a great one.

Apart from that, the lede could have been more fair or balanced. It's really sort of a glass-half-full thing. The title could just as easily be "Congress Tries to Protect Anglo-American Aerospace Industrial Base".

But I guess that wouldn't get people all lathered up.

Posted by: demophilus at May 22, 2008 02:06 PM

Gregor,

"QUIT WHINING! This is a place to offer opinions, everbody's got one and they all stink."

As does your whining opinion from you just said!

Posted by: WR at May 22, 2008 02:02 PM

In the 60s the F-111 was forced on the Air Force by McNamara when the Navy wouldn't take it; for a long time the results were disastrous. In the 70s a GE engine was forced on the Navy because Tip O'Neil was speaker of the house and the GE plant was in Massachusetts. Take the politics out of acquisition!

Posted by: STAN at May 22, 2008 09:35 AM

The "footprint" the F-35B requires onboard the LHD and LHA(Replacement) is so expansive that the USMC is going to have to leave rolling stock and equipment home and entire ship redesign to hold the special payload (armament), mission planning modules and maintenance pack up kits. So forget about forward basing these suckers. We can barely base them afloat. That dog won't hunt!

Posted by: Slappy at May 22, 2008 08:23 AM

QUIT WHINING! This is a place to offer opinions, everbody's got one and they all stink.

Every idea on here has it's advantages and it's disadvantages. With the VSTOL or STOVL version of this aircraft and forward deployment of aircraft, it has the same problems the Harrier has: It is very easily brought down by a heat seeking missile while attempting a vertical landing. If it is using a vertical takeoff, it's weapons load is greatly reduced. What seems to have happened is both the Air Force and the Navy/Marine aviation community have been dominated by the fighter community for too long. All the fighters in the world do not take and hold ground, that is the job of the Army and Marines. When I entered the Army 20 plus years ago there were 3 great platforms the Air Force had to support us the A-7Ds, A-10 and the AC-130. The A-7s were replaced by the shorter ranged, smaller bomb load F16s. The Air Force has been trying to get rid of the A-10s since before the Gulf War, just haven't figured out how to do it, it just isn't sexy to be flying and aircraft nicknamed "Warthog". As for the AC-130s they could double the fleet and still wouldn't have enough. I admit it seems to me you could tell the Air Force "I am sorry, you will just have to take the same plane as the Navy flys off the carriers. It will be a little slower. The wings will be a little larger, the landing gear a little heavier, maybe you could take advantage of that and hang a few more bombs on it or carry more fuel than the Navy would take off with." The bizarre part about the fighter first mentality is that when you hang bombs on the outside of the aircraft(I know there is supposed to be some internal weapons capacity) your supersonic stealth plane is now subsonic or a gas hog and has a radar signiture.

Posted by: Gregor the Grunt at May 22, 2008 12:21 AM

Roy Smith,
Might want to recheck your history books, the Army was providing its own air support in 1944.

Posted by: maguro at May 21, 2008 09:52 PM

I read how during D-Day in WWII,a single German machine gunner kept American Troops at bay for 8 hours.They called him the "Beast of Omaha." I wonder if...if it were the Marines who had stormed Normandy Beach instead of the U.S. Army,would there have been a "Beast of Omaha?" I ask because the Marines provide their own close air support & most likely would have taken him out well before 8 hours.
The Air Force doesn't like being the Army's "Bitch." That shows in the aircraft they purchase.A conventional F-35A gives the Air Force the excuse that they don't have aircraft in area when CAS is desperately needed by the Army.The Army needs the Air Force to buy aircraft that will benefit the Army & their mission.The F-35B is that aircraft.The F-35B does not give the Air Force the excuse that aircraft is too far away to help.The F-35B can be right there & stay right there until the battle is over.It doesn't have to fly back to some air base way back yonder to rearm(for those who argue that aerial refueling will keep the F-35A in the fight just as well as the F-35B).

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 21, 2008 04:16 PM

Thinking over the years, what aircraft that wasn't cutting edge this or that, technology this or that; wasn't having issues with it's design? F14? F117 (not like they will give out the details)?

When you build from scratch, you are going to hit walls. I'd rather there are issues on the ground than pilots dying while spiralling into the ground! If there is a technological reason why this engine needs to be in the plane, fine. Spend the money so pilots don't die. We've lost enough as a country in two wars.

Out.

Posted by: Sean at May 21, 2008 04:13 PM

Robert Pettis,
I'm not trying to bash the JSF,I'm just trying to say how much more versatile AND Flexible the F-35B is out of the three models.Its operational options are much more diverse than the F-35A for one thing.It also gives the Navy the option of building smaller aircraft carriers that would not double as Amphibious Assault Ships like the LHA,LHD/LHX/LHA(R).It could have been used on once operational Essex Class Carriers like the Lexington,which had no mission because it was way too small for the aircraft the Navy had & has.If the Lexington was still in service,it could have fielded the F-35B & made a contribution in the "Global War on Terror." But alas,we made our Essex Class Carriers into scrap,artificial reefs,target practice,& museums.Sure as shit though,someone is going to opine that we need smaller carriers like the,surprise,Essex Class Carriers.Leave the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for the "Super Carriers",change the Navy's requirement of F-35Cs to F-35Bs & deploy them from the retired LHAs as Mini-Carriers before they(the LHAs) end up also as scrap metal,artificial reefs,&/or target practice.

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 21, 2008 04:01 PM

I keep reading comments about how useless the various models of the JSF are and that our existing aircraft are perfectly good. To those gentlemen: In the next conflict why don't you fly one of our legacy aircraft? Now don't wimp out on me!

These are the reasons we need the JSF:
1. The majority of our current aircraft exceeded their maximum designed lifespan years ago. Haven't we already lost enough pilots and aircraft? Take the F-15C for example. They have been speed and G limited for years. Their flight envelope is less than 2/3 of what it was originally. What would happen if they were to meet the equivilent of a new C model in combat. I'll tell you, they would lose!

2. Aircraft being produced by Russia, France, China, and, even, Pakistan are just as good, if not better, than ours designed 20+ years ago. This includes airframes, engines, and avionics!

3. And if you think our fighters have state-of-the-art electronics, I hate to burst bubble, they don't. Congress will not spend the money to develop new equipment, nor will they pay for any modifications to existing equipment. The only way to get new avionics is to produce either another model of an existing aircraft or build a new aircraft. PERIOD!! When I worked for the Air Force I attempted to propose several hardware changes to the Radar then flown on the F-16A/B that would have made it much more capable. But they wouldn't hear of it. I was a software test engineer, and I was crossing the line! That belonged to hardware engineers or to the original manufacturer. Any where but a software modification shop.

But by all means, people. Keep on bashing the tools our pilots need. Keep on cheering the drones! Technology without Human interferance will save us all! Or will it? I'd rather place my faith in the man who is in control of a tool than in a logic engine.

Posted by: Robert Pettis at May 21, 2008 01:39 PM

I feel the Air Force should in fact look into gettin' a hold of the F-35B as well. It would be "killin' two birds with one stone" so to speak AND I'm just plain cazy about the aircraft. However, I DON'T think they should push for a second engine in ANY model. Sure, the Navy could use a back up but it would be complete overkill in the A or B model. I mean, it's plenty fast enough as it is.

Posted by: C/2nd. Lt. Garrett L. Nalls at May 21, 2008 12:53 PM

Just the amounts mentioned in the article $561 Million dollars for an aircraft which has not been delivered yet tell me that the military has not changed one bit, SNAFU, They work quite succesfully by Budgeting 101. You must spend more than your last years appropriation in order to get a larger budget in the subsequent year.

And what will these little jewel do? Absolutley nothing that is not adequately handled by our current aircraft. CAS is provided by numerous assets already flying. Fleet protection is handled by the venerable Super Hornet, as well as providing CAS. Do not even think about saying,"It will get there faster, it is a jet. Apaches. Marine Super Cobras, A-10's, and Loaches are forward deployed weapons systems which the bulk of CAS anyway. If you need a bomb bigger than the Helos can delive. Sure use the Super Hornet, F-22's, F117's, B-1's, B-52's, or B-2's.

The last thing we need is another "Super Do-All" aircraft. The only exception would be the USMC, the Harrier is getting a little long in the tooth.

Posted by: SSG_G_Conner at May 21, 2008 11:09 AM

Sure the F-35B is way more complicated than the F-35A,but the ability for it to take off & land almost anywhere(with in reason of course) makes it the better deal.I've never read where the STOVL/VSTOL capabilities make it slower or reduces its range versus the F-35A.I'm just thinking of Israel's position of it being able to operate,maybe,from highways or other avenues due to the possibility of their air bases & runways bombed out in any surprise attack that would prevent them from being able to use their F-15I & F-16I fighter jets.Sure the F-35B is a complex piece of machinery,but so is the V-22.The versatility & ability to operate closer to the front will make it an instant hit with the ground troops,just like it will be a hit with the marines.I'm not trying to step on toes,but the F-35B is way more the logical choice.

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 21, 2008 09:51 AM

Ya have to ask, when the smoke screen has cleared and the B/S has stopped is the F-35B worth the investment of time and money? Will there be a return on the investment and will it be realistic? This have the makings of becoming a money pit for the tax payer at a time when we do not need nor can afford one.

Posted by: F-22 Flight Tester at May 21, 2008 07:41 AM

"he F-35B can fly off an aircraft carrier perfectly well thank you"

Yeah - it also carries crap all fuel by comparison. All those extra moving parts aren't free.

"When we think of the F-35B,we should think of a STOVL/VSTOL plane that travels with the main battle tanks,flies where the Apaches,Cobras,& Kiowas(& soon to be ARHs) go to refuel & rearm & immediately gets back in the fight"

An F-35A could do that just fine. It'd also have the advantage of not being nearly as complicated to maintain.

"f the Air Force could be forced to buy F-35Bs instead of F-35As,their ground crews for the F-35Bs could be attached to Army Combat Aviation Brigades & the F-35Bs could be refueled & rearmed close to the front with the AH-64 Apaches & get back into the fight quicker than flying back to an air base 100's of miles back in the rear."

A hundred million dollar, stealth airframe aircraft with all those extra moving parts to boot isn't going anywhere close to the front to be refueled and rearmed and maintained.

Posted by: Doz at May 21, 2008 07:05 AM

The F-35A & F-35C are useless pieces of shit,the F-35B is the real deal.

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 20, 2008 10:44 PM

I still say that they should concentrate on the STOVL/VSTOL F-35B only,screw the F-35A & the "carrier borne" F-35C(the F-35B can fly off an aircraft carrier perfectly well thank you).The F-22 has in addition to stealth,thrust vectoring AND(I just learned this) a Blackout button to have the plane take over when the pilot blacks out from making 22+G turns dodging missiles(forget stealth,THAT'S cool).
When we think of the F-35B,we should think of a STOVL/VSTOL plane that travels with the main battle tanks,flies where the Apaches,Cobras,& Kiowas(& soon to be ARHs) go to refuel & rearm & immediately gets back in the fight.In addition to helping the Marines,the F-35B has a very valuable place in the Air Force protecting & providing close air support for the U.S. Army.
Write off & cancel the F-35A & F-35C.Full steam ahead on the F-35B(if it works for the Israelis,it will work for us).

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 20, 2008 10:43 PM

Move over Flying Dorito (A-12 Avenger II). You have met your match and someday, will no longer be the most expensive defense project to fall in a heap and be cancelled.

Posted by: ELP at May 20, 2008 08:12 PM

Another issues--

China quakes…
China quakes in earth are bolts to china backs in doors.
Collect our funds are funny faces.
China liberating lands will get the father butts to capture freedoms.
Plans to get are explained as lacking symmetry balances.

China leaders’ domains to rules are all.
Also if China labs up America add the overlords setting all hegemony trees are always.
Thus sum up to all as legal charms as given to china taken from America.
Heads on boards and feet on bounds with chairs to tie to peoples is china.

All in weights to lawyers rights and democratic talents are china oranges in bottoms.
All are thus the gallows apples.
Killing them all are polished apples thus are all as china Tory officials.
Over in lords are centers go to china sum up times.
----------Cheung Shun Sang=Cauchy3------------

Posted by: cheung shun sang=cauchy3 at May 20, 2008 12:21 PM

"Everyone knows the F-18E/F is a cluge job."

Only those who don't have a clue.

Posted by: DopplerDave at May 20, 2008 11:16 AM

Hmm - I recently read "The Air Force and the Great Engine War", detailing the F100 vs. F110 competition that forms the basis of the second engine argument. I'd have to say that I don't completely buy the argument for competition. The crux of the 1980s competition was that the F100 was bleeding-edge technology and the Air Force had messed up their requirements document (they had a poor understanding of what affected durability in a fighter engine, and put little emphasis on reliability.) Inserting GE into the mix with the F110 gave the Air Force leverage against Pratt. What I don't recall seeing in the book was any analysis of whether the cost of developing and supporting two different engine types ever really paid off in terms of engine buys or accelerate problem resolution. It was 10 years between the development of the F100 and the F110 - 10 years in which technology of the late '60s finally caught up enough to make high performance engine technology a reality AND reliable. The alternate engine in the '80s wasn't exactly a drop-in replacement either - once an aircraft was designed around that engine, that was it. Any spares for that airframe tended to be the same type of engine anyway.

So, with respect to the current F135/F136 program - is there any real technological or cost justification for this, or is it just pork barrel politics? There's a case for keeping two fighter engine manufacturers for the health of the industrial base, but in that case, consider why the "competition" argument isn't carried forward to the JSF airframe as well. Is it healthy for the US to have only one fighter manufacturer? Is it healthy to rely on one type of fighter aircraft that could have some critical defect that could ground the fleet?

Posted by: George Skinner at May 20, 2008 11:08 AM

i would respectfully remind people that the senate might be so forceful about this as having two engines developed - one by rolls royce - was a condition of the uk being the only tier 1 partner in the program and putting several billion dollars worth of investment in etc ... with our defence budget woes at the moment, many feel it would be better to cut jsf losses and go for a cheaper navalised tranche 3 eurofighter, or even rafale for our (still not firmly ordered) new carriers, as this would be cheaper (the rafales very much so). by keeping the two engine strategy, perhaps the congress committee is aware of the political aspects of the jsf too, and is not giving the uk government an easy way out ...

Posted by: elizzar at May 20, 2008 11:01 AM

I am suprised that the US Navy hasn't jumped on getting a second engine source. The Navy doesn't
like single engine aircraft for over water safety, if the F-35 engine failures were really serious, the Navy would be the first to balk at continued devlopment of the F-35C. The Navy has been down this road before with the F-111B and it led to development of the F-14. Perhaps failure of the F-35C will lead to another high performance fighter replacement for the F-14 as well. Everyone knows the F-18E/F is a cluge job.

Posted by: Anthony Conner at May 20, 2008 10:05 AM

What makes the F-22 a superior aircraft is its thrust vectoring.What would make the F-35 a superb aircraft(if they went with the F-35B only) is its versatile ability for STOVL/VSTOL operations.Stealth is just icing on the cake.

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 20, 2008 04:09 AM

I read somewhere that the Israelis want the STOVL/VSTOL F-35 because they expect their airbases to be bombed in the next war & they feel that the F-35B has the best chance of operating without the need for traditional airfields.If the Air Force could be forced to buy F-35Bs instead of F-35As,their ground crews for the F-35Bs could be attached to Army Combat Aviation Brigades & the F-35Bs could be refueled & rearmed close to the front with the AH-64 Apaches & get back into the fight quicker than flying back to an air base 100's of miles back in the rear.Using Desert Storm as an example(imagining hypothetically that they had F-35s back then in 1991),instead of flying back to Saudi Arabia or Qatar,they could fly to a forward logistics base close to Kuwait or Iraq,just like our AH-64s & AH-1s did.Even our A-10s had to fly back to far away air fields during Desert Storm for refueling & rearming,the F-35B doesn't at all.

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 20, 2008 04:03 AM

I still say that the most important F-35 that should come out is the STOVL/VSTOL version.It is the most versatile model(& the only model that should be built).If there is a plane that could replace the A-10 Warthog(again,not sure if the F-35B will be as up-armored as the A-10),it is the F-35B STOVL/VSTOL model.This is the model that can operate the closest to the front with ground units & does not need to fly 100s of miles to the rear to fill up.It could land where the helicopters land,refuel,& then take off to return to the fight quickly.This is the model the Air Force should be buying in addition to the Marine Corps.Cancel the F-35A & maybe the F-35C,& have the Air Force buy F-35Bs solely.

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 19, 2008 11:20 PM

The MOAR was sarcasm, you know. Since the F-35 project seems to love issues, problems and such. But I hope the best for this little chubby plane, because if doesnt come out good, a lot of people across the globe will get very upset.

Posted by: Vitor at May 19, 2008 10:56 PM

This one time congress has got it right.

This whole F-35 thing is way out there for what the plane does, which has been nothing so far.

Posted by: Big Daddy at May 19, 2008 10:15 PM

No wonder weapons cost so much & Yes give the F35 another backup engine source.
BUT cut F35 program bureaucracy alone for More Planes alone.
Thanks
OK
Congress.

Posted by: stephen russell at May 19, 2008 09:40 PM

"MOAR"? What are you, a /b/tard? Learn to spell or get out of here

Posted by: David Davidson at May 19, 2008 07:02 PM

MOAR F-35 drama and money. This plane development is a mess.

Posted by: Vitor at May 19, 2008 06:13 PM