2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

User avatar
Korvar
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:04 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by Korvar »

Nice, succinct summary of current DoD acquisition programs. Good to hear that there is a glimmer of hope for restarting F-22 production, albeit on a small scale. Still turns my stomach to see how much is being spent on the F-35 Flanker Fodder.
User avatar
Primarchx
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by Primarchx »

I don't think that's more airframes. I think it's revisions to existing airframes. Sorry!
ORIGINAL: Korvar

Nice, succinct summary of current DoD acquisition programs. Good to hear that there is a glimmer of hope for restarting F-22 production, albeit on a small scale. Still turns my stomach to see how much is being spent on the F-35 Flanker Fodder.
mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by mikeCK »

Don't be too upset over the F 35 money considering what the plan is designed to do and that it will replace aircraft in three different services. Lots of new technology primarily software on electronics. once it's deployed though it will replace multiple types of older aircraft and save a lot of money

I was disappointed to see that there is no money for the requisition of LRASM anti-ship missiles for the Navy to replace the harpoons. I thought they were to be deployed in 2015
User avatar
Feltan
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:47 am
Location: Kansas

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by Feltan »

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Don't be too upset over the F 35 money considering what the plan is designed to do and that it will replace aircraft in three different services. Lots of new technology primarily software on electronics. once it's deployed though it will replace multiple types of older aircraft and save a lot of money

mikeCK,

I think that is the worry ... we could save money replacing current technology with F-4 Phantoms, and many believe that those old war birds would be better fighters and strike aircraft than the F-35. I fully understand what the F-35 is planned to do; however, I am of the personal opinion that the plans and statements may well be a bunch of hooey. The F-35 might pan out to be a great aircraft, but with what one is lead to believe it has the possibility of being the biggest boondoggle in defense appropriation history.

Regards,
Feltan
User avatar
Korvar
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:04 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by Korvar »

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

I don't think that's more airframes. I think it's revisions to existing airframes. Sorry!

You are correct! I read "low rate production decision" and got excited; of course, this is in reference to the production of the applicable modules in the 3.2B increment upgrade. I can't post links yet, but look up the GAO's "DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS - Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs (Mar '14). It's a nice complement to the Factbook.
ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Don't be too upset over the F 35 money considering what the plan is designed to do and that it will replace aircraft in three different services. Lots of new technology primarily software on electronics. once it's deployed though it will replace multiple types of older aircraft and save a lot of money

I was disappointed to see that there is no money for the requisition of LRASM anti-ship missiles for the Navy to replace the harpoons. I thought they were to be deployed in 2015

I agree with you that it makes sense from a maintenance and support cost perspective to consolidate multiple platforms into a single airframe. It's why Southwest Airlines exclusively flies the 737 - one set of interchangeable parts to acquire and one common set of skills needed for maintenance crews. Makes sense.

It also could make sense that a program of the scope of the F-35 would cost what it does. My point about the F-35 is that cost savings are secondary to mission effectiveness. I'm looking for some measurement along the lines of "effectiveness per dollar spent." The F-35 has the very tall order of replacing some of the finest aircraft ever created: the F-16, F-18, and A-10, which are each mostly optimized for a single mission. The F-35 is burdened with too many missions to be superb at any one of them.

It's analogous to trying to design a vehicle which is both a high-performance sports car and a dump truck. It would make for an amusing-looking vehicle, but it certainly wouldn't win any awards under either performance category. It's not so amusing when lives are at stake, which they will be with the F-35.

The F-35 money would be much better spent expanding the F-22 program for the A-A role, with emphasis on getting the Navy similar capability (whether that's a modified F-22 or new airframe). UCAVs are the replacements for the A-10 in the CAS role, as well as the SEAD and strike roles of the F-16 & F-18 (and ultimately the air superiority role as well).

Believe me, I'd love to be able to say that I'm 100% wrong on the F-35 considering how many eggs are being placed in its basket - it's just that from the information I have available to me and what makes sense from a design perspective, I'm disturbed by what I see.

If you doubt that a program with so much oversight and money spent can blunder so badly, I invite you to search for "Pentagon Wars" on YouTube. Look for the full-length version (around 1hr 45min runtime) and hold onto your seat if you've never seen it before. Also, make sure you watch to the end of the credits when the movie is over.
mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by mikeCK »

Well, in for a penny/ in for a pound. We own the F35 now regardless. My point wasn't that it would be a great and or not...just that considering what it's role is and the amount of aircraft it will replace, the costs doesn't seem so disproportionate. I would rather they didn't try to make an aircraft that can do everything but that's what it is advertised to do. None of know whether it will work or not. I remember long ago that everyone called the B1 "the flying Edsel". People claimed the Apache couldn't work because if was too complex an couldn't handle sand.
The M2 Bradley leaked and sunk and was therefor useless as an APC...all issues that were workers out early on and all systems that proved effective. We will see.

If it works as advertised, it's worth every penny. A big if. Also, if it does work, more nations buy it and the cost per unit drops.

Older article that puts the concerns in prospective and explains why the "costs" are exaggerated

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomps ... ng-nicely/

mikmykWS
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by mikmykWS »

F-35’s Critics Repeat History of Trashing the Next Military Aircraft

Saw this today. Its likely very biased but I don't think he's wrong at all.

Mike
User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by Randomizer »

Older article that puts the concerns in prospective and explains why the "costs" are exaggerated

Did you read any of the comments or note that the author writes for a paid mouthpiece of the defense industry? Or that the observations were pretty much fiscal with virtually no analysis of operational issues and it was written before the last series of on-board fires in test aircraft?

The F-35 has an almost religious and remarkably dogmatic following; it's either the future of air power or the greatest failure of military procurement in a century or more with relatively few commenter s sitting on the fence. I am inclined towards the latter belief if only because every weapon system that I can think of that has promised to do everything has ended up doing nothing particularly well. I do not expect to have to eat those words but I will if it is demonstrated otherwise when the F-35 finally sees combat.

-C
User avatar
Primarchx
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by Primarchx »

I was thinking this as well, Mike. People still call the F-16 the "Lawn Dart", after all. The V-22B had it's teething issues, but what aircraft doesn't? And it's looking stronger than ever today.

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

F-35’s Critics Repeat History of Trashing the Next Military Aircraft

Saw this today. Its likely very biased but I don't think he's wrong at all.

Mike
mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by mikeCK »

ORIGINAL: Randomizer
Older article that puts the concerns in prospective and explains why the "costs" are exaggerated

Did you read any of the comments or note that the author writes for a paid mouthpiece of the defense industry? Or that the observations were pretty much fiscal with virtually no analysis of operational issues and it was written before the last series of on-board fires in test aircraft?

The F-35 has an almost religious and remarkably dogmatic following; it's either the future of air power or the greatest failure of military procurement in a century or more with relatively few commenter s sitting on the fence. I am inclined towards the latter belief if only because every weapon system that I can think of that has promised to do everything has ended up doing nothing particularly well. I do not expect to have to eat those words but I will if it is demonstrated otherwise when the F-35 finally sees combat.

-C

I did consider that. As usual the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But just as there are people who swear that the F 35 is great there are people on the other side who swear that nothing you can do is good enough and that is a complete waste of money. As you saw in his article there are number of people criticizing the F 35 program that also have their own agendas. I think the plane will turn out to be a great aircraft it will have teething problems like any other new system and those will be worked out.

Like I pointed out and Mike pointed out: every time a new system is developed, critics start screaming that it doesn't work... whether it's the F-16 the B1 the M2 Bradley or te AH 64... but doesn't matter; all of them are pieces of crap and won't work until we find out that they do.

Edit: I forgot the biggest one...the V-22 Osprey. for years and years and years everybody swore it was an unworkable project; the thing would never fly. it was racked with problems and mismanaged. yet here we are and the Marines use them and love them. the plane works better than advertised
User avatar
downtown
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 10:55 pm
Location: Brandon, FL, USA

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by downtown »

Speaking about spending on the F-35, this might be of interest to you.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os- ... 0598.story
Image

Old soldiers never die. They just fade away.
User avatar
Primarchx
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by Primarchx »

My main issue with the F-35 is that it had originally been touted as a cost-effective unit that would ride on the R&D coat tails of the F-22 and utilize COTS to keep per-unit prices low. Now look at it.
User avatar
Feltan
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:47 am
Location: Kansas

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by Feltan »

Well the F-35B will almost assuredly be an improvement over the AV-8.  The Marines will have a fine aircraft -- in as much as any STOL aircraft is fine.
 
However, there in lies the rub.  To get the Marines their fine plane, the USAF and USN have sacrificed many key design constraints at the alter of being compatible.  So, it isn't like the Osprey or B-1 -- those were indeed teething problems that knowledgeable people assumed would get worked out.  And those problems were worked out over time.
 
The F-35 is different.  It too will have teething problems, but once those are worked out you still have a philosophically confused procurement.  Somewhere along the line they made the decision that interoperability and commonality were more important than job performance.  That can't get fixed easily, and I believe will haunt this aircraft for its entire service life.
 
Regards,
Feltan
User avatar
Korvar
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:04 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by Korvar »

ORIGINAL: mikeCK
Older article that puts the concerns in prospective and explains why the "costs" are exaggerated

I'm reminded of the Ron White skit that goes something along the following: Ron has just landed in his personal jet and a friend of his thought it would be a good prank to call the DEA on him. The DEA tells Ron that they will need to search his plane with drug-sniffing dogs. "Ok, go right ahead," Ron says. The officers complete their search, and having found nothing, then approach Ron and say, "Ok, Mr. White, one last thing before we go... we need to search you with the dogs." - to which Ron replies,"Ruh-roh."

Just a very cursory search on the author of that article (by clicking on his name next to the article you linked) reveals the following most recent article titles, among others: "Lockheed Martin Chairman & CEO Marillyn Hewson's Vision: Continuous Innovation, Sustained Profitability" and "No Pain, No Gain: Pratt & Whitney's F135 Engine Still Looks Like A Winner" (an article explaining away why due to an engine failure the F-35 couldn't make its scheduled appearance this year at the 2014 Farnborough air show in the UK).

Nothing nefarious on the surface of it.

Click on the CEO article, read such superlatives as, "[the CEO] already knew Lockheed Martin had the strongest portfolio, the best reputation, and the most promising prospects of any enterprise in the defense business." The best of everything out of the entire defense industry? Strong praise indeed. Also read this from the article author: "Disclosure: Lockheed Martin contributes to my think tank and is a consulting client."

Click on the P&W engine article: "Disclosure: Pratt & Whitney parent United Technologies contributes to my think tank."

Ruh-roh.

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

F-35’s Critics Repeat History of Trashing the Next Military Aircraft

Saw this today. Its likely very biased but I don't think he's wrong at all.

Mike

The article author is informed about past programs and the debates which ensued at every turn, but I think he glosses over an important but subtle distinction between these past programs and the F-35, a distinction which Feltan hits on the head:
ORIGINAL: Feltan
The F-35 is different. It too will have teething problems, but once those are worked out you still have a philosophically confused procurement. Somewhere along the line they made the decision that interoperability and commonality were more important than job performance. That can't get fixed easily, and I believe will haunt this aircraft for its entire service life.

Couldn't agree more. It's not just the typical project management budget overrun or a technical issue to resolve - the problem with the F-35 is in the project initiation, the definition of the design requirements. Everything else stems from that.
jtoatoktoe
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:38 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by jtoatoktoe »

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Don't be too upset over the F 35 money considering what the plan is designed to do and that it will replace aircraft in three different services. Lots of new technology primarily software on electronics. once it's deployed though it will replace multiple types of older aircraft and save a lot of money

I was disappointed to see that there is no money for the requisition of LRASM anti-ship missiles for the Navy to replace the harpoons. I thought they were to be deployed in 2015

The LRASM is now slated for 2018, it seems though i'm sure they could get it sooner, but they will only be available in Air Launch version, as a full competition for the next gen Anti Ship missile is slated in 2017 since Raytheon was butthurt the DOD didn't consider its JSOW-ER since they claim it has similar capability at lower cost so a full competition will be used to decide at least between JSOW-ER (or its navalized version) and the LRASM....unknown if there will be other participants. Full Deployment should begin in 2024.
mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by mikeCK »

ORIGINAL: Korvar

ORIGINAL: mikeCK
Older article that puts the concerns in prospective and explains why the "costs" are exaggerated

I'm reminded of the Ron White skit that goes something along the following: Ron has just landed in his personal jet and a friend of his thought it would be a good prank to call the DEA on him. The DEA tells Ron that they will need to search his plane with drug-sniffing dogs. "Ok, go right ahead," Ron says. The officers complete their search, and having found nothing, then approach Ron and say, "Ok, Mr. White, one last thing before we go... we need to search you with the dogs." - to which Ron replies,"Ruh-roh."

Just a very cursory search on the author of that article (by clicking on his name next to the article you linked) reveals the following most recent article titles, among others: "Lockheed Martin Chairman & CEO Marillyn Hewson's Vision: Continuous Innovation, Sustained Profitability" and "No Pain, No Gain: Pratt & Whitney's F135 Engine Still Looks Like A Winner" (an article explaining away why due to an engine failure the F-35 couldn't make its scheduled appearance this year at the 2014 Farnborough air show in the UK).

Nothing nefarious on the surface of it.

Click on the CEO article, read such superlatives as, "[the CEO] already knew Lockheed Martin had the strongest portfolio, the best reputation, and the most promising prospects of any enterprise in the defense business." The best of everything out of the entire defense industry? Strong praise indeed. Also read this from the article author: "Disclosure: Lockheed Martin contributes to my think tank and is a consulting client."

Click on the P&W engine article: "Disclosure: Pratt & Whitney parent United Technologies contributes to my think tank."

Ruh-roh.

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

F-35’s Critics Repeat History of Trashing the Next Military Aircraft

Saw this today. Its likely very biased but I don't think he's wrong at all.

Mike

The article author is informed about past programs and the debates which ensued at every turn, but I think he glosses over an important but subtle distinction between these past programs and the F-35, a distinction which Feltan hits on the head:
ORIGINAL: Feltan
The F-35 is different. It too will have teething problems, but once those are worked out you still have a philosophically confused procurement. Somewhere along the line they made the decision that interoperability and commonality were more important than job performance. That can't get fixed easily, and I believe will haunt this aircraft for its entire service life.

Couldn't agree more. It's not just the typical project management budget overrun or a technical issue to resolve - the problem with the F-35 is in the project initiation, the definition of the design requirements. Everything else stems from that.

I posted the article because it had some interesting points about how numbers are manipulated. I'm not Interested in his conclusions, but his explanation of how critics can manipulate figures is valid regardless of who he is. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me who the guy is as I am not citing it to prove any point. That aside, many critics also have their own agenda (and some just like to
Complain) But to assume that the plane is fundamentally flawed to the point of being ineffective is to say that the US army, navy, marine corps,
The Royal Navy and royal air force, the Australian airforce and many others are sitting by dumping money into a plane they know doesn't work.

The fact is that no one on this forum (so far as I know) is involved in the testing or development of the F35
So all of our arguments are based off what we read. Every author has biased and an agenda. So like i said, the truth is in the middle. It will be a fine aircraft and serve well. It won't be a superjet
mikmykWS
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by mikmykWS »

There is I think and I'm sure this discussion is right up there with explaining Highlander II.

I'm sure the answer will be "So how bout that LCS?"[:)]

Mike
mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by mikeCK »

ORIGINAL: jtoatoktoe

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Don't be too upset over the F 35 money considering what the plan is designed to do and that it will replace aircraft in three different services. Lots of new technology primarily software on electronics. once it's deployed though it will replace multiple types of older aircraft and save a lot of money

I was disappointed to see that there is no money for the requisition of LRASM anti-ship missiles for the Navy to replace the harpoons. I thought they were to be deployed in 2015

The LRASM is now slated for 2018, it seems though i'm sure they could get it sooner, but they will only be available in Air Launch version, as a full competition for the next gen Anti Ship missile is slated in 2017 since Raytheon was butthurt the DOD didn't consider its JSOW-ER since they claim it has similar capability at lower cost so a full competition will be used to decide at least between JSOW-ER (or its navalized version) and the LRASM....unknown if there will be other participants. Full Deployment should begin in 2024.

Wow...so for the next 10 years the Navy is stuck with the Harpoon as it's only ASM??

Edit: just read in article discussing this. Apparently the navy is purchasing several hundred LRASMs for deployment next year (fy 16). After that, it will enter phase 2 and open a bid for a new ASM to be deployed on 2024. That fact that the US navy doesn't have ANY anti ship missiles on its warships (even harpoons) is disturbing. Incredible
User avatar
Feltan
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:47 am
Location: Kansas

RE: 2015 US Final Weapon Systems Factbook

Post by Feltan »

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

... The fact is that no one on this forum (so far as I know) is involved in the testing or development of the F35
So all of our arguments are based off what we read. Every author has biased and an agenda. So like i said, the truth is in the middle. It will be a fine aircraft and serve well. It won't be a superjet

mikeCK,

Not directly. A friend and colleague is a deputy program manager for (an unnamed) contractor building it.

According to him, they could shoot the Marines. The Leathernecks are enjoying excellent support in Congress, and have mastered inside baseball in Washington D.C. The Marines got what they wanted over just about everybody's objection via Congressional direction and funding.

I worked in the defense industry for a long time, and story he tells is not like a normal troubled program. This will be, in my opinion, the defense program that was too big to fail.

Now I've been wrong before ... I was convinced that the SGT York system would be fielded, flaws and all, because it was EXACTLY what the Government specified. Until they changed their mind and the specification after it was built -- and cancelled it for not meeting the new specification.

And yes, I really do believe the Air Force and Navy know they are getting a turd with wings. The Brits and few others are buying the F-35B, which, as I stated previously will be better than current STOL aircraft.

Regards,
Feltan
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”