More on the F-35 changes

[unhappycamper]

DoD to brief F-35 partners on program changes
By John T. Bennett - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Mar 2, 2010 18:41:54 EST

Defense acquisition chief Ashton Carter will huddle March 4 with other military procurement chiefs about Pentagon plans to restructure the multination F-35 fighter program, a Pentagon official said.

The high-level session will take place at prime contractor Lockheed Martin’s F-35 production facility in Fort Worth, Texas, the official said.

During the “CEOs conference,” as two sources called it, Carter will brief “his counterparts” from the eight nations that are Washington’s official partners on the fifth-generation fighter effort, according to the Pentagon official.

Carter is set to explain to the other defense procurement chiefs in detail how the Pentagon has restructured the F-35 program, the official said. Also expected to be a part of the agenda is how the Defense Department intends to revamp the program’s annual budget, as well as details about Washington’s adjusted yearly buy rate.

The United Kingdom is considered a “Level 1” partner on the effort, while Italy and the Netherlands are “Level 2 partners,” according to a Lockheed Martin fact sheet.


Rest of article about this non-flying $239 million dollar wonder at: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/03/defense_carter_F35_030210/





An F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft banks over the flightline at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.


DoD Memo Formalizes F-35 Program Overhaul
By John Reed - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Mar 2, 2010 18:42:06 EST

The Pentagon’s top weapons buyer late last week formalized the restructuring to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, extending the plane’s test phase to 2015 and delaying the start of its full production by 13 months to November of that year.

In a separate event, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley today told reporters today that the service is delaying its initial operational capability date for the JSF to 2015, two years after the service originally planed to field its first operational F-35 squadron.

In a three-page acquisition decision memorandum (ADM) published Feb. 24, Ashton Carter outlined the Defense Department’s rationale behind the retooling of the F-35 program that saw the government program manager for the program fired, cut production buys of the aircraft and extended its development phase to 2015.

The restructuring was done after numerous analyses by the Pentagon’s Joint Estimating Team (JET) and other groups led Defense Secretary Robert Gates to believe that the program was going to breach the Nunn-McCurdy statute capping per-unit cost growth on major weapons.

Gates’ restructuring of the program — as well as an ongoing DoD-wide F-35 program review that began in November — were done with the Pentagon thinking “as though” the program had breached the statute, according to the ADM.

Rest of article about this non-flying $239 million dollar wonder at: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/03/defense_F35adm_030210/

[Statistical]

1. I apreciate your daily info but adding in your own wrong information doesn't help.

The F-35 has flown. First test flight was on 15 December 2006. Not sure where you got the $239 million from the flyaway cost is $83 million.

Sure the F-35 has lots of problems. A lot more problems than this relatively modest jet should have at this point but posting incorrect information simply dilutes the accurate bad news.

[unhappycamper]

2. The F-35 has not flown for three or four months.

The above is incorrect (I think). From McClatchy:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/01/89570/f-35-fighter-program-has-serious.html

~snip~

Nine flight test aircraft, all of which were to have flown by the end of 2009, were behind schedule by 4 1/2 to 8 1/2 months when the report was written, in November. Only one of those planes has flown since then.

The next plane expected to fly is now 11 months behind the schedule that was rewritten in early 2008.

[sailor65]

3. It's a bit silly to describe the plane as "Non-flying"

when there's a pic embedded in the same post of it flying.

[Robb]

5. Meh. You can totally see the strings.

Metaphorically speaking, I'm not kidding. :D

[gratuitous]

4. Will Bunning place a hold on this expenditure?

We're borrowing a whole lot more money to buy these unneeded gewgaws than we spend on a month of Sundays to take care (however inadequately) of our own citizens. Oh, but that money! It's going into the overstuffed pockets of defense contractors, not a bunch of people thrown out of work by Republicans' ruinous economic policies. So, there's that. Poor folks don't contribute to Republican campaigns, so fuck 'em.

[Sherman A1]

6. and we get to spend more money on the current

aircraft to extend their service lives because this overpriced boondoggle will be late.

Why can't we just build replacements for the current generation of fighters?

[unhappycamper]

8. Slightly off the subject, but do you know how much a (WW II) P-51 fighter cost?

$50,000.

[wmbrew0206]

10. True, but all a P-51 had on it was a couple of machine guns, a radio, and

racks for bombs. No radar, electronics, EW protection, etc.

[Sherman A1]

15. And might that not be enough

to challenge the mighty Taliban Air Force?

[wmbrew0206]

16. Didn't work too well in Kosovo. Ask Scott O'Grady.

[PacerLJ35]

38. There's a lot that went into O'Grady's shoot down that can't be discussed here

But bottom line, he shouldn't have been shot down. In any case, the F-35's RCS is much smaller than the F-16s.

[wmbrew0206]

47. Agreed, but the point was to show that our current airframes are

vulnerable to technology possessed by non near peer nations.

[Posteritatis]

60. They likely wouldn't be enough against the ground forces

A P-51 can't do much against SAMs. Or rainy days, for that matter. Or nighttime. The list goes on.

[Sherman A1]

14. Yes, off subject, but not really?

Would not some "Able Dog" Skyraiders be nice to have around for counter insurgency work in Afghanistan and Iraq?

[PacerLJ35]

27. You can't make a Cessna for $50,000 these days...

$50,000 in the 1940s was a hell of a lot of money, and the P-51 is no where near as sophisticated.

[Kaleva]

35. Which is about $615,000.00 in today's money.

Sure one could build 300 to 400 P-51s for the price of a single F-35 (if one doesn't consider the cost of training those pilots) but the P-51s would stand little chance against an F-35 which isn't restricted to flying in the daytime and good weather and can kill a target well beyond 50 cal. range. The end result would be a lot of dead P-51 pilots.

[wmbrew0206]

9. Because the old planes are nearing or at the end of their expected life cycle

The F-35 is suppose to replace the AV-8B Harrier, the EA-6B Prowler, and eventually the F-18 and F-16. The Harriers and Prowlers are nearing the end of their projected useful life and need to be replaced. The systems and avionics that those two planes would need to function in the the 2015 world would require almost as much money as the F-35 development. That is not even factoring in the additional higher cost that you would have by buying different parts for different planes vs economies of scale from buying common parts to a common plane.

This program is having a lot of problems but it doesn't mean that there isn't a need for the US military to develop an aircraft that all the services will use and that can deal with future threats. In the long run, if they can get everything straight, the F-35 should ultimately be cheaper than extending the life of current aircraft or building replacements.

[Sherman A1]

13. Those planes work and work pretty well now

Yes, the airframes are getting old & tired, but they can be replaced with the same aircraft with some natural improvement along the way of course. The real question is of course is just why do we need the F-35? Who is it designed to defeat? In what war? Of course we need to constantly improve, but is the F-35 the aircraft or would something lesser be just as good at a lower cost. I don't believe we can afford to continue down the road of incredibly expensive weapons systems.

[wmbrew0206]

17. There are certain requirements that a 5th gen aircraft have to meet

I see what you are saying but you have to look at emerging threats and emerging technologies that we will face over the next 25 to 35 years. That is the time the F-35 will be the workhorse of the US and allied forces. They will need to have stealth technology, more advanced radar, and lots of other stuff we can't talk about.

This aircraft is designed to defeat peer and near peer nations with modern radar systems. It also has a VSTOL variant that the Marines will use to replace the Harriers which are having major problems right now. We don't call them Carolina Lawn Darts for nothing.

The current airframes cannot meet these requirements without going through very major and expensive upgrades. Go back and look at all the problems the Super Hornet upgrade from the Hornet had. Now you would have to do that with about three to five different airframes.

I also believe dropping the program would be a foreign relations nightmare. We have a lot of allies invested in this program and it is the first time the DOD has ever developed an aircraft with partner nations with the hope of lowering the average cost through greater production. If we dump the program now, we'll have a lot of problems trying to do this in the future and piss off a lot of friendly nations.

[Sherman A1]

18. I fully understand the issue of the 5th Gen fighters

and emerging threats, yet one has to wonder who are we going to be fighting? Russia, India, Iran, China (upgrading from Mig - 17's), Cuba, Ireland, Freedonia, Who?

What is the national interest and just how much do we really need to achieve air dominance?

Do we really need a multi billion dollar aircraft to deal with such forces as the Taliban who have no means beyond some portable SAM's & light to medium AAA to counter our air activities?

The other pesky question is how much of this defense thing can we really afford?

Would we not be better suited to use more soft power to achieve our national goals (I believe even Sec Gates agrees with the need to increase funding for State Department Activities or so I read in "Proceedings" a few years ago)?

And it appears in any event that we will be refurbishing those Carolina Lawn Darts until new & improved weapon system is online.

[Statistical]

41. Designs don't work like that. Planes being built now will still be flying in 2040.

The questions isn't can a F-16 or F-18 do the job now. The question is can it still do the job in 30-40 years?

It would be very expensive to replace the aging fleet of F-15, F-16, F-18 with "updated" F-15, F-16, F-18. You would save some money but not as much as you think. Then in 15 years Pentagon will release a report about how the Chinese Mig-xx can take out F-15 and you will buy new planes all over again.

Airforce and Navy replaced places about every 30-40 years.
To put it into perspective the F-15 first flew in 1972, the F-16 in 1974, the F-18 in 1978.

The combination of F-35 and F-22 will replace virtually all the attack aircraft in the Army, Navy, Airforce combined.

[lbjdem]

34. F-15 not 16

The F-16 is a land based, single engine fighter in the interceptor role. There is no replacement for it currently in the procurement pipeline.

It was supposed to replace the F-15, F-18, and Harrier.

The biggest problem with the JSF is it was supposed to replace the F-15, F-18, and Harrier. Why build 3 different planes for completely different roles when we can build just one? Sounds great, until you consider it was never done before. There's a reason it wasn't, and it has nothing to do with fraud and waste.

The AF wants a plane with good useful load, to carry a variety of munitions, long range drop tanks, and stealth characteristics. The Navy needs a plane that can take off from and land on a carrier - that means big, heavy, durable landing gear. The Marines want VSTOL. You might make a case for the first two roles in one, significantly modified airframe, but the third is laughable. Let's just say VSTOL and Stealth don't go well together.

One airframe for fundamentally different purposes was dumb to begin with. Of course, like for the ATF program, the DoD planned well. There's a subcontractor for the JSF in something like 75% of Congressional districts and over 40 states. JSF is unkillable unless someone invents anti-gravity.

[Statistical]

40. You are incorrect. The F-35 is intended to replace F-16.

You got it exactly backwards.

The F-16 is a multi-role fighter and its intended replacement is the F-35 (a multi-role fighters)
The F-15 (not to be confused with F-15E Strike Eagle) is an air superiority fighter and its intended replacement is the F-22 (an air superiority fighter).

The combined goal is for 2 airframes (one multi-role, one air superiority) to replace a total of 6 aging ones (and a combined total of 20 variants):

F-15 - Eagle
F-16 - Falcon
F-18 - Hornet
AV-8B - Harrier

They are also being considered (based on performance characteristics) to replace:
F-15E - Strike Eagle
F-18E/F - Super Hornet

[Greyhound]

20. Well all the rich opportunities to steal are in the development and scheduling delays.

If you just go and build more of the stuff you already have, justifying massive fraud gets pretty sticky.

[Statistical]

46. We haven't been building existing planes for sometime now.

There would be upfront costs to restart production of the "teen fighters" F-15, F-16, F-18.

Not only that the Airforce and Navy would demand some improvements, which would require R&D, and testing, and then failures, and then redesigns etc.

It makes more sense to replace the fleet every 40 years and aim big then have smaller upgrades every couple years.

The "teen fighters" were first built in early 70s. They had a long life but technology improves and the designs are getting antiquated. Not just in firepower but also in things like reliability, maintenance, etc.

[backscatter712]

54. The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet's in production now.

And yes, it's been upgraded to include more modern technology. I'd say buy more of those.

[PacerLJ35]

57. It's 4th gen and not stealthy...plus it's designed to operate from a ship and thus has short legs

[madrchsod]

7. hmmmm...a flying toyota!

[KittyWampus]

11. $239 million dollars?

:wtf:

[unhappycamper]

12. Yup - got that from the Air Force Times.

But the cost is going to go up some more. Supposedly Gates is going to stuff another $2 billion into the program in the 2011 (military) budget.

[PacerLJ35]

37. That's not the fly-away unit price

Even the F-22, which is considerably more expensive, has a fly-away cost of under $150 mil apiece. The F-35's fly away price should be less than $100 mil apiece. The price you quoted includes R&D, which technically is a separate program than the production run. Again, if Congress starts scaling back production, then the total unit price (including R&D) goes up. It's simple economy of scale. You spend $100 to develop a product, and it costs $10 to make it, and you sell one of them, then you have to sell it for more than $110 to get your money back. If you produce 1,000 of the same widget, the unit price then can go to $10.10 to recoup the costs of research and production. The same reasons why Ford can sell a Lincoln for $40,000 while Maybach sells them for hundreds of thousands of dollars...there were tens of thousands of Lincolns produced, while only a handful of Maybachs.

You can't argue the validity of a product merely on its price.

[unhappycamper]

39. I beg to differ.

The fully loaded fly-away cost of the F-22 was $355 million dollars. That includes the R & D, modifications as well as cost overruns. You can look it up in DoD Buzz or Defense Tech.

The current fully loaded fly-away cost of the F-35 is $239 million dollars, assuming there are more that 1,000 of them are purchased. I think I got that price out of Air Force Times. Did you see my earlier posting about $250,000+ helmets for the F-35? That's more than a WW II B-17 cost.

The latest F-16, FA-18 and MV-22 Osprey are all around $70 million a pop.

The military has been pushing the myth that these things are a) cheaper than what they really cost and b) worth the price.

$5 billion dollar destroyers and $11.5 billion dollar aircraft carriers continue the money grab.

The United States is going to spend its way into a Soviet style meltdown.

[Statistical]

42. Not even close. I agree they are expensive but using fake numbers isn't helping your cause.

The cost of R&D is $40 billion.
The fly away cost if $83 million.

So the amortized R&D cost over the entire fleet of 2400 aircraft is $40,000 million / 2400 = $16 million ea.

$83 million fly away + $16 million amortized R&D = $99 million unit cost.

Your $239 million is completely made up.


Even if we built only 800 it would be only $139 million ea (not $239 million). $83 + $50

To have a unit cost of $239 million would require the amortized R&D cost to be $156 million ($239 - $83 million fly away).
The only way it would be that high is if we build <250 planes.

[unhappycamper]

61. It took me a while to find, but read the "Taxpayers may pay big F-35 costs" article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=259&topic_id=7849

I'm still looking for the $239 number.

[PacerLJ35]

48. Keep begging because you're wrong

Fly-away unit prices are the cost of manufacturing the aircraft, and does not include R&D costs. Hence my figure. The other poster who responded to you hit the nail on the head with the figures, so I won't repeat that. But you need to do some of your own research with regard to the cost of things these days...

You and others have groaned that some of the equipment is more expensive than a B-17 bomber, and a P-51 fighter only cost $50,000. In that case, here are a few more comparisons:

Boeing 737NG, the world's current most popular airliner costs $52 million (for the short-bodied) upwards of $87 million (for a stretch example).

In the 1940s, the Douglas DC-3 was the most popular airliner, and it cost just over $100,000 in 1940 (but other versions could cost upwards of $150,000).

For an automotive comparison, the 1941 Ford Deluxe Coupe cost about $700-$800. Today, a Ford Fusion will cost at least $25,000 or more. And auto technology hasn't been pushed anywhere near as far as aerospace technology. Much of the research that goes into automobiles these days is borrowed from other industries, including the aerospace industry. Aviation manufacturers are often on the very forefront of research, and often their work is done completely on their own without borrowing from other industries. The manufacturing processes used in aviation are also vastly different than the auto industry, and in fact it has changed considerably since the 1940s, when exacting specifications weren't quite as important if you were lumbering around at 200 knots versus flinging a pilot through the atmosphere at nearly 1,000 knots.

[hunter]

19. Hmmm. In my crystal ball I see American peasants hacking these planes apart...

... and selling them to scrap metal dealers who make their rounds in horse carts.

Somewhere in Texas, 2035...


_wikimedia

[Greyhound]

21. And whom do we think we are going to fight with these wonders of financial illusion? n/t

[proteus_lives]

22. China, most likely.

If we have a conflict with a power that has an air force, it's most likely going to be the Red Chinese.

[Greyhound]

24. Do you really believe that this plane would be needed to eliminate the Chinese air force

in the exceedingly unlikely event of a conventional war with them?

[proteus_lives]

25. I think we need modern aircraft but I hate waste.

I think that the F-22 would probably get the job done but if they can make the F-35 work and get the budget under control, then they should.

It depends on a lot of factors.

[Greyhound]

26. Why do we need "modern aircraft"? That's still the never-answered question.

Against whom would we need them?

You initially answered "the Chinese", yet we both know that the Chinese air forces are a small, antiquated joke with a few dozen of their latest designs (almost exclusively stolen from us) for show. The U.S. Air National Guard forces from Texas and California could eliminate the Chinese air force in an afternoon. And since they show no signs of bankrupting themselves trying to out-produce the rest of the world in unbelievably expensive yet totally useless trinkets, what possible justification can there be for building the last generation of manned fighters?

[PacerLJ35]

29. Look up the PAK-FA

Will probably become license-produced in certain countries once it's tested. China is also developing its own 5th gen fighter, and has numerous capable 4th gen (and 4.5 gen) fighters in service.

[proteus_lives]

31. China, Iran, NK, Russia. Like I said, lot of factors.

I'm not saying keep production at current levels but we should have best equipment for land, sea and air.

I'd rather we have it and not need it then need it and not have it.

[Greyhound]

51. It seems to me that the original question is always ignored whenever it is asked.

The future of aerial combat is in unmanned platforms and all the tech required currently exists so it's a matter of putting it all together, certainly an achievable goal given the time-frame for development of this boondoggle.

If a stop-gap is required (questionable because of the sheer size of current inventories), putting the existing, and world dominating, platforms back into production would be a small fraction of the costs for the JSF. We've just got wean ourselves from this bizarre mind-set that is bankrupting us and destroying the world.

What do you think China's budget for it's gen5 development would be if we weren't building the JSF?

[PacerLJ35]

53. China would still be developing its next fighter

China has more issues to contend with than just the United States, and I seriously doubt they'd cancel their new fighter if we canceled ours. We capped our F-22 buy to just 187 after planning on having 382 examples, yet they pressed on with their plans (and even accelerated their modernization plans).

UAVs taking the lead in air superiority is still a generation away, hence the common perception within the Air Force that the F-22/F-35 duo will likely be the last completely manned fighter platform. They are still refining technology for the much slower and much less complicated MQ-1/MQ-9 platforms...relying on a fleet of unmanned drones for air superiority is still notional at this point.

Go find someone who's an F-15 pilot, and ask them. Better yet, go find a military aviation forum and ask the pros there what they think. Baseops.net is a good place to start...several fighter pilots that post there. I guarantee you they will disagree with your assertions.

[Kaleva]

36. They are aquiring advanced Russian designs.

[Statistical]

43. Aircraft tends to take a decade to build and last 30-40 years.

China will be an economic superpower in a couple years.

The question isn't what plane do you want today. The question is what plane do you want in 2040.

The plane you design today will be flying in 2040. With upgrade packages that could be pushed out past 2050+.

Most of US will be dead by the time something replaces the F-22/F-35.

[tammywammy]

45. +1 n/t

[Greyhound]

49. The original query was; since we we already have the best, why not build more of those to replace

those leaving service?

The so-called 5th generation fighter/bombers are an unnecessary, prohibitively expensive, and will be obsolete even before mass-production is optimistically scheduled to hit full stride. Unmanned aerial craft will inevitably replace manned fighters and bombers as they are cheaper and performance cannot be equaled by a craft hauling a vulnerable bag of meat. It's just physics and everybody outside the military idiocracy knows it and is pursuing the tech to implement it.

And to soothe your collective paranoia, rest assured that the hundred-and-thirty-come F-22 we've already denied a college education for a million kids to build, are themselves of taking out the entire scheduled production of Chinese and Russian "Super Planes" so we're covered for the next three or four decades.

[PacerLJ35]

30. Yes

China is rapidly modernizing it's Air Force. The issue isn't full-scale war with China, but limited war over Taiwan. Going to war with a bunch of 1970s-era F-15s will result in the US getting spanked hard, and Taiwan being overrun.

[proteus_lives]

33. Nailed it in one.

Both sides would be terrified about going nuclear. A conflict would most likely be a naval/air war in the Straits of Taiwan.

[Greyhound]

50. Those "1970s-era F-15s" (Could you find a more misleading phrase?)

along with the rest of the USAF, is still the supreme force on the planet by several orders, and those supposedly decrepit fighters have still never lost an engagement, nor has even one ever been shot down by enemy fire, not one, ever.

As for the Chinese Bogey men, the F-15 is still rated as the superior platform and in a confrontation with a flight of Chinese J13/14 (which don't exist yet) will achieve a 3:1 win ratio. Against their most modern fighter that actually exist, the F-15 wins 10:1. Oh, and the bulk of the Chinese air forces are made up adapted Russian MIG-21's which have never shot down a single F-14, F-15, F-16, or F-18, ever.

This is nothing but another corporate welfare program disguised as a pacifier for the tragically uninformed/paranoid.

[PacerLJ35]

52. Sure, talk to my friend Julius, he flies the F-15

Most of the F-15Cs that are currently in service were delivered in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The technology stems from late 60s and early 70s. So no, the "1970s-era F-15" isn't misleading, because that's exactly what era they were developed in. They've already lost a couple airplanes due to fatigue failure, most noticeably in the fuselage longerons.

Those ratios you come up with are numbers pulled out of thin air. I've seen lots of discussion one way or the other, and those in favor of one side would create numbers that supported their argument. But I've got a few friends that fly the F-15C and F-15E and they are concerned about the future of the fighter fleet. The F-15 was designed for a finite life, and the oldest ones are at or past that point, and the newer ones are rapidly approaching that point.

By the way, the Chinese Air Force is rapidly replacing those older aircraft with newer types such as the SU-32, J-10, etc.

[Greyhound]

55. None of which answers the initial question.

Nobody said that 40 year old units don't need replacement and upgrades are always ongoing, but none of that justifies this dead-end boondoggle.

[PacerLJ35]

56. The problem isn't the airplane, it's the acquisition system

And it's not just the F-35 program. Right now military procurement programs are all hurting because of how the system is set up, and how Congress has evolved into funding it. You can call the F-35 whatever you like, and go try and develop something else and I guarantee you'll wind up with a similar problem. Politics is too involved, the system too convoluted, and funding of real milestones goes by at a snail's pace.

The problem is Congress wants to nickel and dime these programs by funding them the wrong way. L-M has fixed overhead costs, so if you fund the program slowly, most of the funds gets eaten up by corporate overhead and not dedicated to the program itself. If the program was funded the way things were funded 50 years ago, we'd have this airplane in service by now and they would cost less. The problem is it would require a larger commitment of funds in the short term, which is usually politically unfeasible. The problem is by funding the program at lower levels, the annual costs are less, but the overall program costs are astronomical.

L-M has no motivation to complain, because each year it's able to keep the doors open and turn a profit...so long as Congress is ok with it taking 20 years to develop an airplane, they're ok with it too.

[Greyhound]

59. Completely off-topic, but that acquisition system came about because the military

has proven itself to be completely negligent in their handling of funds.

Do you happen to know, off-hand, how much of our money the Pentagon can't account for and won't cooperate with any attempts to find?

Government procurement, including the military, is a black hole of corruption and stupidity, but that doesn't justify this toy either. It's far too expensive, is unnecessary now, and in the foreseeable future will be obsolete.

"War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent."

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

[Lagomorph]

58. Our potential adversaries...

...have leap-frogged our technology.

Our aircraft are simply not survivable enough. Our fourth generation aircraft have fallen into the performance black hole where the outcome of any encounter is unpredictable. We can't make sound strategic decisions when we can't count on the outcome of any encounters we may face. The Russians have developed and entire line of 4+ gen aircraft that are designed to negate our current advantages. If we run into a fleet of Mig-21's, Mig-23's and Mig -25's, we'll dominate them. If we run into a fleet of SU-27's, SU-30's and SU-34's we may not be able to reliably contain them.

The Russians have had four decades to design and build missiles that are purpose built to shoot down F-15's, F-16's & F-18's. They've also developed solid state electronic sensors that will easily acquire and track and kill 4th gen aircraft. The bag of tricks that keeps us ahead of our adversaries technology keeps shrinking, while their capabilities keep expanding.

At this point in time, we don't have a vast fleet of unmanned aircraft that is ready to establish air supremacy over the battlefield or protect our fleets. There is a lot of work to be done before we will have that capability.

Whether or not it is all an enormous waste of time and resources is an entirely different issue. Resources are finite while the desire for them is infinite. Even the effort to create clean energy puts pressure on the world economy to come up with the technology and rare minerals to accomplish it. We need vast amounts of lithium, for example, and there aren't too many places to get it. That means that Bolivia has to dig up their mountains and hand over the ore. They're going to want to be well compensated for their trouble. At the same time that there will be a tremendous amount of competition for the material before another new technology makes it all worthless.

[IDemo]

23. Do Level 1 partners get a pink F-35?

[hunter]

32. Nope, they get the special Bubbles 'n' Babes service plan.

[Political Heretic]

28. Bring back the F-22! (Not really, but the child in me loved the tech. of that plane.)

[Statistical]

44. The F-22 didn't go away. We built (or are building) 187 of them.

Congress simply canceled further funding.

Given the fly away cost on F-22 is over double that of F-35 is makes more sense to have a larger F-35 component backed up by some ultra lethal F-22s.

Then again the F-22 is damn sexy.